FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 109) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Conmee.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the peoples' Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Carvell.

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 112) respecting the storage of food. He said: The Bill which I desire to introduce to the House, in amendment to the Cold Storage Act, has reference to the greatest question now before the people of this country, the cost of living. The need of something of this kind has been brought forward with great prominence in the last few days in connection with the question of the right to destroy $100,000 worth of eggs which have been in cold storage in the vicinity of Montreal. In the United States there has been so much interest in this matter that one of their most prominent men, Henry Cabot Lodge, has introduced" into the Senate of the United States a Bill dealing with it. Mr. Sulzer has also introduced in the House of Representatives a Bill to prevent the sale or transportation in inter-Mr. BLAIN.
state or foreign commerce of articles of food held in cold storage for more than one year, and Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a Bill to regulate the storage of food supplies in the District of Columbia. The Bill which I introduce differs somewhat from these Bills. Section 11 of the Bill, amending the Cold Storage Act, provides :
11.	That from and after the passing of this Act it shall he unlawful in Canada to keep in storage in any warehouse or other place of deposit for a longer period 'than one year any meat, fish, poultry, game, butter, eggs, oysters or other food products intended for sale or distribution.
Section 12 provides:
12.	That whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Dominion medical health officer or food inspector that any meat, fish, poultry, game, butter, eggs, oysters or other food products kept in storage for a Period under one year, may not be sold or distributed without prejudice to the public health, the said medical health officer or food inspector shall cause such products to be seized and destroyed.
As hon. gentlemen are well aware, there is a prejudice against the cold storage system, but that is a mistake. There is no doubt that, as Mr. Wilson, the secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the United States, says, that system is one of the greatest blessings to mankind. It started in the cold spring house or the cold cellar of the farm and the refrigerator or ice box of the home. In old days the storage of food products in the time of plenty for use in the time of need was practised.' The object of cold storage is to lay up food in time of production for human consumption when the time of production is over. While that system may be used to the public disadvantage, it will, if properly regulated, tend to the balance ot prices. It enables poor people, or people of moderate means to procure the ordinary necessaries of life at a time when they are not being produced. But the storage system should be guarded. In inquiries made by our neighbours to the south it -has been proved that certain articles kept for six months deteriorated. Butter can be kept much longer than eggs. Eggs kept for three months or more will deteriorate, while poultrv taken out of cold storage at the end of three months can hardly be distinguished from fresh-killed poultry. After three months, however, there is a gradual change for the worse. I consider, from the information which I have obtained, that the keeping of food products afteT the time of the year when they can be reproduced is deleterious. Dr. Wiley, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, gives a list of different foods which can be kept without deterioration for different periods,

according to the nature of the food. I do not claim that this Bill, which I desire to introduce, will cover the whole case. I merely wish to introduce it, as I think it is the duty of an opposition member to bring to the notice of the government any desirable legislation along this line, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Inland Revenue to take up this matter either by introducing legislation of their own or by having this Bill sent to a committee.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).: I think that the hon. gentleman perhaps is mistaken somewhat in speaking of the time in which food is left in cold storage. The time has not so much to do with the deterioration of the food as the regularity or otherwise of the temperature of the cold storage in which it is kept. Cold storage being carried on under the supervision of private individuals is frequently badly managed and the temperature allowed to vary. Therefore, if we had a law compelling cold storage companies to keep the food under proper temperature that might be better than to enact a time limit. Different products require different temperatures, and when all are kept in the same temperature, some are bound to deteriorate and he spoiled. I do not object to this Bill going to a committee, but I would object to a time limit being fixed altogether irrespective of consideration of temperature, and accommodation. Much also depends on the condition in which the food is when placed in cold storage. To destroy food on a certain day irrespective of its condition just because it had been kept a year would be not only unjust but foolish and useless.



RECIPROCITY ARRANGEMENT.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when we may expect the tabulated information which was referred to the other day in connection with the reciprocity proposals now before the House? I think that should include all the information furnished congress to which allusion has already been made, and also contain any definite information as to the extent to which the proposals would affect other countries. That subject was alluded to in the speech of my hon. friend. I would also suggest the desirability of having this in printed form as nearly as possible because it would be only proper and fair that we should have it in our hands for, say, a week before the debate.


Mr. FIELDING.: I do not agree with my hon. friend that he should have this information in his hands a week before the debate, but I do agree that we should have it at the earliest possible moment. I hope
by the beginning of Monday's session, at the latest, that we may have it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want any unreasonable delay in entering on the debate but the information required will involve a good many considerations which cannot Ibe digested in an hour or two, as the proposals are exceedingly comprehensive and the information afforded in the documents submitted to congress is rather voluminous.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope to-day or perhaps to-morrow to receive some additional copies of the American information, but I thought it well also that we should have information from our own officials, and I hope to have that in the hands of hon. gentlemen with very little delay.


Mr. FOSTER.: 'So that we may avoid having insufficient information when it does come down, through any mistake in our not understanding one another, let me again point out what we would like to have. I presume the Minister of Finance knows pretty well what we do want, and as I explained the other day we want everything concerning which there may be interests affected by this proposition. It would be very convenient to have a table of the varies duties on one sheet such as was furnished by the minister when he made his statement. This would give the different duties on the same sheet, and we would not have to turn from one sheet to another in order to make comparisons. It would be much better to have them on the one sheet so that we could see exactly the differences in the schedule. The other information required is what my hon. friend spoke about, regarding the British preference, whether it applies to Great Britain or the overseas dominions, also to the articles to which reductions apply as between ourselves and Australia, with which country we are in communication for a preferential arrangement also a list of the articles affected by this agreement in which all favoured nation exchanges should be given. That is the kind of information we want, and no doubt the hon. minister knows exactly what it is.


William Stevens Fielding: I gave instructions to my officials to read my hon. friend's observations and endeavour as far as possible to cover the ground he presented. The statement brought down, and which is in ' Hansard,' I have given instructions to include in the printed form so that it may be accessible. Whether it will be in one form or another I cannot tell, but no doubt it will be in the most convenient form. I hope to have that down to-day or Monday at the latest, and it will cover all the points raised.


George Eulas Foster: There is another point I wish to mention. I asked for a return of

the correspondence with reference to the reciprocity	negotiations-correspondence
with the government or any member of it in favour of reciprocity, documents, petitions and the like. Also correspondence, petitions, and other documents opposed to reciprocity. It would toe important as well to include any correspondence between the government and any member of the government, and outside parties either in favour of or against reciprocity.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend examined the return (brought down to-day- a supplementary return.


George Eulas Foster: No, tout I will examine it.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to cerres-pondence respecting reciprocity with the government there is practically none. Many people made representations to the government but beyond a polite acknowledgment of their letters, there is no correspondence. In some cases these representations, although not marked confidential, are such as I would hardly feel free to bring down because they relate to particular interests that might be, or thought they might be affected by the negotiations, and I could not without their consent publish these. So far as the government is concerned, we have no correspondence on the subject. I have had correspondence with individual members of the House in which they have given their views. My hon. friend would not expect me to bring this correspondence down. And, of course I would not, anyhow.


George Eulas Foster: It is evident that this arrangement deals with sectional interests and what you might call private interests, that is, in fact, one of its great characteristics. And what I wanted to get at as far as possible, was what these interests felt on the subject, and what information they had given to the government with respect to it. It seems to me that you could easily stretch the view expressed by the Minister of Finance so as to cover the arbitrary exclusion of most essential information. I do not concur in the idea that it is private correspondence that goes on, for instance, between a man interested in fruit growing or dairying, and the Minister of Customs or the Minister of Finance on these subjects, if it is not marked ' private.' I think the minister takes a great deal upon himself when he undertakes, in effect, to put the mark ' confidential ' upon it. This is information that ought to be made known in the interest of the country, it seems to me.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he had correspondence with every member of the House or only with a few?


George Eulas Foster: L


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that my hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville), was good enough to write to me on the subject; but if he did so, and his letter was not marked ' private,' I would feel free (to bring it down.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would suggest that what the hon. member for North Toronto has said in regard to other correspondence applies with still greater force to correspondence from members of the House addressed to the Minister of Finance. Each member of the House is a servant of the people, he does not act in a private capacity when he writes to the Minister of Finance, and every scrap of correspondence of that character is essentially of a class of correspondence which we have the right to get. I hope the Minister of Finance will reconsider his statement concerning correspondence with members of the House, namely: that he certainly will not bring it down even if it is not marked ' private,' or 'confidential.' I submit that when a member of this House writes to the Minister of Finance, he is discharging a public duty, and acting in a public way, and the people have a right to know what their representatives are saying to the Finance Minister, and what the Finance Minister is saying to them.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret that I am not able to revise, my judgment on that point.


Haughton Lennox: We will have something to say about it later on.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I am surprised that the Minister of Finance should say that he has no public correspondence on the subject


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


James Davis Taylor: I understood the Minister of Finance to say so.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is
wrong.


James Davis Taylor: While I am on my feet, I may say that that was my understanding.	Having that understanding, I rose to remind the Minister of Finance that he had a formal protest from the fruit interests of British Columbia against any proposition which would reduce or interfere with the duties on fruit. That, I think, is most important to produce to this House, together with any reply made by the Minister of Finance to these people who foresaw what would come upon their industry if this proposal were carried into effect.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is any such document-and I am not saying there is not, for I have received many papers on the subject-and if it is covered by the re-

turn, I have no objection to bringing it down.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I understood the Minister of Finance to say, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that, had there been any communication from him in reference to this matter, and not marked ' private,' he would bring it down.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be free to.


William Sora Middlebro: And I understood him to say that if there were communications from hon. members on the other side he would not bring them down even though they were not marked ' private.'


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Sora Middlebro: I have listened to the hon. gentleman carefully-


William Stevens Fielding: What I said was that business men had written to me on matters rejating to the negotiations and covering matters connected with their own business. Even though these letters were not marked ' private,' yet, if I thought the gentlemen did not intend them to be made public I would consider I had not the right to bring them down. If the tenor of the letter indicated that the writer would not want it to be made public, even though it were not marked ' private ' I would not bring it down without consulting him. As to members of parliament, if any hon. member on the other side wrote to me and did not mark his letter ' private,' he would no doubt, expect me to bring that letter down. As to gentlemen on this side of the House, surely we should exercise our own-


George Eulas Foster: The rule is that when a letter is not marked ' private ' it should be brought down.


William Sora Middlebro: If there are letters from representatives on either side of the House which do not relate to their particular industry or business, but refer generally to the question of reciprocity, does not the Minister of Finance think that these should be brought down, that the House generally may receive the benefit of the advice?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not consider it within the privilege of my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) to inquire as to any letter passing between a member of this government, and a member supporting the government in this House, unless the member in question desired to have the letter made public.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the Finance Minister think that a letter received from a member on this side, not referring to his own industry, but referring to the general
question of reciprocity should be produced under these circumstances?


William Stevens Fielding: Everything would depend on the contents of the letter. If it contained anything which I thought the hon. gentleman wrote it would not wish brought down, I would not bring it down without consulting him.


William Sora Middlebro: It seems to me that we are entirely in the hands of the Minister of Finance to say whether it was confidential or not.


William Stevens Fielding: In the matter of bringing down public documents, things are always in the hands of the government of the day, who must be permitted to exercise discretion whether or not, in the public interest, any papers should be brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not heard, and do not now recognize such 'a rule as that put forward by the Minister of Finance. I venture to say that no such rule can be found-I mean to say, a rule which discriminates between gentlemen on the other side of the House and gentlemen [DOT] on this side. It seems to me utterly absurd and preposterous to propose that one rule is to apply to correspondence from gentlemen on that side and a different rule to the correspondence of gentlemen on this side.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry to differ with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) as .1 very often do-to my very great misfortune I suppose-but this question is to be judged by the tenor of the letter, whether it comes from one side of the House or the other side. If I had a letter from my hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which seemed to me to be private or confidential, whether it were so marked or not, I would treat it as confidential. Every minister has done that from time immemorial. If a letter were written to me which I thought from its tenor was of sufficient importance to be placed on file, I would bring it down in response to an order of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that any letter written by an hon. member on his side of the House he would bring down at once, but as to a letter written by an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, he would exercise his discretion. If I misunderstood him, I am willing to accept his statement that he did not intend to say so.


William Stevens Fielding: What I did say was that, whether the letter came from one side of the House or the other, I would judge by the tenor of the letter as to whether it was intended to have publicity, and that would apply to one side or the other.



&quot;2991 COMMONS

George Eulas Foster: I might ask what would be the opinion of the Finance Minister if it were marked private, would he then be justified in bringing it down in answer to a return for information, or by a member of parliament?


William Stevens Fielding: I think in no instance did I ever bring down a letter so marked.


George Eulas Foster: The government stands in a very different position from my hon. friend. One of his former colleagues, Mr. Mulock, not only brought down what was not marked private, but he rummaged the files of his department and brought down every letter he could find, relating to a certain subject, and published it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Did my hon. friend approve?


George Eulas Foster: I have not asked for private correspondence. I protest against any minister being the judge of what should be considered as private when written on public business, and what should not be so considered if not marked private.



CANADA MEDICAL COUNCIL.

