[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No 98) respecting load lines on ships. He said:	Mr. Speaker, in 1905 I
introduced a Bill in reference to load lines on ships. Last session the Bill was referred to the Committee on (Marine and Fisheries. The committee objected to the Bill on one ground apparently, that it did not conform to the English Act. I have had this Bill drawn to conform exactly with the English Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, called the principal Act. The sections of this Bill are based on sections 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the English Act, and the wording of that Act is followed as closely as is consistent with the conditions. I can perhaps best explain the Bill by reading an editorial from the ' Globe ' of Toronto, which quotes from a paper at Vancouver. The 'Globe' says:
The ' Globe/ Toronto, Friday, January 6, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
The wreck of the steamer ' St. Denis ' on the shore of Vancouver Island has called forth many protests against the tendency toward overloading, and many demands for stringent laws such as are associated in Britain with
the name of the late Mr. Plimsoll. The Plim-soll line on a British vessel determines her summer load, her winter load, and her winter load in the North Atlantic, and no captain is allowed to clear if the iiae which designates his vessel's carrying capacity is submerged. On the Great Lakes there^ are frequent demands for load-line regulations, and it is notorious that many vessel owners take serious risks by overloading every season. Occasionally there is a disaster, and the matter after a brief discussion is forgotten. But there is a growing reaction against the indifference that risks and sometimes sacrifices lives for the gathering of profits.
According to the Victoria ' Times/ the captain of the * St. Denis/ a young and ambitious officer, was eager to take a record cargo from the Vancouver mines to Central America. In spite of protests from experienced officers and seamen more cargo was crammed into the vessel's hold than she sould carry with safety through the storms of the Pacific. In the shelter of the straits of Georgia or Puget Sound such a load could have been taken with comparative safety. But in the storms of the open sea the vessel was helpless. Just how she foundered will never be known. Her twenty-one men are lost, and only the wreckage on shore gives any indication of where the disaster occurred.
It is safe to conclude that with a proper load-liue regulation strictly enforced the vessel would have been prepared for all emergencies, and she and her crew would now he safe. It is onlv when disaster occurs that the evil of overloading can effectively be attacked. Scores of instances occur in which risks are taken and by fortunate accidents the trips are finished in safety. The profit and prestige of such achievements are temptations to repeat them. When the inevitable happens there is an outcry. This lamentable experience should not he wasted, hut should he held before the public until more efficient means are devised to prevent the sailing of unseaworthy
I take it for granted that these facts are correct, coming from papers of such standing as these. There are many more instances which should cause this House to put on the statute-books _ of this country an Act covering the loading of vessels, especially in the winter. It is now. 35 years since Plimsoll passed his Shipping Act It took him eight years to accomplish that. This Bill has now been before this House for five years. I trust that this parliament will not require eight years to pass a Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
business of the house.
Mr. LEWIS.: Might I point out to the Prime Minister that under the rules four days are allowed for public Bills and Orders, the first four Thursdays of the session. The first Thursday was taken up by the opening of the House, the second and third by the Address, and the


Mr. KING.: last Thursday by a public holiday, leaving; no day on which public orders would have precedence. There are many Bills important to and in the interest of the people thus held back. Could the minister set -aside a day on which public Bills would have precedence?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would have to look into the matter. Of course if that were the general wish of the House, it would be my duty to comply with that wish.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that a good many of the letters in a return which was brought down at my request relating to dredging in the Napanee river, are transmitted by Mr. Warburton. I do not see how Mr. Warburton could transmit these letters to the department without writing, and I would like to have his letters produced.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I will look into it.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I desire to ask when I may expect a return ordered by this House on December 15, 1909, with reference to a government weir at the port of Montreal?



RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS AT WASHINGTON.

Mr. PERLEY.: There is a report in the press that a draft of the proposed trade reciprocity treaty that is being negotiated at Washington between representatives of the Canadian and United States governments, has been forwarded to Ottawa for consideration. Will the Prime Minister say if that report is correct?


Wilfrid Laurier: That report is premature.



SUPPLY-CLOTHING OF DISCHARGED CONVICTS.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["According to a return dated the 8th April, 1910, and which was ordered on the 15th December, 1909, the total cost was $5,975.62. I presume that return gave the cost down to the 8th April, 1910. What has been expended since I cannot say.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. EDWARDS.: Before this motion is put I desire -again to call the attention of the government to a matter referred to by the Minister of Justice yesterday, when I did not happen to be present. The Kingston ' Standard ' stated some day last week that more than one prisoner had been released from the Kingston penitentiary without sufficient clothing for this season of the year. With regard to the particular case referred to as having been deported to the United States, I happened to be on the same train with the officer who was taking that ex-convict to Ogdensburg for deportation; and he assured me that the ex-convict 66
was not provided with any overcoat. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to a statement which he made, referring to this matter yesterday. He said, in laying the facts before the House in regard to this particular case, that he thought the substance of it ought to be made public in justice to the warden. Now one would naturally infer from that language that any prisoner leaving the penitentiary without an overcoat, or leaving in the condition described the other day, was -an isolated case, that in fact the warden would have instructions to provide the prisoners with clothing sufficient for this time of the year; and I take it for granted that in order to have sufficient clothing for this time of the year every man going out now should have an overcoat. I notice that all the members of parliament coming into this House think it necessary to have an overcoat, consequently it seems to be considered a necessary part of clothing at this time. But the particular case I referred to of the prisoner being deported was not an isolated one. A few days later an ex-convict whose home was in the province of Ontario left that institution without any overcoat, and with the thermometer on that day registering ten or twelve degrees below zero. Now I desire to place on the ' Hansard ' a letter I received this morning from a gentleman who is in a position to speak with regard to this matter. The letter is dated Montreal, January 19, and is addressed to myself:
I desire to thank you personally for drawing attention in parliament to the need of more clothing for discharged prisoners from the Dominion penitentiaries in mid-winter. I have been working with released prisoners from the various jails and penitentiaries for sixteen years, and it has been the rule to discharge men in mid-winter without an overcoat during the whole of that time, from the Dominion penitentiaries. The Prisoners' Aid Association of Montreal have written on various occasions to the Minister of Justice, mostly I think when the Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick was minister, but were generally put off with some excuse from a minor official. Perhaps some time, if needed, I could give you more particulars, but I can state positively that I myself, on different occasions, have purchased twenty or thirty overcoats for men discharged from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in winter.
Yours sincerely,



[Stage Direction]
Sec'y, Montreal Prisoners' Aid Assn.
Now I say this letter, in addition to the facts which have come to the notice of people living in the city of Kingston, very near the penitentiary, should be sufficient to cause this government to take action, and to prevent this sort of thing from occurring in the future. I am informed that the guards at the Kingston penitentiary are during this bitter weather pacing up and
[Stage Direction]


down on their beats-and they are working more than eight hours a day-with overcoats which cost this government the magnificent sum of $2.50 apiece. It is also stated in regard to the supplies, and food for prisoners who happen to be on the sick list, that they are cut down in that penitentiary, a cheeseparing policy is pursued to save a few cents, for what purpose I do not know. We all know that the idea of saving money in any direction is entirely foreign to this government, ever since they came into office in 1896. But when a prisoner is liberated from a government institution, the government of this country who found it necessary to place him there, ought to take sufficient interest in _him to provide him at least with an overcoat against the severe weather which we have in this country during the winter. It has been stated that man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn, and I think that truth is exemplified in the government's treatment of these ex-convicts. A man who finds himself set at liberty without any overcoat, with the thermometer registering from ten to fifteen degrees below zero, cannot have a very kindly feeling in his heart towards his fellow men; he must rebel at that sort of thing. To be sent away without a few dollars in his pocket and insufficiently clad, it seems to me, would be enough to arouse in that man a feeling of resentment and hatred towards government authority and would go far towards preventing him from living in the right way. I do not know why the government should adopt the policy of not giving overcoats out to men who are liberated at this season of the year. I think that if the warden of Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul or any other penitentiary in Canada were simply given authority by this government to provide an overcoat for a man who was liberated in winter that is all the warrant he would require to see that men went out, properly clothed. There is no fault attached to the warden of the penitentiary in this matter. The fault is with an authority higher than the wardens because it rests on the head of the department who permits regulations of this kind to exist.
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, in what I said on this subject yesterday and the day before I was principally concerned to satisfy the House by repeating publicly the statement which had been made to me by the warden of the penitentiary that so far as he and the officials of the institution were concerned they had not been guilty of any conduct which properly could be characterized as inhuman, and had not permitted any departure from the rules which are established in reference to the matters concerned. The question of what these rules Mr. EDWARDS.
ought to be is, of course, a larger matter and one in respect to which the officials of the penitentiary are perhaps not so immediately concerned as we ourselves in this House, because these things are matters of regulation by law, and the law, as laid down in the Penitentiaries Act, is, I need not say, binding on the wardens and the officials of the penitentiary equally as it is binding on the minister in charge of the department. Our Penitentiaries Act evidently was passed with consideration of the circumstance that the winter season in this country is one when low temperature can be expected and for that reason, instead of giving an overcoat at public expense to each prisoner discharged, the statute provides that any prisoner whose sentence, either by effiuxion of time or otherwise, expires during the months of December, January or February in any year, may at his option remain in the penitentiary at public expense where he will, at any rate, be sheltered from the severities of the Canadian winter climate, if he chooses to do so. It is only at a prisoner's own desire that he is discharged from the penitentiary at any time during any of these three months. If he prefers to remain where he is until the bitterness of the winter cold has to that extent abated, he has the right, or privilege, whichever you please to call it, to do so and in the particular instance which has led to this discussion, as I pointed out yesterday, the option was given +o the man to remain for a few days, if he chose, if not until the first of March; at any rate, to remain long enough to communicate with friends or relatives if there was any source from which he could hope to receive assistance.
With regard to clothing, of course, a prisoner has the clothing which he is wearing when he comes to the penitentiary gates kept for him until his sentence expires. That clothing is returned to him whether it is expensive or whether it is cheap. Whatever it is, subject to such deterioration as time may have caused in it while the sentence has been current, that clothing is returned to the man. But, our law is not quite so merciless as to send a prisoner out of the penitentiary clothed only as he was when he came to its doors. Each prisoner, upon his discharge, is given the regulation suit of clothing, both underwear and outerwear, and not only a complete suit of serviceable new clothing, but also a sum of money, not a large sum, it is true, but something which is, at any rate, sufficient to keep him from absolute want for the few days that, in this country, ought ordinarily to be the limit which would intervene before he would be able to earn at least his own maintenance and support.
Now, whether or not our law in that

respect ought to be changed is for the consideration of this House. Until now I had certainly not heard any complaint about it, and until now I had thought that we were not dealing inhumanly with our prisoners when we gave to them what I have, described-the option of shelter and maintenance until the winter is over. If it is thought that there ought to be something different done, or something more Hone, that is a matter in regard to which, while I perfectly concede that the principal responsibility rests upon myself, still I do submit that a responsibility rests also to some extent upon each and every individual member of this House.
Just one word with regard to the allusion which was made to the cost of the overcoats which the guards wear. I do not know whether or not it was intended to suggest that because these coats cost $2.50 apiece they were insufficient for the purpose, or that the guards were compelled to be upon duty in bitter winter weather insufficiently clothed. No complaint has come to my knowledge from any guard in any of our institutions upon that subject, and I cannot think that there is any complaint. The price of the garment which has been stated seems, of course, the merest bagatelle, but hon. gentlemen should remember that with regard to all of our penitentiary supplies which we are able to manufacture within the walls of the institution, the cost to the public is simply that of the material used. I heard the figure $2.50 with a little mild astonishment, I must admit. I should not have supposed that the mere cloth contained in the ou+er garment could be produced for that figure, and I think there is probably some mistake in supposing that overcoats can be supplied for that cost, although I have no doubt, as such clothing is certainly made m the penitentiary by convict labour, that the cost to the country of each overcoat ior the guards is a comparatively small sum. But, with regard to the question of prisoners clothing I have only to repeat what I have said already that the warden is governed by the Penitentiaries Act and that in so far as I am able to see he has not, in the matters referred to in this case at any rate, been in any degree to blame


Mr. SPROULE.: I understood the observations of the minister yesterday to have been made in defence of the conduct of the warden in sending out in winter time *"ls Prisoner not properly provided with clothing to keep him comfortable. The Minister of Justice said that the man had been supplied, not only with an extra suit, but with $5 in cash, and, therefore, he considered him well provided for. In answer to the observations made to-day by my hon. friend in regard to several prisoners who 66i
have been discharged in winter without having been provided with an overcoat, the hon. minister said that they had the option to remain in the penitentiary for the winter, and, therefore, there was no reasonable ground for complaint. Now, it is natural to suppose that a man who has been incarcerated in the penitentiary for a considerable length of time would desire to obtain his liberty at the earliest possible moment, for two reasons: One is the unsatisfactory situation in which he is placed, and the other is the fear that his detention for a few days longer might result in his being kept there for many months longer. Therefore, he would take the option of going out, even though the conditions of the weather might be such that it would be almost inhuman to send him out. We are told that the overcoats supplied to the officials cost only $2.75. At that price it might be much more economical to give a discharged prisoner an overcoat than to keep him in the prison for a month or two longer, until he could go with lighter clothing. It seems to me that it is a penny-wise-pound-foolish policy that is being pursued. There is another point that appeals to my mind. A discharged prisoner is going out to the world with a brand on him, which makes it very difficult for him to get either employment or shelter, especially in the winter time, when labour is not plentiful and many are unemployed, unless he denied his previous history, and the small amount of money given to him on leaving the penitentiary would soon be used up. Therefore, it does seem to me that there is a little more inhumanity in sending out a discharged prisoner without sufficient clothing to keep him warm than the Minister of Justice tries to make out.


THE WASHINGTON NEGOTIATIONS.
Mr. FOSTER.: Can the Prime Minister say when he expects the Minister of Finance back again?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no positive information, but I think he will leave Washington to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to explain a little more definitely than was done yesterday the point in the tentative arrangement between Canada and the United States as to the licensing of American fishermen and Canadian fishermen using trap nets for cod and herring. In what cases are licenses not required and therefore the licensing system is not kept up?


Mr. BRODEUR.: As my hon. friend is aware, by the former regulations concerning the Gulf of St. Lawrence it was provided in all cases licenses were required for cod trap and herring trap nets. By the amendments which have been

agreed to it is provided that where a trap net is set 1,000 yards from the shore or from another trap net already set, a license is not required.


George Eulas Foster: To what extent does that go against the principle which was considered very essential, that we cannot control the fishermen properly unless we put them under license?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was advised by the Inspector of Fisheries, who was with us at the time, that in the case of a trap net set 1,000 yards from the shore, a license was not absolutely necessary. Besides, I am informed that a trap net is very seldom set at such a distance from the shore or from another trap net already set.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I understand that certain negotiations took place between the representatives of Canada and the representatives of the United States subsequent to the time the representative of Newfoundland left. Was the latter aware of the nature of the negotiations that were about to take place, and did he leave because he did not agree with those negotiations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Before we entered into negotiations with the United States as to our regulations, we discussed the matter fully with the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, and was satisfied that we should try to settle the question so far as Canada was concerned. Those regulations had been discussed in his presence in the previous conferences, so that he was fully aware of the objections which were being made by the United States authorities.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to know whether the Prime Minister of Newfoundland expressed his dissent from accepting the further proposal which the Canadian representatives afterwards accepted?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, quite the reverse. He was very willing that we should _ settle the question on the basis on which it was settled.


William Sora Middlebro: Was he satisfied with reference to Newfoundland?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were points affecting both Newfoundland and Canada; there were other points affecting Newfoundland only, which he was, perhaps, not ready to settle, but he was absolutely satisfied that we should settle the Canadian regulations in the manner in which they have been settled.


William Sora Middlebro: Did he express his dissent from the proposals which were subsequently accepted by the Canadian government as to those points which were common to both Newfoundland and Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The two points which concerned Newfoundland and Canada were Mr. BRODEUR,
the question of purse seines and the question of Sunday fishing. There was another point which did not concern Newfoundland but which concerned us, and that was the question of licenses. In Newfoundland they have no licensing system; but as regards the other questions, which are almost similar, the Prime Minister of Newfoundland was perfectly satisfied that we should try to come to a settlement with the United States authorities.


VACANCIES IN SENATE AND SUPREME COURT, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. FRASER.: I wish to call attention to one or two matters affecting the province from which I come. I shall refer in the fust place to the vacancy in the Senate. This vacancy occurred almost two years ago, and was caused by thp death of the late Senator Ferguson, who died in August or September, 1909, and whose seat remains yet unfilled. This lack of representation of Prince Edward island in the Senate is accentuated by the absence through regrettable illness, of Senator Robertson from that province. The people of Prince Edward Island are beginning to complam about the neglect of their rights to representation in our second chamber. I have here an extract from a newspaper, which is not a Conservative organ either, which 1 wish to read:-
Parliament is at work again at Ottawa with most important matters to deal with, trade, transportation, banking, extension of provincial boundaries, tariff reduction, the new navy, preparation for the coming imperial conference and maritime representation, are some of the questions of prime importance to he reviewed and dealt with. At such a iuncture our province is surely entitled to he fully represented in both Houses, hut while we have lost one-third of our former representation in the Commons, those responsible for the patronage persist m keeping vacant one seat in the Senate. Patronage is managed with little regard to public right and the wishes of the public. If it is the earnest desire of the government to throw this province wholly into the opposition column at next election nothing more is needed than to fnllnw on the nresent course.
Aiuotjher newspaper, also .published in Charlottetown, has this to say of the failure of the government to fulfil its duty towards the island province:-
Prince Edward Island is entitled to four seats in the (Senate of Canada, the senators may he members of the executive; they may be'heads of the great departments of the government. But notwithstanding the fact that one of her three present senators has been kept at home by illness and that the others find their strength giving way to the natural infirmities of age, one of Prince Edward Island's four seats has been arbitrarily kept vacant for two whole years, at

a time that her need of effective representation in parliament was never half so great.
I do not think that I need dwell any longer on this matter. All I wish to do, was to call the attention of the government to the injustice being done the province from which I come, in allowing this seat in the Senate to remain so long vacant.
There is another vacancy which occurred some time ago in the province, and that is a vacancy on the Supreme Court Bench. This was caused by the resignation of Mr. Justice Hodgson, Master of Rolls, who resigned some time ago, and whose place is also left unfilled. Before his resignation, Mr. Justice Hodgson had been ill some time, and owing to his illness the Courts of Appeal in Equity has not been able to meet for fully two years. Yet this government has not seen fit to make the necessary appointment and allow the work of that important court to go on. The press in my province have a good deal to say on this matter, so that I am not here merely expressing my own opinion. Here is what I find in one of our newspapers:-
Why is it that no appointment is made to the vacant Prince Edward Island judgeship?
Certainly it is not because the federal government wants to save the salaries which appertain to these positions. No, it's not due to economy.
And just as certainly, it is because there is dispute as to who are to have the positions and to what 'party' advantage is to be had or lost in making the appointments.
The burden of work which falls upon the two remaining judges is excessive and will probably overwhelm them, while appeal cases in chancery involving large interests cannot be disposed of until the vacancy is filled.
Justice delayed is justice denied; and there is no shadow of excuse for a continuance of the wrong.
There was a time in ancient Rome when offices such as this judgeship were set up at auction and knocked down to the highest bidder. Have we reached that stage of degradation here?
If the delay is caused by the desire of the government to prostitute the administration of justice in order to serve personal or political ends, then*
*
And if the delay is not in order to serve personal or political ends then*
*
Another paper referring to this matter
says:-
One of three seats on the Supreme Court Bench of this province vacant for a year past. Two of four chairs allotted to this province in the Senate now empty. One-third of our representation in the Commons gone. Of course, this is good enough for Prince Edward Island! Any other province would not take it.
I do not think it is good enough for the island. I appeal to fair minded men in this House, and country, if the government is not derelict in its duty in not having
made these appointments promptly. It is unfair, it is a violation of the constitutional principles of government that, in order to serve party or personal ends, or because of party exigencies, the government should allow these two seats, one in the Senate, and one on the Supreme Court Bench, to remain vacant. I appeal to this government to at once attend to this matter, and 1 make this appeal, not as a matter of favour, but as one of right, to which the people of Prince Edward Island are entitled. These vacancies should be at once filled, and no party end should be allowed to interfere with this imperative and immediate duty. I sincerely trust that I shall not have to bring this matter up again, but that the government will see fit to put an end to a condition of things in my province which is simply disgraceful.


