[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 122) further to amend the General Inspection Act.-Hon. Mr. Bernier.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 123) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bernier) be good enough to explain the purport of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The changes are very few. The first clause is to empower the Governor General in Council either to reduce or increase the scale of fees. The second change is to provide for the deposit to the credit of the Receiver General of all fees collected, instead of depositing them to the credit of what is called the Manitoba Inspection Fund. The inspectors and deputy inspectors are either paid by fees or by commission out of the treasury. The next clause is to the same effect, providing for the money collected from the inspectors and sub-inspectors being placed in the Receiver General's hands. The last amendment is to the same effect.


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

[Stage Direction]
* The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved second reading of Bill (No. 119)-to make certain provisions necessitated by the demise of the Crown. He said : This Bill is from the Senate, and the object is simply to provide that the demise of the Crown shall not interfere with judicial proceedings in our courts. I am advised that this legislation is necessary.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 11S) to amend the Yukon Territory Act and to make further provision for the administration of justice in the said territory-the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) read iilie second time, and considered in committee.
Robert Laird Borden: I very much doubt the advisability of permitting these police magistrates to practise their profession. I know that in cities in the eastern portion of the Dominion where these magistrates are given a very considerable jurisdiction, they are not permitted to practise, and I think that the reasons which hold good in the east would have even greater application in the Yukon district. Would the hon. minister state the reasons because of which he thinks it desirable that these gentlemen shall be given permission to practise their profession while occupying these judicial positions.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The great difficulty that arises in connection with the appointment of an officer of sufficiently good standing as a professional man to occupy these positions would be that we would have to pay him in all probability as high a salary

as we pay to a judge, if we debarred him from practising liis profession. The idea of the Minister of Justice was that we would be able to secure, for possibly $1,500 a year, the services of competent professional men to act as police magistrates if they would be able to earn additional remuneration by practising their profession outside. From the government standpoint it is purely a question of not being compelled to pay a salary which would be considered high, as we would have to put the police magistrate on the same footing as other officials by paying him living allowance and salary, which would be pretty expensive altogether. I recognize that the point raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is open to debate. I understand that in the other House the question was discussed for some time, and it was only after considerable discussion that this section was agreed to. If the hon. the leader of the opposition^ presses the point very strongly I will be content to reserve the clause and confer with the Minister of Justice again.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would take that course. I require some time to consider the matter myself. There are worse things than paying salaries of $4,000 or $5,000 a year to these men. It would be infinitely better to do that than that we should have any scandal about the administration of justice in the Yukon.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I agree.


Robert Laird Borden: In my own province in cases where these gentlemen have pretty large jurisdiction, they are not allowed to practice, and that course has been found to be the best on the whole. It might occur that money saved in the way indicated in the Bill would not be money saved in the best interests of the country.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Section 6 provides that the Governor in Council can give a police magistrate civil jurisdiction, and in the exception clause there is nothing to prevent his partner practising before him in these cases as the exception apparently only refers to criminal cases.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The wording of the section, I think, is sufficient to prevent that. It says :
No such police magistrate and no partner or clerk of any such police magistrate shall act as agent or solicitor or counsel in any case, matter or proceeding of a criminal nature, or in any case tried before such police magistrate.
The words * or in any case,' would include civil matters.


David Tisdale: That may be.


Mr. SIFTON.: 


Robert Laird Borden: That would apply only to a case which is tried or investigated, but it does not seem to apply to a case which is instituted. The language of the section might be broadened a little in that respect.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is possible that the wording of the section might be better. I will note the point.


David Tisdale: I have very strong objections to allowing a judge or a quasi judge to practise his profession. The effect is often to send people to the office of the justice of the peace or his partner in cases which might properly come before the court, but which, when they went there, never did come before it. I think the best course is to pay a good officer to be a police magistrate, and not let him touch law in any other way. If he is a good man, I am sure that is the only way of keeping him free from suspicion ; and if he is not a good man, we do not want him.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Surely the hon. gentleman would not advocate prohibiting a police magistrate from practising in the Court of Chancery ?


David Tisdale: Not if he has no civil jurisdiction; but if he has, the same reason applies, and in a stronger degree; because he might be able to arrange matters as another lawyer could not. I see no reason to prevent a police magistrate practising in the civil courts if he has no civil jurisdiction; but if he has civil jurisdiction, then civil cases should not be entertained by him or his partner. In the province of Ontario, in the early days of masters in chancery in the country, masters and their partners were allowed to practise and also to occupy the position of master in chancery; but that was eventually changed, owing to troubles and suspicions that arose.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I remember very well the stipendiary magistrates in my native town having both criminal jurisdiction and also civil jurisdiction up to small amounts. That was the case for thirty years at least, and I do not remember a case in which their right to practise in the superior courts was ever questioned.


David Tisdale: Did their civil jurisdiction extend to the collection of debts ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Small debts up to $150.