Mr. BLACK.: With your permission I wish to draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared in yesterday's ' Globe ' having reference to the evidence of a special committee of which I was chairman. Tt, says:
There will be no free trade in doctoring between the Canadian 'provinces for some time. A Bill by Dr. Black to give effect to the Dr. Roddick plan of having a physician licensed to practice in any province, giving liberty to practice in any other, was severely amended by a special committee of the Commons this morning. It was supposed that the medical men of all the provinces had been brought to agree to the plan, hut this morning Dr. Neely, M.P. of Humboldt, filed a protest from the Saskatchewan doctors, and the universal practice provision had to go.
I want to say. Mr. Speaker, that there is no truth in that paragraph. Not only the ' universal practice provision ' did not have to go, but it was approved of without a dissenting voice. Every paragraph, every clause of that Bill was approved of without a dissenting voice, except a paragraph relating to the representation on the council from a university. In that case the member for Saskatchewan expressed an opinion that there were too many representatives from the universities. I."thought it desirable to make this correction, because the paragraph, as it is headed, was likely to cause disappointment to several thousand medical men in Canada who were looking anxiously for the passage of this Bill. It was also likely to prejudice this House in considering the Bill when it is reported. I want to say that the utmost unanimity prevailed in that committee among the mem-Mr. FIELDING.
bers from every province of Canada with regard to this Bill. There were no dissenting voices in it whatever.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LAND GRANT TAXATION.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I desire to ask the government whether they have any information regarding a decision by the Privy Council on an appeal regarding the matter of the Canadian Pacific Railway and unsettled lands in Manitoba and the Northwest.
I have a wire from Manitoba informing me that thev understand there has been a decision in favour of the Canadian Pacific railway to the effect that unsettled iands are not taxable. Have the government any information on that question?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: The matter to which the hon. gentleman has referred, while of great interest of course to this House, and to all parts of Canada, arises in a litigation between the company and the local municipalities or the provinces concerned. I had not been aware, not having seen the telegram which the hon. gentleman has received, that a decision on the subject had been given by the Judicial Committee. I presume it is only to-day, upon the opening of the February sitting,
, that such a decision has been announced. The matter has not been in any way considered in the Department of Justice, nor has the department been directly interested in the litigation in question.
RECIPROCITY-CANADIAN FRUIT GROWERS.	*


Mr. SCHELL.: I rise on a question of privilege to draw attention to an article that appeared in the ' Mail and Empire ' of yesterday. It is headed ' Champion of Reciprocity. Simcoe man testifies before Agricultural Committee. Objections raised to method of spreading the propaganda The article is somewhat lengthy, and I will only read the concluding paragraphs:
By this time the members of 'the committee began to inquire why it was that Mr. Johnston had journeyed from his home to preach reciprocity in Ottawa. It finally transpired that Mr.' Schell, the Liberal member for Oxford and chairman of the committee, had arranged for his appearance before the committee. Several of the opposition members protested vigorously against what they thought was an effort on the part of the government to promote its reciprocity propaganda at the expense of the public. The matter may yet be brought to the attention of the House.
I wish to say that this article is entirely misleading, to say the least. Knowing Mr. Johnston as I did, knowing him to be possessed of expert knowledge in the matter of growing fruit, and knowing that he had a very large practical experience

in connection with a successful co-operative association in the county of Norfolk, an experience in these lines perhaps not equalled by that of any other man in Ontario, I thought he would be able' to give valuable information to the Agricultural Committee. I spoke to the hon. member for Norfolk county (Mr. McCall), who occupies a seat on the opposite side of the House, and asked him if he thought Mr. Johnston would consent to come before the committee, and whether he thought it would be wise to have him come. He concurred heartily in the proposition, and said he would see M>\ Johnston and find out whether he would be willing to appear. This was before the holidays. Mr. Johnston consented to come. This article implies that I brought him here to preach the propaganda of reciprocity, an absolutely incorrect imputation. The discussion of reciprocity in the committee was started by a question asked by an opposition member, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I do not, however, take the full responsibility of bringing Mr. Johnston here. I told the committee about him and his qualifications to appear before them a week ago last Wednesday, and the hon. member for West Durham" (Mr. Thornton), an opposition member, moved that he be invited to appear before the committee. Mr. Johnston was instructed by me by letter as well as in person not to touch 'upon any question that could be construed as a political question or that would be liable to promote a political discussion. What I said can be confirmed by the hon. member for Norfolk.
As there seems to be a desire to cast a reflection on me as a Liberal member for Oxford, that I had some motive other than the country at heart in bringing Mr. Johnston to appear before the committee,
I wish to say that Mr. Johnston is a Conservative in politics. Thus the article throughout seeks to convey an impression on these several points that is entirely misleading.


Mr. McCALL.: I wish to corroborate the statement of the hon. member that Mr. Johnston came here at my invitation. He is a townsman of mine, he occupies a high position in the county and in the province of Ontario. He made no reference to the question of reciprocity, but was drawn into a discussion of it by questions asked him by members of the committee. He has strong feelings on reciprocity, which he expressed, but he did not come here for the purpose of discussing that question, as was alleged by this newspaper correspondent. I say this in justice to the hon. member for South Oxford and also to Mr. Johnston, who is 95
doing a great work for the country in building up the fruit industry.



SUPPLY-ORDER IN WHICH ESTIMATES ARE DISCUSSED.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUGSLEY moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I shall do that immediately.']
John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to speak of the manner in which the government has brought on the estimates for consideration during the present session. Formerly the custom was to consider a part of the estimates of each department at the commencement of the session, so that members had an opportunity to discuss before the House matters connected with each department. We have now been in session nearly three months and we all expect -to be here at least two months more. We have had no estimates before us for discussion except those of the Public Works Department. We would like to discuss every item of this and every other department as it is brought before us, but under the present arrangement that is an impossibility. There are other departments in connection with which very important matters in the interests of the country should be discussed before the House. The Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Marine and Fisheries, Railways and Canals, are very important; many members from the west would like to discuss subjects connected with northwest lands, members from the coast provinces desire to discuss fishery questions, while the farmers in the House have many subjects of great importance connected with the administration of the Department of Agriculture which they wish to bring to the attention of thd House. If we continue the present system, at the end of two months, when the close' of the session is approaching, we will have to rush all the estimates of all the other ministers through after a discussion of perhaps one or two days. I protest against the manner in which these estimates are being taken up, which I think is unjust to the members on both sides of the House and to the people of the country.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I am endeavouring to meet the views of my hon. friend by hurrying through my estimates as rapidly as possible, consistent with proper care. Last night I was very anxious to proceed with the work but hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to be sleepy and wanted to adjourn at a comparatively early hour. The sooner I get through with these estimates of course the sooner we will take up the estimates of the other departments.
I assure hon. gentlemen that no time will be lost in disposing of these estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 claim that not one item has been discussed any longer than was necessary. 1 also wish to state that the items remaining will require just as much discussion as those that have been passed, but there are other items in the other departments that require discussion, and my claim is that if any items are to be left and not discussed until later in the session, some of the Public Works items might be left, so that we can discuss items of other departments.


William Pugsley: There is no need of any estimates being rushed through.


Mr. SPROULE.: As to what occurred last night the minister started his estimates at 11 o'clock. The House was very thin, most of the members had gone home, thinking there would be no Supply, after we had disposed of the question that had engaged the House most of the evening. We thought that from eleven o'clock in the morning until a quarter past eleven at night was a sufficiently long working day and that it wmuld be only justice to the members representing localities where the appropriations were to be expended, that they should have an opportunity to be present. The Minister of Public Works in keeping with his usual courteous disposition refused to allown an adjournment and he continued until 12.30 a.m., when he was obliged to reconsider his decision. There is not another minister except the Minister of Public Works who would have refused the reasonable request made from this side of the House.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I protest against the statement of the Minister 'of Public Works that the Opposition is sleeping. I object to he called sleepy.


William Pugsley: It is a harsh word to apply to the hon. gentleman.


Glenlyon Campbell: I accept the apology.


Mr. CROSBY.: It is apparently the custom to bring down the estimates for Marine and Fisheries within eight days of prorogation and have them rushed through, generally between midnight and three o'clock in the morning. That occurred one session when most of the members were having a good time at some ball that was going on in the city. The Minister of Public Works says that the sooner we pass his estimates the sooner we will get to other estimates, but I would remind him that the convenience of the members on this side should be suited as well as the convenience of members on his own side. The estimates have a perfect right to go through when they are proper and after we have passed fair criticism upon them, but it would not be out of place for the Minister of Public Works to take an evening off sometimes and let some other one of his colleagues Mr. PUGSLEY.
have the floor. I am interested in the Marine and Fisheries estimates, but I say it is unfair to rush them through in the last days of the session when some of the members have got tired or have other engagements to fill. I do say that unless the suggestion of the hon. member for Grenville is adopted, the Minister of Public Works will not get along very well.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I would be delighted to have my estimates discussed early in the session, but there seems to be an unwritten rule that the Minister of Railways should make a general statement as to the year's work of his department before he is allowed to go into Supply. That cannot conveniently be done until the returns are obtained up to September 31, both from the state owned railways and the Transcontinental Commission. I expect to have these returns completed in a few days and then I shall be happy to get into Supply and get some money to keep the transportation facilities of the country going.



Mr. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: Last fall there was a demonstration in Montreal for the Prime Minister and in connection therewith a special excursion rate from Levis or Quebec to Montreal and return was granted by the Intercolonial. On December 15 last the Minister of Railways, replying to my question, stated that the excursion rate granted by the government on that occasion was $1.50 between Levis and Montreal and return, which' is a distance altogether of 326 miles.. The minister also stated that no excursion rate equally as low, had ever before been granted, but he justified the rate, by saying it was a paying one. Now, the average cost per passenger per mile on the Intercolonial railway for the year ending March 31, 1910 was slightly under but practically two cents a mile. We have an Intercolonial Railway Commission which was brought into being with a great flourish of trumpets as giving a business administration to the Intercolonial railway, and I was curious to know how this rate of $1.50 compared with the rates given by other railways for similar distances. I may say that the $1.50= rate, Levis to Montreal and return, is less than half a cent per person per mile. I have here a copy of the excursion rates registered with the Railway Commission by the Eastern Canadian Passenger Association, and they are based partly on the single fare rate which from Levis to Montreal is $4.90. The excursion rate that would be granted for that run by the other rail-wavs would be $3.35. The association or club which gets up an excursion would get that rate of $3,35, but out of that the so-

ciety or club would keep 65 cents which would leave the rate $2.70 net to other railways for a journey for which the Intercolonial railway received a rate of $1.50 on this special occasion of the great celebration for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I understand perfectly well that the Intercolonial railway is not bound by the rates of other railways, but I submit that the Intercolo-nia1 raiiway is not run any better than the Canadian Pacific railway or the Grand Trunk, and that taking into consideration the cost of the service the Intercolonial railway is not in a position to grant better or even as good rates as the Canadian Pacific railway would. It seems very strange
n*e	, ra^e could have been
granted by the Intercolonial Railway Commission. I cannot imagine that it could have been granted on any business basis It seems very evident that either the government or the Minister of Railways himself must have instructed the Intercolonial Railway Commission, either directly or indirectly, to make this extraordinary rate for this wonderful special occasion, and I
rfoU Hk w6 hon-. Minister of Railways to tel the House, if he thinks it is reasonable that the railway which he has control of, should make a rate of this Uni) Lam-ier01' ^ Celebration of Sir Wilfrid
Mr7	I want, first, to correct
my hon. friend's use of a word. I was careful, m making some readjustment of the management of the Intercolonial railway, not to appoint a commission, for reasons given by me at that time, but a board of management. In the second place, my hon. friend has not stated the whole situation when he states that the excursion
private roads from Levis to Montreal and return is $2.70. The excursion rate on the private roads is $2.70, with a guarantee of 100 passengers, which makes some difference. That amounts to $270 Un. the occasion referred to the Intercolonial, on a guarantee of 200 passengers, gave an excursion rate of $1.50, and for running a special train, instead of the ord]n*aoLffuarantee of $270' 14 sot a guarantee ot $300 on a guarantee of 100 passengers.


George Halsey Perley: From whom did the hon. gentleman receive that- guaranteel
The boar'i of'managentTh1ad tbat guarantee from some per-not know from whom, but I shall be glad to get the information for my hon.
discussing what really did happen. npL what might happen. Now, the Intercolonial has an arrangement with the other? railways, and it could not without violating: that arrangement offer this rate unless tha-other roads consented. I am given to understand that under the circumstances the? other roads did consent to this rate, and-they were at liberty to carry passengers on their lines at the same rate. But let us? see what was the practical result of this? excursion. My hon. friend has referred tu-the average rate per passenger per mile;, but that does not mean the lowest rate. Railroads in different parts of Canada give-very low excursion rates at times, and they give to commercial travellers and other? special classes the rate of 2 cents a mile. These rates reduce the average receipts per-passenger per mile down to 1-93 cents. My hon. friend thinks we ought to run the-Intercolonial to make money. We want to-give a good service' and come out even,, and when I tell him that this was the best paying train we -have had on the Intercolonial for the past 5 years, I think he-will agree with me that we did a very good thing in getting it. It costs, I think, $1.30 per train mile. The train ran 326 miles at a cost of $423.80. The receipts from that train were $903.75, or a profit of $479.95 on an expenditure of $423.80, or over 100 per cent profit. Now, I think that was good business, and the only point my hon. friend made was that the companies in the association could not do that. Well, we had a long speech yesterday condemning combines, and I think the people of Canada as a whole will agree with me that, nomatter on what occasion I can run a train and make over 100 per cent, I am doing a good thing for the Intercolonial railway. And I will say, further, that if there should be occasion to give a demonstration to the-hon. leader of the opposition in any part of Canada where the Intercolonial runs, if the hon. gentleman will give me the same guarantee, he can have the same train.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. minister stated that lie had consulted with the other railways interested, and they were satisfied, and that they were at liberty to quote the-same rate. I may tell the hon. minister that it is utterly impossible for any society or any one else to obtain from the other-railways any better rate than the rate-quoted in this list.


George Perry Graham: Except by consent.


William Sora Middlebro: Would the hon. minister carry that principle to its logical conclusion, and carry 1,000 passengers for nothing?


Air. GRAHAAI.: We will discuss that when we come to the 5,000 period I am 951


George Halsey Perley: I have had occasion myself to ask for a special rate on a larger guarantee, and I have been told officially that it could not be given-that these rates were the lowest excursion rates that could be obtained for any number of people. They called for a guarantee, but whether the?

2999
number was 500 or 1,000, the rate would be the same. The hon. minister makes a point is to the total amount received for this train. He knows perfectly well that we cannot obtain a flat rate for a special train, the only thins we can obtain is so much per passenger.


George Perry Graham: This is a state-owned railway, and it may be does some things which other railways could not do and it does them for the benefit of the people of Canada. The reason my hon. friend cannot get any lower rate from any of the other railways is on account of their agreement with each other, but if each would agree to waive that agreement under certain conditions who would complain?


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: No, the Railway Act prohibits it.


George Perry Graham: No, the reason they cannot do it is on account of the arrangement between them. But, leaving that aside, this is a state-owned railway, and the same arrangement would be made in the event of a demonstration to the leader of the
'position. We would not be compiled to, but under our arrangement we could do it quite easily. We did it in this case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I suggest that the hon. gentleman should get up excursions the whole year round, and in that way make the Intercolonial railway pay?


William Pugsley: People are not always wanting to demonstrate.


William Sora Middlebro: The investment turned out not to be quite a good one as anticipated because it defeated the government candidate in the Drummond and Artha-baska election.


Mr. STANFIELD.: With reference to the political demonstration, the Minister of Railways has said that the leader of the opposition could have the same privilege extended to him. In that connection let me call attention to what occurred in connection with a gathering which we had last August in Truro. We asked the Intercolon-ial'for rates and they gave us one fare from all points to Truro and return. On August the 9th some of our friends found they could not buy these tickets as orders have not been issued to the ticket sellers to furnish them at these rates. On August the 10th in the morning some of our friends again went to purchase tickets and were informed that they could not get them at these rates unless they paid 50 cents extra on each ticket for a circus, which was going on at that time.


William Pugsley: There were two.


John Stanfield: Let me draw attention to the correspondence from Moncton. The Mr. PERLEY.
first letter from the management there reads as follows:
Your favour dated 23rd inst. For this event we shall be pleased to instruct our ticket agents at Amherst, Halifax, New Glasgow, and stations inclusive, to sell excursion return tickets to Truro for p.m. trains August 9th, all trains August 10th, good to return till August 11th at first class one way fare.
On the evening of August the 9th when we found that we could not get these tickets we sent a telegram to Mr. Lyons, general passenger agent in Moncton, and he replied as follows:
Your wire 9th. All agents interested were advised to sell excursion tickets to Truro for political picnic at single fare, p.m. train, August 9th, all trains August 10th, good to return till August 11th. Agent Truro advises Shubenacadie and Stewiacke did not receive instructions and aim wiring these agents.
We also wired Mr. Brady and he replied that the agents had been instructed over a week ago and that duplicate instructions had been telegraphed that morning. That telegram was dated August the 10th. This matter was taken up by one of our people with Mr. Lyons direct, and on August the 20th, Mr. Lyons sent the following letter:
Dear Sir,-Re political meeting, Truro, August 10th, and agents not advised.
Referring to the above and your visit to my office yesterday. As explained verbally, the advice to agents outlining the arrangements of reduced fare named for your convention was prepared on July 27th and handed to one of the staff here to send to agents. On receipt of your telegram it was dealt with as quickly as possible m re duplicate advice by wine to agents, and 1 tfiinK we are safe in assuming that the original advices to agents never left the office, for which an apology is certainly due to your association, and the same is respectfully tendered with our sincere regrets. The pei-son in fault will be properly dealt with.
Has that person been properly dealt with? ~ v V i____________	fnr tin a froocl
work?	.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend has called attention to this, and if he will let me have the particulars I shall inquire into it. There is a regular standard, as the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) has said, for excursions, and there is no reason why that should not have been followed in this case.