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not catch the name of the newspaper which my hon. friend quoted, but I noticed it said that at present the government were very busy with very large questions affecting the tariff, reciprocity, the preparation of the naval service and so on. All this is true, and therefore, my hon. friend should not be surprised that when the government has to deal with such important questions, the appointment to the Senate should have been overlooked.


Austin Levi Fraser: But it is nearly two years since.


Wilfrid Laurier: The delay has been long, and my hon. friend, therefore, may have some cause for his remarks. So far as the Supreme Court vacancy is concerned it is only within the last few weeks that the resignation of Judge Hodgson has deprived the province of the valuable services of so able a judge. I can assure my hon. friend that the appointment will be made at a very early date.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think that for many years I have heard a more effective, a more sensible, and in a way a more cutting appeal made to the leader of the government than that made by my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island. In 1 language well chosen, and simple in its form, without any shadow of exaggeration or party bias, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) placed the grievances of one of the provinces of this country before the House and the Prime Minister. If the purpose of having a Senate in this country is the one generally supposed, namely, to protect the minority provinces, all the greater oare should be taken not to deprive the smaller provinces of that protection which the constitution meant to guarantee them. And, yet in the province of Prince Edward Island its senatorial force has been cut in two, and the place of one of its ablest

207G
senators taken away nearly two years ago has not been filled by the government. The services of the late Senator Ferguson were of great value to the island,, and the services of a worthy successor to him would also be of great value. The Prime Minister read his own condemnation when he said that the best reason that was given why the vacancy had not been filled was that important and weighty questions were before the government. That excuse might avail if he thinks that the government has to do altogether with legislation, and that the House of parliament have no part in it. But the greater the gravity of the questions before the government, and which must afterwards come before the House, the greater the reason why the provinces should not be shorn of their rightful representation. That was a very suggestive paragraph in the extracts read by my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) which stated that in the days of Rome seats in the Senate were put up at auction, and the question was asked how much better is it to-day? Has the Prime Minister given any good reason why the senatorship has not been filled in the province of Prince Edward Island? If for instance you have a battalion, and a certain part of it is for any reason shorn of a portion of its strength, and there are vacancies in another part of the battalion is not the weakness in one part an added reason why the vacancies in the other part should be filled. So it is with this present case. Prince Edward Island is vitally interested in the question of the fisheries and vitally interested in the question of our trade policy, and yet its representation in parliament is depleted. The Prime Minister was appealed to by my hon. friend and no answer has been given by the Prime Minister for neglect of his constitutional duty. He has a little more reason in the matter of the judgeship because the resignation of Justice Hodgson is recent, but in the matter of the senatorship, is there any other reason at all than that the warring elements in Prince Edward Island have not yet come to a conclusion as to whom the spoil should be given. Is not that the reason, and is there any other reason at all?


Austin Levi Fraser: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to also appoint the senator in a very short time?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


NEW DEPARTMENTAL BUILDINGS.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: The following item appeared in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of yesterday which I think is worthy of consideration, and as to which I wish to ask for some information :


George Eulas Foster: The work of demolishing the buildings on Sussex street where the new departmental block is to be located is progressing. It was stated at the Department of Public Works today that the new plans are practically finished and at present the specifications are in course of preparation. It is intended to call for bids within a few weeks or in good time to allow for the commencement of operations in the spring. A substantial vote for the purpose appears in the main estimates. The plan has been altered materially through a story being taken off the building, while it has also been made narrower. The tower and top ornamentation has also been changed. The total cost will likely be about three and a half millions and big contractors from all over the Dominion have been making inquiries with a view of submitting tenders.
This indicates most important alterations in the new plans for the new departmental buildings. I do not profess to have any particular knowledge on a question of this kind, but I think we all look upon these public buildings in Ottawa as a national asset, and desire to see them worthy of this great Dominion. We aro very proud of the buildings in which we sit at the present moment ; they constitute a beautiful block, and are well worthy their position as the seat of legislation for this Dominion. But, since the days in which these buildings were erected it appears to me there has been a gradual deterioration. The Langevin block is a dignified structure although it is not in harmony with the other buildings on these grounds, but from the parliamentary block down to the mint, and the archives buildings there is a very great descent indeed. The archives building with its cardboard battlements, and its altogether flimsy appearance is in no way worthy of the Dominion. Even the Victoria 'ipuseum, although it has considerable dignity on account of its size, appears to lack many details which might have been supplied had competent expert architects passed upon the designs. I consider that the architects of the present day, generally speaking, are on just as high a level as those of the past, and we have a pretty good example of modern architecture in the splendid building which is being erected by the Grand Trunk Railway Company in Ottawa. I cannot help but think that with a proper effort the new departmental buildings could be made just as well suited to occupy the position they will hold in the Capital of the Dominion, as are the parliamentary buildings. Some years ago when this question was first brought up the House understood that following the precedent adopted elsewhere a competition was to be held for the purpose of obtaining the best designs possible from architects all over the world, but the prizes offered were hardly large enough to bring out the very best efforts of able architects. A year or two ago when the Lon-

don county council purposed erecting new buildings they offered an enormous prize, and I understand the designs submitted provide for buildings quite worthy of the purposes for which they are intended. What has been done in connection with this competition? Have the prizes been awarded, and is the successful competitor to be entrusted with the new building?


William Pugsley: Prizes were awarded by the committee entrusted with the consideration of the plans and awarding of prizes, but the department did not decide to accept any of the plans, and plans have been prepared by the architectural staff of the department under the direction of the chief architect.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are these designs to be submitted to a body of experts before tenders are called for, as indicated by this article?


William Pugsley: No, except to the experts of the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: This is a most important matter, and it is due to this House and this country that some more inspection should be made of these plans than apparently is proposed by the Minister of Public Works. However good, and however able his architects may be, I do not think it is sufficient simply to put this matter into the hands of one body of men, wo ought to have these plans on exhibition, so that the public at large may see them, may *criticise them and a body of experts should be appointed to look into them. The members should also have an opportunity of seeing the plans and understanding the nature of the building for which they are asked to appropriate this enormous sum of money. As I said, it seems to me, that the last buildings constructed in this city entirely from the designs of the department are not of such a character as in my humble judgment the great public departmental buildings of the Capital of Canada should be.


William Pugsley: As I have explained, some years ago, before I became minister, competitive designs were invited from Canadian architects. A number of designs were submitted and the committee of architects to whom the plans were referred, decided upon three sets of plans to which the first, second and third prizes were awarded. The plans were all exhibited in the Railway Committee room. After careful consideration, the department decided to adopt none of these plans for reasons which seemed good to the department.


George Eulas Foster: Was that on the question of style or of cost ?


William Pugsley: On the question of style of the plans. In the opinion of the department, and I and other members of
the government who saw the plans, entertained the same view, none of these plans were the best that could be devised and it was decided to direct the chief architect to prepare new plans. These plans were exhibited last session.
My hon. friend has referred to an article in the ' Citizen ' about an alteration in the plans. An alteration has been made, and I regretted this, but it was necessary, in view of certain improvements in the nature of a driveway by the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Owing to this driveway it was thought better to preserve Mackenzie avenue as a public highway. In the previous plans, a building was provided to encroach upon or entirely take up Mackenzie avenue. Upon consideration and after hearing the views of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, the government decided that it would be better to leave Mackenzie avenue open as a public highway, as a part of the driveway. That necessitated narrowing the building. Then came the question whether we should leave the building of the same height. It will be understood that in erecting a departmental building of that size, it was desirable to have a well in the centre to afford light to the inner offices.


George Eulas Foster: What is the width from Mackenzie avenue to Sussex street ?


William Pugsley: About 200 feet. As we had to narrow the building by about 40 feet in order to leave Mackenzie avenue vacant, it became necessary, in order to give sufficient light to the offices on the well, to reduce the height of the buildings by at least one story. This will greatly improve the building so far as the lighting of the inner offices is concerned. The original plan provided for 7. stories on Sussex street and 6 on Mackenzie avenue. Under the changed plans there will be 6 stories on Sussex street and 5 on Mackenzie avenue.
A word in regard to the architecture of the buildings recently erected by the government. I do not profess to be any more skilled in architecture than by hon. friend, but I think I can safely say that opinions differ very much if my hon. friend's opinion reflects the views of any considerable number of people, because I have heard a good many people speak in terms of high praise of the Archives Building, of the Mint, and more especially of the Victoria Memorial Museum, which is spoken of as being of very beautiful design and one of which the country may well feel proud. My hon. friend speaks of the Grand Trunk hotel, which I think is a very fine building. But I am sure that if it were a public building if would receive a lot of criticism. Many people would say that there is not sufficient ornamentation about it, that it is too plain, and altogether unattractive, and yet

it is a very fine building. I can point my hon. friend to many buildings around the city which are being erected by private individuals under architects of skill and experience, and yet if these were public buildings I am sure they would be strongly criticised. I will not mention any one, but non. gentlemen who have been about the city will no doubt have remarked some of them. At all events, we have thought it best, under all the circumstances, to place the responsibility for this work in the hands of our own staff. I may say to my hon. friend that before we reach the items for public buildings chargeable to capital account, I hope to place the plans upon the table for the inspection of the House.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might give us an idea of the style of architecture.


William Pugsley: I have not seen the plans as finally adopted by the chief architect. He has promised to have them ready for me in the course of a few days, when I will bring them before the House.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: The Minister of Public Works has promised to perform all that is required of him by this House. Heretofore the plans of the various public buildings in the city of Ottawa have always been laid on the table of the House for our inspection. We are all, as the hon. member states, proud of the public buildings here in Ottawa, and we have always exercised the right to see the plans and to know what the Minister of Public Works intends to do in reference to them. Sometimes it has happened that opinions expressed in the House have had the 'effect of altering the plans. There is no blame to be attached to the Minister of Public Works because he did not adopt the plans he advertised for; he had prepared amended plans, which, he says, he will lay on the table of the House. He intends, before a vote is taken, submitting them to the House for our inspection.


THE FISCAL POLICY OF CANADA.
Mr. NEELY.: I wish to ask a question which concerns the Postmaster General, and which refers to a report which appears in this morning's issue of the Ottawa ' Citizen,' and also of the Montreal ' Gazette.' The Postmaster General, speaking last night at the annual banquet of the Montreal branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, is credited with the following statement regarding the fiscal policy of this country:-
Our commercial ascendency, thanks to the wise fiscal policy adopted by this country twenty-five years ago, is the admiration of the world to-day.
I rise to ask the Postmaster General if he did make that statement, and if he does Mr. PUGSLEY.
consider that this country has had but one fiscal policy during the last twenty-five years.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: My attention has been drawn to the report published in the Montreal * Gazette,' and in the Ottawa * Citizen.' I notice there is a difference between the report published in the French papers and that published in the English papers. In the Montreal French papers of this morning I am quoted as having said that it was the policy adopted fifteen years ago; and that is in fact what I said. There is only a difference in figures, the English papers have a two instead of a one. Besides I may say that there was no fiscal policy adopted twenty-five years ago, the policy of protection was adopted thirty-two years ago, and the only other policy since adopted was the Fielding tariff of 1897. If my hon. friend will read the remarks made by the leader of the opposition on the same occasion, he will find that the leader of the opposition spoke of my reference to the fiscal policy of fifteen years ago, and he said I should have gone a little further back to get at the origin of our fiscal policy- these are about his words-they have practised what we have been preaching.


George Eulas Foster: When my hon. friend said fifteen years ago he was nearer right than he thought he was.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to express any opinion, but merely to correct the statement.


WITHDRAWAL OF GOVERNMENT BILLS.
Mr. HENDERSON.: A few moments ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) placed before you a motion to withdraw from the Order Paper two Bills, one relating to the manufacture of matches and the other relating to the importation of opium. We are not very sure whether these are the Bills he introduced last evening or whether they are the Bills that were introduced prior to his placing on the Order Paper the resolution on which they were based.


George Gerald King: The Bills I asked to have withdrawn were those placed on the Order Paper prior to giving notice of the resolutions which were passed last night.


FISH POACHERS ON PACIFIC COAST.
Mr. BARNARD.: I would like to call the attention once more of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the depredations, regular and constant, of American poachers upon the fisheries on the coast of the province of British Columbia, and more particularly on the west coast of Vancouver island. I brought this matter to his attention on the 16th of December last, and

called attention to an article which had just appeared in the Victoria Daily ' Colonist,' in which it was stated that officers and passengers of a passing vessel were surprised to see a string of light extending from Raphael Point to Estevan.
These lights belonged to a number of American fishing vessels engaged in poaching. The minister at that time betrayed such lamentable ignorance of the geography of the locus in quo that he got the fisheries of Hecate Straits confounded with those on the west coast of Vancouver island. It is in hope that the minister has since become better acquainted with the question during the recess, and has further lasted himself upon the topography of the country and of the condition of the fisheries out there, that I venture to bring this matter up again to-day. I may say that the game still goes on. I have extracts from our own press and from the press in the United States, showing that what is complained of is not an occasional raid by these fishermen, but is a systematic business carried on by a number of Americans who are robbing us of our fisheries contrary to law. I propose to read a few extracts which will substantiate this position. I quote now from the ' Colonist ' of the. 29th December:
The steamer 'Tees' which returned from Quatsino Sound and way ports of the west coast yesterday morning with 25 passengers and a small cargo, including gillbone and fertilizer from the whaling stations, bronght news that poaching by United States vessels is being continued off the west coast of Vancouver island, where the poachers use the harbours freely. One of the fishing vessels was tied up near the whaling station at Kyuquot when the steamer 'Tees' passed, and another was in Sidney Inlet.
The Seattle ' Times,' a newspaper published in the city of Seattle says:-
Part of the anxiety felt over the safety of the individual vessels of the Seattle halibut fleet this morning

Mark you, Mr. Speaker, ' the Seattle halibut fleet'; that is the Seattle halibut fleet that poaches on the west coast of Vancouver island.
-was relieved by news brought by Captain Sam Larsen of the steamship 'Standard No. 2' that the gasoline fishing schooners, 'Lief E.,' 'Woodbury,' 'La Paloma' and 'MalolV were safe and sound when he left the grounds near Sidney Inlet Monday.
For the information of my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in case he does not know, I will tell him that Sidney Inlet is on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
The report made by the captain of the Standard Oil steamship, 'Col. E. L. Drake,' that he had seen the wreck of a halibut fishing vessel near Cape Flattery some days ago
l as caused anxiety about all vessels now absent from port.
I would like his attention to be given for a moment to this too:
Preparations now are being made for a number of gasoline schooners to leave within the next few days. Among those about to start are the 'Corona,' 'Roosevelt,' 'Northland,' 'Daisy' and 'Ida May.' The 'Ida May' possibly will be detained in getting away, as she has to have a new engine installed.
That is from a Seattle newspaper and is dated the 29th December. Again, on the 7th January, the following appears in the same paper, the Seattle ' Times '. I quote from the 'Colonist' of January 7, 1911:-
The Seattle 'Times' of yesterday tells of the departure of another fleet for Sidney Inlet.' The 'Times' says: The schooner 'Wiedling Bros.' arrived in port last night with 45,000 pounds of halibut, one of the largest catches recently reported. Together with the 'Northland,'-
The ' Northland ' is one of the boats mentioned in the ' Times ' of the 29th December.
-*' Annie Larsen ' and ' Sophie Jones,' the 'Wiedling Bros.' is preparing to sail again for the fishing banks. It is expected that the four vessels will get away from port sometime to-night. An attempt will he made first to fish off Cape Flattery, hut if the weather will not permit the vessels will proceed to Sidney Inlet.
I submit that these reports show that there are two fleets maintained in Seattle for the purpose of exploiting these fisheries, and the complaint I make is not of an occasional raid which my friends of the fishery protection service might possibly find it difficult to deal with,_ but of the systematic and organized, business in which there is a number of schooners employed all the year around. It is an outrage upon the people of British Columbia to think that this government is absolutely^ unable to cope with the situation. Some little explanation may be given of this. We have the explanation of Captain Newcombe of the ' Kestrel.' I may say, as I have before stated in this House, that the ' Kestrel ' is an ordinary fishery cruiser that Captain Newcombe has time and time and time again told the department of Marine and Fisheries is absolutely unfit for the service. She is too slow, she is not properly equipped and is absolutely useless for the service in which she is engaged. Captain Newcombe explains the reason why..he did not go to the west coast of Vancouver island. According to his own statement, if he had gone there, he would not have got any of these pirates, but probably he would have driven them away, because his boat is too slow to catch them. He says, according to a report in the ' Colonist ' newspaper.