David Tisdale: The magistrates under the Bill have jurisdiction over large amounts-up to $500 in some cases and in

others up to $1,000. It seems an extensive jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: The jurisdiction is more extensive in civil matters than the jurisdiction of the county court judges of the province of Nova Scotia, who, I think, would be surprised if they were allowed to practise in the superior courts.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I wish to add my word to the view that magistrates should not be allowed to practise. If you allow a magistrate possessing this extensive jurisdiction to practise in the courts, I venture to say that within six months you will have a lot of complaints on your hands. I say, give him a good salary, and debar him from practising, especially in that country where he would not probably be required to act according to the rules of etiquette to the same extent that he would in the older provinces.
On section 4,


Robert Laird Borden: The experience demanded by this section does not appear to be very great. I suppose the hon. gentleman has considered that carefully, and has the sanction of the Minister of Justice for this provision.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I may say that it embodies the view of the Minister of Justice after careful consideration. I cannot see that a requirement that a man would be a barrister of five years' standing would be much more protection to the public than a requirement that he should be one of three years' standing.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be that it is sometimes best to catch them young.
On section 5,


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to explain the exact effect of the words which provide that ' his jurisdiction under the said part shall be absolute without the consent of the person charged.'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will explain that later.
On section 6,


David Tisdale: Might I ask the minister what other judges are up there ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are two judges of the territorial court.


David Tisdale: I cannotj form any opinion as to how much work they have to do, but it does seem to me an extraordinary departure from the usual practice followed in the older provinces to give a police magistrate control over such an important amount of judicial or civil work. This certainly would require much higher qualifications than is exacted by this section. The police magistrate need only have read a small amount of law and have only practised as advocate or solicitor three years, and in that experience the majority of gentlemen likely to be up there would have acquired but little knowledge.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The chief difficulty is that the judges are very much overworked and pressure has been brought on the government to appoint additional judges. As is the case in all new districts, a large amount of litigation has accumulated, which in all probability will be pretty well thinned out in a year or two. and the government have hesitated about, increasing the number of judges, because once the number is increased it is practically impossible to reduce it. Then, except in summer there is practically no communication between White Horse and Dawson City. Dux'ing the long winter the only communication is over the ice, and the expense of sending a judge and the necessary paraphernalia from Dawson to White Horse, besides the exposure to the weather, presents a great obstacle to holding a circuit court. The idea of the Minister of Justice was to appoint a police magistrate at White Horse who would have this jurisdiction, but the police magistrate at Dawson at least after the first short while, would only have criminal jurisdiction and civil jurisdiction in trifling cases.


Mr. FRASER.: I am in receipt of a letter from one of the leading practitioners in Dawson who informs me that since Christmas the court has been sitting every day and sometimes at night, and that there is still a large amount of business which the judges have not been able to touch. The work in a new country is much greater than it is here, and I am satisfied that a necessity exists for these appointments, and also for the jurisdiction given these magistrates. The Superior Court has to try a great many cases relating to mining. There is one case which took the time of the court every day of the week for a fortnight, relating to a mining claim in which a couple of hundred thousand dollars were Involved, and such eases require very patient and long hearing, so that it would be impossible for the two judges to overtake all the small cases that come before them.
On section 9,


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the right of appeal is somewhat limited by this section.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I
observe that too. and I will reserve that section.


Robert Laird Borden: It wouid be just as well to do so, because there might be a

claim amounting to upwards of $500 as to which there would be no appeal.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Let that stand. I may say that after the Bill was introduced in the Senate the Surveyor General called my attention to the fact that the description of the Yukon territory had necessarily been somewhat vague from a scientific standpoint when the Act was originally passed, and he advised me that it would be well to have a new description made in accordance with the information which the Surveyor General's branch has since acquired in regard to the territory, and to substitute it for the description in the original Act. I have, therefore, had an amendment prepared for the purpose of amending the description. The boundary line will not be substantially altered except in one respect. The territory will be a little enlarged, and a portion of the valley of the Peel river, which, under the old description, has belonged to the North-west Territories, is now brought into the Yukon Territory, and properly, I think, because it will be nearer the seat of government at Dawson and more conveniently governed than from Regina. I therefore propose the following amendment :
That section 2 of the Yukon Territory Act, chap. 6, of the Statutes of 189S, is hereby repealed, and the following section Is substituted therefor :
2. The territory described in the schedule of this Act is hereby constituted and declared to be a separate territory under the name of the Yukon territory, and the same shall no longer form part of the North-west Territories.
In section 14 follows the technical description of the territory in accordance with the plaep which I have handed to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: This" is for all purposes, and not solely for judicial purposes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: For all purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: Other things being equal, it would be better to deal with the subject by a separate Act, I should suppose. It seems to me a little incongruous to introduce it into an Act appointing a police magistrate.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know whether I made myself clear. In the original Yukon Territory Act is contained a description of the territory, and by that Act the territory is described as withdrawn from the North-west Territories and formed into a separate territory. The description from a scientific standpoint is not so saticfactory as we could wish. Further Information has been acquired by recent explorations that have taken place which re-