John Stanfield: What I complain of is that the instructions of the passenger agents were not carried out, and what I want to know is what treatment was given to the man in fault.


George Perry Graham: If I can get his name I shall be able to reply.


John Stanfield: His name is not given.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister will see that his suggestion that the

Intercolonial is at the service of both political parties, under similar conditions, is hardly borne out by the illustration just given.


George Perry Graham: It was an error or bungling of some kind.


Robert Laird Borden: We do not know. At all events that is the situation. Excursion rates were asked for in the ordinary course for a political demonstration to be held in Truro. Assurance was given that the ordinary course would be pursued; but when the people went to buy these tickets, they found that they could only purchase them on paying 50 cents extra for a circus ticket. The only explanation given so far is that some one, whose duty it was to send out instructions to the agents, did not do so, and the assurance was given that the one who was in fault would be officially dealt with. If the minister is perfectly sincere in his statement that the railway is to be at the service of both political parties on the same terms in connection with transportation to political gatherings, it is only due to himself and the House that he should investigate that matter, find out who made the mistake and have the guilty party reprimanded or punished.


George Perry Graham: I shall do that immediately.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.	*
Battleford public building, $33,000.
['I happen to know the ground over which this railway is pro jected. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron). There are no engineering difficulties. The line is coming from the southern boundary of Alberta on a gradual rise until it connects with the Crowsnest branch of the Canadian Pacific railway at Pincher. There are two towns of Pincher. Pincher on the Crowsnest is about three miles from the town of Pincher Creek, and while I think if propei representations had been made to the Minister of Railways and Canals when they built that branch line, it could have been built through that town, I do not see any reason, having regard to the alignment that the road must take to reach the point at which they are aiming, which is within three miles of the town, why they should not pass through it, and no hardship would be imposed upon them by compelling them to do so. Only justice would be done to the town of Pincher Creek.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. RHODES.: The minister will recollect that when we adjourned early this morning it was the understanding that the correspondence between the former member for the constituency and the Public Works Department would be produced.


William Pugsley: I understood that if there was any correspondence, that objection would not be pressed to-day. I was asked for it by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) who is not now in his place. If he should desire it, I will see that he gets the correspondence, if there be any.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The understanding was that the item should stand until we got that correspondence.


William Pugsley: I did not take the request of the hon. member for Peel as one which would be pressed to-day if the correspondence were not here. It would take some time to get it if there be any. I propose giving it to the hon. member for Peel.


Mr. BOYCE.: My hon. friend did promise to bring down the correspondence as a condition of getting the item through.


William Pugsley: Am I not right in saying that the promise was made to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) ? Carried.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugs-ley), has no right to interrupt me. I did not suggest that the promise was made to any member in particular of this House The promise was made to you, Mr. Chairman, as a condition of getting that item through, that the correspondence was to be produced. The minister said he hoped that hon. members on this sid-g, because of that promise, would help them to get the item through. And, if now he pretends to say that, with that correspondence or without it, he can get that item through, I say it is a direct breach of faith.


William Pugsley: I may be misinformed, but I understood that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), was not further to press the point as to the correspondence. If I have been misinformed on that point, I will ask the committee to wait- a few minutes until the deputy minister is here-.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A moment before, the hon. gentleman cried ' Carried.' I understand that he says now that the item stands until the correspondence is produced.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman desires it. But I was informed to-day. whether rightly or -wrongly, as I have no means of knowing, that the request for correspondence would not be urged by the hon. member for Peel.


John Dowsley Reid: By the hon. member for Peel, because he could not be present.


William Pugsley: Quite so. Do other hoc. gentlemen urge it ?


Adam Brown Crosby: If there is one reason more than another why the correspondence should be brought down, it is that the minister (Mr. Pugsley), does not want to bring it down. For my part, I might have thought that this was all right, but now that I find that the minister does not wish to bring down these papers, I think we should insist upon having them for it seems evident there is a reason for holding them back. No member of this^House can pledge others. We are glad to follow the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), because he takes the right path; still, when he is not here, there are others to see to it that necessary information is secured.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crosby), is right. If he desires the correspondence, and there is any correspondence-I do not know that there is any -when the deputy minister comes I shall be able to give the information to the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister have the member from the constitu-*

ency here also ?


William Pugsley: I understood that the 'lion, member had a very important engagement this afternoon and was not able to be present.


John Dowsley Reid: Cannot you let the item stand until he is here ?


William Pugsley: I can do anything to oblige hon. gentlemen opposite,-I do not think there is any limit to my ability in that respect. I observe that my hon. friend .for Macleod (Mr. Herron), is here. We might take up the item for Macleod and get' that through to oblige my hon. friend.
Macleod public building, $10,000


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the purchase of a site and towards the erection of a public building at Macleod, Alberta, for post office and customs purposes. Macleod is a place of a good deal of importance. The postal revenue last year was estimated at $10,584-I have not the exact figures for the year. We have not yet purchased the site, but propose to make the purchase out of this vote. The estimate of the population in 1906 was 1,144, but the town has grown very considerably *since that time. It is a place in which, I think, it is necessary in the public interest that a building should be erected for the post office and customs house.


Adam Brown Crosby: What is the population now ?


William Pugsley: I think it is in the vicinity of between 2,000 or 3,000.


Mr. DANIEL.: What will the building cost ?


William Pugsley: I am not sure as to the amount; we propose to put up a nice building, but the plans have not been prepared


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the minister expect *to go on with the building this summer ?


William Pugsley: Not unlikely.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But the minister should know whether he is going on with it or not.


William Pugsley: The most I can say (s *that if the money is voted we will endeavour, in the ordinary course, to purchase the site. That done, we will have the plans prepared, and I trust the building will be [DOT]undertaken within the coming year.


Mr. LAKE.: How long does it generally Take to get the building started after the money is voted ?


William Pugsley: It depends on whether we are held up by the people wanting too "high a price for the site.


William Pugsley: 


Mr. HERRON.: I am glad to see how ardently the minister presses this item for Macleod. He made several attempts to get at it last evening, and is evidently going out of his way now to take up this item. I am pleased that he recognizes the importance of the place and the need for the building. I hope that he will show as great energy in proceeding with the erection of the building as he has shown in the passing of the estimate. I notice the sum to be voted is only $10,000. Would the minister be kind enough to say whether any site has been offered to him or whether the department has taken any steps toward securing a site ? Will he appeal to the board of trade or the town council ?-or what steps will be taken to secure a site that will be agreeable to all the people of Macleod ?


William Pugsley: No steps have yet been taken toward the purchase of a site, and no location has been determined upon. Of course, nothing can be done until after the appropriation Bill passes placing the amount at the disposal of the department.


John Herron: The fact that only $10,000 is to be voted means that the minister is only preparing to buy the site, not to go on with the building.


William Pugsley: That depends on the cost of the site.


John Herron: That would not leave much of a balance.


William Pugsley: We might get a .site at $2,000 or $3,000, in which case we could let a contract for the erection of a building, coming to parliament, of course, next fall, with a supplementary estimate for the current year.


John Herron: I have several letters from people owning property in the town, wishing me to bring to the attention of tire minister their wish to sell certain lots. Of these lots, I know little or nothing. The owners put prices upon them the reasonableness of which I am not able to judge.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron), might say at about what figure these are offered ?


John Herron: Say two business lots with buildings in the centre of the town, $8,000.


William Pugsley: In the ordinary course, after the appropriation Bill passes, we would send an expert of the department to examine the different sites, and then take the necessary steps to purchase the .property.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: What are the qualifications of this expert?


William Pugsley: Thorough knowledge of the value of real estate, and thorough reliability.


Alexander Haggart: How would he get that thorough knowledge in the department?


William Pugsley: He has had experience in examining properties all over the country.


John Herron: I wish to urge upon the minister the great importance of this .building. The post office in the town of Macleod is certainly not a credit to the government of Canada, it is a disgrace to the government. The building is not a fit and proper place for a post office in a town of the importance of Macleod. Macleod has probably 3,000 inhabitants, it is a railway-centre, a judicial centre, and the centre of business in all that locality. The present post office is not even fit to accommodate a town of 300 people. I hope after the item goes through th'at the minister will lose no time in hastening the erection of that building.


William Pugsley: I am glad my hon. friend agrees with me that this building is necessary. In that respect it is not an exception to the general rule.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister has asked the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron) for some information with regard to the site of this building. I would suggest to the minister that he get his information from the hon. member who represents that constituency, and who possesses the confidence of the people who elected him. Certainly he must know something about the values of property in that town. The minister would secure a much greater confidence from the public, and from members on .both sides of this House, if he would, select the hon. member for Macleod and delegate him to report on the values of these various sites.


William Pugsley: I would ask the committee to reconsider the item fora public building for Battleford. I have here the whole file which contains the correspondence. There is a letter from Mr. McCraney, who was then the member for the district, which I will read. It is dated the 19th of January, 1907, and is addressed to the then acting Minister of Public Works :
Dear Sir,-With reference to your letter of the 20th ult. regarding my communication to Mr. Oliver as to the establishment of a government building at Old Battleford, I am herewith inclosing you a letter received by me from Mr. A. Champagne, M.P.P., from whom I asked the particulars which you required.
I sincerely trust that the government may see its way clear to granting my request, and would ask that the sum of at least
$25,000 be placed in the estimates for that purpose.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
Accompanying that letter was a letter from Mr. Champagne, the present member for the district, dated Battleford, January 2, 1907 :
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yours inclosing letter from Hon. Sydney Fisher re Dominion publio buildings for Battleford, and asking for further information. In reply, I beg to state that the Dominion government has the following offices here: Dominion Land office, telegraph office, immigration office and temporary hall, post office.
The rent being paid at present is as follows: Dominion Land office, $50 per month; telegraph office, $25 per month; immigration office and hall, $35; post office, allowed by the department, $18, actually paid, by postmaster, $25. The revenue of the Dominion Lands office for the year was $54,610.11, and in 1906, $87,363.71. The volume of business transacted in the telegraph office in 1905 was $5,750, and in 1906, $6,107. The post office receipts for the year ending June 30, 1906, was $3,908.40, and the money order business for the same period was issued, $29,359.03, paid $54,325.03, standing tenth in the province^ of Saskatchewan for gross revenue, and third for money orders paid.
It need hardly be pointed out to you that each of the buildings in which the government offices are now located are inadequate to the service rendered, and that a considerable saving in fuel, light and caretaking could be effected by having all the offices in one building.
Battleford is the oldest established town in western Saskatchewan, and has a population of about 1,100, being the largest town in the province west of the Prince Albert branch railway, and is centrally located in the district, being about 80 miles from the west boundary of the province, and has a force of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, a land titles office, an Indian agency, and is destined with the development of the surrounding a country to be a town of cosiderable importance. .	.
I trust that with the above information, you will have no difficulty in securing a grant for the desired public buildings.
I am, yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Champagne informs me, as I think I told the committee last evening, that the population is at present about 2,000. There is also a letter from the hon. Mr. Oliver addressed to the acting Minister of Public Works, which I would read if any hon. gentleman desires it.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would facilitate the progress of the work of the committee if the minister would kindly send over that file of papers, and let us examine it while he takes up another item.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to sending the file over to the hon. gentleman.


Glenlyon Campbell: As one of the committee of this House who last night disputed

this item and was called names, I may say, iby the Minister of Public Works-
Mr. PUGSLEY, Mr. Chairman, I hope my hon. friend did not think I called him any but good names.


Glenlyon Campbell: The hon. gentleman applied an adjective to me, and to other members of this committee ' sleepy,' to which I take objection. I want to point out that the information we asked for at 11.20 last night has just been handed to us. We did not object to this item by any means, all we wanted to get was the information which has just been handed to us. I withdraw my objection I offered. At the same time, I wish to say that North Battleford is being neglected perhaps more than it should be.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish to obstruct the progress of the committee, but I propose to look carefully into this correspondence, and would suggest that the committee take up another item, and let this one stand.


William Pugsley: I propose leaving a military item and upon that my hon. friend can speak to this as well.
Calgary immigration building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for a new immigration building at Calgary. The quarters at present occupied are reported by the Minister of the Interior to be altogether inadequate for the requirements of the city. Calgary is growing rapidly and the surrounding country is settling up very fast.
Humboldt public building, $25,000.


William Pugsley: That is to make provision towards the erection of a public building at Humboldt. The site has been purchased for $3,000. It is 75 feet on the main street with a depth of 132 feet. This building will serve as a post office, customs house and land office.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What is the revenue of the post office?


William Pugsley: The post office revenue is $3,700, the customs duties over $7,000, the money orders issued over $36,000, and the money orders paid over $24,000.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the population?


Mr. NEELY.: The population of the incorporated town is from 1,200 to 1,300. As the minister has said, this will house the post office, customs and land office services. The post office now occupies the third location since its establishment, the postmaster having been obliged to move as the rented premises became more valuable for private purposes.


Glenlyon Campbell: 


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the rent now paid?


William Pugsley: For the post office $280. In addition to that I understand that this has been made a port of customs entry, an outport of Regina.


Glenlyon Campbell: Has it actually been made a port of entry?


William Pugsley: The Minister of Customs authorizes me to say he is positive that Humboldt was made an outport of Regina about three years ago.


Mr. STAPLES.: Will the Minister of Customs say whether it is intended to make it a port of entry? This is very important in these western towns because the people are put to great inconvenience where the town is not a port of customs entry.


Mr. PATERSON.: My recollection is that Humboldt is already a "port of entry, an outport of Regina. The outport affords all the facilities to the public for the transaction 'of business that are afforded by the port. The outports collect their own revenues, but they are transmitted through the ports to which they are attached simply to save expense and in order that their returns may be supervised by the officials at the main ports who have possibly had more experience. When the outport becomes sufficiently important it is made a port, and makes its returns direct to the department.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is there a paid official of the government in charge?


William Paterson: Certainly, with all the responsibilities and duties that pertain to a port.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the salary?


William Paterson: That depends on the revenue, we have no uniform standard. As a rule, in the new provinces, where the cost of living is greater, we start them at a somewhat higher figure than in the older provinces. Humboldt was made an outport two or three years ago when the Canadian Northern was opened up.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Who asked for this expenditure?


William Pugsley: It was urged by the late member Mr. Adamson, in 1907, when there was an item put in the estimates, and also very strongly urged by the present member.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is there any correspondence in the matter?


William Pugsley: There apparently were letters from Mr. Adamson, dated February *25, and March 1, 1907, stating there was pressing necessity for a public building at Humboldt.


Glenlyon Campbell: Will the letters be presented to the committee ?