The 'Kestrel's' orders have been, to cruise in Hecate straits, and although the depredations of the poaching vessels on the west coast of Vancouver island was known to her officers they were unable to proceed there, because in the first place their orders were explicit to remain in the north despite the fact that the poachers had changed their sphere of operations, and in the second place, the 'Kestrel' is not considered a suitable vessel for winter weather off the west coast of Vancouver island.
It cannot exactly be news to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to hear that the poachers were not to be expected in Hecate straits, but notwithstanding that fact, he ordered his cruiser to stay there and catch the poachers in a place where no poachers would go. I say that because I find in the report of the fisheries protection service of this year at page 353 that it is stated:
During the present season halibut has been extremely scarce in Hecate straits, and consequently the competition between fishermen very keen.
The fact of the matter is, that the Hecate straits fishing grounds have been seriously depleted by the depredations of the American fishermen. In the report of the department for the year 1908, I think, the minister, or his officers, states that halibut to the extent of 1,500,000 lbs, the value of which I have forgotten, was illegally taken from the banks of Hecate straits by American fishermen. That thing has been going on for a long time with the result that to-day the size of the halibut in Hecate straits has decreased to such an extent that it is no longer a desirable fishing ground, and fishermen have transferred their operations to the new banks which have been discovered on the west coast of Vancouver island. This matter is not new. We have, this year, Mr. John J. Williams, Inspector of Fisheries, complaining that the ' Falcon ' which was going to be kept on the ground, was inadequate for the purpose. We have had this matter taken up iri this House at various times and we had a most admirable speech made by Mr. Sloan, then member for Comox-Atlin, in which he went fully into this matter. We also had a speech from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself, on the subject, which will be found in ' Hansard ' of 1906-7, page 1777. He states there:-
I have found that there is a great deal of poaching done, especially on the western coast of Vancouver and within the three mile limit. If, how-ever, we have not the right to go outside the three mile limit in Hecate strait and Dixon entrance, I think we should adopt the policy of protecting our Canadian fisheries. We are very glad to see the American fishermen taking so much interest in our fisheries, but at the same time it is the duty of the government to protect those fisheries Mr. BARNARD.
and keep them for our Canadian citizens. As they belong to us, they should be exploited by us; and if American fishermen go there they should at least-as has been done in the case of a New Washington company- give us as much benefit as possible. But we must do on the Pacific coast what I have said should be done with regard to the Atlantic coast. I am free to admit, however, that there seems to be more business activity shown by Canadians on the British Columbia coast. _ Our financial institutions have been ii vesting large sums there, which is a condition of affairs I am glad to see. For my part, I am ready to take all the necessary steps to protect our fisheries along that coast. I have asked my colleagues to put at the disposal of my department another boat, a cruiser, which should be devoted almost exclusively to the protection of our fisheries. A sum is in the estimates for that purpose on which the House will be asked to vote; but I am sure, from the tenor of this discussion, that all the hon. members will be glad to co-operate with the government in that respect and give us the means of protecting our fisheries in the west, as we are doing in the east.
That was in 1906. In 1907, just before the general elections, the same vote was put in the estimates, but there is no cruiser yet. In 1909, shortly after the general election, I was informed by the minister that plans had been prepared for a cruiser, and I think he said that tenders had been called for. We have not got that cruiser yet, and apparently we are no nearer to having her than we were before. The hon. gentleman may say that the ' Rainbow ' is adapted for this purpose, and I understand that there was some kind of an arrangement that in addition to being used as a training ship the ' Rainbow ' was to be engaged in this service. However, the facts appear to be that these fishing boats lie so close inshore that the ' Rainbow,' with her heavy draught, would be useless for the service. The most suitable craft is a speedy gasoline boat of 20 or 25 knots, because these American fishing boats are all equipped with high power gasoline engines, and they can get out of the way of a steamer whose smoke they can see a great distance off. The fisheries of British Columbia to-day lead in productiveness the fisheries of the rest of the Dominion, and it is only in British Columbia that the revenues received bv the Dominion from the fisheries far exceeds the expenditure. Prof. Prince, in his report, states that the British Columbia fisheries are probably the finest in the world, and it is the undoubted right of the people of that province to demand from this government that these fisheries shall be protected from depletion by the depredations which are now going on. I ask that the government shall provide, in the estimates this year, an appropriation for one or two gasoline boats to he used in this protective service.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some time ago my hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) read an article from a paper published in Victoria, and stated that there were depredations on the fisheries of British Columbia, and particularly on the west coast of Vancouver inland. The hon. gentleman has been trying to poke fun at me, because, as he hints, I am not familiar with the geography of the country, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that he read the newspaper article in such a low voice that I could not hear it, and then, after reading the article, he referred especially to Hecate straits, which lead me to think that his remarks were directed particularly to these waters.


George Henry Barnard: I am afraid the hon. gentleman was not listening.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the contrary, I was paying every attention, but unfortunately, I could not hear the hon. gentleman's reading, and sq, while part of my answers was directed to what I did hear, the other part may not have been appropriate to his question. If, when the hon. gentleman wishes to question me in future, he would give notice, I shall bring with me.all the papers in the matter and be better equipped to answer him than I can possibly be speaking on the spur of the moment. However, the hon. gentleman will find, from the public documents, that we have largely increased, in recent years, the fishery protective service on the British Columbia coast. Perhaps it is not yet as efficient as it should be in view of the very active development of the fisheries there and the necessity for properly protecting them. I think, however, that the new addition made to the fleet will enable us to cope with the situation more effectively. It is true, as stated by the hon. gentleman, that some years ago we had a vote in the estimates for the purchase of a vessel, but although we did not purchase a vessel then we did charter one for the special purpose of looking after the fisheries.


George Henry Barnard: Was that the ' Wm. Jolliffc?'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not remember the name of the vessel.


George Henry Barnard: Is she not released from charter now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If it was the ' Jolliffe ' I do not think she is now chartered.


George Henry Barnard: Was there any other vessel chartered for that purpose?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not keep all these details in my memory, and I cannot now recall. I may say that after the vote appeared in the estimates the plans had to be prepared, and we afterwards thought that we could purchase the ' Rainbow ' Notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, I think the ' Rainbow ' is suitable for doing a large part of this work. She may not be
able to enter certain waters where poachers are likely to be found, I do not think it advisable that poachers should be informed as to what our plans are, but I can assure my hon. friend that we are taking all the necessary steps to protect adequately the fisheries of the British Columbia coast.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether there is a close season when herring traps cannot be used, or does the season extend over the whole year? I desire also to ask him, what is the maximum length of the leader from the shore to the bowl of the trap? As I understand, the herring trap is one which takes all kinds of fish frequenting our waters, including mackerel and salmon, which are fish of great commercial value to Canada. With respect to salmon, there is a close season, when Canadians fishing in purely Canadian waters cannot take them even under license, and I would like to ask the minister, can the American or Canadian, as the case may be, fish for salmon on the Labrador coast, or the Magdalen Islands coast at a season when it. is not legal to take salmon in the other coastal waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence? This is a very important matter which may very seriously affect the fishing interests in purely Canadian waters. I quite realize that the concessions given to our United States friends are equal to those given to Canadians who go to fish in those dual waters; but at the same time I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that licensing the American citizen gives him a prior right in placing his trap, and, as I understand, the leader of this trap extends practically to the shore, so that to all intents and purposes he has privileges which a Canadian has not in purely Canadian waters. For example, I understand that mackerel traps are practically prohibited along the St. Lawrence coast. There is one on the north coast of Prince Edward Island, but it is the only one, so far as I am aware, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is under a heavy license fee, and it was there for many years before the licensing plan was in vogue. So that mackerel traps are practically not allowed in the purely Canadian coastal waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, whereas we are now licensing, in the coast waters of Labrador and the Magdalen Islands, a trap which is to all intents and purposes a mackerel trap, and which will also take salmon, which I believe frequent those waters, especially the Labrador coast, in large quantities, and at a season when our own fishermen are not allowed to take them. I think it only fair that the minister's attention should be brought to these facts.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen the regulations

which have been adopted as a result of the negotiations with the United States authorities; but I can assure him that all the fears he expresses as to rights being given to Americans which are not going to be enjoyed by Canadians, may be discarded. There has been no change in the regulations which will in any shape or form be prejudicial to the salmon industry or to Canadian fishermen. The regulations which provide for a close season for salmon are still maintained, and the regulations which provide that traps must be made in such a way as not to affect the ascent of the salmon are also maintained. The changes, which are not of great importance, my>
hon. friend calls concessions to the Americans. The right we have given to Americans to get licenses is not a concession granted by us. It is a right which they had under the treaty of 1818. As a matter of fact, they were claiming that they had an absolute right to fish in those waters without any license at all. The hon. Minister of Justice quoted yesterday a despatch sent by the Foreign Office in 1906 to the effect that Newfoundland, and it applied also to Canada, had no right under that treaty to impose any license fee on American fishermen. That treaty gives them the right to fish on the Labrador coast and the Magdalen Islands coast in common with British subjects, and it was contended by the American authorities that we could not impose upon them a restriction in the form of a license. This claim certainly deserves a great deal of consideration, and, as the Minister of Justice said yesterday, was accepted by the Foreign Office. 'So I thought the other day, when the American authorities were willing to accept a license from us, thus virtually recognizing our right to issue a license, it was something of the utmost importance to Canada, because our licensing system is of great value for the preservation of our fisheries. The American experts who were there, after hearing the reasons adduced in favour of maintaining our licensing system, considered it a very fair one which is tantamount to their admission that the way we have been managing our fisheries is certainly commendable. My hon. friend asks what length will be the leaders. It was provided in the regulations, previous to the agreement made the other day, that all the leaders should start from the shore. The American authorities contended with a great deal of reason-I think they were right in that respect-that this was prejudicial to their rights on the treaty coast, because if our regulations provided that all the leaders should start from the shore, and if they had no right to go to the shore under the treaty, they meant that they could not put traps there where Canadians were permitted to put them, which would be discriminating. This struck me as a Mr. BRODEUR.
fair contention, and we tried to meet it by declaring that if the leader should start from the shore, then the length would be determined by our * fishery officers and not by anybody else, and our officers determine the length of the leader by the depth of the water. I think that by all these changes which have been made my hon. friend may feel assured that we have not departed in any shape or form from the principle underlying our regulations, and that the mackerel as well as the salmon fisheries will be just as well preserved under the changes made as they were under the regulations which existed before.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister has said that the length of the leader is to be determined by the fishery officer. Should the applicant say I want a leader only 100 yards from the shore, then the trap must be at the end of the leader, which would be simply one hundred yards from the shore. That is a point worthy of consideration. Regarding the protection of our salmon, the minister tells us that the close season will not be changed. That is not the question with me, as I understand it. The season for fishing the herring traps is all the year round, if the owner could fish all the year in spite of the weather. Therefore, if a trap catches salmon, and the owner is allowed to use the salmon, there is practically no close season for the salmon caught in the trap.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Any fish caught in the close season contrary to the regulations is supposed to be caught illegally, and has to be thrown away.


Mr. JAMESON.: I understood the minister to say that certain regulations had been framed as the result of this memo entered into by the American and Canadian authorities. If that is the case, may I ask whether those will be available to members and when w'e can have them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They will be brought dtfwn Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
William Pugsley: The hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) asked that the item relating to the Montreal barracks should stand, so we will pass to the Ontario items.
Public Works-Buildings, Ontario-Athens public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: I find that the postal revenue of this town last year was $2,152.63, money orders issued, $17,482.56, money orders paid $9,630.94. The population two years ago was 1,000. It is quite a rapidly growing town, has six churches, fourteen stores, two hotels, lumber mill and two planing mills and woollen factory among other industries. This will not complete.


Uriah Wilson: Is this just for a post office?


William Pugsley: Yes. Mv instructions to the chief architect are to keep the cost of this building in the vicinity of $13,000 or $14,000. It will not exceed $15,000.


Mr. CROSBY.: Does that include the site?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. 'CROSBY. Has the hon. minister had any requisition from the Post Office Department for this building as being required for the work of the department?


William Pugsley: Not from the Post Office Department. I may say, however, that my attention was called by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), in whose constituency this town is situated, to the very great need of post office accommodation there. My hon. friend no doubt is aware that the department allows a small amount to the postmaster to enable him to secure accommodation. The people of Athens have been urging, so the Minister of Railways informs me, that increased accommodation be given them, and he hoped it would be possible to make an arrangement with a banking company which was going to erect a building there so that my department should pay a portion of the rent necessary to get increased accommodation. However, the matter fell through, and I decided to ask for a vote for a building not to cost a great deal of money but one that would be suitable to the needs of the town.


George Eulas Foster: Here is a post office erected solely for the business of the Post Office Department. After it is erected who pays for the renting expenses of that building ?


William Pugsley: The Department of Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the case all through ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The Department of Public Works does not require a building, but the minister, without consultation with the Postmaster General erects a post office building for post office business and then assumes the cost of that building after its erection. Does the rental now paid for post office accommodation there fall into the revenue of the post office?


William Pugsley: No, that rental will cease. I have sometimes thought it might not be undesirable, certainly it would not be from the standpoint of my department, if the other departments would pay the Public Works Department a rental for buildings which we erect forythem.


George Eulas Foster: Under the present system when the Postmaster General goes before the country and presents his accounts, saying this is my revenue, and this my expenditure, he is not making a fair exhibit to the country.


William Pugsley: I would not like to say that.


George Eulas Foster: He is shouldering a portion of the expense of his department on another department, and concealing it, in effect, in that other department. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my mind, the Minister of Public Works ought not to undertake to erect a building for another department until requisitioned by that department. This slipshod method is carried on simply for patronage purposes. Two ministers who have nothing to do with the post office decide to build a building for the Postmaster General and the carrying out of his business.


William Pugsley: Rather for the public accommodation.


George Eulas Foster: I think that is bad policy


William Pugsley: No, in this case, it is for the public accommodation.


George Eulas Foster: If the Minister of Railways should some morning find the Minister of Public Works building a station somewhere on the Intercolonial railway, and on its completion this should relieve the Minister of Railways of the cost of maintaining that station, and then when the Minister of Railways presented his balance sheet to the country, he omitted the cost of that station, he would be giving a wrong account of part of the expenses of his department. I think the minister of post offices, the Postmaster General, ought to pursue exactly the same course as the Minister of Railways in this matter, and that he should not have the Minister of Public Works bearing the cost of part of the accommodation required by his department.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend makes two points, one that we should not erect a building for another department without a requisition from the minister of that department, and the other, that if we do erect a post office the Postmaster General should pay a rental for it. Since when did my hon. friend entertain these views.


George Eulas Foster: For a good many years.


William Pugsley: Certainly not before 1896.


George Eulas Foster: For the last 7 or 8 years I have advocated them steadily in the House.


William Pugsley: I used to have a good deal of respect for the views of my hon. friend and have now, but I cannot find

that when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance, and had a powerful influence in the disposition of public moneys, he ever advocated any such idea as he is now putting forward. There is much to be said in favour of the views he has advanced and . if he were coming here for the first time to get us to lay down a course to be pursued, irrespective of what has been done in the past, I think he would find me favourable to his views, but the difficulty is, that if- we are to compel the ministers of the different departments to pay rentals for the buildings occupied by them, it would greatly disturb the accounts of the departments and for purposes of comparison with previous years, the accounts would become valueless. I would be very glad if something of the kind could be done, because it would show my department as a good revenue producer. For instance, if I could get a rental of even 3 per cent on the Montreal post office, which cost $1,000,000, it would be $30,000 a year which would be quite a revenue of itself fqy my department, and if that were multiplied by the revenues of post offices, &c., all over the country, it would make a very good showing. The difficulty is, that that has been contrary to the principle which has been pursued, not only ever since confederation, but ever since the provinces of Canada were inhabited, ever since we had public buildings. The erection and maintenance of public buildings has always been cast upon the Department of Public Works, and it is very difficult to make these changes. I have suggested to my hon. friend the Postmaster General that it would not be a bad idea if he would take into consideration, and pay for the use of the post offices throughout the country, a fair rental, based upon the interest on cost. So far, he has not been able to agree with the suggestion I have made, only made in a tentative manner. If the member for North Toronto could nersuade the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs to adopt his view, certainly 1 would not object. But after all, it would not make much difference to the country, because it would be simply taking the cost out of one branch and paying it on behalf of other branches.


George Eulas Foster: If the Postmaster General is anxious to give to the people of this country the very best postal service he can. and in the most economical way, he will study the question a good deal' before he *would requisition the Minister of Public Works to build a large number of these post offices, which the Minister of Public Works is now building for merely patronage reasons. Consequently, this country would be saved a very large amount of 'money, which the Postmaster General might well use to extend and improve the postal ser-Mr. PUGSLEY.
vice. If a building is to be erected for the purpose of a post office the Postmaster General and the postal authorities ought to be the judges whether it is necessary or not. What does the Postmaster General want to give to. the people of Athens? He wants to give them facilities for getting their mails in and out, he is doing it and can still do it, as they do on principle in the United States, in ninety-nine out of one hundred cases. He can give it to them by way of rental rather than by -way of spending a large amount of money in expensive public buildings, and the people will get as good service, and the department will have the revenue to enlarge and cheapen the service of the country generally.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These public buildings are also used for other purposes. Generally, when the construction of a public building is decided upon by the Minister of Public Works, we select our space, we give our opinion of the space we will require in that building and that locality. The Minister of Inland Revenue is consulted likewise. I may mention, for illustration, the case of Nicolet, where I myself advocated the construction of the post office. Whilst the revenue of the town of Nicolet would not justify the construction of a building for a post office alone, yet we had to consider that there was a regiment stationed there, and they wanted a certain amount of space for armoury purposes. Then there was the customs and excise office to be provided for. Therefore, my hon. friend must not apply his remarks to the post office alone; he must consider all the other departments that use the building.


George Eulas Foster: If you have in view economy alone, you could house half a dozen departments in the same building. The fact in this case is that the Postmaster General has never requisitioned for the purpose of his department to have a public building put up at Athens.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The name of the place is familiar to me as being a historical name, and I remember well that the request has often been made by the people of the locality for a post office. I do not want to bring politics into this matter, but I think Athens is in a county represented by an hon. gentleman of the opposition. I mention this to show that politics have nothing to do with the erection of this building.


George Eulas Foster: What I am trying to bring out is the method on which these buildings are erected. Here is a minister who has nothing to do with the Post Office Department, and who is putting up a building without the request of the Postmaster General, with no hint from the Post Office Department that the work is necessary for that department. Now, I say that is not a proper principle. Take another and a more

signal instance, the instance of Hampton, N.B., in the county of Kings, that I formerly represented I was surprised, the other morning, in reading the ' Hansard,' to find a vote had been given for a public building in Hampton, and that the minister had declared that ^Hampton had a population of 2,000, that it was a remarkably live place, and a growing place, and so he persuaded the House to give him a vote of $5,000 as a starter for a post office.


William Cameron Edwards: It appears that the Postmaster General is not interested in what post office buildings are erected. He is not consulted when a post office is to be erected although it would only seem natural that he would be the very first person that would be consulted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am.


William Cameron Edwards: You were not consulted
in this case?


William Pugsley: No, $3,000 as a starter, the whole thing to cost not more than $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: Now, I was anxious to know whether the Postmaster General had represented to the Minister of Public WotEs that for the purpose of his work it was necessary to have a $5,000 building put up in Hampton.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This may have occurred during my absence. But I am sure the department must have been consulted.
Mr. FOSTER I would like the minister to find out and bring down the information. I would like to know whether the minister, who is, I think, disposed to be economical, requisitioned that building, or whether he thought it was necessary.


William Cameron Edwards: May 1 ask the Minister of Public Works if the Minister of Railways and Canals did not consult him in regard to this matter?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: And it is also in the constituency of the Minister of Railways and Canals?


William Pugsley: Well, it is in the county of Leeds, but I think a part of Leeds forms a portion of the constituency of Brockville. My impression is that it is in the constituency of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


William Cameron Edwards: Is not the minister perfectly aware that there is a portion of Leeds in the constituency of Brockville?