Robert Laird Borden: quire a different description. But it makes no difference in the territory except as to a small portion of the Feel river valley. It will be more easily administered from Dawson City than it would be by the territorial government at Regina. I may say that persons have gone lately into the territory of the head waters of the Peel river, and have made applications to the commissioner's office in Dawson City for the purpose of having their mining claims recorded, and it is not likely, according to the original description, that the territory is in the Yukon. There is a doubt in the description as to the actual location of the boundary line, and we now include the head waters of the Peel river and bring it into the Yukon
territory-


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. gentleman must see that the description of the eastern boundary is almost impossible to lay out upon the ground. The southern boundary, of course, is a parallel of latitude, except the part that is near the coast. The question is this : If a crime is committed where it is impossible to fix the eastern boundary, is there equal jurisdiction in the courts of the North-west Territories and of the Yukon district for the trial of such a case ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot answer that question. I think there is a general Act under which either of the criminal courts would have jurisdiction. The object in fixing this line, is as far as possible, to follow the watershed as the natural boundary, the territory on the north-west side of the water-shed belonging to the Yukon and on the east side to the Northwest Territories.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I think the objection raised by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) is a proper one, when he says that it is obvious that, as this refers to another matter than that covered by the other part of the Bill, it should form a separate Act by itself. You amend the Yukon Territory Act by a clause inserted in a Bill affecting the judicial courts of the territory. If this affected the territory only in relation to judicial matters, it would be all right, but it affects it in every way, and should be dealt with separately. There is no objection to the amendment itself, but it should be a separate Bill, as it has nothing to do with the other part of the Act.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend (Mr. LaRiviSre) will see that the Yukon Territory Act dealt writh the question of description, and also with the question of judicial arrangement ; and, this Bill being brought in to amend that Act, it is certainly germane to the subject to amend any portion of the Yukon Territory Act. I do not think it would add to the convenience of reference, which is the only question

involved in the hon. gentleman's suggestion, to make one more Act than seems necessary. It seems to me that it would be best to have amendments to the Yukon Territory Act included in one measure, so that if a man is, looking for amendments and finds this Act, he knows that he has them all before him.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any international arrangement with the United States authorities as to the boundary at that part of the line where you depart from the line of latitude near the coast ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As to the portion of the territory which lies contiguous to Alaska, there is a provisional boundary line agreed to between the two governments, and that line, wherever necessary, has been laid down upon the ground by commissioners appointed by the parties. Our commissioner and the commissioner of the United States went up last season and laid out the boundary line at the only place practically necessary, that is, across the Dalton trail to Pyramid Harbour. Under the terms of the provisional arrangement, the summit of the White Pass, the pass through which the railway runs, and the summit of the Chilkoot Pass, which was also used oy travellers before the railway was opened, are considered to be the provisional boundary line. They are fixed by agreement. So, we have at all the passes where travel is possible, a fixed provisional boundary line, and there can be no difficulty about administration.


John Graham Haggart: Does the description follow that line ? My object in making these remarks is


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I would ask to be allowed to interrupt my hon. friend. I did not touch upon one point which, perhaps, would have made the matter clearer. The part of the Canadian territory which comes into immediate contact with Alaska at the point mentioned is in British Columbia. The boundary line of the Yukon territory is further north, so that a question does not arise as between Alaska and the Yukon, but between Alaska and British Columbia. That is to say, if you start north from Skagway, you go through the White Pass to the summit, at which point the provisional boundary line is fixed between Canada and the United States. But, when you cross the White Pass, you are in British Columbia, and you have to go half way over Lake Bennett before you strike the OOtli parallel of latitude and reach the Yukon territory.


John Graham Haggart: Then, I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the boundary we are fixing now is not the boundary between the Yukon territory and any part of the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is not quite so wide as that. When you get across past the place which is disputed, over to the eastern boundary of Alaska properly' speaking, you come in contact with the eastern boundary of Alaska, following the 60th parallel of latitude. But, that is not where the question in dispute arises. I will read the description as prepared by the Surveyor General :
The Yukon territory shall be bounded as follows :-
On the south by the province of British Columbia and the United States territory of Alaska;

So, you do not touch the American boundary at any place where there is a dispute as to boundaries


Hon.   A@: Tbe hon. gentleman's description covers tbe objection I might otherwise have made. At the southerly point he makes the boundary the United States territory of Alaska. I should have objected to laying down a line which might give the solemn affirmation of an Act of parliament to a fixed point, and might so interfere with negotiations afterwards. I see that he has carefully avoided that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) to amend the General Inspection Act-The Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. AI. E. Bernier) read the second time, and considered in committee.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman stated when introducing this