William Pugsley: Yes, if any gentleman moves for them. Of course it would require three or four horses and a number of carts to bring over from the department all the letters concerning all these public works.


Glenlyon Campbell: Judging by the number of horses and carts paid for by the government you might engage one of them in that work, but it would be satisfactory to this side if we could even get the information that a boy with a wheelbarrow could bring over. If the minister does not get through with his estimates faster than he did last night I do not think it will require many horses to bring over the information. A page boy could carry all the information we asked for then, but we could not get it.


William Pugsley: It would be impossible for the minister to tell in advance what information might be desired, and if the records concerning all the buildings for which votes were taken were-, brought, it would mean immense labour and possibly after all hon. gentlemen would not look at them.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want all the correspondence before this item is put through. I want the letters from the boards of trade and other bodies and from the gentlemen who have asked for this building in Humboldt.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad on Monday, before this item finally passes to bring any correspondence there is.
Lethbridge public building, $75,000.


William Pugsley: As my hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) who represents the district knows this vote is to erect a building which is very much needed. Lethbridge is growing rapidly, and the post office accommodation for the public is very limited indeed. There has been a very strong demand by the people for a building and that demand has been supported very frequently and very persistently by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Is this building to be used for other than post office purposes?


William Pugsley: For customs as well.
Llo.ydminster public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased. The proposed building is for post office, government telegraph office, and land office. The present accommodation is not what ought to be provided in a town of the importance of Lloydminster. Melfort public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: I am told that Melfort has a population of about 1,500, and it is growing rapidly.


William Henry Sharpe: What rent do you pay at present?


William Pugsley: Moosej aw, new public building, $50,000.


William Pugsley: I am sorry we have to expend money for the erection of a new public building in Moosejaw, but our experts advised us that the existing public building is absolutely unsuitable for the requirements of the city and so we have to provide a new one. Moosejaw is growing very rapidly. It has a population to-day of about 15,000, and the business there is very large. What we propose to do is to start the new building on the additional land which we purchased adjoining the old building, and when we get that part finished sufficiently to accommodate the public in it, we shall tear down the old building, and fill up the space by extending the new building to the street line.


William Henry Sharpe: Will this $50,000 cover the cost of the whole thing?


William Pugsley: No. Of course a building in the west costs somewhat more than a building in the east. The building at Regina, which is a little larger than Moosejaw has cost in the vicinity of $180,000. We want to give it a building as near like the one at Regina as we reasonably can, to afford needed accommodation and at the same time be a credit to the city. We have to build, of course, looking to the future, and there is every reason to look forward to Moosejaw having a population in the near future of 30,000 or 40,000. As evidence of its growth, I may give the revenues for 1908-9:	post
office, $25,601; customs, $47,220; inland revenue, $13,925; making a total revenue of $86,727. At present, even with the existing post office building, we are paying the following rentals: Crown lands office, $2,280; inland revenue, $360; customs, $240; making a total of $2,880. We hope to be able to accommodate all these departments in the new building, thus saving that rent, as well as affording very 'much better accommodation.
Saskatoon, purchase of land for public building, $35,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision, looking to the future, for the purchase of land either in the town or in its immediate vicinity, for the erection of public buildings, the idea being to provide accommodation for mounted police and other military forces and other departments. The matter has been pressed upon our attention not only by the' hon. gentleman who represents the constituency, but

by Mr. White, the controller of the Northwest Mounted Police. Saskatoon is growing pretty rapidly, and even if we do not utilize the whole of the land for a number of years, we shall make no mistake in buying a considerable area.


William Pugsley: Yes, we have bought the land and are making preparations to go on with the work.
We.yburn public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is a very important centre.
Strathcona public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: Hon. gentlemen know that Strathcona is a growing city across the Saskatchewan river from the city of Edmonton. We have purchased the land, 66 feet by 132 feet. The building is to be for customs and post office purposes. The population of Strathcona four years ago was close to 3,000. My information is that to-day it is 5,000 or 6,000. The hon. member for Strathcona is here, and would perhaps favour the committee with a few observations.	[DOT]


Mr. DOUGLAS.: I might inform the committee that Strathcona is a very important city. It has over 6,000 population, is the university centre of Alberta, and is also the seat of learning for theological colleges. We are looking for great advancement in the near future, and we do not think we are getting too much for this building.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the population?


Mr. TURRIFF..: About 2,500. It is the largest and most important town south of the Canadian Pacific railway, on its main line, in Saskatchewan. It is a large raihvay centre. It is about the second or third largest wheat shipping point in the three prairie provinces. The postal revenue from the sale of stamps is over $8,000. I do not know what the customs revenue is, but in the first six months after the office opened it was over $10,000.


William Pugsley: The money orders issued last year amounted to $140,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is a very large business done there. It has a half dozen of our principal banks and a local bank, which does the largest business. This building is required for a land office, post office and a customs house.
Vegreville publio building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. member for the district will tell us what he knows about Vegreville.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta).: As everybody who knows anything about the west knows, the town of Vegreville is the largest town between Battleford and Edmonton, and is the centre of the best agricultural country in northern Alberta. It has a population at the present time of about 1,200. Four years ago there were only two or three settlers there. The reason I ask for this public building is not to provide work for the people there, because there is no doubt that in order to start the building we shall have to import the labour. The post office is now in a small store, and the postmaster has not the accommodation he should have. There is a large amount of parcel post business done in that country. I have seen no less than three double teams going out with the mail.
Wetaskiwin public building, $25,000.


William Pugsley: The population is about 1,700; postal revenue last year, $7,474; money orders issued, $63,000; money orders paid, $36,000.


William Henry Sharpe: When was that item first put in the estimates?


William Pugsley: 1907-08.


William Henry Sharpe: Just before the last election?


William Pugsley: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What rent are we paying now?


William Pugsley: $500. The site has been purchased.


William Henry Sharpe: When did this first appear in the estimates?


William Pugsley: In the session of 1910.
Chilliwack public building, $25,000.


William Pugsley: The land has been purchased and the plans are being prepared. My hon. friend who represents New Westminster will agree that this building is a public necessity.


James Davis Taylor: Have tenders been called for yet?


William Pugsley: Not yet, but the plans are being prepared.


James Davis Taylor: I ask that because I have heard that an official communication was sent to Chilliwack last June saying that tenders would be called immediately. Was that warranted by the department?


William Pugsley: What date?


James Davis Taylor: Early in June last.


William Pugsley: I cannot tell. The order was passed for the purchase of the land on the 3rd of June. If my hon. friend will write me a letter I will give him the information.


James Davis Taylor: It is not sufficiently important to trouble the minister with, but I would like to say that possibly there is no place where there is more urgency for a post office than at Chilliwack. That district is glowing very rapidly. Even the word painting which we are accustomed to have from the minister in presenting his items would fail to do justice to the position of Chilliwack. It has made very rapid growth because of the introduction of railways and is now an incorporated city of sufficient importance to furnish business to five banks. The post office at present presents for the use of the public a room only some 12 feet square. If the minister will realize the conditions there with the population of that size trying to despatch and receive their mails in a room 12 feet square he will see there is need for urgency, and if he could take any steps to hasten the calling for tenders he would be doing a great service to the people. I would like to ask, also, whether the amount now provided for will complete?


William Pugsley: No, but it will carry us over the next fiscal year.


William Henry Sharpe: What was the $6,000 spent for?


William Pugsley: For the site.
Crankbrook public building, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is in the constituency of Kootenay. The site has been purchased and the plans are now being prepared. The'postal revenue is $11,517; customs duties, $33,550; money orders issued, $178,917; money orders paid, $47,164. The population in 1908 was 3,500, and it has grown considerably since. If the hon. member who represents Kootenay were here he would endorse my statement that a public building in Cranbrooke is very much needed.


William Henry Sharpe: When was this first voted?


William Pugsley: In 1906-07.


William Henry Sharpe: Why the delay?


William Pugsley: We did not purchase the site until 1908, on the 18th January. Then we had the one lean year, when our revenue fell off, and we were trying to economize.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I desire to ask for some information on this item.


William Pugsley: The site lias been purchased and plans for the building are in course of preparation. We hope to" call for tenders before long.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is it the intention to go on with the work this summer?

_


William Pugsley: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: Has the hon. minister received from Mission City a largely signed petition asking for a building there, and what prospect can he hold out?


William Pugsley: I am sure the hon. gentleman would feel that it would be quite improper for me to say anything in advance of the estimates which might be brought down beyond saying that the representations of the people of Mission City will have my careful consideration.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to point out that Mission City needs a public building very badly for at least two departments-the post office and the immigration departments. It is a point on the Canadian Pacific railway which immigrants pass through going to Seattle, and where they are very commonly detained, and where, also, immigrants from Seattle are usually detained. At present they have no other accommodation than the station house of the Canadian Pacific railway. The presence of large bodies of these immigrants there is not only very unpleasant for the general passengers, but it is also rather cruel to the immigrants, and gives them a very poor impression of the cpuntry. I do not expect the minister to act on impressions only, or on merely sentimental grounds, but I think that if he would seek the advice, of the Immigration Department that advice would be in line with the request of the people of Mission City for the erection of a public building at that point for post office and immigration purposes.


William Pugsley: What is the population of Mission?


James Davis Taylor: I should say about 1,500. That is the population of the village itself, but that figure does not indicate the importance of the place. It is the trade centre for quite a large district.


William Pugsley: I will have it looked into.
Duncan public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to purchase a site and to go towards the construction of a building for post office purposes. We pay now a rental of $250. The postal revenue last year was $3,305; money orders issued $26,393, money orders paid $14,929. I have not a statement of the population, but I believe it is a good town.
Fernie public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to finish the payments on this building. We had a building nearly finished when the. disastrous fire occurred which destroyed so large a part of

Fernie. We had to practically begin over again. This is to complete the work.


William Henry Sharpe: What is to be the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure to December 20 last, was $27,964.89.
Grand Forks public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: The site purchased for this building covers a whole block, having frontages on four 'streets. We have called for tenders for the building. The contract has not yet been let because it seemed to the department that the only tender received was pretty high and required careful consideration before awarding the contract. We .are having the matter looked into by the chief architect.


Mr. BURRELL.: Is the idea to advertise again?


William Pugsley: Yes, in the hope that we shall have wider competition.


Martin Burrell: I suppose the minister has no wish to delay this work. He understands the importance of it?


William Pugsley: Yes. But the tender was $18,000 higher than the chief architect's estimate; we did not feel that we could properly award the contract, but that it wat better to call for new tenders.


Martin Burrell: I presume that due allowance was made for the necessary greater expense of construction in the west?


William Pugsley: Yes, the chief architect allowed for that.
Greenwood public building, $30,000.


Martin Burrell: In what position is this?


William Pugsley: We have bought the site and the plans are in course of preparation.


Martin Burrell: What site was bought and what was the price?


William Pugsley: The site was bought from Mr. Nelson and consisted of lots 20, 21 and 22, block 5, having a frontage of 75 feet on Greenwood street, and 115 feet on Government street. The price paid was $3,000.


Martin Burrell: Is it the intention of the government to go on with this work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Martin Burrell: Are the plans prepared?


William Pugsley: They are in course of preparation, and we hope to be able to go on during the coming summer.
Nanaimo public building, extension, $22,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract. It is a very important work, because Nanaimo is a city of a good deal of importance Mr. PUGSLEY.
and the accommodation there is utterly insufficient.
air. DANIEL. What is the population of Nanaimo?


Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: Eight thousand within the city.


William Henry Sharpe: Will this complete the work?


William Pugsley: No.


William Henry Sharpe: What will be the total cost?
air. PUGSLEY. It is estimated at $29,900. This will leave an additional amount of $2,900 to complete the work.
Nelson public building, addition, $7,000.


William Pugsley: Hon. gentlemen are aware how important a city Nelson is. It is a large distributing centre for postal business, and the accommodation there is wholly inadequate. The work is a much needed extension of the present building.
Prince Rupert public building, $50,000.
air. PUGSLEY. The site for this building. which is quite conveniently situated, is to be donated to the government by the Grand Trunk Pacific interests.
air. SCHAFFNER. Is the position a good one? Is it central?
air. PUGSLEY. I think it is the very best we could get. We considered two locations, and, with the very best consideration we could give it, we concluded that this was the best. It is not far from the public wharfs and not far from the railway station. It is close to the business centre-right on the public square.
air. SCHAFFNER. Does the Grand Trunk Pacific own the land adjacent to it?
air. PUGSLEY. They did own it, (but I think they sold all the lots, and reserved this for public purposes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the population now?


William Pugsley: I understand it is five or six thousand.
air. SHARPE (Lisgar). The other day I asked the minister whether the government had bought any land from the Grand Trunk Development Company. He answered that his department had not. He said he had inquired to see whether other departments had bought any, and had found that the other departments had not bought any land from the development company.
air. PUGSLEY. I think I said my information was that no other department had bought.
air. SHARPE (Lisgar). What other departments did he ask for that informa-' tion?


William Pugsley: I tried to think -what departments would ibe likely to buy, and I inquired from the Minister of Interior, and from the Minister of Railways. I could not think of any other department that would be likely to make purchases.


William Henry Sharpe: I asked that-the question should ibe allowed to stand, but I see that it has been taken off the orders of the day.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman has any idea that any department has made a purchase, and would intimate what department, and where the land is, it would facilitate matters.


William Henry Sharpe: The Agricultural Department, this side of Prince Albert. I would like to have that question answered.


William Pugsley: I will see the Minister of Agriculture about it to-morrow.
Revelstoke public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: Revelstoke is a very important station on the Canadian Pacific railway, 'being the point at which that railway branches off going down into the district of southern British Columbia. A demand for a public building here has been pressed upon our attention for a considerable time. We have purchased a lot 75 feet by 100, for which we paid some $5,000. We only purchased it after very careful examination and comparison with other lots, and believe we have got it at a reasonable figure. The population of Revelstoke a few years ago was 3,000, it must be considerably more now. The revenue last year was $8,437 ; customs duty, $103,000 ; imports, $367,350. We are paying a rental of $834 for post office and customs purposes.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: How far is the building advanced?


William Pugsley: We have not entered into a contract yet, we are having the plans prepared.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Can the minister assure me that the work is likely to 'be carried on this summer?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that the plans are pretty well advanced. Very likely the building will go on this summer.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I can agree with the minister as to the importance of this town of Revelstoke, which is not only on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, but one of the chief branches of that whole western system starts there going down through the Arrow lakes. It has a very large traffic, and a good deal of tourist trade, besides a growing population.
Vancouver old post office building, alterations and fittings, furniture, &c., $35,000.
Mr, PUGSLEY. This is for the purpose of renovating the old post office building for the accommodation of the inland revenue and the Dominion assay office. The total probable cost, including fittings, furniture, &c., will run to about $54,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: We have given them already a fine new post office in Vancouver.


William Pugsley: Vancouver is a rapidly growing city, and has now a population of nearly 150,000.
Vancouver examining warehouse, $50,060.


William Pugsley: We have bought the land, and this is to enable us to call for tenders for the building. We called for tenders once, and we are going to call for new tenders.
Vernon publio building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend who represents the district of Yale-Carilboo (Mr. Burrell) knows that Vernon is quite an important town in the midst of a very excellent fruit growing country. It is proposed to provide for a post office, for customs purposes, and also accommodation for the commanding officer, and an armoury for A and B squadrons. The building is under contract. The total estimated cost will be in the vicinity of $55,000.