William Pugsley: No I am not, but that is my belief.


William Cameron Edwards: Of course, there is no politics in this.


John Graham Haggart: Part of it is in Brockville.


William Pugsley: That is what I understand.


William Cameron Edwards: This $5,000 is for a constituency represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals, and it is to be followed with another vote of $10,000 making about $15,000.


William Pugsley: Not exceeding that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Many sessions ago.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that this vote was asked for this particular building without consulting the Postmaster General, and without any requisition from the Postmaster General for the building. The Minister of Public Works explicitly stated the other night that it would not be expected that the Department of Public Works should consult the Postmaster General with regard to the erection of post offices in this country.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong. As to the accommodation required for post offices I stated that we did consult the Post Office Department.


William Cameron Edwards: I said nothing with regard to the accommodation for post offices at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With regard to the architecture and the building of the office-no. Of course, that is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works, but the first requisition always comes from the Post Office Department.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, that is perfectly contrary to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works the other night because he said that he was endeavouring to get the Postmaster General to consider these matters with him. Does the Post, master General think it is dealing fairly with the people of this country for $15,000 to be spent for the erection of a post office in Athens, or in any other village the size of Athens when there are whole townships in Ontario that have no post office within their bounds? Does he think it is fair today to spend $15,000 for a post office for a village the size of this when there are people in country places who have to travel all the way from five miles to twelve and fifteen miles to get their mail? He must agree that it is not fair play, and if he is not consulted in regard to the money being spent for the erection of post offices he should be and he should use his influence to see that the public get the postal facilities of which they stand in need. He should take a special interest in this because he is the man to whom they look for ' redress in these matters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In answer to my hon. friend's question, I would say that there is no analogy whatever in my judgment between the case of a town and that of a whole township. In the town the population is concentrated at a given spot. There may be 2,000 or 3,000 or 5,000 people congregated together, but in a whole township the population is scattered. You could not erect one building for a whole township while you could for a town even though the population might be less than that of the whole township. As regards postal facilities in a whole township, I do not know that there is any reason why the people should not be provided with these postal facilities where the distance is about five miles from a post office. It is certainly the policy of the Post Office Department to grant any request which is made with such a distance in view. Whenever my hon. friend on behalf of his own township in Frontenac or any other non. gentleman makes a request to provide postal facilities, where there is a distance of about five miles, the Post Office Department cannot but accede to that request, and I appeal to him and to members of the House on both sides whether, whenever a request- of that kind is made to the Post Office Department, it is not granted.


William Cameron Edwards: I am very glad indeed that I intervened in this discussion, because I have got a very important statement in so far as my constituency is- concerned from the Postmaster General. I am very glad he has made that statement, and I can assure him that the time will be exceedingly short when I shall appear before him and ask him to carry out to the letter the statement which he has placed on ' Hansard ' this afternoon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did we not live up to it in the past?


William Cameron Edwards: No, the Post Office Department has not lived up to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can my hon. friend cite an instance in his county, where, within a distance of five or six miles, there are no postal facilities?	*


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, I will cite an instance. Last year, or the year before


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know this case; be very careful.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, I will be careful. Thus far I have made no statement which I have had to retract. I made a request for a post office between Sharbot Lake and Maberly. I have in my possession now the answer which I obtained from the Postmaster General in regard to that matter. There was a settlement of 20 or 22 families. The nearest any of them lived to a post office was from 5 to 8 miles.


William Cameron Edwards: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Five to eight miles.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, five to eight miles. They asked for a bi-weekly service. They were satisfied with a mail twice a week. I have the letter in my possession from the Postmaster General, in which he said that it would cost $70 to deliver the mail twice a week to this settlement, that it would cost $35 for the postmaster's salary, making a total of $105, that the revenue would not possibly exceed $10 or $15 a year, and that he did not feel that his department would be justified in expending the sum of $90 a year since there were only 20 or 22 families interested. That is a case in point to which I refer, and I am glad that the Postmaster General has put himself on record pn ' Hansard ' here to-day to the effect that his department is willing to grant postal facilities in country places where they have to go five miles or more for their mail.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a case of infrequency of service or the need of an office?


William Cameron Edwards: They want an office; they have no service at all. They would be satisfied with a service twice a week which, I think, is a very mild request on their part. I do not want to simply criticise these items when they come up but I do think I would not be fair to my constituents if I allowed votes of large sums of money for post offices in cities and towns to go through here and put up no protest on behalf of the country districts where they have very meagre, and in some cases, no postal facilities whatever. I recognize that in large cities like Montreal and Toronto and some others, and in very large and enterprising towns it would be expected that there should be better facilities than in country districts, but I believe it .is entirely unwarranted that,, large sums of money should be spent in these smaller towns while the country districts, where the people have to go five and ten and twelve miles to get their mail, have to come here begging for a twice-a-week service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have several times expressed it in this House as my opinion that in a place where no reasonable accommodation for a post office can be obtained by renting it may become necessary for the government to provide that accommodation, by erecting a building, but where a building can be rented, as in this case, at a moderate cost of $125 a year, including fuel and light, to incur an annual expenditure of $1,300 is altogether wrong. I do not think such a policy can be justified before any intelligent people. The minister told us that Athens was a rapidly growing place and that the population is
2097.

1,000, but the fact is that while it is a good business centre the revenue there is only $2,151. Now, in looking down this list I find that there are many places which contribute a much larger revenue to the government and which have not a post office building and are not asking for one. Acton gives a revenue of $3,600 a year and it has no post office; Allison gives a revenue of $2,365 a year and we get a building there for $175 per annum, fuel and light included. Alvinston gives a revenue of over $2,000, Arthur a revenue of $2,600, Aurora a revenue of $4,000 fnearly twice as large as Athens), and Aylmer West a revenue of $6,800, and none of these places have post offices.


William Pugsley: Aylmer is strongly urging for one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the fact that "there are so many of these towns that give a larger revenue than Athens and which have no post offices, there must be some reason for building a post office at Athens other than the needs of the public service. At one time Athens was in the constituency of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), and then we never heard anything about erecting a post office there, but it is taken into the constituency of the Minister of Railways and immediately a post office is to be erected. It would look as if the government had determined that only in favoured spots represented by their supporters will they erect these public buildings.


Adam Brown Crosby: What department now pays the $125 a year rent for the present post office at Athens?


William Pugsley: The Post Office Department.


Adam Brown Crosby: And when this building is erected the Post Office Department will pay nothing?


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is no wonder the Postmaster General would like to see post office buildings erected by the government, because he is relieved of paying rent, and his revenue is consequently increased. Since I have been in the House I have never h.eard of a post office building being erected anywhere except through the influence of some members supporting the government, and I suppose it is hardly any use to condemn that bad principle now. The Minister of Public Works must have been misled when he told us that Athens was in the riding of the hon. member for Leeds, because, as a matter of fact, it is in the constituency represented by the Minister of Railways. I have no doubt it is the same in this case as in many others. The Minister of Railways wants to have a post office in 67
that particular district, and some other day the Minister of Public Works may want to get something in his department, and so he gives a post office. In that way there is reciprocity between the ministers, and sometinj^s with members. As far as I am personally concerned, I would be glad to see a post office built in every village in the Dominion of Canada if we could afford it, but there is no policy laid down by the government in this matter, as we find post offices built in places much smaller in population and in revenue than other places which have no post office building. It is gratifying to find the Postmaster General stating that no request will be refused by him, so that we are in hopes of getting all the post offices we require.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I would like to give the Postmaster General an opportunity to make clear one or two points with reference to the new post office built at Athens. Did the Post Office Inspector for that district report complaining of the inadequacy of the accommodation already provided at that village, or suggesting that better accommodation should be provided? If he did make such a report, was any attempt made to rent a more commodious place?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not the papers to enable me to give my hon. friend the answer to-day. I may give it to him at the next sitting of the House.
Brantford drill hall-Government share of cost of Mtulithic pavement to be laid and storm sewers to be built by the municipal authorities, $900.


William Pugsley: This is to pay what we think is a fair proportion of the cost of the pavement and the storm seweTs.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that the hon. minister promised to build a drill hall in the town of Forest. Does he intend to do so?


Mr. PARDEE.: I may answer the hon gentleman. All arrangements have been made to build it, and the matter is in the hands of the Militia Department. The minister has consented to it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I merely want to know from the minister whether it will be carried out or not.


William Pugsley: That will be in the Militia Department.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like the minister to inform me what the original contract price was for the Brantford drill hall, and what the final cost will be, including the amount now asked for?


William Pugsley: I would not be supposed to have that information, because the Brantford drill hall was built some years ago. All I am now asking for is a small



2100'
amount as a contribution to the city of Brantford for a pavement and storm sewers, one-half of each.


William Cameron Edwards: I would say, for the information of the hon. minister, that the Brantford drill hall is not a building of ancient date. The first building, a wooden structure, dates back to 1868, but in 1895 some $10,000 was contributed ito enable local parties to erect a new drill hall, and in 1904 a contract was let for the construction of this building, amounting to $25,750, with further contracts for heating and electric wiring of $2,600 and $2,450 respectively. The total expenditure on the building from 1903-4 to 1910 was $49,311.43, to which add the $900 asked for in this item, and you have a cost of $50,200, or pretty nearly double the contract price. A few days ago my hon. friend spoke of the final cost of these drill halls and armouries compared with the contract price. On that occasion I said, on page 1628 of 'Hansard':-
If you take up the whole list of armouries from one end of the country to the other you will see that the actual cost, when the buildings are completed, runs from 25 to 75 per cent higher than the contract price, so that the estimated cost does not cut any figure at all.	.
For the information of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, I am prepared to substantiate the statement I made on that occasion, and to prove that the cost of the drill halls and armouries constructed in this country since 1896-the final cost.- has been from twenty-five to seventy-five per cent higher than the contract price, not only in one or two but in dozens of cases, and not. in one province alone, but in every province. Let me give him one or two instances, I might refer to the drill hall at Baddeck, N.S. Contract price was $3,750, and the cost $5,795.


William Pugsley: For what portion of the work?


William Cameron Edwards: If the hon. minister wants to take it in that way, it makes it all the worse for himself.


William Pugsley: That is the only way in which you can take it.


William Cameron Edwards: When I take the contract price, I mean the price of the contractor for the main part of the work, and the additional contracts for heating, lighting, &c. Is that satisfactory?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: With regard to Baddeck I find that the final cost, was some 59 per cent higher than the contract price.


William Pugsley: Of course I have not here the details of the building at Baddeck, and it is very inconvenient to have to go Mr. PUGST EY-
into matters with regard to which I cannot be supposed to have the information with me. My hon. friend says the contract includes the building, heating, plumbing, fittings and everything of that kind. How is the additional amount made up?


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. minister is. certainly putting a conundrum to me.


William Pugsley: I thought so.


William Cameron Edwards: He asked me to tell how the additional price is made up. We have had a good many instances-I have one in my mind now, the construction of a building near Kingston-in which I venture to say it w'ould puzzle the hon. genue-man himself to find out how the additional cost was made up.


William Pugsley: What was the total amount paid for Baddeck drill hall?


William Cameron Edwards: According to a return dated the 8th April, 1910, and which was ordered on the 15th December, 1909, the total cost was $5,975.62. I presume that return gave the cost down to the 8th April, 1910. What has been expended since I cannot say.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 19) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 21) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Buffalo, Niagara and Toronto Railway Company.- Mr. Lancaster.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Simcoe, Grey and Bruce Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 88) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr.	Currie
(Prince Edward).
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Lafortune.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Turcotte (Quebec).
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['$3,600. It will take about $25,000 in addition Jo the cost of the site to complete the building.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.', 'Monday, January 23, 1911.']
William Pugsley: We were considering an item of $900 to be paid to the city of Brantford for a portion of the cost of'bitu-lithic pavement and storm sewers to be built by the municipal authorities. The ihon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was speaking. I would ask him to consider whether, particularly under the new rules, of the House, in discussing an item for the payment of an amount to Brantford for one-half the cost of a bitulithic pavement it is competent for my hon. friend to go into the cost of public buildings for a number of years. I would think that possibly on motion for supply, would be the proper time to discuss a subject of that kind.
justifiable to ask for the expenditure on the whole building, and in doing so to refer, if necessary, to other buildings by comparison. But an extended debate on drill halls generally, rather for their own sake than this item, would scarcely be relevant, and if the hon. member can conveniently bring his remarks to bear upon some other items of drill halls yet to come up it would be more appropriate than at this moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are other items for drill halls lower down on the list. But I respectfully submit that we are within our right to engage even in a general discussion on a question of policy when, the government is asking for a vote in connection with any drill hall. They are all under this branch of public works.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: If the bon. gentleman raises this as a point of order I shall endeavour to give a ruling, otherwise I shall not rule on the matter.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might consider it himself.


William Cameron Edwards: We are considering the aPpropnation of some money towards a drill hall.


William Pugsley: Towards paying the town for the cost of a pavement and storm sewers.


William Cameron Edwards: 
William Pugsley: I have no objection to discussing the Brantford drill hall.
Mr. EDWARDS, pertinent to discuss with drill halls and
I think it is quite any items connected armouries under this.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend desirous of going into a general diseussi I will not raise the point of order. Perha he might as well do it now.


William Cameron Edwards: I certainly intend to put some facts on Hansard ' in connection with drill halls and armouries some time this session, and, perhaps, it might be as web. to do it now as later. However, if tne Chairman says I shall not go on now I will defer.


William Pugsley: It ought to be borne in mind that both sides of the House last session joined together to endeavour to shorten the discussions. Now, it seems to me that if we are to be at all relevant in our remarks on the question as to whether we should contribute $900 to recoup the city of Brantford for one-half the cost of bithulithic pavement and storm sewers, it is clearly irrelevant to do what my hon. friend wishes to do, to go into a general discussion of the cost of drill halls and public buildings in order to show that the cost is more than contract price. I think consideration will show my hon. friend that such a discussion would not be relevant to that particular item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a portion of the cost of this drill hall.


William Pugsley: At all events, his honour has expressed his view with regard to it.


William Cameron Edwards: I notice, in the first place, in reading this item 140, that you gave the total amount we are asked to vote, and that item includes several drill halls. This is an item pertaining to only one of these drill halls. Further down, there is another item for a'drill hall. It seems, to mp that in considering the matter of expenditure in connection with drill halls this is a proper time to have a discussion bearing upon drill halls and armouries generally.
t Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. There appears to be, not a point of order, but an appeal to me for either a rule or a word of guidance. The item is that for a pavement and storm sewers at Brantford. The discussion should be as relevant to that as it well can be made. But in a matter of supply I would not feel like drawing that rule very closely. In considering an expenditure for storm sewers and pavements, I think it is 67 J


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The committee has two ways of taking up each resolution as laid down by the rules. It may take up the whole resolution for $930,000 bodily, and in that case any item would be open for discussion. But if it chooses to take the other method of discussing each of the items separately, then each item must stand alone according to the rules of the House. In adition, in revising the rules last session, this was added to rule 13:-

Speeches in Committee of the House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
That is the rule that I am endeavouring to enforce with reasonable care. In Committee of Supply, I believe, the House is entitled to the widest information that can be given, with due regard to its rules. I have not ruled the hon. gentleman out of order, but I have suggested to him that extended remarks on drill halls generally would be more appropriate on a later item. If he desires to proceed under this item I will allow him to do so, and judge, as he advances in his argument, whether he is relevant or not.


William Cameron Edwards: I infer from your remarks that any extended discussion on drill halls now should be deferred to a later item.
Chesley public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the erection of a public building in the town of Chesley. I may say that the land has been purchased. It consists of a lot 104 by 104 on the west side of Main street, in the town of Chesley. The estimated cost of the building is not to exceed $15,000, that is, apart from the site, but including heating, plumbing and fittings. In 1901 the town had a population of 1,734. The information I have is that the town consists of 8 churches, 2 bank agencies, a woollen mill, sash and door factory, grist mill, saw mill, furniture factory, 3 hotels, 28 stores and a printing office. The revenue last year was $5,106, being a good increase on the year before. The building is required for a post office and custom house, also to afford accommodation as an armoury for the local militia company.


Mr. DONNELLY.: Have plans been prepared?


William Pugsley: Plans have been prepared, and are now with the Post Office Department for consideration, and, we trust, approval.


James J. Donnelly: Permit me to suggest that the contract should be let at as early a date as possible, so that the work may be proceeded with during the coming summer. In the year 1908, $5,000 was put in the estimates for the erection of this building, so the minister cannot be accused of any undue haste in the matter. Speaking on this subject in 1909, the minister assured me that the work of erecting the building would be proceeded with as soon as possible. In view of the large increase in the public revenue during the past year I expect that the minister will proceed with the work of erecting the building at an early date.


William Pugsley: I am very glad that my hon. friend differs from many hon. gentle-Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
men opposite in thinking that it is entirely right and proper to erect a public building in a town of 1,700 population. I quite agree with him and that is why I put the item in. I believe it will be in the public interest, the town is a good one, and I am entirely prepared to completely justify the erection of a public building there.


James J. Donnelly: In what year was the population 1,700?


William Pugsley: 1901.


James J. Donnelly: The town of Chesley has increased in population very rapidly. That was ten years ago and the population may be a thousand more now.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to know that. It agrees entirely with my own information, and it is typical of hundreds of other towns and cities throughout Canada I am glad to say that there is great growtli going on all over the country from east to west which makes the demands for public buildings very much greater than they otherwise would be.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In order to appreciate fullv the minister's remarks I think we should have an answer submitted to the question from my hon. friend from Grey as to when the first vote in connection with this public building was asked from parliament.


William Pugsley: I am not able to give my hon. friend that; I have no memorandum of it.


James J. Donnelly: In 1908 $5,000 was included in the estimates.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am told that the first vote was taken in 1908, when the constituency was not represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Donnelly) but by a supporter of the minister.


William Pugsley: Well, let me say to my hon. friend that it is never too late to assert one's views upon the floor of the House, and if my hon. friend thinks we would be doing wrong in going ahead with this building it is quite open to him to make a motion that the item be struck out.


Adam Brown Crosby: If that is the case will it be open to strike out every other item?


William Pugsley: Yes, to move +o do so.


Adam Brown Crosby: Am I to understand that the minister will support every motion we make in regard to every other public building?


William Pugsley: No, but it is open to any hon. gentleman to make a motion.
Mr. CROSBY'. But the minister will not be open to do that?


William Pugsley: I do not say that the hon. gentleman will succeed in carrying the motion. I say it is quite open to anyone to make a motion if he wishes to put his views on record. I have not intimated for a moment that I would support such a motion.


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Public Works stated distinctly that it would be quite in order for the hon. member or any other hon. member on this side of the House to move that this item should be struck out of the estimates. I have not any doubt but if that motion were made the minister would support it, from what he said.


William Pugsley: No, I would oppose it.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then it would not be struck out, so that he could not really mean what he said. I wanted to see if we really had the minister on some footing where' we could hold him for about a night.
Dresden public building, $17,000.