Bill that the grades have been submitted to him by the Winnipeg Board of Trade.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the board of trade represent the wishes of the province in respect to this ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose so. There is no change in the grade of No. 1 Manitoba hard wheat. The grade of No. 2 Manitoba hard wheat is incorporated with No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat. There is no change in No. 1 Manitoba northern. No. 2 Manitoba northern is unchanged except that the quantity of red fife wheat necessary to the grade is changed from 50 to 45 lbs. The old law is changed to provide that scoured wheat shall not grade higher than No. 3 northern. A new grade of No. 3 Manitoba northern is added to the list, and the grade of No. 2 Manitoba hard and No. 1 Manitoba northern have been consolidated under the name of No. 1 Manitoba northern. These changes are made on the recommendation of the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange and the Standard Board with the result of bringing the grades more within the composition of those of Minnesota and Dakota.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: Would the hon. minister briefly state whether the changes will have the effect of raising the standard or lowering it ? I see by the papers that Manitoba wheat has not the sale it used to have or the reputation in the old country where it used to be purchased chiefly on account of its grade. Is that caused by a lax inspection or by the alteration of the grades ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think the main feature of the Bill is rather to assimilate the grade of wheat in Manitoba with those of Dakota and Minnesota.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I think I understand my hon. friend's point as to the difficulty that has arisen. It was taken under review by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Bernier) who appointed a commission for the purpose of looking into the matter and of investigating it. I am bound to say that I have not had an opportunity of looking at the report of the commission, but, I have no dqubt at all that the difficulty was of two kinds, first, on account of the undue variations in the grade which is a question that we have been fighting about in Manitoba for years, too great flexibility in the changing of the grade, and second, some carelessness in the inspection at the port of Montreal. By the appointment of this commission of experienced men, the chairman of which was Mr. David Horn, the inspector at Winnipeg, I believe a very capable man, so considered by grain men, they have ar-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
rived at a plan which will enable the western wheat to be graded separately, and there can be then no excuse for mixing it with other grades and the reputation of that wheat will be preserved.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CULLING OF LUMBER AND INSPECTION OF STAPLES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 116) respecting the culling of lumber and the inspection of staples.-The Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. M. E. Bernier), read the second time, and considered in committee.
John Graham Haggart: What is the meaning of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is to transfer the culling of lumber and the inspection of staples from the Inland Revenue Department to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Graham Haggart: Will it increase the duties of the Department of Trade and Commerce much ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


John Graham Haggart: Well, we want to give the Department of Trade and Commerce something to do.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the intention to vest everything in the way of inspection in the Department of Trade and Commerce ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. There is another Bill which will come up for second reading in a few days which gives the inspection of all articles, except weights and measures, gas and electricity, to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Robert Laird Borden: Everything in the way of inspection will be placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, except weights and measures, gas and electricity.


Robert Laird Borden: As the minister says the inspection of all goods is to be placed under the control of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I shall not offer any objection to the Bill. It is desirable, of course, that the inspection should not be divided between two departments.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This Bill includes the inspection of timber and staples and grain.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply. Kamloops public building, $11,600.
['I do not dare to make any promise in the absence of the chairman, but I hope we will be able to meet on Friday. The reason for postponing the meeting on Wednesday is one which is common to both sides and it is a well understood rule that in such a case the committee meetings are cancelled. I hope there shall be a meeting on Friday morning, but without consulting the chairman, I do not care to make a more definite statement.']
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work, which is now under contract. The money was voted last year.
Nelson public building, $15,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry to say that this will not be sufficient to complete the work. $20,000 was voted last year, and we are now asking $15,000 for the work which will be done this year. It will require $25,000 more to complete the work. I am very sorry to say that work is more expensive in British Columbia than in any other part of Canada. Wages are 50 or 75 per cent higher there.


Mr. CLARKE.: Is the cost of living higher ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I quite grant that. For instance, while I pay men $22 or $25 a month for dredging on the St. Lawrence, I have to pay them $50 a month in British Columbia; and everything else is very much higher there.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: You do not pay the Frenchmen whom you take there from Quebec a higher price, do you ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not take men from Quebec; but we pay men there $50 a month. I do not complain. I simply state the facts in order to explain to the House that if the works cost more in British Columbia, it is to a large extent due to higher wages and the greater cost of living.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand the minister to say that he has men working for $22 a month ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, $22 and board. I pay $50 and board in British Columbia.


Mr. MONK.: What is the amount of the contract for that building ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: $50,000. The site cost $11,000.
New Westminster public building, $17,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This will pay the balance of the cost. My hon. friends know that the public building there was destroyed by fire, and we had to rebuild it.


Edward Gawler Prior: What is the name of the contractor for this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Messrs. Bourque & Desrivieres.


Edward Gawler Prior: Do -they belong to British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. We asked for tenders all over the Dominion.


Edward Gawler Prior: I suppose somebody from Quebec got the contract ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Somebody from Quebec who was the lowest tenderer got it. Does the hon. gentleman object to a man from Quebec getting a contract when he is the lowest tenderer ?