Martin Burrell: Is it actually commenced?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me it is actually commenced.


Martin Burrell: Will these quarters be amply sufficient for the military purposes ?


William Pugsley: I understand so from the militia authorities. The material is to be brick, with stone dressings, and with a stone faced concrete basement, a two-story building, forty feet in depth, and sixty feet frontage.
(Manitoba-Dominion publio buildings

Renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $15,000.
Mr. 'STAPLES. What public buildings in the city of Winnipeg are being repaired?


William Pugsley: This is for the whole province.


William D. Staples: I understand the old post office in Winnipeg is being repaired to some extent. To what purpose will it be utilized after it is fixed over?


William Pugsley: We have had it repaired and renovated for the purpose of giving accommodation to the Customs Department, and also for a branch of the Finance Depart-1 ment. Work was done last year upon the

immigration (building to the extent of $2,590.


William D. Staples: Are the repairs to the old post office completed?


William Pugsley: Not quite.
Portage la Prairie public building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: This is to construct a public building in Portage la Prairie. The site has been acquired. The proposed building is to provide offices for the Inland Revenue and Indian Affairs Departments, and also to provide armour accommodation for squadron ' C ' of the 18th Mounted Rifles and D and E companies of the 9th regiment. The site consists of two lots on Garry street, with a total frontage of 153 feet, purchased from the Housser-Armstrong Company.


William D. Staples: Is it a corner lot?


William Pugsley: I cannot say, but I think it is because it runs apparently on two streets, Garry and Campbell.


William D. Staples: Have the plans been drawn?


William Pugsley: They are now completed and have been submitted to the department concerned, for approval. The tenders will be called for right away.


William D. Staples: There is no doubt that the building will be gone on with this summer?


William Pugsley: None whatever.
Souris public building, $22,000.


William Pugsley: This is to erect a public building in Souris. The work is now in progress.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In what year was this put in the estimates?


William Pugsley: In the session of 1907-8.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Just before the election?


William Pugsley: That seems like the burning of Rome or the great fire in St. John, or the flood.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It was a very famous burning, it saved the life of the late Minister of the Interior. However, they need a building there.


William D. Staples: I regret to be here another session and to find the promise the minister gave me-hardly a direct promise, but almost-that there would appear in the estimates of this session an appropriation for a public building in Carman in the constituency that I have the honour of representing. Each session since I have been here I have appealeu to the Minister of Public Works for an appropriation for Mr. PUGSLEY.
the erection of a building there. I might inform the minister that it is a growing town, it has a population of over 2,000 people, it has three banks, it is a railway centre, three railways running into it, it is a municipal centre, the post office revenue is over $4,000 a year, much greater than in other towns for which provision is made, every denomination is represented there with good churches, the town is equipped with very good conveniences, with electric light a water system, and everything required to make its citizens, who are very progressive, comfortable. It possesses every qualification that the minister has laid down as guiding him in the appropriation of moneys for the construction of buildings in towns throughout the country. I do not believe that either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Finance can advance a single good reason why it should not have a public building. Petitions have been presented to the government asking for a building. I again appeal to the minister to erect a building there. I can see no reason why there should not have been an appropriation for this town long ago. It is the oldest town south of the Assiniboine river in Manitoba, a pioneer town, and I now hope to get an answer from the minister _ that in his supplementary estimates he will make the desired appropriation towards erecting a building in the town of Carman.
Mr. PUGSLEYL The hon. gentleman puts the case so very nicely, and gives such strong evidence that he approves of my course in making provision for public buildings in different sections of the country where they are needed that it would afford me great- pleasure if, at this moment, I could make the announcement that a public building would be erected at Oar-man immediately. I say that in all sincerity. But my bon. friend knows that when I make up my estimates they have to run the gauntlet of my colleagues, particularly of the Minister of Finance, and tlfht I cannot accomplish all I would like even to please my bon. friend.


William D. Staples: I do not know on what argument the minister can refuse a building to Carman. He erects buildings in towns like Humboldt, and other towns of that kind, only a year or two old. Carman is 35 or 40 years of age, and I do not know why the minister cannot give me a more definite answer than that. I would ask whether the Minister of Public Works has asked the Minister of Finance to endorse an appropriation for the town of Carman. I believe that if he has done so, the Finance Minister has told him: Yes, that is a deserving town, a growing town, and it should be supplied with a building.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
has been given, is an interference with, rules which we have been in the habit of adhering to pretty closely.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in committee of Bill (No. 44), respecting the Lachine, Jacques Cartier & Maisonneuve Railway.- Mr. Geoffrion.
On section 4.
Air. GEOFFRION.: In accordance with the notice given, I move that the following words be added to the section:
'And may, subject to the provisions of The Railway Act, connect each line of railway with the railway of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company or either of them.'
1 Amendment agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.


SECURITY TRUST CORPORATION.
[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in committee on whole of Bill (No. 32), to incorporate the Security Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Alexander Haggart: I wish to say with reference to this Bill-


William Stevens Fielding: I believe, apart from the question which has already engaged the attention of the committee, attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a company of a similar name in Manitoba, and I have discussed the matter with the hon. member for Regina and he agreed the Bill should stand until inquiry be made as to a possible change of name.


Alexander Haggart: That will be all right.
Progress reported.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC BRANCH LINES.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 73), respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some of the branches mentioned in this Bill were provided for in the committee without any notice having been given of them in the ' Gazette.' It seems to me that it is establishing a very bad precedent to let these go into the Bill. I think there was another Bill in which the committee did the same thing. The advertisement in the ' Gazette ' is for a good purpose-to give notice to the public where it is proposed to ask for the right to build a railroad. After such notice is given, to insert in a Bill provision for a number of branches for which no notice
Mr. TURRIFF'. While recognizing the force of the remarks made by the hon. member, I may say that two at least of these branches were asked for by the settlers in the vicinity of where it is proposed to build them, so that if it can be arranged that these can go through, I do not think anybody will suffer, while it will be of great advantage to the people in those districts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One of these branches appears to be 60 miles long. I am not objecting because I think there is any special danger, but just because it has been our disposition always to observe our rules carefully. After watching the granting of charters, especially of late years, I have come to the conclusion that we would be just as safe and would avoid a good deal of work if we granted charters just as they do in the United States-giving power to any company that wanted to build a railway, upon submitting its plans and having them examined and registered, to go on and build the railway. If we go on granting charters at the present .rate, it will become a mere matter of form before very long. What has the Minister of Railways to say about it ?


George Perry Graham: There is a good deal of. force in what my hon. friend says. But these notices and rules are for the protection of the public, and I suppose for the railways as well. But when a section of the committee, representing the people' in a certain district, after having been made fully aware of the rule as to advertising urged very strongly, so strongly that they convinced the committee, that we ought to waive that rule, and allow them to put in these branches, I think a fairly strong case is made out. In all these cases where a rule is waived, it is reported by the committee' to the House, and I suppose that was done in this case. If we adhered strictly to the rule, these branches could not go in. Speaking practically, what benefit could be derived by anybody if we did that, and what injury can be done to anybody in this case ? If I thought any one was going to be injured, I would say stand by the rule, but the committee, after consideration, thought it better in th'o c and one or two others not to insist on the rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think, from our late experience in granting railway charters, that any harm will come from allowing these Bills to pass because one of the strong reasons for the rule, heretofore, was I that we should not charter parallel lines | or give charters which would interfere with

the rights of chartered lines through the same sections. Of late, however, we take very little concern of this objection but grant charters to almost all who ask them. I do not think any serious injury will arise in this case, but I am only speaking of a disposition to contract a loose habit, and these very oases may be used as precedents by some designing individuals with regard to other Bills. If by any possible means we could avoid these toeing used as precedents, there would be less danger from the innovation.


George Perry Graham: I would feel like going this far, that where there is any real objection to a rule being waived in committee, we ought to insist on its toeing observed. As to what some call free trade in charters, it is difficult to know what is the better method to adopt. Charters have toeen obtained, particularly in the newer portions of the country, by companies which have no apparent intention of building. They get these charters renewed from time to time tout do not build ; and if we were to stick to the practice which existed formerly of protecting companies that had acquired charters, we might never get railways in some particular sections. I have almost come to the conclusion that where three or four people are after a charter in the same territory, we should give a charter to each and let the man who first builds, get the railway. The same thing comes up in approving route maps. One company will get a charter, and a route map, and will sit down on that, and not build the road. Another comes along and it is told to keep off the right of way because the other company has a ronte map approved. I think we should change the method of approving route maps toy approving them only for a limited period.


Mr. HUGHES.: What atoout a pass?


George Perry Graham: When there is only one pass, my idea is to give the other railways a right to run over the one which has the charter, and the route map. That is provided in the Railway Act, and I would feel like putting that in the route map approved.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to call attention to another feature, and that is with reference to the rule we laid down for compelling railway companies to make their capital stock ibear some proportion to their length of road. Where you increase the length of a road by several hundred miles, it would seem to me that the capital stock would have to ibe increased also. I do not know whether the branches proposed in this instance would cost sufficient money to require us to reconsider the question of the capital stock or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


George Perry Graham: This is a railway that put its capital stock very high in the 'beginning, up to $50,000,000 to start with.
I think they put it very high in order to cover lines they might construct. The other was that line running from Vancouver north to Yukon, which we raised from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: The committee boost the amount of capital stock, helping on watering and over-capitalization. Then, when you come down to this House in the afternoon, you find the House criticising the very thing the committee has been doing in the morning.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


THE McCLARY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is reported by the Private Bills Committee. I do not know what consideration was given to it. I confess it has a rather suspicious look to me when an industrial concern like this asks power to purchase the stock of other concerns of the same nature. It looks as if it were intended to put several concerns into one combine.


George Perry Graham: In our Railway Committee, when a company asks power to amalgamate with, or purchase, the stock of any other company, it must name the company, or companies. In a case of this kind it may not be possible to do this, perhaps.


Morley Currie: The hon. member (Mr. Beattie) in charge of the Bill is not here, but I may say that, under the Companies' Act, every company chartered has this clause.


Mr. NESBITT.: Is it not a rather wide clause?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This company is not chartered under the Companies' Act, but has a special charter, which, evidently, had not this clause, or the company would not be seeking to insert it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the Bill had better stand.
Progress reported.


ALBERTA RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 51) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Crothers.
John Herron: I gave notice of amendment of subsection (c) of section 1 of this

Bill. The notice is wrongly worded, but I feel sure that- the committee will accept it notwithstanding this error.


George Perry Graham: What is the amendment?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The notice is given that clause 1 of section (c) be amended by striking out the words ' Spring Coulee ' and inserting the words ' Cardston,' and after the word 'westerly ' the words 'to the town of Pincher Creek.'
Mr. HERRON Instead of reading subsection (1) of clause (e), it should read subsection (c) of clause 1.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That was not accepted by the committee.
Mr. HERRON I will explain "why it was not accepted in committee. When this Bill was before the committee on Tuesday last I moved the same amendments that I am offering here. At the request of the lawyer in charge of the company's interest. I did not press the matter to a decision, but allowed it to stand over until he should hear from his company. For some reason there was a meeting of the Railway Committee on Thursday last, I believe, the first held on a Thursday this session. I was, unfortunately, sick and confined toi my room by the doctor's orders. The committee, I think, did not treat. me fairly in passing this Bill in its original form without my consent. When I heard of it I gave notice of the amendment. This is an old charter, one of eleven or twelve years' standing. It gave very broad powers. The country was a cattle country when these people obtained the chapter, but to-day it is a farming country.
There were only a few settlers in there then, and to-day there is a thickly settled country from one end to the other. In the olden days the people did not expect railways, they knew they were not going to get them, therefore, there w.as little interest taken in the charters. But to-day some company is -going to 'build over this identical ground, in fact this summer the same company will build over the proposed line and they are asking for their old powers under a renewed charter, the powers that they had eleven or twelve years ago. They are -asking now for this charter from Cardston to Pincher Creek, a distance of 55 or 60 miles; they are asking for a spread at the starting point between Spring Coulee and Mountain View' for a distance of about 30 miles, that is at the southwest end of the proposed road, going a distance of 55 or 60 miles north. When they land at the north end they ask for another spread of five townships again, where they -strike the railway at the north, that is 30 miles more. W-e know the company could not come to this parlia-96
ment to-day and ask for a new charter granting them these powers and they are trying to revive an old charter with all the powers which they got twelve or fifteen years ago. That is what I object,to, and I dont think it is right to grant an extension to the company with such conditions. I have had protests from people along the line, and from Cardston in particular, against the granting of the extension altogether. The minister has frankly stated this evening his reasons for granting free trade in charters, and I agree with the minister that when they are not getting any exclusive rights, no -harm would he done by renewing an old charter. But I think when the old company is getting the old charter revived, they should comply with the conditions such as they would have to do when they are asking for a new charter. That is all I am asking. I am asking that at the point of starting they be confined to -a distance of 15 miles instead of 30 miles and 'from Cardston to Mountain View. I presume they will strike the Crowsnest branch near the Pincher Station, and -if they do 'they will h-ave to pas-s close by the town of Pincher Creek. The present Canadian Pacific railway station is the centre of the 'spread where they join the Crowsnest road 'at the north, I therefore -ask that they be 'compelled to go through the town of Pin-'cher Creek. Pincher Creek will not put 'them out of their way. The Crowsnest Pass branch has left our town nearly three miles to the north, -and now the same company are proposing to run another line 'two or three miles -to the east of us for they have already made the preliminary surveys. I can assure the Hou-se that there *is no engineering obstacle in the way. There 'has been a survey made over the same 'ground by another company within the 1 'last -three months, and there is not a one per cent grade on the line from Cardston *to Pincher Station. For these reasons I ask the committee to accept the two amendments I have offered.
1 Mr. MIDDLEBRO. I think my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron), has taken a reasonable stand, and I do not see why we should -be expected to revive a charter which was granted ten or twelve years ago, giving them the very extensive powers which they had then, and which we would not give them if they were applying for a new charter.
' Mr. NESBITT. I did not suggest that the Bill stand over for the purpose of blocking it, but for the purpose of allowing the hon. member for Macleod and the railway company to get together.


William Sora Middlebro: I do not want to do anything against the wishes of my hon. friend from Macleod. By this Bill, the



302*
company have power given them, before they even do any work on the railway, to sell out their charter. It looks to me like a scheme of certain promoters to get a charter and sell it out to somebody else. If my hon. friend from Macleod wishes to push his amendment, I am prepared to stay here and fight it out.


George Perry Graham: I think the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), has charge of the Bill. The circumstances are a. good deal as outlined by my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron). The regular days for our committee to meet are Tuesdays and Thursdays.