William Pugsley: The contract, amounting to $13,000, has been let for this building. Thirteen thousand is a revote. Dresden is a very good town, indeed. Its population in 1901 was 1,613. It is about the same size as Chesley, I think. A lot has been purchased at a cost of $2,000, 60 feet on one street, and 103 on the other.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the estimated
cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $21,103.80. Hon. gentlemen will see that upon striking an average we are making quite a little reduction in the cost of public buildings.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Could the minister say when the first appropriation was made for the Dresden building?


William Pugsley: I cannot at this moment. It was voted last year, but whether it was voted previously, I do not remember. If my hon. friend will turn to the estimates he can see for himself.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the estimates here.


William Pugsley: Neither have I.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister's duty would be to have them.


William Pugsley: No, that would not be part of my duty.


Arthur Meighen: Would the deputy know?


William Pugsley: My deputy says that he does not remember.


Arthur Meighen: At all events, this is not more than the third year.


William Pugsley: I am sure this is the second year at all events.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister explain why it is that the contract is let on this building and not on the one immediately preceding?


William Pugsley: At the close of the last session of parliament, there was a large number of buildings provided for and much more than the chief architect, with his staff could undertake within quite a number of months. He has to take them up, one after another ; they cannot all be done at once. In the case of Chesley, tire plans are now in the department of the Postmaster General for approval. This contract for Dresden was just let a few days ago.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister would recall the principle he laid down in the first session of 1909, there would be no difficulty in answering the question whether he had the record or not. The -minister laid it down then, that public buildings that were appropriated for, in the previous year's estimates, that is, in the pre-election year's estimates, would be gone on with before any other buildings were commenced. So that, if the minister remembered the principle he laid down and desired to follow it and knew that he had followed it, he would be certain that this building must have been appropriated fox-in the pre-election year. Otherwise it would be a violation of his pledge to go ahead with it before the building immediately preceding which certainly was first appropriated for in 1908. Consequently, the minister must, besides foregetting the first year when it was appropriated for, also have forgotten the pledge which he made in 1909.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not state what I said correctly. What I said was that, before asking parliament for appropriations for new buildings, speaking as a general thing, we would ask parliament to appropriate moneys for buildings which had been contained in the estimates of 1907-8.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister quite sure that is what he said ?


William Pugsley: Yes, I think so.


Arthur Meighen: I have not 'Hansard' here.


William Pugsley: At all events, that is what I ought to have said.


Arthur Meighen: We will test our respective memories as soon as I can get * Hansard.'


William Pugsley: I think that must be what I said. If I did not say that, it would

be a slip of the tongue. Immediately par-[DOT] liament votes money, all buildings stand on an equal footing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have noticed this custom which has been prevalent of late years and it is a very pernicious one. Items are "voted year after year for public works and nothing is done. I do not know whether it is as bad this year as last, or the year before. That, in my judgment, is a, very bad principle. The buildings are really required or they are not. If they are required, and the money is voted, the contract ought to be gone on with, and the expenditure made within the estimate. It is no justifiable excuse in the world to say that your architects are busy. If you had only a sufficient number of architects to prepare the plans for a quarter of the number of buildings, and we voted money for the other three quarters, would it be any justification for the government's conduct, in leaving over three quarters of the buildings for ten years and not starting them at all ? That is practically what the Minister of Public Works says now. If they are not going on with these buildings, why should the government get the .money for them ? In my opinion, we should only vote sufficient money each year to prepare the plans and to provide for the work that is proceeded with in that year. Then, we would not have, as we frequently have, these items standing over until an election comes on when they are held out as a bribe to electors to return a supporter of the government. The present system is pernicious and should not be tolerated by the House.


William Pugsley: The contract in Dresden has been let and I said that the plans were actually all prepared for Chesley-post office and were in the hands of the Post Office Department for approval.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why is the contract let for Dresden and not for Chesley? Is it not because the one is represented by a supporter of the government and the other is not?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong, not as he usually is but as he sometimes is. Either one of us is stupid and probably I am


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You ought to know best.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is so much older than I that I hope he won't be severe on me. We go on with the plans as the staff is able to get them ready, and as the department interested in the building approves we call for tenders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why is it that the plans are ready for one' place and the contract Mr. PUGSLEY.
let, and why are the plans not ready for the other place although the money was voted in the same year?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The case is stronger than my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) puts it because the vote for Chesley was taken in 1908, a year before the vote for Dresden was taken, and yet the site for the Chesley post office has not been purchased yet.


William Pugsley: Yes it is.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then if the site has been purchased it must have been paid for previous to last year because there is $15,000 asked, which is altogether a revote. But if the minister is right, the site for Chesley post office was purchased two years ago and nothing has been done since. One place is given the advantage of at least a year over the other.


William Pugsley: The plans cannot be prepared until the site has been procured, and it happens in this case that the site for Dresden was ordered to be purchased on the 17th of August, 1908-so that there has been delay in the constituency, represented by Mr. Gordon, who supports the government-whereas the site for Chesley was not acquired until February, 1909.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: All the evidence tends to show that this appropriation has been dangled before the people of that constituency for at least four years.


David Henderson: The minister tells us that his architects are not able to get out the plans for all these buildings in good time, and perhaps I can suggest to him a remedy for the delay. A grea(t many of these buildings are erected in towns ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 population; practically about the same sizedl buildings are called for; there is a great! deal of uniformity about them, and would it not be well for the minister to have standard plans and specifications which might be used for say twenty different towns, and thus save time and trouble and expense, and expedite the erection of the buildings.


William Pugsley: That idea has often been thought of in the department, but the difficulty is that the style of architecture that is suited to the general surroundings of one town will not be suitable in another, and we find that it would not please the people to have one standard building for all sections of the country. Then, some towns are growing rapidly, especially in the west. The style of building must also have some reference to the location of the site. All these things have to be taken into consideration.
Dundas public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: We have purchased the lot, which has a frontage of 125 feet by a depth of one hundred and six feet, and we are at work on the plans. The building is to be used for post office, customs and inland revenue purposes, and the total cost will run up to probably $30,000. Dundas is quite an important town. It has a population of about 3,000 and several factories, and growing rapidly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is another instance in which the money was voted last year, and yet there was apparently no need of voting it. It would relieve the House of some work if we cut out all these votes.


William Pugsley: We had a great deal of difficulty in getting the site. It was only recently that we got it. The wife of the owner refused until recently to sign away her dower.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: When was the first vote taken for this building?


William Pugsley: In 1907-8.
Elora publio building, $14,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract. The building is to cost $12,949. We paid $380 for the site. The fittings, furniture, lock boxes, sidewalk, fencing and contingencies will bring the total estimated cost up to $19,413.61. The site has a frontage of 69 feet by a depth of 132 feet. The population in_1901 was about 1,200, and I believe it is growing.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That vote was first taken in 1907-8 also, I believe?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I find that the votes for all these smaller places-Preston, Dundas, Elora, Essex, Fergus, Harriston/ Mitchell, Midland, Mount Forest, Seaforth, Goderich, Wallaceburg, Wiarton-were all taken in 1907-8, just before the general election, and nothing practically has been done since.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend surely does not forget that in 1908-9 there was a great decline in the revenue, and we made an appeal to parliament to justify us in allowing all except the most urgent public works to stand over, which parliament readily agreed to do. I remember that our friends were called together, and they all said they would not press for even urgent public buildings until the revenues got into better condition.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If the hon. gentleman looks back to the year 1903-4, just before another general election, and the year following, he will find just the same state of things existing.


William Pugsley: I was not here in 1903-4.
Essex post office, $14,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been acquired at a cost of $1,000. The contract has not been let, but the plans are now before the Post Office Department for approval. We expect the total cost to be $15,-
000.


David Henderson: Is Elora a shire town?


William Pugsley: No, it is not, but the people there were complaining very bitterly of the want of accommodation, and in view of the fact that it has an excellent waterpower, that its manufacturing is developing -carriage, sash and door factories, agricultural implement factories, saw and grist mills-that it has a large number of stores, and that it is the centre of a very beautiful country, we thought we might make an exception and give it a public building that would be suitable to a town of that size and with such a fine future.


David Henderson: I understand that one of the qualifications for getting a post office is having water-power.


William Pugsley: That is incidental to growth and development.


David Henderson: Another is to have a certain number of stores.


William Pugsley: Yes.


David Henderson: And another is to have one or two railways, and still another that the people should urge it very strongly.


William Pugsley: Yes, think of the revenue, $3,500 last year.


David Henderson: That is not a big revenue. I have pointed out other towns with larger revenue which have not been thus favoured. I have in mind other towns which have all these qualifications, and requisites and more.


William Pugsley: The town of Milton, for instance.


David Henderson: I am not complaining, but if I can bring that town of mine within the scope of all these various qualifications-


William Pugsley: The friends of my hon. friend would all fight very hard against it.


David Henderson: In that case I would fight them. I notice that the minister does not forget the town of Milton. He brings it up every time I rise so that evidently his conscience is rather uncomfortable, and I want to keep him in that frame of mind until he does justice to the town of Milton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If my hon. friend from Halton" (Mr. Henderson) thinks that the

sensitive conscience of the Minister of Public Works is likely to compel him to do justice, I am afraid he will be sadly disappointed. I would never have credited the hon. minister with possessing any such conscience. What amused me was the answer which he gave with regard to the building in Elora, namely, that the people pressed for it very hard. Yet the vote was put nearly four years ago, and the plans are not ready yet.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must not jump to conclusions so quickly. He said the plans are not even under way. Why, the construction is well under way to-day. Let me say why 1 am pleased with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). From the way in which he has developed along the line of the necessity for public buildings, I look forward to the day when he will have persuaded all our friends opposite into his own conviction, and we will find them approving every item in the estimates for public buildings.
Fergus public building, $14,000.


David Henderson: What county?


William Pugsley: Wellington South.


David Henderson: How far from Elora?


William Pugsley: Let me first give the population. It was 1,396 nine years ago. Fergus also has an excellent water-power. It has an .iron foundry, a planing mill, two saw mills, a factory for split peas, &c.


David Henderson: How many churches?


William Pugsley: Seven.


David Henderson: I thought so. It is a Scotch town.


William Pugsley: And the people have been urging very strongly to have this building built.


William Sora Middlebro: What is the postal revenue?


William Pugsley: $4,300, money orders issued $12,633, money orders paid $20,614.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: The contract is for $13,449, cost of site $700, fittings, furniture, lock boxes, sidewalks, fencing, &c., will bring the total to $19,556, comprising everything.
Fort William public building, enlarging,


William Pugsley: That is for the purpose of making additions to the post office owing to the rapidly increasing business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the additions cost?
Mr. SPROULE


William Pugsley: $7,450 is contract price.
Gananoque post office, addition, $4,000.


William Pugsley: That is to build an addition to the main building, the addition will be 22 feet by 24-a one story brick building. We have got the land for the purpose from the town as a gift. The 'surveying and legal expenses cost us $75, the erection of the building $2,500, the alterations and fittings $1,500 making a total of $4,075. The specifications are now in the hands of the printer, and we will call for tenders as soon as they are ready.


Arthur Meighen: A moment ago the minister challenged the accuracy of my recollection as to the statement made by him in the session of 1909, and which, if he meant it, would have constituted a principle for his department to follow in the construction of these public 'buildings. I said that the Minister of Public Works had clearly stated that such public buildings as were in the 1908 estimates and which he was not able to go on with in 1909, by reason of what he called his retrenchment policy, would be gone on with before any others were initiated. The hon. minister contradicted that statement. I have the ' Hansard ' here which will show which of us was correct. At page 1300 of the ' Hansard ' of 1909, I asked him the following question :
Will the minister also give us the assurance that those public buildings which were in the estimates last year and which now are unfortunately discontinued will be preferred and gone on with before other public buildings of a similar kind are initiated?
The minister replied :
I think that is a very fair question. I feel that is the course that I should pursue as Minister of Public Works, and will certainly recommend to my colleagues.
That- was perhaps as pronounced a statement as the minister was ever tempted to make in Committee of Supply. He went on to say :
Of course, there may be cases arise, such as a public building being burned down or a wharf being carried away, which might create an exception, and we might have to include these new works, but as a general principle I am and would be committed to those works which parliament was asked to sanction last year.
The only exception the minister could think of was a public building burned down or a wharf carried away; that would be, I presume, a wharf built where there is water. A few moments ago a public building in Chesley was referred to. That public building was not in the estimates for 1908. Then a public building in Dresden was spoken of, which was in the estimates for 1908, and each year since. Under tha min-

ister's ruling, under his solemn pledge to the House and the country, because that quotation was largely circulated through the press, the minister would be bound to go on with the public building in Chesley before he even initiated a public building in Dresden. Now, in 1910, the minister is further ahead with the public building in Dresden than with that in Chesley, indeed, his department has been inactive and has done nothing in regard to the Chesley building. It would be interesting for this committee to have the minister exercise his well known and most admirable ingenuity in explaining the consistency of his course with that principle.


William Pugsley: Let me correct an error into which my hon. friend inadvertently fell. He said the Chesley building was not in the estimates of 1908. He should have said the opposite. Chesley was in the estimates of 1907-8, while Dresden was not.
Mr. MEIGHEN I understand I was misinformed on that, but I shall give him an illustration. He has let contracts for buildings that were not in the estimates prior to 1909 all over the country, over and over again. Can he deny that?


William Pugsley: I would be obliged to 'deny that, because there are heir* few public buildings in the estimates of this year which were not in the estimates of 1907-8.


Arthur Meighen: That .would not be denying it.


William Pugsley: He says very many; I say very few.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister give an estimate of the number?


William Pugsley: All my hon. friend has to do is to send for the estimates of 1907 and compare them with those of this year.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will not deny that there are a score?


William Pugsley: I should doubt that very much.


Arthur Meighen: The presence of one would be inconsistent with his principle in 1909 and the minister doubts that there are a score. How will the minister explain that?


William Pugsley: It is the easiest thing in the world to do that. The words ^hich my hon. friend reads are fust what I thought, that before initiating any new works, as a general principle, the works which were provided for in the estimates of 1907-8 would be gone on with. I see how niy hon. friend fell into error. By initiating, I understand to mean the putting of an amount in the estimates for the initiation of a public building, parliament voting the money, and
there might be exceptional cases under which we would think it desirable to proceed with some work not in the previous estimates. Then the amount would be put in and that would be the initiation of a public building. As I said before, when parliament votes money I have to treat all works alike. This corroborates entirely the statement I make. I thought the criticism was going to be that all these public works for which we are now asking votes were in the estimates of 1907-8, before the election. It will be found that 95 per cent of the items which are in the estimates to-day were in the estimates of 1907-8.


David Henderson: That is fust what I found fault with. I pointed out that these were pre-election pledges, and I thought it was unfair that these buildings should have precedence over others where no pre-election promise had been given, and I promply came to the conclusion that simply because these were pre-election pledges they should not have priority over other places, which had really better claims. I am sorry to hear the minister say that 95 per cent of the works he is going on with are _ for buildings proposed before the last election. I do not think the minister has made much out of the statememnt that 95 per cent of these votes are simply carrying out preelection promises.


William Pugsley: Except to answer the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


Arthur Meighen: I would be sorry to have the minister think he had persuaded me or anybody that he had explained his own statement. He says that only 5 per cent are exceptions to the rule. That is a bad enough state of affairs as it is. There is no doubt ground for the complaint of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), but the minister is here making a solemn pledge, and unless he can show that his 5 per cent come within the exceptions he has stated he has deceived the country. He cannot show a single item of the whole 5 per cent, that he doubts amount to a score, where the need for a building was caused by flood or fire and not simply by the fact that the public building was in a constituency represented by a Liberal member.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend says I could not show one. Time is too precious to go through them all, but let me mention Campbellton, where the public building was destroyed by fire. That is one of the new ones.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the whole 5 per cent?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said I could not name one.
Goderich public building, addition, $8,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make an addition to the public building at Goderich.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the character of the addition? -


William Pugsley: This is to build an annex to the public building, also to make alterations to the interior fittings of the post office, as requested by the Post Office Department, and also by the Board of Trade of Goderich. The addition to the building is estimated to cost $7,023; the post office fittings, $3,000; contingencies and superintendence, $977; total estimated expenditure, $11,000. We assume that we will expend prior to 31st of March next, $2,000, and we are asking for a revote of $8,000 and that will leave $1,000 still to be provided in order to complete the work.
Harriston public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: Here the site has been purchased, we bought the larger portion of it from the town of Harriston. Total cost of site and expenses, $3,076; total estimated expenditure for this building will be about $20,000, not including the land. There is to be an armoury in connection with it that may increase the cost.


William Cameron Edwards: How much of this item for the armoury?


William Pugsley: Possibly it may add $3,000 or $4,000 to the cost.


William Cameron Edwards: Is part of this expenditure to be used for the armoury?


William Pugsley: I had asked the chief architect not to exceed $20,000; but he tells me that in consequence of the instructions to put an armoury in it, the cost may run $3,000 or $4,000 beyond that sum.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume I am quite in order under this item in discussing the question of drill halls generally?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Quite so.


William Cameron Edwards: The other day, on page 1628 of ' Hansard ', I stated that the actual cost, when the buildings were completed, ran from 25 to 75 per cent higher than the contract price; and the Minister of Public Works replied that I was entirely in error as to that. It is, then, a question of accuracy between us, and I propose to give a few facts to prove that my statement is correct. Before six o'clock I referred to one case in Nova Scotia, at Baddeck. I might also call attention to Halifax, where the contract price was $204,250, and the actual cost $279,136, or 36 per cent above the contract price. I might refer to Truro, where the contract price was $10,280, the actual cost $12,892, or 25 per cent above contract price; to which should be added, in estimating the total cost of the building, the cost of the site, which was $5,000, paid to Mr. PUGSLEY
a gentleman by the name of J. N. Pugsley, who I understand is a relative of the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: What relationship?


William Cameron Edwards: I said I was informed that he was a relative. If he is, I presume the hon. gentleman knows the relationship better than I do.


William Pugsley: I have never had the pleasure of seeing or knowing that gentleman.


William Cameron Edwards: It is a matter, I dare say, for mutual regret for the Minister of Public Works and Mr. J. N. Pugsley ;f they are not related.


William Pugsley: There may be a distant relationship, but I do not know what it is.