Edward Gawler Prior: I was simply asking the question. The hon. gentleman need not lose his temper.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: But the hon. gentleman asked it in such a way as to imply that he thought it was wrong to give a contract to a Quebec firm even if it was the lowest.


Edward Gawler Prior: If the hon. gentleman wants to know, I do think it wrong. I think that for buildings put up in British Columbia, British Columbia contractors and labourers should have a little better chance than contractors in the east. Everybody knows that eastern contractors tender for work at too low a price, and afterwards they manage with the department by hook or by crook to get a lot of extras allowed, which will bring up the price.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am in the hands of the House and the country. The money voted by this House for these works is the money of the country-the money of Quebec, Ontario, and the maritime provinces more than of British Columbia.


Edward Gawler Prior: No.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The larger provinces supply more than the smaller provinces. I do not complain of that; but if the hon. gentleman, who is an ex-minister of the Crown, lays down the principle that even the lowest tenderer must not get the contract, I want to know it now, and not later on. I am very glad the hon. gentleman has laid down that sound principle. If the men of the east should not get a contract in the west, then the system is no good.


Edward Gawler Prior: Oh, yes, it is. The hon. gentleman says the money is more eastern money than British Columbia money. Let me tell him that British Columbia has paid more into the Dominion treasury than she ever got out of it. Since British Columbia went into confederation, she has paid over $42,000,000 into the Dominion treasury, and has received back only a little over $29,000,000; so that we still have a large balance in the Dominion treasury to our credit. With regard to these contracts, the hon. gentleman notices that everything is higher in

British Columljia, wages and materials of all kinds, and the people expect larger profits. I contend that British Columbia contractors and labourers, who have to live at a higher rate than eastern men, should be given a preference in any contracts that are let there. The eastern men put in a tender at a price at which they think they can do the work in the east, with a little addition for higher labour, and if they make a little profit, they come east with it and are satisfied; whereas the British Columbia man makes a profit and spends it in the country; and I contend that we in the west have a perfect right to have a little privilege given to our own contractors, so that the money will be kept in the province.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend looks at the next item, Rossland public building, he will find that that is being built by a man from Vancouver. My hon. friend, I am sure, is not serious in saying that when a contractor from any province is lower than the men from his own province, we must pass him over. He will not say it again.


Edward Gawler Prior: Yes, I will.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman says so, he will be alone in the House. Everything being equal, and as the hon. gentleman agrees to that, I have nothing more to say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the amount of the original contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were there several tenderers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Six or seven.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there a great difference between the tenderers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say off-hand, but will bring the figures down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will this finish the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. $65,000 is the total cost.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is considerably beyond the amount of the contract, which was $55,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract is for the bare building. This covers besides the furniture and the heating system, and so on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these latter in the same hands ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.
Rossland public building, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The building will cost altogether $75,000, Mr. PRIOR.
including heating and furnishing. The contract for the bare building is $45,000.
Vancouver drill hall, $19,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: The newspapers said that a part had tumbled down on account of defective workmanship. What was the matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A part fell down, but, of course, the contractor is bound to finish the work in proper order, and is responsible for what happened.


Edward Gawler Prior: Who are the contractors, and what was the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Viau and Lachance are the contractors- two men from the east again, and they were again the lowest tenderers. The amount of the contract is $65,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: Does that include the fitting up, or merely the shell of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only the bare building.


Edward Gawler Prior: If a part of the building tumbled down, can these contractors be said to have done good work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eastern men are exposed to accidents the same as western men. I would be very much surprised if western men never met with accidents, though, of course, they are the better men.


Edward Gawler Prior: I asked the hon. gentleman if he could give any reason for the building tumbling down. When a building of that kind falls down, the accident must be due to bad material or workmanship, or an earthquake, or something of that kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a report from Mr. Anderson, clerk of the works, and a very able man, who says that the building is first-class in design, and the workmanship and material first-class, but the contractor was too anxious to go ahead, and instead of stopping the work during the wet weather he decided to go on, and the accident consequently happened, for which he is responsible.


Edward Gawler Prior: Then it was owing to the wet getting into the walls and softening the mortar that the walls gave way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report is to that effect.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $96,000, including the fitting up. There is an armoury which has to be finished inside, and heating apparatus, and the electric light, and fencing and sidewalks.


Edward Gawler Prior: Are all these extras to be given to the same contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not necessarily.


Edward Gawler Prior: They will be given a chance to do the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see why not.