John Herron: Did they meet this year on Thursday ?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure, but 1 think we have met on Thursday. But that is immaterial. I want to assure him that we were not trying to take any advantage of him in the committee. He made a strong protest the day before, and the Bill was left over to allow the representatives of the company to communicate with the head office. He told the committee the last time that the company could not see its -way clear to comply with his request to build into Pincher Creek, and the hon. member not .being present, the committee took it for granted he had reconsidered his objection. The hon. member for West Elgin will say whether he thinks we ought to go on with it.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I am not particularly anxious to iproceed with the Bill to-night. In fact, I believe, as stated by the Minister of Railways, that when the Bill came before the committee my hon. friend from Macleod proposed the amendment he has proposed this evening. It was then allowed to stand to enable communication to be had with the president of the Canadian Pacific railway company, which recently acquired the rights of this company in the old charter, and only recently. The reply came from the head of the company that they would be very glad if they could comply with my hon. friend's request, but that owing to engineering difficulties in the construction of the road as he suggests, they regretted they would not be able to accept his suggestion. This Bill deals with four branches, only one of' which is affected by the proposed amendment. I understand it is the intention of the Canadian Pacific Tailway company to proceed with the construction of these branches in the near future if the charter be renewed as requested now. But they say they would let the whole project drop Tather than undertake to carry it out as suggested by my hon. friend from Macleod. If my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), thinks there is a possibility of the com-Mr. MTDDLEBRO.
pany and the hon. member for Macleod agreeing on any compromise, I have no objection to its standing over.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron) is quite right. I do not think that this House should allow an old charter like this to foe revived when the company now owning it, or thb same company object to carry out such a reasonable proposition as to run their line through a town when they propose to run right close beside it.
A good deal of that sort of thing has been done in the past to the great detriment and loss of men who may have from $5,000 to $20,000 invested in one of these towns. A railway comes along and runs two or three or one mile outside of the town limits with the result that a new town has to foe built up which deteriorates property in the old town very materially. A little while ago I had occasion to have a matter of this kind attended to in fixing the route map toy the Grand Trunk Pacific, and they readily agreed to go through a town instead of a mile to one side as first intended. The other day in the committee we compelled the Grand Trunk Pacific to go through Hanley as shown here to-night instead of going a mile or two north or south, and I think on this occasion we ought to compel this company if they build, and I would not tolerate any such threat as they have made that if they do not get all their own way they will not build at all. I would say let them build through Pincher Creek or not build at all.


Mr. CONMEE.: I happen to know the ground over which this railway is pro jected. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron). There are no engineering difficulties. The line is coming from the southern boundary of Alberta on a gradual rise until it connects with the Crowsnest branch of the Canadian Pacific railway at Pincher. There are two towns of Pincher. Pincher on the Crowsnest is about three miles from the town of Pincher Creek, and while I think if propei representations had been made to the Minister of Railways and Canals when they built that branch line, it could have been built through that town, I do not see any reason, having regard to the alignment that the road must take to reach the point at which they are aiming, which is within three miles of the town, why they should not pass through it, and no hardship would be imposed upon them by compelling them to do so. Only justice would be done to the town of Pincher Creek.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 54) respecting the E. B. Eddy Company.-Mr. Devlin.

Bill (No. 72) respecting the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Simcoe)
Bill (No. 59) respecting the Athabaska Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Collingwood Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired the House resumed in Committee of Supply.
TVinnipeg public buildings, improvements, repairs, &c., $5,000.
['I think we have made exceedingly good progress to-day. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fisher, the House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.', 'Monday, February 6, 1911.']
William Pugsley: This is the same vote as last year to make repairs to the public buildings in Winnipeg.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 

[Stage Direction]
Chief Architect.
On March 30, we have the following letter addressed to the chief architect:
Re Battleford site for public building.
,^ir9rA1Son0dli;ected>
your letter of Febru-nirhiif*	weilt to Battleford re site for
FnwJ T Jl" dln?f auA be« to report as follows. I saw Mr. Champagne, M.P.P., who pointed out the site which I hare reported upon, and which he said was the popular b believe the site is a good one. I have attached an offer of sale from the owners.
Yours respectfully,

[Stage Direction]
Clerk of Works.
Concerning these three communications I have this to say: That although Mr. Mol-961
lard was appointed inspector on February 21, we have a letter from the deputy minister on March 30, or nearly five weeks later calling upon the chief architect to hasten this man in making his report on the site for the Battleford post office. That is rather interesting in view of the impression the Minister of Public Works left on my mind when, a few evenings ago, I was referring to the delay in the preparation of the plans for the post office at Parrsboro', Nova Scotia. The minister then rather intimated to me that these various works were allowed to take their own course, and that no special instruction was given to the chief architect, but in this case we find that specific instructions were given to him, and that he has a peremptory letter from the deputy minister to have the agent of the department hasten sending his report from Battleford. We find the agent of the department at Battleford conferring with the member for the county and selecting the site, which the member for the county indicated should be the site to be chosen. I shall not say anything further on that point; I think these facts are clear enough. But, I would like to address this question to the minister: In view of the fact that Mr. Champagne was the man to whom the agent of the department went to select a site, who is the Esther Champagne referred to in the letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice addressed to the secretary of the Department of Public Works, dated Ottawa, January 20, 1909, and reading:

[Stage Direction]
Sir,-I have the honour herewith to inclose assignment from Esther Champagne and Robert Henry Speers of the former's interest in the lands in question, also our agent's account certified for $35.39. Kindly send me a cheque in his favour for this amount.
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,
E. L. NEWCOMBE, Deputy Minister of Justice.
Has the minister any knowledge who the Esther Champagne referred to in this
letter is?
William Pugsley: No, I have no idea at all. Will the hon. gentleman send me over the file?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has the Minister of Public Works any intimation as to the relationship of Esther Champagne to the sitting member for the county?


William Pugsley: I have no knowledge whatever. I have not the slightest information of who Esther Champagne is. The question of the title would be in the Justice Department, and my department would have nothing to do with it. Now, it does not seem to me that _in the citation from these letters my hon. friend has shown

that I have been inconsistent in my statement. The hon. gentleman has called attention to the fact that Mr. Mollard having been asked in February, 1908, to make a report, and not having made it on the 30th of March, the deputy minister instructed the chief architect to see why the report had not come in. That is an entirely different thing from the preparation of plans which rests with the chief architect. I think it was a very proper course for the deputy minister to take in the discharge of his duties. As to Mr. Mollard conferring with Mr. Champagne I think tliat is entirely proper. Mr. Champagne was a prominent resident of Battleford, and was at that time a member of the legislative assembly, not of this parliament. He had urged most strongly the erection of this public building, and I think it entirely right that Mr. Mollard should go there and confer with Mr. Champagne. But, it was Mr. Mollard's duty in pursuance of the general instructions given to him and to others, to examine other properties as well, to make inquiry as to the values and to report so that the department could judge whether the price put upon the property recommended was a fair price. I do not know what report Mr. Mollard sent in, but I take it he reported on the value of the property. Yes, I see his report here: He gives the size of the lot, where it is situated, the name of the owners, the price $3,000, a sketch of the property, a short description of surrounding property; he certifies that in his opinion the price is a reasonable one, he gives the assessment which was $2,100 in 1906, two years before, and I presume property values advanced in the meantime.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Why did he not give the assessment in the year the sale was made instead of two years before?


William Pugsley: I do not know. He gives the price paid at a previous sale of this property, the price paid for neighbouring properties, and he says he doesn't think a better site could be found for a public building, and that the present post office stood on this very lot. So that the lot he recommended was the very lot on which the rented building then occupied as a post office stood. I think there was nothing else of importance that my hon. friend "spoke of except the fact of the deputy minister urging that a report should be got from Mr. Mollard as to the site of the building, and there is nothing to interfere with the chief architect preparing the plans of the different buildings according to his own judgment from day to day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite agree with the hon. minister. It is entirely commendable in the deputy minister to hurry the chief architect to get a report from the agent of Mr. PUGSLEY.
the department. I have no fault to find with that. I simply made reference to this matter for the purpose of contrasting the actions of the agents of the department in a case in which they were starting a post office a few months prior to a general election in a constituency which was represented by an hon. gentleman sitting to the right of the Speaker with the case of my own constituency which for the moment happens to be represented by a member sitting on this side of the House. I do not propose to deal with that any further. But the other thing that struck me was that the name of Champagne is an unusual name, and it is rather singular that the man to whom the agent of the depart ment was referred to select the site was a Mr. Champagne, and that the title should come from Esther Champagne and one other. Has the minister any idea of whether Esther Champagne is related to Mr. Champagne?


William Pugsley: I will make inquiry, and give my hon. friend the information later on.


William Henry Sharpe: I understand that the hon. minister, when he was in the west last summer, promised to put in a fish ladder in connection with the St. Andrew's locks. I would like to know whether he has fully decided to go on with that work next summer, and if so, why there is not an item in the estimates for it?


William Pugsley: I have given a good deal of attention to the matter of a fishway in the dam at St. Andrew's rapids, and personally I am in favour of it being put in. We were requested to put that^ fishway in, not only by residents of Manitoba, but also on behalf of residents of the neighbouring state of Minnesota by the American consul at Winnipeg. In conference with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries 1 learned that upon the American side of the boundary, in the Pembina river, which is a branch of the Red river, there is a dam which was erected by American citizens, and which prevents the fish going up the river and coming around again into the province of Manitoba. We are trying to induce the state of North Dakota to put a fish-way in the Pembina river, and we hope it will be done concurrently with our putting one in the Red river at St. Andrew's rapids, so that fish might ascend both the Pembina and Red rivers.


William Henry Sharpe: I am very much pleased to hear what the minister says. I may say that this dam in the Pembina river is at Walhalla, and for 30 years we have not been able to get fish in that river because the Americans who own the dam have absolutely refused to put in a fish ladder. I hope the minister will give his

word that he will not put in a fish ladder at St. Andrew's rapids until the other is put in.


William Pugsley: Would all our friends in Manitoba be satisfied with that?


George Henry Bradbury: They would not?


William Pugsley: If our friends in Manitoba would be satisfied with that, and we could use the dam at St. Andrew's rapids as a leverage to induce our American friends to put in a fish-way on the Pembina river, I would be pleased so to use it. However, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has the matter under his consideration, and has been for some time in communication, through his officials with the authorities of the state of North Dakota.


George Henry Bradbury: I had this matter before the department on three or four occasions, and I understood that last session the fish-way in the St. Andrew's dam was provided for. I referred to it again in the early part of this session, and had the assurance of the Minister of Public Works and afterwards the assurance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the work would be done. I concur in the idea that it would be good policy to use the St. Andrew's dam as a leverage to induce the Americans to put a fish-way in the Pembina river as well. At the same time, I hope it will not be long before we have a fish-way at St. Andrew's dam. There is no doubt that both of these dams should have fishways.


William Pugsley: This matter shows the benefit that' is likely to result from the treaty that has recently been agreed to. I am inclined to think, as at present advised, that this is a matter that could be referred to the International Joint Commission, because both of these rivers cross the boundary between the United States and Canada, and that they could take action by way of advice or otherwise which would be of great benefit.


George Henry Bradbury: As far as I am personally concerned, I feel like leaving the matter in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who has given me. his word that it will be attended to.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has that commission authority over the state of Minnesota?


William Pugsley: Well, if they have any authority at all, it is within the scope of the treaty, and a treaty is the paramount law. It over-rides all state law, provincial law or Canadian law. Under the American constitution treaties become the supreme law of the United States.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What power have they to enforce their decisions?


William Pugsley: The government of the United States is a very strong one.


Hon. Mr. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I might say a word with regard to the fishways on the Pembina river and the Red river. The question of the Pembina river has been before the department for some time, and we have, in different circumstances, taken some steps to induce the state authorities to remove that dam on the Pembina river. Unfortunately, we have not so far been very successful. However, the commission which was appointed some time ago to investigate the fisheries in Manitoba were instructed by the department to visit that dam and see what steps could be taken to remove it. We are expecting their report very shortly, and shall be prepared to act on their recommendations. In the meantime. it would be, perhaps, advisable that nothing should be done with regard to the dam on the Red river. I do not think that much time will be lost, or that any one will suffer by the delay, and I hope, with the good relations which seem to exist now between the two countries, that better arrangements will be brought about with regard to the fisheries. This Pembina river is not one of those included in the boundaries waters treaty, but it is one which I intend bringing to the attention of the commissioners when the fisheries treaty is accepted by the American authorities. Both governments have the right to extend the provisions of that treaty to some waters which are not included in it. I am now referring to the fish treaty. I hope that the commissioners will agree with me that this river is one of those which should be included in that treaty, and, perhaps, that will be one of the ways in which the matter would be more easily settled; if, in the meantime, we do not succeed in getting it settled in some other way.


George Henry Bradbury: While discussing these two fishways, I might remind the minister of another fishway of which I spoke last year, that on the Whitemouth river, entering the Winnipeg river, and which I think he promised to refer to the commission. The Winnipeg river enters just below the Lac du Bonnet, which abounds in fish, and the Whitemouth river extends a distance of some 75 to 80 miles north and south, and there are numbers of settlers all along its shores, and the fish cannot get up. It will cost very little to put a fishway there.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am under the impression that this is one of the questions referred to the commission. The report of that commission has not yet been handed to me, but I expect to have it soon, and shall not fail to bear in mind the remarks of my hon. friend.


William Henry Sharpe: I am very much pleased with the stand taken by the government in connection with this matter. The people along the Red river have had fish there a great many years, and we allowed the fish to go right down to the United States. The Americans have had all kinds of fish from Canada, and I think it was a very mean piece of business on the part of the United States people to build this dam on the Pembina river and absolutely refuse to put in a fish ladder. I think this government is perfectly justified in standing pat in connection with the fishway on St. Andrew's locks, because in the early days, when the first settlers went into southern Manitoba, they could get all the fish they wanted, but as soon as the dam was put there the fish ceased coming up. I think we would be justified in using that to bring these people to time. They are in the same box as we on account of there being no fish ladder in St. Andrew's lock, so that fish cannot get through to North Dakota. I think that the government are taking a justifiable course.


George Henry Bradbury: While speaking on the subject of the locks east of the dam at St. Andrew's locks, as I may not be here when the harbours and rivers are up, I wish to refer to a matter in that connection. The hon. minister will recollect that last year, in the early part of the session, I drew his attention to the necessity of building approaches to the bridge at that dam. In the early part of this session I asked him whether he had provided a sum in the estimates this year for that purpose. Here is the question I asked:


THE ST. ANDREW'S DAM.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bradbury. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works whether it is his intention to place a sum in the estimates this year for the completion of the bridge at St. Andrew's dam. I understood the hon. gentleman to state distinctly last year that the work was to be proceeded with immediately; but since then nothing has been done, the approaches have not been built, and the bridge is standing there useless, so far as the public on either side of the river are concerned. It is a very important matter to that part of the province of Manitoba.
To this the minister replied:
I would say to my hon. friend that the work at St. Andrew's rapids was not undertaken for the purpose of affording a bridge across the river, but for the purpose of improving the navigation by the building of a lock and a dam so as to increase the depth of the water between that point and the city of Winnipeg; but it was found, as incidental to the construction of the dam and lock, that provision might be made for the erection of a highway bridge, which would add somewhat to the cost, although the cost would not be nearly so great as it would be if the bridge were undertaken by itself. The work has cost a good deal of money, and up to the present moment the government has not Mr. BRODETJR.
seen its way clear to ask parliament for a vote for the purpose of providing the approaches to what would be the highway bridge. I may say to my hon. friend that there has been no decision arrived at against doing this work. All I can say is that up to the present it has not been decided to ask parliament for an appropriation during the present session.
George Henry Bradbury: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how he reconciles that statement with the statement which he made most distinctly on the floor of this House last year, that a sum was going to be placed in the estimates for the building of these approaches.