William Cameron Edwards: In New Brunswick I will mention Sussex: contract price, $10,523, actual cost, $14,011, or 33 per cent over contract price. Woodstock: contract price, $39,680, actual cost, $54,259, or 36 per cent over contract price. To that you may add $6,000 for the site. In Quebec, I may mention St. Hyacinthe, where the actual cost is 37 per cent above the contract price, not counting $7,500 paid for the site. In Manitoba I would refer him to Brandon, where the actual cost is 26 per cent over the contract price; and to Virden, where the actual cost is 83 per cent above the contract price. In British Columbia I might refer him to Kamloops, where the actual cost was 76 per cent above contract price; to ICaslo, where it was 85 per cent above contract price; to Rossland, where it was 45 per cent above contract price; to Revel-stoke where it was 63 per cent above contract price; and to Nelson, where the actual cost was 125 per cent above contract price. Yet the hon. gentleman told me the other day, and told this committee, that when 1 stated that the actual price averaged from 25 to 75 per cent above contract, I was entirely in error. Now I commend these figures to his consideration, and I yrant to show him that he was the gentleman who was in error and not the member for Fron-tenac.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? I have not the figures, and many of those buildings were erected a long time before I had anything to do with the department. Is, or is not this the case, that my hon. friend first takes what he calls the contract price, which may be for the building alone, and then he adds on, to make the total cost, plumbing, heating, electric lighting, possibly sidewalks and everything of that kind, which were not in the original contract, and the cost of the site also. Is that not s j J


William Cameron Edwards: No, that is not the case. The main item in the contract is the price for the erection of the building. Invariably there is added to that, contracts for lighting and heating. How the cost, over and above what one would apparently think would cover everything in the construction of the building, reaches these extraordinary figures, is more than I can understand.


William Pugsley: The details are all given.


William Cameron Edwards: It is a difficult matter to understand. Take, for instance, the cottages erected at Kingston. Now at that time the hon. gentleman asked for $57,000 for those buildings. The year previous he had obtained $55,000, he then adds $75,000, which made $112,000, and he estimated at that very time $96,000. Yet he obtained from this House $112,000 for buildings which his own estimate said would cost $96,000. We inquired about the details, .and why this extra money was required? That was the question which I put to him at the time the building was erected. The roof was on, the glass was in the windows, the heating apparatus was installed, the lighting fixtures were up, the walls were plastered, everything was done, yet he wanted something like $22,000 after all that had been done. I questioned the hon. gentleman in that case, and finally got him to agree to hand back $20,000 of that money. But to go on with drill halls and armouries, let me give a few instances in the province of Ontario. For Belleville drill hall, the contract price was $108,682, and the actual cost $138,511, or 27 per cent above; Brock-ville drill hall 30 per cent above the contract price; Woodstock 27 per cent above the contract price, not including the cost of the site which was $6,120; Kingston 28 per cent above, not counting the site, which cost $18,300; Hamilton 66 per cent above, not counting the site,- (which cost $6,000. That was in 1889. But let me give the history in connection with Hamilton from 1896 down. I find that the contract price was $254,276, over a quarter of a million, and that the cost was $317,937, or 25 per cent above the contract price not counting $29,000 paid for the site in 1908.


William Pugsley: Why should my hon. friend count the site? The site is not in the contract.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not count it.


William Pugsley: Then why mention it? You give the impression that the cost of the site should be added to the contract.


William Cameron Edwards: I will explain why I mention it. I am showing that the actual cost is very much in excess of the contract price. I merely mention the cost of the site where I give it so that any person who is interested in the total cost of the building may add the cost of the site to the final cost, not that it makes any difference in comparing the contract price with the actual cost. Dundas cost 92 per cent more; Cobourg 44 per cent and the cost of the site was $6,000; Burford 57 per cent; Brantford 92 per cent. In St. Catharines the contract was awarded for the building in October 1900, to one William Garson.


William Pugsley: What is the percentage that the hon. gentleman gives for Cobourg?


William Cameron Edwards: 44 per cent.


William Pugsley: What was the contract?


William Cameron Edwards: 


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman must be wrong there. What was the actual cost?


William Cameron Edwards: $57,526. I think that will figure out to 44 per cent.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman may be right, but that is not my information.


William Cameron Edwards: The contract was awarded in St. Catharines in 1900, to William Garson for $56,000. This contract was cancelled and Garson was presented with $7,288. A new contract was entered into in June, 1904, with Sullivan and Langdon for $79,829, and with others for $14,940, or a total of $94,769; in other words the contract in	1904	was 69 per centhigher than	the contract	with Mr. Garson in 1900. The total cost of this building, including the $7,288 presented to Mr. Garson, was $110,534, or 97 per cent higher than Garson's contract which was cancelled in 1900. Now, the minister, a few minutes ago said that these buildings were erected before his time. The buildings that I have referred to have been constructed since the year 1896. For the buildings under construction I may say that the contracts total up $686,906, there has been spent on them $730,744, and it is estimated that it will take $72,905 additional. That will make $803,649 to which you will have to add the cost of the sites amounting to $22,200. If you summarize this you will find the following results: Take five drill halls or armouries in the province of Nova Scotia; the contract price was $234,830, and the actual cost $312,885, or 33 per cent. Take three in New Brunswick, and they cost 32 per cent over the contract price; seven in British Columbia show an advance of 33 per cent; two in Manitoba 33 per cent; two in Quebec an advance of 23 per cent; fourteen in Ontario an advance of 27 per cent. So that, I think that I have substantiated my statement that the actual cost of drill halls or armouries erected in this country ranges from 25 to 75 per cent higher than the contract price. There are 33 buildings, the total contracts amount to $1,800,-
866, and the actual cost is $2,315,148, or an average of 28 per cent above the contract price. Then, it is interesting in connection with this matter to note that the drill halls and armouries constructed between the first of July, 1896, and December, 1909, have cost this country for construction and sites over $2,049,510. We have in Nova Scotia 166 officers and 1,812 non-commissioned officers and men making use of these buildings. If you average this cost up to see what we are paying for the whistle it means that for every officer in Nova Scotia who is making use of these buildings for drill purposes this country has paid out over $1,900 since 1896 while for each noncommissioned officer and man it cost $174. If you apply it to British Columbia the average cost per officer is $2,557 and for each non-commissioned officer and man $233 for buildings erected in that province. So, you may go through the whole lot. If you take the country over it averages nearly $2,000 for each officer and nearly $186 for each non-commissioned officer and man.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to this you might put in the salaries of the engineers and firemen employed in only fifteen of these buildings and they will total $132,720 in fourteen years. The chaTge for maintenance alone from 1896 to 1908 is $76,103. We speak about the cost of militia and defence for this country. It is a matter of some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 a year. But that is not all. You have to take in addition to that the cost of these expensive buildings, the cost of the men employed in looking after them, the cost of maintenance. Then, you have to take the millions of dollars which are being spent annually for militia and defence and put that along side the meagre, paltry sum of money which is voted by this government in the interest of agriculture. It is something that should call for strong protest from every hon. gentleman in this House. I take this opportunity of entering my protest as one member against this sort of thing. We have too much fuss and feathers. As one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House said, I think, last year we pay too much for red tape and gold braid in this country-entirely too much and I think the money, to a large extent, is worse than wasted. I think I have amply proven the assertion which I made in the House the other day, and I reiterate my argument that no dependence can be placed upon the estimates of the cost of these buildings as brought [DOT]down by the Minister of Public Works.
Invariably when the final cost of the building is ascertained we discover that the estimated cost is so entirely different from the real	fact, that there is
no reliance to be placed on the the estimates of cost presented to the committee by the minister. When the Minister of Public Works challenged the Mr. EDWARDS.
correctness of my statement that the actual cost of buildings was from 25 per cent to 75 per cent in excess of the contract price, he did not know what he was talking about, and vast as his knowledge is there is something left for him to learn. Complaint is sometimes made that the estimates are not rushed through fast enough. That is not because the members on this side desire to prevent necessary expenditure of public money, but because they have learned from bitter experience that no reliance can be placed on the figures presented by the minister, and so we have to look at all these estimates with doubt. The Minister of Public Works tells us that a certain building will cost so much and that is all it is going to cost, and he tells us of the large business interests of the locality and we feel that the country can afford to spend that much, money there, but ultimately we find that, this building costs anywhere from 25 to 75 per cent, and in one case 123 per cent, more than the contract price, which he led us to believe would be some indication as to the total cost of the building. If the architects employed by the minister do not know what they are doing let him hunt around for men who can tell somewhere near what a building is going to cost and then he will not be subject to all this criticism.


William Pugsley: I regret that my hon. friend with all his desire to enlighten me has not succeeded further than to lead to the belief that the hon. gentleman does not measure very carefully his words. I have always found in my experience that though you may not be able at the moment to probe all the statements made by a witness, or a member of parliament either, it is a very good rule to endeavour to pick out just a few things and show the inaccuracy in regard to these, and^ then leave it to the jury or to the public, as the case may be, to judge as to what reliance may be placed in every statement made by such a witness or member. The hon. gentleman stated the other evening that drill halls and armouries generally actually cost from 25 to 75 per cent in excess of the contract price. Every one who listened to my hon. friend understood that this statement had reference to the work which was actually supposed to be included in the contract, and his argument was that through some fault of the chief architect or a desire to help the contractor, or looseness in the administration of the department, the contractor was able to draw from the public treasury from 25 to 75 per cent more than he was entitled to receive under his contract.


William Cameron Edwards: I made no such statement.


William Pugsley: That is a fair inference to draw from the statement made by the hon. gentleman. He told us that the building at Baddeck cost about 35 per cent more.


William Cameron Edwards: Fifty-nine.


William Pugsley: As a matter of fact the contract price for Baddeck was $2,250, and the contractor was paid to the very cent what the department had agreed to pay him by the contract without adding one cent, but the cost of the fittings for that, building was $1,500, which made the total' cost of the building, including fittings, $3,750.


William Cameron Edwards: What was the final cost?


William Pugsley: 


William Cameron Edwards: And here is your own statement from your own department saying that it was $5,975. This would show that we cannot get reliable figures from your department.


William Pugsley: That includes many other things besides the contract and the fittings.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say what it included.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. No, but the hon. gentleman gave the committee to understand that through some fault of the chief architect the contractor had received from 25 to 75 per cent more than he had contracted to do the work for.


William Cameron Edwards: My statement wms just as clear as the English language could make it, namely that the actual price was from 25 to 75 per cent above the contract price, and that is all I said. I gave the contract price in each case as the department gave it to me, and I gave the actual cost *as the department gave it to me, and I worked out the percentage. The hon. gentleman is at liberty to draw on his imagination, as he is apt and able to do, for all the inferences he sees fit, but there are the figures. The hon. gentleman did deny the correctness of these figures but he did not speak of my drawing any inferences at that time; he wanted the committee to get the idea that the statement I made was not a fact.
Mr. PUGSLEYL I certainly do deny not only the correctness of the figures given by the hon. gentleman, but I deny the inferences he sought to draw.


William Cameron Edwards: They are your own figures.
Mr. PUGSLEY". The hon: gentleman repeats to-night that these buildings cost from 25 to 75 per cent more than the contract price. Does that not mean that there was a contract price for the building, and that the contract price included the fittings and the heating and the plumbing and everything else. Surely that must be the inference from his language. Take the case of a building where the contract is simply for the building of the walls and the plastering and putting in the windows and doors, and if that contract was for $40,000, and there was a contract for the fittings and the heating, and the plumbing, and the sidewalks, and electric wiring at $10,000, would it be fair to argue that the building had actually cost $10,000 more than the contract price of $40,000. Surely the cost of the fittings, heating and plumbing, and improvements of the sidewalk must all form part of the contract price; yet my hon. friend has not included them in his statement of the cost of the Baddeck armoury. The cost of the building was $2,250, and the cost of the heating $1,500, making a total of $3,750.	[DOT]


William Cameron Edwards: I got the figures from the hon. gentleman's department.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend gets from my department a statement of the cost of the armoury, showing that the contract was $2,250, and sundry work, which would be the heating, $1,500, a total of $3,750. That is exactly what was agreed to be paid to the contractor. Then the hon. gentleman has added to the record of the cost all the repairs which were made to the building from year to year from 1901, when it was erected, down to the time tie got this statement, that is, for a period of nine years, and he tells this committee that that shows that this building has cost a vast percentage beyond the contract price. Does my hon. friend think that is fair?


William Cameron Edwards: Is that not the report from the hon. gentleman's own department?


William Pugsley: The statement read by the hon. gentleman showed a total expenditure to date on the Baddeck armoury, including site, of $5,975.62. This return was given to the hon. gentleman on April 7. 1910, and he included in it the cost of the site and all the expenditure incurred on the building between the time the contract was let in 1901 down to 1910. Now, let us look at another; take the Cobourg armoury. I charge the hon. gentleman in that case also with adding into the expenses of construction all the expenditures for repairs on that building from year to year from 1903 down to 1910, to make a total of $57,526. Let us take another-Woodstock, Ont.; he said that had cost a very large percentage above the contract price. I charge the hon. gentleman with having done the same thing there-with having taken all the ex-

penditures in the way of repairs upon the building during a number of years after me work of construction was ended and added them to the contract price. The figures which the hon. gentleman had before him ought to have satisfied him, if he had given any care whatever to an examination of them, that the effect of his statement would be to mislead the House as to the actual cost of the building. Take Woodstock, N. B., the contract price there was $31,980, and the total amount paid $37,306-a difference of about $5,000. The hon. gentleman there also added the expenses during two years at least after the building was completed, and when work was being done which had nothing whatever to do with its construction. Later on, when the hon. gentleman's figures are printed in ' Hansard,' it may be worth while still further to expose the fallacious statement he has made and show that he is entirely mistaken with regard to the cost of these buildings.
The reason I took the liberty of differing with him the other day was that since 1 have been Minister of Public Works, I have traced with a good deal of care the cost of the different buildings erected under the supervision of the chief architect of this department, and I knew there was no such additional amount of expenditure on construction as that which was stated by the hon. gentleman. And notwithstanding the assertions which are sometimes cast by hon. gentlemen opposite and by some others on the chief architect, I desire to say-and I say it with the greatest possible pleasure-that from the experience I have had of that gentleman, I can testify to the great industry and care he always displays in the most important work of his department. He has a great deal of responsibility in connection with the erection of public buildings; and from the Observation I have had of his work, I am able to say that he does it faithfully and well. In Mr. Ewart, appointed long before this government came into power, as chief architect, the public has a most valuable servant, one who gives honest, faithful and diligent service to the country.


William Cameron Edwards: If I had not the opportunity of being in this committee before and of listening on many other occasions to the Minister of Public Works, I might be surprised, but I must confess that I am not one whit surprised at the argument he has just made. Last year I asked for a return with regard to public buildings, drill halls and armouries. What I asked for, was this:-
At what places in the several provinces, armouries and drill halls have been erected; the total cost of the site in each case, and' when and from whom purchased; the contract price of each building, and to whom and Mr. PUGSLEY.
when the contract was awarded; the total cost of each building; in what places armouries and drill halls are being constructed at present, and the cost of the site, from whom, when, at what price the contract was awarded, and the names of places where other armouries and drill halls are to be built by the government in the near future.
That question bears on its face its object, namely, to obtain information as to the amount of money expended on drill halls and armouries. I do not think there can be any doubt as to its meaning. When I stated the other night that the actual cost was from 25 per cent to 75 per cent in excess of the contract price, the hon. gentleman-speaking of Baddeck-said that I included in that cost all that had been expended from 1901 down to the present on the Baddeck armoury. Well, I stated precisely what the hon. gentleman himself gave me. It was from the return furnished by his own department that I took my figures. In that return which I hold in my hand, there is no detail of the expenditure at Baddeck. All it states is that the contract was awarded to Joseph Queen for $2,250, and sundry work awarded to P. H. McFarlane at $1,500.


William Pugsley: It states a little more. It gives the total expenditure to date.


William Cameron Edwards: And it gives the total expenditure to date at $5,975, and that is precisely what I took into 'account.


William Pugsley: I rise to ask a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The minister rises to ask a question, but the hon. gentleman who has the floor can refuse, if he desires.


William Cameron Edwards: I am going to accord to the hon. minister exactly the same courtesy which he did to me, and will ask him to wait until I get through.


William Pugsley: That will suit me perfectly.


William Cameron Edwards: And suit me better. In referring to Baddeck the minister said that I included everything in this expenditure, even the site. Will he allow me to inform this committee that, according to the return furnished by his own department, the site did not cost anything, but was a free gift. I might also draw an inference from that statement of the minister. I might say that it was his intention to try and make this committee believe that I was endeavouring to include some amount for the site of the building when I had a return showing that the site cost nothing.
Take the Woodstock armoury which happens to be the next one on the list. I

included in the contract price all that was given in the return sent down by the Public Works Department. Under the heading of contractors, it says that the building was let to Williams & Fisher for $31,980; for heating apparatus, the contract was given another firm for $2,700; then there was a contract for electric wiring and fixtures $1,500. Then there was furniture and fittings $3,500. I included all these in the contract price and they brought the price up to $39,680. One would naturally think that when the contract was awarded for this building for $31,980, and when the contract was let, as shown in this return for heating apparatus, and when the contract was let for electric wiring and fixtures and fittings and furniture, you had pretty-nearly all that the building could cost when completed; and I concluded that these covered the whole contract price. I made up the amount, from the statement given in the return sent by the hon. gentleman's own department, as $39,680. And I pointed out that notwithstanding everything appeared to be covered by the contracts I have mentioned, the building cost $54,257 or 36 per cent * more than the total amount of all those various contracts I have enumerated. Could I have been fairer? Had the minister furnished me with the details of expenditures throughout these various years, I would have given them to the House; but the hon. gentleman's department furnished me with the expenditures for the different years' and they amounted to $54,257, which I gave to the House and on which I based the excess of cost over the contract price.
We all know that these large buildings are not constructed in one year. The hon. gentleman makes quite a hullabaloo about the fact that this expenditure was spread over several years. Why does the hon. gentleman do that if it is not meant by him as a herring drawn across the track to distract attention from the facts of the case? The point I endeavoured to make, and it nettled the hon. gentleman, as he showed quite clearly, was that the actual cost of these buildings was from 25 per cent to 75 per cent in excess of the contract pries. It is up to the hon. gentleman, if he is not satisfied with that, if he wants to draw inferences, and if he thinks the House draws inferences from that, to make it clear where the rest of the money went. It is not up to me. I take the return as provided by him. It is up to him to draw inferences, and to explain them to the House and to the country. There is a feeling in the country that these buildings are costing much more than they should, that men are given a contract on a building and that_'extras are thrown in before the building is completed to the extent of thousands of dollars. In the neighbourhood of Kingston we have a clear instance of this in connection with the construction of cottages for soldiers. After everything was completed the hon. gentleman asked this committee for $20,000 more than was required to complete the building, when even the glass and fixtures were in and it was only after drumming that point at him that he consented to give the $20,000 back, to reduce the vote, and now he tries to distract attention from the real point I am making by implying that I am throwing out insinuations. I am not dealing in hi* sinuations to-night, but in figures furnished by the hon. gentleman's department, and it is up to the hon. gentleman to explain what inference is to be drawn from this sort of thing. The same thing applies to Woodstock, N.B., and Cobourg. He found fault with my statement in regard to Cobourg. That expenditure I gave, also, from the statement furnished me by the_ hon. gentleman's department. I included in the contract, which was for $35,550, also the contract for fittings, $4,395, making the total contract, which I had a right to suppose, from the documents furnished me by the hon. gentleman's department, amounted to $35,945.	1 take the hon. gentleman s
own statement in regard to the expenditure of 1902 to 1909, for various amounts paid as the building progressed, and it appears to be $57,526.25. I repeat that it is not up to me to explain the details; I have not the information to explain them. If the non. gentleman sees fit to draw on his imagination for inferences and to conclude that the people of this country think that these buildings are costing from 25 per cent to 75 per cent more than the contract price, and that the money might be spent more carefully, it is up to him to explain it. The inference does exist in the public mind, and the public are not satisfied with the way he handles their money. It is all very wrell for the minister to undertake to twist a man's statement, but in this case he is occupying the unique position of endeavouring to twist and distort a statement furnished by his own department in answer to an order of this House. We all know how able and capable the hon. gentleman is in turning around a corner, but it has kept him busy this evening to twist around and get on both sides of this question.