Edward Gawler Prior: The hon. gentleman gave them a contract for $05,000 for the bare walls, and then gives them a chance to tender for the other work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They will not be excluded from tendering any more than other contractors.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the lowest tender be accepted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With the permission of the committee, I would again draw attention to the absolute necessity there exists for additional accommodation at the drill hall in Toronto.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will take my seat if the hon. gentleman desires to make remarks on the subject of the Vancouver drill hall, and after he has finished I will try to say what I have to say about the Toronto drill hall. I have offered no objection to an appropriation to complete the drill hall in Vancouver, and I hope to have his support in asking an appropriation to complete the hall in Toronto. And I will try to give reasons why this work should be done. I see the hon. Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden) in his place, and that is why I ask permission to call the attention of the committee to a matter that has transpired within the last few weeks showing the absolute necessity that exists for additional accommodation. Now, the first letter I shall read to the committee is one from the officer commanding military district No. 2, Col. W. D. Otter :
Stanley Barracks,
Toronto, 22nd March, 1901.
Sir,-I have the honour to make application on behalf of a portion of the local militia force for the temporary use of the [DOT] Arcade,' St. Andrew's market, for the purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness.
With the present strength of the city corps, it is impossible, to find enough accommodation in the armouries, and pending the provision of such, I am compelled to appeal to the municipal authorities, as no place adapted for the purpose in view can be obtained.
I sincerely trust your committee will see its way to recommending my application to the council, and that a favourable answer may be granted.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. D. OTTER, Col., Comd'g M. D. No. 2.
The Chairman of the Property Committee,
.	City Hall, Toronto.
This matter was referred by the property committee to the city commissioner ; and this is the report made by the city commissioner upon the application :
(Copy.)
April 10th, 1901.
Chairman and Members,
Property Committee.
Gentlemen,-Your committee have forwarded to me for report the inclosed application of Colonel Otter for the use of the Arcade in St. Andrew's market for the purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness, temporarily, for the local militia force. I beg to report that I have conferred with Mr. Hughes, caretaker of the market, who informs me that there are no shops or Stalls occupied in the building that are entered by way of the Arcade, that the only use made of the Arcade is by persons walking down from the north to the south, but that very few persons are in the habit of going through the Arcade at all, inasmuch as there is no sidewalk across the market square connecting with Adelaide street, therefore, so far as the use of the Arcade is concerned, it is of no value to the public at large, and I fail to see any objection to the temporary compliance with Colonel Otter's request.
Respectfully submitted,



[Stage Direction]
City Commissioner.
The committee reported to the council as follows :
Temporary Use of Arcade in St. Andrew's Market for Storing Guns, &c.
Application has been made to your committee by Col. Otter, commanding M. D. No. 2, on behalf of the local militia force, for the temporary use of the Arcade in St. Andrew's market for the purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness. In his communication, Col. Otter states that with the present strength of the city corps it is impossible to find enough accommodation in the armouries, and pending the provision of such he is compelled to appeal to the municipal authorities, as no place adapted for the purpose in view can be obtained.
The application was referred to the City Commissioner, who has reported thereon as follows : I have read that report.
The committee then recommended as follows
Your committee, after due consideration, beg to recommend that the temporary use of the Arcade in the St. Andrew's market be granted to the local militia force for the purpose indicated, the council reserving the right to terminate this arrangement upon giving one month's notice to Col. Otter, or to such officer as may .be authorized to carry out the duties now performed by him.
I think I am safe in saying that this correspondence discloses a condition of things respecting the accommodation provided for the militia forces of Toronto that is not at all satisfactory, or, indeed, creditable. Appeals have been made time and again, both to the Department of Militia and Department of Public Works asking that the additional accommodation required be furnished. And, if the committee will pardon me for referring to the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works when the question
[Stage Direction]
was last before the House, of providing this additional accommodation, I will quote what he said-especially as the hon. Minister of Militia, his colleague, is now in his seat. Speaking on the 2nd of April, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said :
Matters of this kind belong to the Department of Militia and Defence. I am only a builder. If the Department of Militia and Defence asks me to erect an armoury in Toronto, I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure.
I submit to the Minister of Militia and to the Minister of Public Works, that urgency is required in the matter of completing the Toronto drill shed. The delay which has taken place has been an unreasonable delay, and, in view of the presentation of the case to the municipal committee by the officer commanding district No. 2, Col. Otter, who knows the wants and requirements of the militia force of the city, and who knows the accommodation at the drill shed, no stronger case could possibly be made out for immediate action. The hon. minister said that the time to make application was when the supplementary estimates were brought down. X think it is better, with all respect to the Minister of Public Works, to renew this application before the supplementary estimates are brought down. So that, the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Public Works, being seized of the facts contained in the correspondence, may be induced to ask their colleagues to put an appropriation in the estimates to complete the shed. We in the city of Toronto, like the people of other places, are proud of the militia force we have. The men who compose these corps keep them up at considerable loss of time to themselves, and even at considerable expense ; and we think it not unreasonable, considering the sacrifices they make to maintain the force in the splendid state of efficiency in which it now is, that accommodation should be supplied, and arms and accoutrements placed in a safe and convenient place, rather than in a building borrowed temporarily from the municipality for the purpose. St. Andrew's market, for which Col. Otter has applied, is a long distance from the drill shed. It is not as safe a place to store arms and supplies as in the drill shed. It will be a matter of inconvenience to the men to have part of the stores and arms and supplies in one building and another part in another building. And I appeal, not piteously, but straightforwardly, to both the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia, that there shall be no longer delay in providing the means to make an addition to the drill shed that will give the accommodation for the militia of Toronto which is so urgently required.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must say that my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) displays a great deal of energy and zeal on