William Pugsley: I do not recall exactly what was said, but I am iucliued to think that any statement which I made was simply an expression of my own opinion; but, of course, in addition to any opinion I might have as to the desirability of going ahead with the work, would be the question of providing the money, a matter which "would rest with my colleagues, and more especially the Minister of Finance.
Now I wish to point out what occurred last session. The minister g^ave me, as I understood, a distinct promise across the floor of this House, that this work should be undertaken. This is a very important-work. About $1,500,000 if I understand correctly, has been spent there already. The bridge stands there to-day about twenty-five or thirty feet up in the air and fully 200 feet away from the highway;- there it stands, a monument to the foolish policy of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend tell me how it could have been used as a service bridge for the purposes indicated, except it had been just at the height it is ?


George Henry Bradbury: When the plans were prepared, no provision was made for a highway bridge. There was provision made for the construction that has taken place of a service bridge for the purpose of moving the curtains. But to provide the highway bridge I am informed by the minister's own engineers would entail -an extra cost of about $200,000 to strengthen the steel work in connection with that bridge._ But whether it did so or not, the question is not whether the work -could have been-constructed without this bridge or not, but the bridge is there, and the minister promised me that the approaches would be completed, so that the settlers on each side could use it for the purpose for which it was constructed. Now, I wish to refer to what I stated. When the minister was going into Supply last year, I rose to draw attention to this matter, -but as soon as he saw me he understood what I was going to say. I began;
With reference to the bridge over the St. Andrews dam

I got no further, because the minister at once said:

We are going to build that bridge.
I understood what he meant, and he what I meant, and I did not pursue the matter further.


George Henry Bradbury: That is just what I want to know.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: Then I will not discuss it. I am very glad that the minister has seen the necessity of doing that work.
But my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), did not catch the drift of the conversation .between us, and did not understand the position as well as the minister and I did. He interjected a question :


William D. Staples: Does the minister mean that he is going to build the approaches?


William Pugsley: The approaches to the bridge.


William D. Staples: The intention is to build the approaches ?


William Pugsley: The intention is to complete this work by building the approaches. The bridge is designed as a service bridge in connection with the dam and also for a highway bridge.
Later, when an item was under discussion in my absence from the House-as will be seen on reference to page 6103 ol ' Hansard ' of last year, an item of $55,000 for improvements at St. Andrew's rapids, this matter came up again. The following discussion took place:


William Pugsley: The government has been engaged for some time in building a lock and dam at St. Andrew's rapids for the purpose of affording navigation from Lake Winnipeg to the city of Winnipeg. The work is now practically completed, and we expect that in a few days it will be open for navigation.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Does the hon. minister purpose completing the roadway across this superstructure, which I understand is intended to be used as a municipal road? Does he propose making connections with the banks on either side?


William Pugsley: What my hon. friend, I suppose, means is, shall we build the approaches so as to enable the people to avail themselves of the bridge, which was built primarily as a service bridge for the lock and dam, as a highway bridge. I may say that we intend to do so.
My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), in requesting the minister to hold that item over, as the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) and I were not present, said:
Perhaps we are not -warranted in asking the minister to withhold the item, but the members for the two constituencies directly interested are not here. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) has not yet returned from his Easter holidays, but I understand he will be here on Saturday. My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) from Selkirk is in the city, but I have been unable to get in touch with
him to have him here while this vote is under consideration. I would like if the minister would permit either of these gentlemen at a later stage to speak on the matter.


William Pugsley: X would be very glad to. Both of these hon. gentlemen have already spoken on the question, and 1 am sure that they would regret that there should he any delay in the passing of the item. The hon. member for Selkirk, a short time ago, spoke in very strong terms of the importance of finishing up these approaches and of the very great importance of the work.
Now, if language means anything, surely I am justified in saying that I had a distinct promise from the Minister of Public Works for the completion of this work. He not only tells me across the floor that he intends to complete the work, hut when an item was under discusion two weeks after, for that particular work, he left on the minds of hon. members an impression that if that item went through, it was to provide for the very work that he had promised.
Now, it will be almost an outrage if this matter is allowed to go over this summei without this work being completed. A magnificent bridge has been constructed there, and all that is needed in order to complete it, is the two approaches, one on either side of the river. The absence of these approaches means that about 2,006 people are denied the means of using that bridge, which has been built by the people of this country and which stands there, as I have said, a monument to the foolishness of the policy enunciated by the minister. If he maintains the position that he took in the early part of the session and practically says that the government have not decided what they are going to do in this matter, after giving me a distinct promise across the floor of the House, what reliance are we to place upon the promises of ministers ? I have never doubted, and I hope the minister will not give me rea. son to doubt, that a distinct pledge coming from a minister of the Crown would be openly violated. I do not believe he intends to do so. I do not believe that he recollected that he had made this promise across the floor. I ask him now to redeem that promise, in the interest of the people along that river, and in the interest of the people of this country, who have to furnish this large amount of money already spent. I ask him to go on and construct this work. There must have been some change of policy, because when I was at the locks myself after the session, the engineers led me to believe that tenders had been called for a cantilever bridge to span the lock. So there must have been a change of policy. Whatever it is, I hope the minister will see his way clear to provide the money in the estimates this session, and proceed with that work.


William Pugsley: When I had the pleasure of visiting St. Andrews locks a. year ago last summer, I was impressed with the desirability of building the approaches, although I must say that the question as to whether the government should build them or leave the work to the provincial authorities was not entirely free from doubt. It is not so easy as my hon. friend might think to get my colleagues to agree, after building a lock and a dam, and providing that portion of the bridge across a navigable water, to go to the further expenditure of building the approaches to the bridge, which I mav say many provincial and municipal authorities would be extremely glad to construct at their own expense in order to give the needed accommodation to the public. However, after a good deal of hesitation, I decided to recommend to my colleagues to strain a point and to build the approaches for the accommodation of these people living in the municipalities on each side of the river, without calling upon them to bear any portion of the burden. Perhaps I was a little over sanguine as to the time when my colleagues would authorize me to undertake the work. They have not so far given me the requisite monev to enable me to do this work. I may say that my hon. friend himself and some of his associates are not altogether blameless for certain difficulties which have been thrown in my way. I call to mind that at the session before last the hon. member for North Toronto, a leading member of this House, speaking in the presence of the hon. member for Selkirk, charged that that whole work was simply a shameless waste of public money. He used this language:
The Prime Minister is head trustee for the people of Canada. Will he now justify his conduct as head trustee for the people of Canada in sinking

*
Sinking ' is the word the hon. member for North Toronto used.
. sinking a million and a quarter of money 4n(h'ew's locks? Of that amount, WOO,000 is for a highway bridge, for which no vote was ever taken, and that bridge lies there in its naked steel splendour, thirty-five nr forty feet up in the air from the road on either side. X want to ask the Prime Minister, as head trustee for the people of Canada, to tell me to-night if lie can get anv three businessmen in the city of Winnipeg to Put within his hand any justification, m the traffic that exists at present or in the business which may be expected in the near future, for the expenditure of a million and a quarter of money on that work. It is one of the finest pieces of concrete masonry and steel that I ever saw; but where is the business to come from? It is an absolute waste of public money at the present time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when a prominent member of this House, occupying the leading position in the opposition of the hon. Mr. BRADBURY
member for North Toronto, makes the statement that this whole work is simply a waste of public money, and when those hon. gentlemen representing the community especially interested, sit silent and allow that statement to go through this country, it makes the position of the Minister of Public Works much more difficult than it would be if the gentlemen interested Jiad risen in their places and protested against a statement of that kind. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not withdraw one moment from the expression of opinion that I gave that it is desirable for the accommodation of these people, who are poor and unable apparently to build these approaches, that this government should build them. But I have not stated when it should be done. I intend to urge upon my colleagues to grant authority to build these approaches; whether I can get that authority this session, I am not prepared to say. But I shall continue to ask for that authority and I think that is as far as my hon. friend can ask me to go.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. minister has endeavoured, by using the words of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), to let himself down from a very nasty position. There is no question that the member for North Toronto did make the speech the minister refers to, and that speech was referred to bv myself in the House later. I had talked the matter over with the member for North Toronto. What he meant, I think, is this, that there was no justification for the large expenditure that had been made at St. Andrews dam. He did not mean that a dam was not required, lie did not mean that a lock was not required. The position taken by the member for North Toronto and by myself was that this work could have been done for about one-half the money the present government is _ spending upon it. But aside from all this, is the fact that the minister, knowing the conditions, having visited the work himself, knowing that it stands there twenty to thirty feet in the air from either side of the roadway, knowing that there has already been spent in constructing that bridge nearly $200,000, still allows the work to stand out in the middle of the stream quite useless to the people on either side of the river. Now the minister states that he is only one member of the cabinet, and that he cannot obtain this money that he is desirous of obtaining. How does he reconcile this with the fact that when asking a vote of $55,000 in connection with this work he left the inference plainly to be drawn from his language that that'$55,000 included a sum to start that work. He stated distinctly when the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) asked him to allow the vote to stand over until I or the member for Winnipeg returned to the House:

I would, be very glad to. Both of these hon. gentlemen have already spoken on the question, and I am sure that they would regret that there should be any delay in the passing of the item. The member for Selkirk a short time ago- spoke in very strong terms of the importance of finishing up these approaches and of the very great importance of the work.
What other inference could be drawn from that language than that the minister was providing for that work in the estimate before the House? That was my understanding of the question when I was informed of what had taken place. I presumed the work would cost more than $55,000. When a minister asks for public moneys to carry on public works and makes promises, and then his colleagues practically turn him down and refuse to carry out the pledge given by him, that minister is placed in a very awkward position and one which I am sure the Minister of Public Works would not tolerate. The minister, on this occasion, pledged his word. I do not think his colleagues would compel him to violate his word given across the floor of the House, and I hope he will see his way clear to go on with the work.


William Pugsley: I regret very much, indeed, that my hon. friend should have sought to misrepresent the representations which I made to this House in 1910, when the item of $55,000 was being obtained. He says I gave the committee to understand that the vote I was then asking would enable me to go on with the building of the approaches of the bridge. I would ask him to look at page 6103 of the ' Hansard ' of 1910, where he will find:


William Pugsley: There is a difference, a very great difference. In this case the character of the river at that point is being changed. The ordinary mode of crossing by boat is necessarily being considerably affected, and I felt that the government, having been obliged to spend a considerable amount of money in building a service bridge for the operation of the lock and lifting curtains, it would not he unreasonable to go a little further and, .instead of compelling the 'municipality to build the approaches, do that work ourselves.


David Henderson: I do not wish the minister to think for a moment that I am objecting. I think it is a very good idea to provide this service bridge for the people, because the municipalities contiguous to this portion of the river would certainly he put to a very large expense to erect a bridge. But I am rather amused at the reason the hon. minister has given, that the erection of this dam is going to interfere with the crossing of the river by a ferry. However. I do not wish to make any objection. I think the idea is a very good one.


Mr. BLAIN.: What will he the increased cost to make the provision for the municipality 1


William Pugsley: $63,000 is the estimate.
Mr. ME1GHEN. I understand the minister to say that the present vote of $55,000 will
complete the opening of the river for all the purposes of navigation, but will not complete the bridge?


William Pugsley: This will complete the payments under the existing contracts, hut will not complete the approaches to the bridge or the sodding.
So the amount I was then asking the committee for was the amopnt required to complete the payments bn the bridge. I said as plainly as any words could say it that if we were to go on with the approaches and to complete the sodding we would have to get a further vote.


George Henry Bradbury: Will the minister read the other portion, which is marked, and say what inference he would draw from it?


William Pugsley: I shall read all the passages that are marked:


William Pugsley: The government has been engaged for some time in building a lock and dam at St. Andrew's rapids for the purpose of affording navigation from Lake Winnipeg to the city of Winnipeg. The work is now practically completed, and we expect that in a few days it will be open for navigation.


David Henderson: Does the hon. minister purpose completing the roadway across this superstructure, which I understand is intended to be used as a municipal road? Does he propose making connections with the banks on either side?


William Pugsley: What my hon. friend, I suppose, means is, shall we build the approaches so as to enable tbe people to avail themselves of the bridge which was built primarily as a service bridge for the lock and dam, as a highway bridge. I may say that we intend to do so.
I was not asking for a vote then for that purpose. I did not say that we were going to do it now. It was intimated as clearly as words could intimate that the vote for which we were then asking would not enable us to do it, and clearly the hon. gentleman who heard me must have understood that we would have to come back again to parliament for a vote which would enable us to build the approaches and to do the sodding if we so decided. Afterwards, if I remember rightly, we did come for authority to do the sodding.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to emphasize what I said. The minister read a portion of the ' Hansard,' which I admit I did not notice, but it would not have made any difference in the construction I placed on the portion of his remarks which I read. I was not in the House and my attention was drawn to it, and I submit that no other inference could be drawn by any fair-minded man. than the inference I drew. After the , hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr Meighen) had asked to have the matter stand, the minister said:


William Pugsley: I would he very glad to. Both of these hon. gentlemen have already

spoken on the question, and I am sure that they would regret that there should be any delay in the passing of the item. The member for Selkirk a short time ago spoke in very strong terms of the importance of finishing up these approaches and of the very great importance of the work.
I would like to know if it is not fair for me to infer that the minister meant us to understand, and I am sure the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the other members must have felt that the minister was providing some part of the money necessary to complete the approaches to that great work. The Dominion of Canada has expended large amounts there. I understand it has already cost $1,500,000.


William Pugsley: That was for purposes *of navigation.


George Henry Bradbury: The bridge is there, [DOT]concreted, all ready for use; all it wants is the two approaches, which I understand will cost $60,000 or $70,000. Is it possible that the minister is going to allow that magnificent structure to stand there without those approaches, which will enable this work to be used, and allow it to rust year after year?


William Pugsley: Allow me to correct any error into which mv hon. friend has inadvertently fallen. He said the highway bridge cost $200,000 ; but my information from the engineering branch of the department is that such is not the case. We have [DOT]constructed a service bridge for the purpose [DOT]of operating the curtains.and that service bridge cost $200,000, but the extra cost of preparing it as a highway bridge only represents $50,000.


George Henry Bradbury: I will not argue that point, but as I have already stated I myself investigated the matter when the work was under construction, and one of the .resident engineers informed me that the providing of the highway bridge involved an extra cost of something like $200,000, and he figured it that while the service bridge was an absolute necessity for raising the *curtains, the steel work in connection with it had to be made so much stronger for a highway bridge that it occasioned the extra cost. However, that is aside from the question ; the bridge is there. Is the minister going to allow it to stand there idle? I appeal to him now to complete that work. It is of absolute necessity to the welfare [DOT]of that district. The country has spent one [DOT]and a half million dollars constructing the work and surely the people should not be -denied the advantages which would accrue by the completion of this bridge at an [DOT]extra expenditure of $50,000 or $60,000. As it stands at present it is a disgrace to this government. Does the minister intend to provide a sum in the estimates to implement the pledge in regard to this matter Mr. PUGSLEY.
which he gave across the floor of the House last year?