William Pugsley: What I charge against the hon. gentleman, and what I reaffirm against him is that, having in his possession a return furnished by tlie Department of Public Works, which gave on its face the total expenditure to date down to 1910, when that return was asked for, he did not inform the committee that the figures he gave included all repairs and expenses of every kind and description, which had been made on these buildings subsequent to the completion of the contract. That is the

charge I made, that is the charge I repeat, and that is the charge from which the hon. gentleman cannot escape. There is no question about that. When the hon. gentleman says that this department gave him a return, so it did, but what did it profess to give on its face? It gave the total cost incurred in connection frith the building to date. The hon. gentleman has been here long enough to know that when I am asked in regard to public buildings, as, for instance, a day or two ago in regard to the post office building at Montreal, the total cost to date, I gave the cost from the construction of the building 40 or 50 years ago, not only during the time of construction, but down to the very time when my memoranda were made up in 1911. My hon. friend has been here long enough to know, he must have known, that such a return gives not only the cost of construction, the contract price, the fittings, heating, cost of site, all repairs to the building right from the very first down to the present time, whether it is 5, 10, 20 or 50 years. My hon. friend ought to have known that the figures he has given as to the total cost of the work, which he say.s exceeded the estimate bv 25 per cent to 75 per cent, included all these items.


William Cameron Edwards: I beg pardon.


William Pugsley: They do, whenever the site has been paid for, they do.


William Cameron Edwards: I beg pardon, they do not.


William Pugsley: I say they do. That return gives the total expenditure upon the buildings to date.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood the hon. gentleman to say I included the cost in my percentage.


William Pugsley: Did not the hon. gentleman give the total expenditure to data from that statement?.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not include the cost of site.


William Pugsley: The site is included in every case.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not include the cost of site.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman deduct the cost of site?


William Cameron Edwards: I certainly did not.


William Pugsley: Let me take the case of Woodstock, N.B.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the cost of the site there?


William Pugsley: It is not a question of what difference it makes, because in either case it might be $6,000. What I charge against the hon. gentleman is that he had Mr. PUGSLEY.
in his possession a return made by the department, showing the total expenditure to date, which the hon. gentleman either knew or ought to have known includes every item of cost of every kind or description, from the time the survey of the site was undertaken, including advertising, including legal expenses, including contract price, including fittings, heating, plumbing, electric wiring, sidewalks, any sewerage there might be, and all repairs from the day when the construction was completed right down to the time when the return was moved for ; and, the hon. gentleman sought to lead the committee to believe that that represented the cost of the building which was supposed to have been included in the original contract price. That is the charge which I make against the hon. gentleman, and that is the charge from which he cannot escape. Now, take the case of Woodstock. The hon. gentleman gave the total cost as $73,091.78, yet the hon. gentleman had before him a statement showing the expenditure beginning with the year 1902 running down to the year 1909, and I say that included, as the hon. gentleman ought to know, the survey of the site, the cost of the site, the legal expenses, the advertising, the contract price for the building, the fittings, heating, plumbing, electric wiring, sidewalks and all repairs which were made subsequent to the time the construction was finished down to the very day the return was moved for. But, the hon. gentleman sought to make this committee believe that this amount of $73,091 represented the cost which ought to have been included, and which was supposed to have been included, in the original contract price for the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is anything misleading in it, the parties who are responsible for it are those who furnished the return to this House. It does not appear, so far as I could learn on the face of the paper, thatNthere were repairs included in that from time to time. We know for a fact that the erection of these buildings extends, over many years. While I have been in the House I have watched the progress of the erection of buildings year after year. After the buildings are commenced it is sometimes three, or four or five, six or seven years before they are finished. The answer given to the hon. member's question including the contract price and cost of building complete, does not say down to what date.


William Pugsley: It does say to this date.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That return was furnished by the minister's department and by his orders ; then I say that he above all others is responsible for misleading the

House and the country, if there is anything to mislead in the statement that has been furnished here. My hon. friend only read out the return as given to him, and if the returns -which we got are not reliable, then it behooves the Minister of Public Works to be more careful in what he presents to this House.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Frontenac ought to be very thankful to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) for trying to strengthen the defence he has endeavoured to make against the charge I have brought against him, and successfully, I think. The hon, gentleman says that the department is responsible. What would the hon. gentleman think if I were to assure him, as I have already assured the committee, that that return gives the figures showing the expenditure year after year, and shows the total expenditure down to the year 1910, when that return was moved for. It includes the cost of thh site. The site in every case is included in these figures, and the hon. gentleman put that in and added it to the total figures, by which means he sought to make a comparison against the original contract price.


William Cameron Edwards: Unfortunately for the argument of the Minister of Public Works in most of the cases which 'he saw fit to cite, the site did not cost anything. However, in comprising the total expenditure with the contract price, I took the figures furnished by the hon. gentleman's department, and proved what I stated the other day, that the actual cost was some 25 to 75 per cent in excess of the contract price. In the return thus furnished to me, in at least two-thirds of the instances which I gave this evening, the site cost nothing ; so that part of the hon. gentleman's argument falls entirely to the ground.


William Sora Middlebro: Taking the first item, Baddeck harbour :	The contract
price is apparently, $2,250, sundry work, $1,550, making $3,800. Taking that from the total expenditure, leaves $2,225. What would that be for?


William Pugsley: That could be arrived at by looking at the Public Accounts. I am not supposed to have that information with me. But that includes the total expenditure, the survey of the site, the legal expenses, advertising, salary of the clerk of works, travelling expenses, contingencies, repairs, everything right down to date.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the hon. gen-tie-man think these small items would amount to the contract price of the armoury itself?


William Pugsley: Yes, running over that number of years.
Kingston post office, addition to building and alterations, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of making a two story addition to the building, 55 x 35 feet ; also to make alterations in the interior fittings, &c. The total estimated cost of $25,000. Additional accommodation is considered by the Post Office Department to be urgently required.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to ask the minister why no work was done on this building last year although an appropriation was made for the work?


William Pugsley: We did not reach it in the ordinary course last year. The plans have now been approved by the Post Office Department and it is proposed to go on with the work as speedily as we can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You must have reached it in some way because there was an expenditure of $2,000. What was that for?


William Pugsley: That is the estimated expenditure up to the 31st March next. >


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that there was a vote for this some years ago of $7,785, while the expenditure is only going on now.


William Pugsley: They have been getting along as well as they could.
Kingston Royal Military College, covered drill hall, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The word ' covered ' is a misprint and it should be struck out.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a new building or an addition?


William Pugsley: A new building.


Arthur Meighen: When did it first appear in the estimates?


William Pugsley: It was in last year and I am inclined to think that it was in pre-, viously.


Arthur Meighen: It is a drill hall?


William Pugsley: Yes, a drill hall for
the cadets.


Arthur Meighen: I think I can advise the minister that it was not in previously. I have the proceedings for 1908. Would the minister kindly explain if the old drill hall was burned down or carried away by a flood?	_


William Pugsley: No. I may say that I am. substituting this for a building which did appear. There was a skating rink which appeared and I decided to drop that item and put this drill hall in for the cadets.


Arthur Meighen: I have the estimates for 1908 and I will read the Kingston items* for the information of the minister :



Kingston Koyal Military College, new quarters, additional amount.
Kingston post office, addition to building and alterations to fittings.
Kingston military buildings, repairs and renewals to blocks A, C and E, Tete du Pont barracks, &c., inclusive of electric ligthing, &c.
That is all the Kingston buildings. I do not know which of these items relates to this vote.


William Pugsley: This was in last year at all events.


Arthur Meighen: It is being gone ahead with contrary to the pledge the minister gave in 1909, and it does not come within the exception of fire or flood. Will the minister explain why this is being gone ahead with in preference to buijdings that were in the estimates for 1908?


William Pugsley: We had some items for the year 1907-8, I am quite sure. I do not profess to keep all these things in my head, but my recollection is that we dropped some two or three items for Kingston which did not seem to be quite so urgent as this drill hall and we put in an amount for the drill hall. This seems to be very urgent. Kingston Military College is doing a splendid work_ for the young men of the country, this is urged by the college authorities and we do not think that we ought to postpone any longer in providing for it.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the minister is not very accurate. All that vote in the 1908 estimates appears since as being pursued. I see nothing dropped. Is the minister going to assert that all that is necessary to any one of those later items is simply to assure the committee that they appear to be very urgent and consequently he has decided to go on ? If so, the pledge which he made in 1909 was just so much chaff and straw.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they were urgent and parliament voted the money last year why did he not spend it ?


William Cameron Edwards: There is another question that I would like to put to the minister in connection with this building. 1 notice that the item is for $15,000. I will not be very certain that I am correct, but I think I am correct in saying that we were informed earlier in the session that any militia buildings, the cost of which was not to exceed $15,000, were sujtposed to come under the supervision in their construction of the Minister of Militia; that is, that the Minister of Militia was supposed to be capable of looking after the construction of a building that did not cost more than $15,000.


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is $29,000.


Arthur Meighen: 


William Cameron Edwards: Of course, that puts it beyond the intellectual powers, I suppose, of the Minister of Militia. We have to assume then that he is only capable of looking after the construction of a building that does not cost more than $15,000, but when the cost exceeds $15,000 it requires^ a person of the mental calibre of the Minister of Public Works to look after it. In that case, there are many buildings which, in my opinion, might be constructed for $14,000 or $15,000 which will cost a little more than that, so that the Minister of Public Works will get the handling of them.
Kingston Royal Military College, additional dormitory accommodation for cadets, $30,000.


William Cameron Edwards: Is this a new building?


William Pugsley: It is a new building. My hon. friend no doubt, has heard of the demand for this. I visited the Royal Military College, I saw the officer in command and he called my special attention to the necessity for another dormitory for the students of the college. He said that they needed that perhaps more than anything else in connection with the college buildings.


William Cameron Edwards: How many cadets are in attendance at that institution ?


Mr. HARTY.: 104.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the minister to say that this is also a new building ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Was it in the 1908 estimates ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this building to cost when it is completed ?


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is $75,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The contract is not let ?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the plans out ?


William Pugsley: They are not ready yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume it will be let. by contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where have the students, been sleeping previous to this time-out in. the air ?


William Pugsley: There is a dormitory, and it was first thought that we might provide the requisite accommodation by put;

ting an additional roof on the existing dormitory, but the militia authorities, or Lt.-Col. Crowe, the commander, strongly urged the erection of a new building, stating that to put an additional story on the present one, would not afford the accommodation which it is desirable and absolutely necessary to give the students.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was that building erected and how much did it cost ?


William Pugsley: It is a very old building erected by the Imperial government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has become of it, or what use is going to be made of it ?


William Pugsley: It is there still.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not suppose that it would move away. What use is it going to be put to ?


William Pugsley: It will still be used as a dormitory because I do not imagine the new building will give all the accommodation that is needed and I presume that they will still use the old one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the number of cadets been increasing from year to year?


William Pugsley: It is so .represented. There are 104 at present. If they had additional accommodation they would get more students. It is stated they are absolutely without the accommodation necessary for the comfort of the students.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you accommodated 104 students last year and there is no increase this year why do you require such a large expenditure as this?


William Pugsley: They are not able to accommodate many of the applicants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they accommodation for an extra number now in the buildings other than the dormitory?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are to spend $78,000 to accommodate an additional number of students and there is no one to tell us where that additional number is to come from.


William Pugsley: The Militia Department,
through Lieutenant Colonel Crowe, asks for accommodation for 100 cadets additional. I do not know how many additional students they would be likely to have immediately, but my information is that if the accommodation were provided the number would rapidly increase. The Kingston Military College is exceedingly popular among the people of this country and it has turned out a great many good citizens who have taken high positions in Canada and in all parts of the world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard from time to time criticisms of the Kingston Military
College. There are times when it is popular and times when it is unpopular.


William Pugsley: I do not think you hear much criticism now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not say that the Royal Military College does not give a good education and turn out very good men, but there is an opinion in the country that everything connected with that military college is very expensive and that a great deal of what transpires there is nonsensical. There is a strong feeling in the country that a great deal of the money we invest there is wasted or worse than wasted.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We are told that the estimated cost of this dormitory is to be $75,000, and our experience would lead us to believe that the cost will be $100,000 when we get through with it.


William Pugsley: I do not see why you should think that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The minister tells us that the building is to accommodate 100 additional students, and if that be so then we are to spend $1,000 per sleeping room per student. Some short time ago we erected sixteen little houses there at a cost of $7,000 a house, for the accommodation of labouring men who were receiving $25 a month in actual cash pay and some perquisites which brought their pay to perhaps $40 a month. The gross rental is supposed to bring about 10 per cent of the cost of a building, and here we are providing houses worth in rental $700 a year for men whose pay all told is about $500 a year. I have had acquaintance with Kingston for a great many years and I speak of what I know when I say that there were buildings there down near the water for the accommodation of these men, which we tore down and erected these new ones, and the old buildings were much better than the average man in Canada is living in to-day. It seems to me that in this case it would strike the people of Canada as very extraordinary that we should pay $1,000 each for sleeping apartments for 100 students.


Adam Brown Crosby: In what way are we interested in these students of the Military College?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can hardly expect me to reply to that, when for a great many years both parties in this country have recognized that the Kingston Military College is an institution which it was desirable in the first place to establish and afterwards to maintain in a state of efficiency. In this college our young men receive a military training and also a training in engineering which is of the very highest value to them and to the country also. In this country, which is developing Tapidly, where important public works are being undertaken, it is most desirable to

have coming out from year to year a number of young men who are thoroughly trained in engineering work. However, I am not here to-night to advocate the desirability of establishing the college. It has been established and has been maintained from time to time by both political parties. All will agree that if it is desirable-to have the college, it is desirable to afford the requisite accommodation for the youth being educated there.


Adam Brown Crosby: That does not answer the question I asked. I understand that there are 104 students there now, and I want to know if this building is to be erected to provide accommodation for another hundred students. I quite understand that the institution is for the purpose of educating young men as civil or mechanical engineers. If it is, there are many other places where it is possible for young men to get that education. I understood the minister to say that these young men were making good in other parts of the world. I do not see why we should be training young men to go to other parts of the world unless we want to get rid of them. There is a very strong demand for post office buildings all through this country, and the $100,000 which is the estimated cost of this building, would provide many post office buildings in towns and villages throughout the country where they are much needed.- You will find very few of these Kingston military college men among the officers of the standing army which we have in Canada. In most cases they send across the water for officers. I would like to ask why the Minister of Militia, who would be particularly interested in this building, is not here to explain the necessity for it if there is any. Has the hon. Minister of Public Works any idea why he is not here and where he is? .


William Pugsley: I do not know personally, but I saw by the papers that he was at his home in Nova Scotia. If my hon. friend, or any other hon. gentleman desires the Kingston items to stand, I am quite willing to let them stand until the Minister of Militia is here.


Adam Brown Crosby: I noticed that the Minister of Militia was attending a public meeting on the 18th of this month in Kings* county, assisting to elect his friend, Mr. Wickwire, to the local legislature. I think the position he occupies demands his attendance here and not in Nova Scotia trying to elect a man whom the people refused to elect a short time ago. I would like to ask him how long it takes at Kingston to fit a man to be sent out equipped with spurs and feathers. As the Minister of Militia would rather be in Nova Scotia helping in the elections, I -would sav, let him stay there, we can do very well without him, Mr. PUGSLEY.
and let us strike out this item and use the money in building post offices in a number of towns and villages throughout the Dominion which are entitled to them.


William Pugsley: As the Minister of Militia is not here, we will pass over the Kingston items.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like in the meantime to get some information. Is this to be a separate building or to be attached to some other building?


William Pugsley: It will be a separate building.


William Sora Middlebro: Of what material will it be constructed?


William Pugsley: A brick building with stone finish.


William Sora Middlebro: Have the plans been prepared?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


William Sora Middlebro: What will be the size of the building?


William Pugsley: About 130 feet in length, 96 feet in front, and two wings each 35 feet wide at the rear.


William Sora Middlebro: How many stories ?


William Pugsley: Three stories at least, besides the basement.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there any limit now as to' the number of students who w'ill be taken into the college?


William Pugsley: The accommodation is so limited that they cannot take any more at present. That is the reason given by the department for this new dormitory, which will give accommodation for 100 additional students.


William Sora Middlebro: Has there been a rule in force restricting the number of students tr one hundred?


William Pugsley: No, except that the accommodation is not sufficient for more than 100-that is, sleeping accommodation.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there not a restriction as to the number of students taken in the college each year?


William Pugsley: Of course, being unable to accommodate more than 100, they would have to refuse applications.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister know, of his personal knowledge, that such is the reason why they refuse more students?


William Pugsley: No, I do not, of my own knowledge, but that is -what I am informed.


William Sora Middlebro: I understand there is a restriction for other reasons. I under-

stand that a student can go to that college and be 'educated in the profession of a civil engineer without any reference whatever to his being adapted or required for military purposes thereafter. I understand that each student is given his education in that college regardless altogether of his services being made use of afterwards from a military standpoint.


William Pugsley: I would not undertake to give information as to the military side of the college. Does not my hon. friend think that when I have said I would let the item stand until the Minister of Militia could be here, it would be better to await his coming before asking these questions?


William Sora Middlebro: If the hon. minister will answer those questions, we might let the item pass.


William Pugsley: I might give erroneous information. My information would only be hearsay.


William Sora Middlebro: I understand that a student in that college .graduates as a civil engineer, and then, when he leaves the military college, he is under no obligation to serve the state as a military man? If that be the case, I do not know that we are justified spending money for that purpose, especially under the head of a military building. Personally, I do not think I would be justified in voting for this resolution. As the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has said, this seems to be a vpry exorbitant sum that we are going to pay. It amounts to $1,000 per Joed for sleeping accommodation for the 100 students who go to that college, many of whom do not go there for the military training, and. for the purpose of serving the state in a military capacity, but simply to receive an education which will enable them to earn a livelihood in other professions. Does the $75,000 include furniture, fittings, electric lighting, or heating-


William Pugsley: The $75,000 is estimated to include everything. I have not a detailed estimate, but that is what the chief architect tells me.


William Sora Middlebro: I suppose the government own the site?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: From our experience in the past of the actual cost of public buildings, especially at Kingston, as compared with the estimated cost, we are justified in saying that this will probably cost $100,000, or $1,000 per student. What guarantee have we that, even if we put up this building, the 100 extra students which it will accommodate will apply to be accommodated? Has the minister any assurance to that effect?


William Pugsley: No, I have nothing beyond the request for the building.