Edward Frederick Clarke: behalf of the city of Toronto. It is his right to do so, and I may add that it is his duty to do so. I cannot blame him in either case- very far from it. On the other hand, he must not forget that there are many, many calls made upon us from all parts of the country. The great military spirit which has been developed has brought out demands from all quarters. We cannot comply with them all at the same time. That would be out of the question. In such a case, as I said in a former debate, I am a builder. If my colleagues impose upon me the agreeable duty of building an armoury in Toronto or building armouries elsewhere, I will do my level best to give my friends fine buildings. If the money is voted, I will put up the buildings all right. But, again, I must call my hon. friend's attention to the many demands that are made upon us. If we were to comply with them all, I am sure we would be scarified by our hon. friends opposite ; they would point to the large increase in the public expenditure we were making. I do not say that to blame my hon. friend for making these efforts, but only to induce him to have a little patience. There are other parts of the country where people are just as anxious as my hon. friend to have armouries and public buildings. We cannot meet all these demands. But, when the supplementary estimates come down, my hon. friend will see whether his eloquent appeal has had any effect on the Treasury benches.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I desire to put in a word in favour of an armoury for the county I have the honour to represent. We have no armoury at all, while Toronto has a very excellent armoury. It is true they have nearly five corps, and we have one. I would respectfully call the attention of the minister to the fact that the county of Victoria is very anxious to have an armoury, and I trust the hon. gentleman will make a note of it when he is preparing his supplementary estimates.


Mr. INGRAM.: As armouries seem to be up for discussion, and as I was not present when the St. Thomas item went through, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if it is the policy of the department not to allow Conservatives to have anything to do with the erection of armouries ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is certainly not our policy. In the case of the St. Thomas armoury the contract was given after public tender to the lowest tenderer. I do not know whether the contractor is a Conservative or a Liberal, I understand he is a Conservative.


Andrew B. Ingram: He votes Liberal all the same.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I am not mistaken, I received some pri-

vale letters blaming me strongly because Mr. Green, who is not a Liberal, got the contract. I answered that Mr. Green, was the lowest tenderer, and I think that was a satisfactory answer.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Green, votes Liberal, though he is credited with being a Conservative. I have no fault to find with J. M. Green & Co. for the way in which they got the contract, if they are the lowest tenderers. It is a well known fact that the work upon armouries is largely done by bricklayers and not by carpenters. They took the contract for erecting this building for ,$29,221. The only portion of the work in which Mr. Green will be benefited is the carpenter [DOT]work, which will amount to only about $5,000, the balance of the work will be done by bricklayers. Now I have it from reliable authority that in the city of St. Thomas there is not one Liberal bricklayer. Then1 are good responsible bricklayers there, but they happen to be Conservatives, and the word has gone forth that these inen will not be allowed to lay a brick in that build-mg, for the simple reason that they are Conservatives, and for no other reason. But I understand since, that a gentleman from the cnty of London has obtained this brick work, and I suppose the reason is that he is a prominent Liberal. I say that if the gentleman who has the patronage in Elgin county is allowed to interfere to the extent of shutting out local bricklayers and bringing in men from a distance, it is goin11' pretty far.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to know what I can do. Mr. Green was the lowest tenderer. Whether he is a bricklayer or a carpenter, he was the lowest tenderer. We have adopted the system of giving the contract to the lowest tenderer, whoever he may be, unless there are very strong objections, as, for instance, if he happens to be well known as of bad reputation, I suppose that would be a justification for refusing him the contract'. But in the absence of any such reason the lowest tenderer has to be accepted. Then he can do as he likes, provided he delivers the goods. I cannot interfere, I cannot go to Mr. Green or anybody else and say that he must employ such and such men. i pay him the estimate when he delivers me the goods, and I have nothing else to do. Will my hon. friend tell me what else I could have done ?	'


Andrew B. Ingram: One of the tenders was for $31,000, and the lowest was for $29,000.
I know from information from the most reliable source that Mr. Green was told that unless he would agree not to engage these local men in,- St. Thomas he would not receive the contract. I say if it has come to this pass that the parties who have the patronage in the county of Elgin can inter-
98	1
fere to that extent, it is high time to put a stop to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not listen for one moment to a man who would make such a proposal. The ordinary course of business was followed in this case. What would my hon. friend have said if I had passed over Mr. Green and given the contract to a higher tenderer ?
William's Head-Second disinfecting chamber &c., $10,000.	'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The increase is caused by the fact that we are supplying a second disinfecting chamber.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much did the first disinfecting chamber cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same price, I am told.
Public Buildings	Generally-Experimental
Farms-New buildings and renewals, improve-: ments, repairs, &e., in connection with the existing buildings, fences, &c., $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is this going to be spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is impossible to say exactly in advance. There are always repairs to be done on a big farm, as the hon. gentleman knows, for instance, on the farm at Ste. Anne's. We have practically no control over it ourselves, we are simply builders for the Department of Agriculture ; they send us an order for a building and we simply carry it out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it for repairs on all the experimental farms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Salaries to resident clerks of works, assistants, &c., $10,500.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why is this increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because we have sent a party to British Columbia, under Mr. Henderson, who has taken charge of all the works in British Columbia, and part of the telegraph system also. He was at Regina and we have replaced him by Mr. Morrison, who is receiving $1,200. We also pay him $300 for travelling expenses over the Territories.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not know that this was an annual vote of $9,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would be interesting to know, as this is a considerable