William Pugsley: The estimates must speak for themselves when they are brought down. I regret I am not able to give the information ; I have no authority to say what council will do.


Glenlyon Campbell: It seems to me that the term ' service bridge ' is a bit of a joke when applied to a bridge that is of no service to anybody. I notice that in these estimates there is $174,000 all told allocated to poor little Manitoba, and I feel that it is necessary for some one from that province to draw the attention of the government to the fact that Manitoba is not getting its just due in the matter of public expenditure. For instance, in. Nova Scotia these estimates provide for an expenditure of $938,230, and in New Brunswick for an expenditure of $1,323,950, while at. the present moment Manitoba has a greater population than either of the other two. But, New Brunswick represented by the Minister of Public Works gets $1,323,950 expended within its boundaries while poor little Manitoba is only to get $174,000. It is the most scandalous thing which has ever been shown up in this House. -What is the reason of it. Is it bribery, is it corruption, or is it reward? It is a most scandalous piece of what I call parliamentary corruption, and jobbery. I want to know from the Minister of Public Works why Manitoba is treated in that way. Is it because Manitoba sent eight Conservative members here, and only two to support the government? Let me tell the minister if he does'nt know it-and he never knows anything that is pertinent to the question before the House unless it suits him-let me tell him that in 1901 the population of Manitoba was about 500,000, the population of Nova 'Scotia 459,000, and the population of New Brunswick 331,120. I hope it is not my remarks that make the minister yawn. I want some accounting from the minister for this. Is Manitoba being punished, is New Brunswick being rewarded? I want a fair, square answer if it is possible to get it from the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is so unconscious of the meaning of some observations that he makes, that I will not take offence.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not think you could.


William Pugsley: If these remarks were made by some hon. gentlemen I would take offence, but we have to give to the hon. and picturesque member from one of the Manitoba constituencies a good deal of latitude.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not want any privilege in this House except the privi-

lege of any honourable, decent member. I have made a proposition to the minister, and I ask him to answer it, as one man to another man on honourable grounds.


William Pugsley: The committee tolerates a good deal from the bon. gentleman, and I will not depart from what has been the custom of the committee and this House in regard to him. Therefore, I will endeavour to make a courteous answer. He asks in regard to the expenses in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick compared with those in Manitoba. As far as New Brunswick is concerned, there are no expenses being made which are not in my judgment absolutely necessary in the public interest. We are making provision at the port of St. John for accommodating the national traffic which is coming to that port. The city of St. John began some 14 years ago to make improvements. The people taxed themselves to the extent of a million and -a quarter dollars, to provide terminal facilities. The business has increased enormously, and last year the exports at that port reached $25,000,000. Then, it has been necessary to build wharfs at various places throughout the province for the accommodation of shipping. Public buildings we are only putting up where they are necessary. So far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, while the appropriations for this year are not large, we completed only recently, at a cost of a million and a quarter dollars, a work at St. Andrew's rapids which I believe, is going to be of paramount importance to the city of Winnipeg and to the province of Manitoba generally. We have erected in the city of Winnipeg a magnificent post office building, a magnificent customs warehouse and an immigration building. We have erected a public building at Brandon, and we are proceeding to erect one at Portage la Prairie. We are also putting up public buildings at Souris. We have erected public buildings at Emerson, Dauphin and other places. There are no great harbours to dredge in Manitoba, but we are doing dredging on Lake Winnipeg, on Lake Manitoba and in the Red river. Then we have in prospect the building in the near future of the Hudson Bay railway, which, if the boundaries of the province of Manitoba are extended, as we expect they will be to Hudson Bay, will be built wholly in the province of Manitoba. There will be an expenditure on that railway reaching upwards of $20,000,000, made wholly in the province of Manitoba, and when the railway reaches either Fort Churchill or Fort Nelson, I expect that we shall be called upon to expend, not hundreds of thousands, but probably millions of dollars in the improvement of the harbour, giving facilities for, I hope, an enormous traffic that will flow from Manitoba and
the other western provinces, by way of this short line, to the markets of the old world. We have made surveys of the Saskatchewan river, and if we carry out the works which those surveys seem to warrant, we shall have to build dams at various points along the route in order to bring Winnipeg into water communication with Prince Albert -and Edmonton and right on to the foothfils of the Rocky Mountains. I trust that the hon. gentleman will not be sectional in this matter, for we hope to make improvements in that province even beyond his most sanguine anticipations.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not know that I can take much exception to the opening words of the minister, in which he referred to me as a picturesque member. I think I would rather be called a picturesque member than an unctuous member. Beyond those few personal words, I do not see the bearing of what he has said. He refers to what he expects to do on the Saskatchewan river. What has that to do with Manitoba ? He refers to the expenditure he proposes to make in Portage la Prairie that does not help us, because the expenditure has not been made. He refers to the possibilities of Fort Churchill. What has that to do with Manitoba as at present constituted ? Perhaps the minister will tell us that the efforts of the provincial ministers who have come down here have resulted favourably, and that Fort Churchill is going to be in Manitoba. If that is the case, I will welcome any^ expenditures that he makes in that direction. I only opened this subject because as a Manitoban I object to__my province being so neglected by the minister as the blue-books show.


William Pugsley: What works does the hon. gentleman ask for ?


Glenlyon Campbell: I ask for a fair per capita expenditure of public money. We find that the government of Canada is spending 34 cents per head in Manitoba, while it is spending $2 per head in Nova Scotia and $4 per head in the province of the Minister of Public Works. Where is the justice of that ? All I ask is justice and fair play all around.


Mr. ROCHE.: Before this item passes, and in view of the remarks which the Minister of Public Works dropped a moment ago, I am sure he will pardon me if I say a few words on behalf of the constituency I represent, more particularly as he certainly cannot accuse me of imposing my views on him too frequently or of urging him to undertake unnecessary public expenditure within the borders of my constituency. Since he has seen fit to refer to some works he has had built within the borders of the province of Manitoba, let me refer him to


William Pugsley: I think that Manitoba is pretty fairly served in public buildings, judging by the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche).


William Roche: What does the minister think about Marquette? Has that been fairly served?


William Pugsley: That is only one, and, of course, the hon. gentleman's own friends would oppose any expenditure there, because they condemn expenditures in towns of 1,700 of population.


William Roche: But there are towns under 1,700 to which the hon. minister has given public buildings.	.


William Pugsley: But hon. gentlemen opposite have protested most indignantly against this.


William Roche: Some of the items went through with very little criticism, indeed, and for towns with less population. Therefore, I think that Minnedosa, which is a railway centre, and is developing a large water-power, and which is becoming a summer resort, and is likewise a judicial centre, or shire town, in which the provincial government _ have erected a $40,000 court house and jail, certainly deserves the attention of the minister far more than some of those other insignificant places which he has favoured. I would urge the Minister of Public Works to carefully eon-siaer_ my representations and see that justice is done the town of Minnedosa in the future, and not pass it over in favour of towns much less important, more especially in view of the record his government has had in connection with the constituency of Marquette since I have had the honour of representing it.


William Pugsley: I think the request of my hon. friend very reasonable, and if I had the money available it would give me great pleasure to accede to it. more particularly as the hon. gentleman is very reasonable at all times in the representations he makes to the House. I think he has made out a strong case. He has pointed out that Minnedosa is a shire town, that, it is a thriving place, and that there is no public building in the constituency. So that certainly I shall take his remarks carefully into consideration with a view of seeing whether or not it is possible to meet his request.


Mr MEIGHEN.: My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) must feel his hopes raised to the very zenith by these remarks of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: The member for Marquette seems to be quite able to take care of himself.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry that the minister fails to understand what I am saying. When the hon. minister tells my hon. friend that he will take this into his consideration, it may, in the course of a year, get into his estimates. Then when the hon. member is returned again, if the minister follows his record in other constituencies, in about four years more he may possibly start the building. So it is the duty of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) to communicate the good news to his constituents that within five years there is a possibility of a start being made on a post office at Minnedosa. What I complain of is, not only -what has been pointed out by the hon. member for Dauphin, that there are in the estimates only 34 cents per man in Manitoba, while there are $2 for Nova Scotia, and $4 for New Brunswick ; but also that the items in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia estimates, so far as they cover constituencies represented by friends of the .government, are live estimates, and are being actually spent; while the Manitoba estimates are dead estimates, waiting for the elections. For every dollar that is spent per man in the province of Manitoba there are $6 spent in Nova Scotia and $12 spent in New Brunswick.- If we leave out the class of expenditures the minister refers to, namely, those that in some sense serve the whole of Canada and are chargeable to capital, the fact still remains that for $1 spent in Manitoba there are $8 spent in Nova Scotia and $8 in New Brunswick. Leaving out that class, it would not be unfair for us to ask the minister to observe some due proportion between these three provinces. The minister knows enough about the duty of a member to his constituency to know that he cannot expect members on this side of the House to sit quietly in their seats while he performs a gross injustice to the nrovince he represents. In the constituency of Portage la Prairie the hon. gentleman did, during the time it was represented by a friend of me government, build a post office at Neepawa. The post office was erected in a location to suit the party rather than to suit the town. Now the other estimate that was put in for Portage la Prairie was also a pre-election estimate. The minister placed the item in the estimates in 1907-8, he dropped it immediately the elections were over. Subsequently he was prevailed upon to reinstate it, on the general principle which he then laid down that all the estimates of 1907-8 had a prior claim on the attention of his department. The site was purchased, and it still stands I believe in the name of the government; but there the whole matter rests. I have communicated with the minister, petitions have been urging the matter, but somehow they land in the vermiform appendix of the government and never seem

to get through. I do not need to call the attention of the minister to the necessities there. The minister has acknowledged them years ago, they have grown in importance since the number of regiments has been increased by one, making two now. The building that they are trying to use at present would be discreditable to a Chinaman. One is in grave danger of breaking his leg if he tries to enter it. It is an eyesore on the street, it would not be looked upon with credit in the most dilapidated and forsaken spot in the universe. Now there is a considerable interest being taken in military matters in that city, it has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, one of the chief promoters, and one of those most thoroughly imbued with the military spirit, is the representative in the local House on the opposition side for that constituency. I am sure that gentleman will use his influence with the minister, and I will assist him all I cantourgetheminister to forward that work. I have brought to bear upon the minister every influence of a legitimate character that I could think of to urge forward this building. It is at present in an embryo state, the working plans I believe are under way. But I want to ask the minister if he can suggest anything further I can do as a representative of that constituency to hurry on the completion. of this work.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman a typesetter?


Arthur Meighen: No, I am not.


William Pugsley: Then the hon. gentleman cannot help the matter at all, because the specifications are now being printed. They will be ready in about a fortnight, when tenders will be called for by public advertisement.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want to put in another word for Manitoba. Manitoba wants a great deal. Now, when so much money is being voted, only $170,000 for Manitoba and over $1,300,000 for the province the Minister of Public Works comes from, with onlv two-thirds of the population of Manitoba, surely Manitoba is not being treated justly. We are asking for all kinds of things of Manitoba not in a partisan way, but for the benefit of the province; we are asking for $2,500,000 for an exposition in Winnipeg. This is not a political matter, it is a nlan for the benefit of the province, for the benefit of all Canada, as we believe. Can we not get some assurance from the minister that he will further our desires in that regard?


William Pugsley: The matter of aid to the exhibition is under consideration. My hon. friend would not expect me to inform him in advance as to whether the decision of the government will be favourable or other-Mr. MEIGHEN.
wise. I regret I am. not able to give him any information on the subject.
Winnipeg 'military buildings, hospital,. $13,000.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart, Winnipeg) want that to stand?


Alexander Haggart: No. I think this would be a proper time to bring up the question as to the Winnipeg armoury. No doubt it has been brought to Hie attention of the minister many times and strongly urged upon him. We have, I think, during the past year, two new regiments, and they have not facilities for even storing their regimental equipment. I had fully expected tc see an item in the estimates in connection "with this. While answering that Question, the minister might also make a statement that, I Jim sure, will be received with interest by the people of Winnipeg. He is aware of the situation of the parliament buildings there. They are old, out-of-date, unsanitary. They occupy a part of one block, the other part of which is occupied by the barracks and drill shed. I believe it has been the desire of the local government to -acquire the portion occupied by the Dominion government with the barracks and drill shed m order to have an area upon which to put up proper parliamentary buildings for the province. We would then have what could be made a modest but very nice little park, bounded by Broad-way, Osborne and Kennedy streets, and, upon the south, by the Assinboine river. I would like to know from the minister if there is an intention on the part of the government to act in that way?


William Pugsley: With regard to the drill-shed, I think I am right in saying that the proposed exchange of properties would not-affect the site of the drill shed-I take it that it could be built on the same property. The question of building a new drill shed has not been recently brought to my attention. I am not aware whether complaints have been made as to the accommodation afforded by the drill shed. I will have it. looked into, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart, Winnipeg) will mention it when the Minister of Militia is here-for there-are items for military buildings that have been left over-I can assure my hon. friend that he will not be held down to technical rules, but, if Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee are willing, he will be. afforded facilities for getting the information he desires. As to the proposed exchange, I understood that the communications between the provincial government and this government took place, so far as our side is concerned, with the Militia Department. They have not been brought to-

my notice, and I have no further information than what I have seen in the newspapers. It is not unlikely that the Minister of Militia will bring this matter to 'my attention shortly. I will ask my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart, Winnipeg) to be good enough, when some of these buildings are under consideration, to mention this matter as well. I have no doubt the Minister of Militia will give as full information as he is able to do with regard to the negotiations.	'


Alexander Haggart: With regard to the item under discussion, I suppose we are to understand that this hospital, wherever it is to be built, will not be built on the present military property in the city of Winnipeg?


William Pugsley: It will not be built in such a way as to interfere at all with the negotiations. That will be very important, of course.


William Henry Sharpe: A very important matter has been brought to the attention of the minister with regard to the way Manitoba is treated by this government. Looking through the estimates, we find item 141, which shows that Manitoba is getting the paltry sum of $73,000 for public buildings for the whole province. A few years ago, when we had quite a number of gentlemen from that province occupying seats on the other side of the House, we saw that Manitoba was a good deal better treated than it is to-day. If we look at the next item, No. 142, we find that Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories receive $584,000. These items should, to a certain extent, take into consideration the amount of revenue collected in the several provinces. If you look at the figures you find that Manitoba pays into the Dominion treasury between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000 a year, which is a good deal more than double what is paid in by both these provinces put together. And when you analyse the amount that is being spent in these two provinces you see that almost every man occupying a seat on the other side of the House is being taken care of in splendid shape. I do not think it is right that we should be treated in that way. In my own constituency we have several towns a good deal better than the town of Humboldt, for instance, yet we see that Humboldt gets a new building worth about $25,000 or $30,000. They are renting a building there at the present time for $280 a year that fulfils the conditions necessary for that town, or, at least, has fulfilled them in the past. Under this expenditure in Humboldt we shall be paying-taking the money at six per cent-instead of $280 a year, about $1,500 a year. We have not a single public building in my whole constituency, and we have several towns there a good deal more entitled to it, I think- and I believe the minister would acknowledge that if he would look into the case- than even this town of Humboldt. I think these Dublic buildings should be more fairly distributed among the different provinces and among the various constituencies.


William Pugsley: I think we have made exceedingly good progress to-day. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, the House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

Monday, February 6, 1911.