William Sora Middlebro: The request from whom?


William Pugsley: From the commanding officer, Lf.-Col. Crowe.


William Sora Middlebro: At the instance, probably, of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty).
Mr. PUGSLEY\ No, I have not heard from him at all.


William Sora Middlebro: I think we are not justified in voting that amount for that purpose. I therefore move that the item be struck out.


William Pugsley: Let the item stand.


William Harty: If I may offer a few words in explanation, I can give some information regarding the position of the college and the necessity for the building now under consideration, and the committee may then have a little better knowledge of the situation than at present. I have been slow to take any part in the discussion for the simple reason that while the college is called the Kingston Military College, as a matter of fact it is not in Kingston. It is situated in the riding of Frontenac, and I presume that the information which has been asked by various members might very properly have been furnished by the hon. member for that riding (Mr. Edwards) did he see fit to give it, rather than bv myself, who represents a riding which is barely adjoining that in which this college is situated. The college, being in the county of Frontenac, in the village across the bay from Kingston, is usually known by the name of the Kingston Military College, no doubt from the fact of its being close to the city, which is much larger than the village of Barriefield, some three miles away, where it really is. The situation regarding the building is this: The wing which has been in use as a dormitory ever since the college was opened, was built by the Imperial government long years ago, and the late Alexander McKenzie was foreman of its construction. That building has been in use as a dormitory ever since the college was opened. For the past four or five years every room, which should be occupied by a single student or cadet, instead qf being used only by one, has to accommodate two or three, and I believe, in some few instances, four. This made it necessary for the Commandant of the institution to ask the government to provide an additional building to be used as a dormitory, so that every cadet could be housed and cared for in a room of his own. Whether that is advisable or not is a question for the House to determine, and it is not for me to offer any opinion upon it. Regarding the ques-


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. member misquoted me altogether. I did not speak with regard to the doing away with the military college at Kingston, I simply spoke of the effect of making additions; of going on increasing militarism in Canada when I thought that we required the money for something else. If I indicated anything else I did not intend to do so.


William Harty: Perhaps I misunderstood you.


Adam Brown Crosby: So far as the naval college in my own city is concerned, I think it is something like the college in Kingston, it is a college with nothing for the people to do after they get through it. We have a naval college but no navy up to the present day, and there does not seem to be much hope of getting one either under present conditions. I do not propose to discuss that question, the people in Halifax are prepared to deal with it and we have already put ourselves on record in regard to it. I have put myself on record in regard to the naval college and the navy and I feel something the same about that, as about the extension of the college at Kingston. If there is an estimate in this book that should be struck out, it is this very estimate that we are on now and I am quite prepared to vote that it be struck out. The Minister of Public Works tells us he cannot build a post offioe here or there, although requisitions have been in for years and years, and members on both sides have requested public buildings, yet we find that money is being thrown into an institution which the Minister of Public Works tells us is turning out engineers. There are other colleges in Canada turning out engineers, both civil and mechanical, and why should we set ourselves up in competition with these colleges all over the Dominion, which we are so glad to have. The military college has 104 students and we are now prepared to extend it and make room for another 100.
I wonder what the farmers and other electors will think of this. If we go on spending $100,000 every two or four years on this college, we will soon have more fuss and feathers in Canada than anything else. That is not what I am here for. I am here

to try and do the best I can for the people of Canada and not to go on constructing additions to the military college at Kingston. I have every desire and wish that this item should be struck out of the estimates.
Item allowed to stand.
Listowel public building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the erection of a public building in Listo-we'l. The population was 2,693, nine years ago. It is growing well, the revenue from the post office is $6,000 odd, $30,000 were paid for money orders issued and $25,000 paid. The plans are now being prepared.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is another example of what I spoke of, either loading up the estimates with items that it is not intended to go on with, or that are not needed.


William Pugsley: There has been no unnecessary delay. An order in council was passed in March, 1909, to purchase a site. In the ordinary course we had to prepare plans and there is a vast deal of work in the department, hon. gentlemen do not realize how much. The architects are constantly at work and are doing the best they can. There has been no unnecessary delay.


Arthur Meighen: What is done by the department after the plans are prepared and entirely approved of by the other departments concerned ?	,


William Pugsley: The specifications are sent to the Printing Bureau and advertisements issued calling for tenders.


Arthur Meighen: How long does it take the Printing Bureau to print the specifications ?


William Pugsley: It depends on how busy they are, sometimes three weeks, sometimes four, sometimes longer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In 1909-10 there was $15,000 put in for 1911. It says $1,100 lapsed. That is not put in the column where revotes of an estimate voted the previous year, that is 1909, are put. Therefore, it must have been at least 1908 or 1907' that this was voted. Now, I presume that an application has been made for a building, that the government reached the conclusion that a building was needed there. They asked for a vote in 1906, or 1907, or 1908. They got a vote of $1,100 for some purpose, presumably for buying a site, but nothing is done with it. That has been carried on up to the present time, and now we are providing for 1912. This same item, therefore, must have been under consideration for three or four years. Either the building was needed or it was not needed. If it was
needed, and that conclusion was reached by the House, then the building should have been erected.


William Pugsley: If we get the plans and specifications prepared, we may let the contract before the 31st of March this year. We can let it on the vote of last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why didn't you let it
before?


William Pugsley: Because we did not get ready.
Midland public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide a public building for a post office and customs purposes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will admit that this is another building that was not provided for at all in the 1908 estimates. What explanation has the minister to offer for urgency, except that the constituency is represented by a Liberal?


William Pugsley: The explanation is that a public building is much required in Midland. Midland has been growing very rapidly of recent years, and it has outgrown altogether the present accommodation, which is in a rented building. The revenue last year was $9,000, while the customs duties were $56,734. Money orders issued were $59,556 ; money orders paid, $23,654. Value of exports, $341,000 last year ; imports, $1,065,528 ; goods entered for consumption, $1,121,561. Midland is forging ahead with wonderful rapidity. It has a great blast furnace, it is doing a very large shipping business, it has extensive coal docks, a large number of lumber mills. It would be simply a crying shame to leave Midland any longer without a public building. That is why I have made an exception to the rule, and am providing a new item for a public building at Midland.


Arthur Meighen: That of course will always be the explanation. Now the minister knows as well as I do that that absolutely is not contemplated by him in his statement made on page 1300 of the ' Hansard.' If that kind of explanation is to be accepted, that the town is thriving and the accommodation is inadequate, then the minister's statement meant nothing, and he knows it. The cases he gave were these, there might be others, but they would need to be of the same character, that is to say, there may be cases such as a public building being burned down, or a wharf carried away, which might create an exception. Now that may have been all the minister thought of, but if the statement meant anything, it meant that there would be no exception except such as those given, not

because representations had been made that the town was growing, that there were blast furnaces in it, that the revenue of the post office was increasing, that the citizens asked _ for it. That can be said anywhere you like. Now the minister must know that his statement meant nothing at all, if he is allowed to get out of it by the explanation he offers now. But I tell the minister that the people of this country at the time placed some reliance upon it, and I hope he has not got past the point when he is at least anxious that this committee will take him at his word.


William Pugsley: I have only to say this, that absolute good faith is being kept with the various cities and towns of this country in respect to which provision was made in the estimates of 1907-8. Have we left out any of these? Not one, except where further inquiry satisfied us the building was not needed in the public interest. We are carrying everything out in good faith. What does my hon. friend complain of? Does he complain because we are going to erect a public building at Midland, having the revenue at out disposal? Does he mean that we shall not go on with a public building in Midland, when we are not interfering with the erection of a public building anywhere else? I cannot understand what he is complaining of, what he is grumbling about. How am I guilty of bad faith? Surely I have a perfect right, when I am providing for these other buildings, to have regard to the necessities of people in other sections of the country, and to submit to my colleagues an amount for other public buildings. If my hon. friend means to say that a public building is not as much required in Midland as a public building at Portage la Prairie, or some other place, let him say it. But he knows that Midland is as much entitled to a public building as the town from which he comes, if not more.


Arthur Meighen: I am not comparing the necessities of Midland with the necessities of Portage la Prairie, and the minister knew I was not. I wanted to know whether the minister meant what he said when he uttered the works spoken on page 1300. I do not know anything about Midland. But what I am complaining of is this : The minister says the word ' initiate ' means asking parliament for a vote. Now, if it means that, he is violating his word given to this committee on page 1300. He says he should not be debarred from going ahead in other places. He told the House that his department is overworked. What is it that overworks his department? The placing of estimates before the committee, the preparing of plans and specifications to get ready to go on with the work. Now, he gave this committee his word that he would not overwork his department in order that he


Arthur Meighen: might go ahead with other work. We relied upon that. It has not been carried out. That is what I complain of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister gives as a reason why he goes on with this building that there is urgent need for it because Midland is a growing place. That very same argument could and would have applied with equal force at any time during the last ten years. Midland has been an active, growing place for ten years, and the need was as great six or seven years ago as now. But there i3 a strange coincidence in the fact that the proposal is made now when Midland or the constituency in which it is situated, is represented in this House by a friend of the government, whereas, up to the last parliament, it was not. That seems to be the explanation of it.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to object to the item?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I am not objecting to the item, but I am objecting to the argument which the minister advances as justifying the item. We find this very same condition of things in other counties as well. Take the county of Wellington, if you like. There are two post offices that we have voted money for to-night within three miles of each other. Two more post offices are being built in that same county. Another is hardly finished yet, making five in the one county that happens to be represented in this House by supporters of the government. Go to the adjoining counties, and how many do you find? In many of them not one government building. Midland was needing a post office for years, but so long as it was represented by a member of the opposition, in the judgment of the minister, and his friends there was no necessity for a post office. No money could be voted for it and none was asked. But, it turned out entirely different when they managed to get a supporter in this House from that riding. That, I take it, is a more correct argument in very many of these cases.


William Pugsley: If a public building is needed my hon. friend ought to be glad that we are at last acceding to the wishes of the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to it at all, but I am objecting to the argument that the minister advances in support of it.


William Pugsley: The item is all right although the argument may not be good.


Arthur Meighen: Touching upon the same point brought forward by my hon. friend from Grey, that is the explanation of all this change, the minister told us a little while ago that 95 per cent of the esti-

214G
mates for this year were in the 1907-8 estimates leaving only 5 per cent for new buildings. I have gone through the list of new buildings in Ontario, there are thirty, as I make it, and eight were not in the 1907-8 estimates. But the most remarkable fact of all is that the whole eight are in constituencies represented by supporters of the government. Surely the thing is too transparent to last any longer. Surely the minister sees that it is utterly impossible to convince any sensible person that he is not making his department a party, political tool. If the minister wishes me to give the list of the eight I am ready to do so.


William Pugsley: I am not anxious.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wonder that the minister is not anxious.


William Pugsley: I don't want to waste time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It seems to me we have no sufficient information respecting this $10,000 to justify our consenting to its passage. How much information have we so far? We have been told that it is proposed to erect a public building in Midland, and that Midland is a thriving town. That is not sufficient.


William Pugsley: You have the population, the postal revenue and the customs revenue.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Did the minister give the population ?


William Pugsley: I gave all that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Then it is my fault that I did not hear it. But, there are several other items of information. We are asked for $10,000. None of us understands that $10,000 is asked for the building. We are not told whether it is to be a mere post office or a customs house, or whether it is a combined post office and customs house, whether it is to cost $50,000 or $100,000, whether it is to be built of wood, or brick or stone, or what the dimensions of it are. We are not told even what the minister proposes to do with this $10,000. If the minister, when he approaches one of these items, would make a full and frank statement of the conditions in the town concerned, the necessity for the building, what the government are paying now for the use of a building so as to show whether it would be advantageous to the country, instead of continuing to rent, to erect a new building, setting forth the necessities for it, the amount of money that he proposes to spend, the dimensions of the building that he proposes to erect, whether it is to be for a post office or a post office and customs house, presenting a frank statement of that kind, I fancy, instead of waiting until two or three members of the opposition shy questions at him that he would get these items through much more expeditiously. Perhaps the minister would give us some more information of the kind that I have indicated now, and if he will, as far as I am concerned, I will assist the passage of this item.


William Pugsley: I should be very glad indeed, if it would do what the hon. gentleman believes it would. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask questions for the sake of getting information. They would not like me to give all the information voluntarily, because it would leave them with nothing to question me about. They might think that I was taking too much time just as in the case of Chesley. I had just begun to explain a few of these things when hon. gentlemen called out ' carried ' because it happened to be in a constituency represented by a member of the opposition. They might cry out with equal impatience if 1 were to go into details with regard to constituencies represented by my friends. In the case of Midland, I gave all the information which any reasonable man would require. I stated that Midland was a rapidly growing place, I stated the postal revenue, I stated the customs revenue, the imports and the exports which are very large, I stated that there was a great necessity for a public building, I referred to the different industries and I was ready to answer any question that any hon. gentleman would put to me. The population nine years ago was upwards of 3,000, and I suppose it is 5,000 or 6,000 to-day. With regard to the $10,000, we propose to use. that for the purpose of buying the site, and with regard to the cost, we propose to erect a good, substantial building which will be a credit to the town and the country and we hope that it will not exceed $35,000. We intend to use it for post office and customs purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you any offer for a site ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. No, there were some negotiations.
Mitchell publio building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the erection of a public building at Mitchell. The site has been purchased, plans and specifications are prepared and we are now ready to advertise, which we expect to do in the course of a very few days. The population nine years ago was close on 2,000 the revenue last year was $4,079, customs duties. $96,689, money orders issued $25,540 and money orders paid $15,240. Mitchell is a thriving town in South Perth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was an expenditure last year of $2,000 on this.


William Pugsley: The site was bought from the municipal corporation for $1,600, and we expect to spend $2,000 by the 31st of March.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the building to cost?


William Pugsley: From $20,000 to $25,000. It is for a post office, custom house, inland revenue and armoury for B Company of the Perth Regiment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then a portion of the cost should be charged to the Militia Department.


William Pugsley: We do not charge anything to the Militia Department for armouries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You ought to, or your bookkeeping is fallacious. When we ask for a return giving the expenditure on Militia and Defence, are we to understand that the cost of such an armoury as this would not be charged to the Militia Department?	.


William Pugsley: If a return showing the cost of armouries were brought down I should think that the proportionate cost of such a building as this devoted to military purposes ought to be properly included.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It should be charged to Militia in the public accounts, or else the public accounts are wrong.


William Pugsley: We erect custom houses and post offices and do not charge them to these departments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but you keep a separate account for expenditure on Militia and Defence, and unless such a cost as this were included the expenditure would not be correctly represented.


William Pugsley: It is worthy the consideration of the Minister of Finance as to whether a proportion of the cost of such an armoury as this might not be included in the account for armouries. I will mention the matter to the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Finance, and see what they think about it.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Is Mitchell one of these thriving, growing towns we have heard so much of to-night?


William Pugsley: Mitchell is a thriving town.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the population?


William Pugsley: Nine years ago it was 1,945.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the population now?


William Pugsley: I would have to ask the Chairman as to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Glenlyon Campbell: If I thought that was a subject of legitimate inquiry from the Chairman I would ask him myself.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think I will have to decline to answer any questions when I am in the chair, but if it is the desire to have information which I only possess I shall leave the chair and ask another hon. member to take my place.


Glenlyon Campbell: I' Tealize that very fully, and that is why I did not ask you.


William Pugsley: As the Chairman is the only one I thought able to give the information with accuracy, I thought I would refer to the matter in an undertone, which is different from addressing Mr. Chairman across the floor. I do not know the population of any of these towns from year to year, but my information is that Mitchell is quite a thriving place


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give the source of his information?


Mr. McKENZIE.: What difference does it make? Is not this trifling with the time of the House?


William Pugsley: The files in my department say that Mitchell is a progressive town surrounded by a thriving agricultural country, that it is a station on the Grand Trunks railway, has four churches, thirty stores, four hotels, five mills, two banks, two newspaper offices.


Mr. McINTYRE (Deputy Speaker).: I am now quite prepared to give any information that may be asked with regard to Mitchell, which is in the riding I represent. When the item was last before the committee I told the committee that Mitchell is a thriving town like I think every other town in western Ontario. It is improving in its general appearance, in the wealth of its people, in the buildings it possesses, rather than in population. Mitchell is in the centre of an excellent agricultural country as are all the towns in Ontario, west of Toronto. It supplies an unusually large district with its mail matter, as I know from having sent to my constituents letters in much larger numbers to that town than to other towns in proportion to its size. The- present post office is in a small crumbling building. I have had occasion to go into it on some wet days about the time of the distribution of the mail, and I can assure you I left as rapidly as possible. The town has needed a new post office very badly for some time. At the time the town itself requested a post office, there was no available building, as the shops were all filled in the business street. The desire for a public building was manifested by the people themselves. It is usually thought that the request for a public building comes from the member

for the riding, but in this case I will be telling you the absolute truth when I say that when I was informed that the board of trade and the council of that town were moving in the matter, and had requested a public building, I regretted the fact. Not that I thought Mitchell was not entitled to a public building, when taken in comparison with very many such towns that had such buildings, but I realized that just such a situation as this would arise, when it is not very pleasant to have to explain the particular demands of your own place and have it compared with others that perhaps feel just as keenly they should have a public building, and may perhaps be able to show on the face of it better reason for having a public building. I realize that Mitchell is no larger than some other towns that have not public buildings, but when I consider that the present office is quite inadequate and even unwholesome for the officials who have to be there, and that it was not possible for the department or the postmaster to find a suitable building, and that the town was so interested as to offer a portion of its market square for the new building, I think I was justified in doing what I did, not on my own initiative or that of the town, but in reply to a letter from the department asking what my opinion was-expressing the opinion, as I did, that under the circumstances the town of Mitchell was entitled to a new building at a reasonable cost.


Arthur Meighen: In order that I may not
be misinterpreted, I wish to say that I was anxious that the accuracy of the minister's information as to all these towns should be put to any test that I was able to bring to bear. I have no doubt that what the hon. member who represents South Perth says is correct, in so far as it is a presentation of the facts. I make no statement as to the relative merits of Mitchell and other places; I do not know enough about it for that; but I think I do know enough about it to say, what the hon. member refrained from contradicting, that Mitchell, instead of growing and on that account deserving consideration, is on the down grade so far as population is concerned. I only wish, if the minister's inspiration has been the member for the riding, that he could in every other case rely on it as well as he could on that of the hon. member for South Perth.
Mount Forest public building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: The tenders for this building have been called for, to be received on the 30th of this month. The site has been bought, having a frontage of 60 feet on Main street, by a depth of 100 feet on Wellington street. The object is to provide accommodation for post office and customs purposes, also armoury accommodation for E company of the 30th regiment, Wellington Rifles. The estimated cost of the building is $25,000. The postal revenues last year amounted to $4,924.33, the money orders issued were $20,113, and money orders paid $26,516. The population by the census of 1901 was 2,019.


William Cameron Edwards: What was the cost of the site?


William Pugsley: $3,600. It will take about $25,000 in addition Jo the cost of the site to complete the building.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

Monday, January 23, 1911.