REVISEJ1D EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
amount, how it is divided up. Have we many resident clerks of works ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have Mr. Henderson in British Columbia who is our clerk of works there, at a salary of $175 per month. We have Mr. Cyr, Mr. Curran and Mr. Morrison in the North-west Territories. Mr. Morrison is at Regina. Mr. Cyr receives $150 a month, Mr. Curran $125 a month, and Mr. Morrison $125 a month. In Montreal we have Mr. Desjardins, an old employee, who was in this position under the former regime. He receives $95 a month. We have Mr. Beland at Quebec, who receives $92 a month. At Ottawa we have Mr. Adams, an old employee, who receives $100 a month.


Mr. WALLACE.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what he proposes to do with the appropriation made for the Toronto Junction public building last year. What are his intentions as to the future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, that is not up now. It will come up in the supplementary estimates. My hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) will then, perhaps, be greatly surprised that this government do not go back on their pledges. But, my hon. friend will grant that this is not the time now to discuss the matter, because our supplementary estimates are still under consideration.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the hon. minister, what I have asked twice in the House before this session, what has been done with the $5,000 already appropriated ? Have the government selected a site for a public building, or have they taken any steps towards selecting that site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman will kindly bear in mind that I was not here last year, but, the information conveyed to me is to the effect that there has been preparatory work done in the choosing of a site, but that the site has not been chosen yet. The money was voted last year in the supplementary estimates. The election came on, and we had not much time to look after these things. The case of Toronto Junction is in the same position as those of many other places. We had no time to look after them, but they will not be lost sight of.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister tells us that the preparatory work of selecting a site has been undertaken. What is that preparatory work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been informed of it. I did not do that preparatory work myself. I was not in the country. I believe the then acting Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Mulock) obtained some information in regard to it. I am so informed by the deputy minister.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I personally do not know anything about it, but, I may say that when the supplementary estimates come down my hon. friend will, I think, be pleased, although he is a hard man to please.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister tells us he was not here. Of course, we knew that, but we did not suppose that the public works of the country were going to be stopped because the minister chose to absent himself. Ten months ago. or about that time, it would be since he returned and duriug all these months the Minister of Public Works has had charge of his department, and the Postmaster General has not. He says that the Postmaster General had made some progress during the time that he was acting Minister of Public Works. That would be last May or June, or perhaps in July. How is it that nothing -has been done since that ? The minister cannot tell us of a single thing. He says that some preparatory work was done towards selecting a site. Let us hear what the nature of this preparatory work is. The minister admits that he has done nothing in regard to this matter, but that what was done was done while he was away, and done by the Postmaster General, who was acting as Minister of Public Works. I would like to know something further about this. The money has been appropriated. Parliament, voted money for the purpose. It will not do to say, because I have sought information in tiie House twice already during this session, that the matter is being considered, or that preparatory work is being done towards selecting a site. What js the nature of such preparatory work ? Have sites been proposed, have applications been made, have these matters been submitted to the department, or what is the nature of the work that has been done, or the investigations that have been made so far ? We are entitled to some information in reference to this matter, and we have no information yet except the statement of the Minister of Public Works that while he was away the Postmaster General had made some preparatory investigation. We would like to know something more about it, and to understand what the intentions of the government are in this matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very sorry indeed that I cannot give more information, because I have nothing under my hand. The deputy minister tells me that lie understood from the hon. Postmaster General that he obtained some information in reference to the site. I did not expect myself that the rostmaster General would be away from the House during this session. I fully expected that he would be here to post me as to the work done. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) has any right to complain that time has been lost. Parliament prorogued,

the elections came on soon after, and there were a great many public works not 'started, just as this work was not started. As soon as the House prorogues, and I have time, I will certainly use my best endeavours to Push on this work and any other work for which money has been placed at my disposal. There is no secret about it, I had no time to look after a lot of things, but as soon as the House prorogues, I will pusli on the work as quickly as I can. .


Andrew B. Ingram: I am surprised that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) wanted an explanation about the preparatory work in connection with this public building. It is quite evident the hon. gentleman has had no public buildings erected in his constituency for some time, or he would not ask for an explanation. Perhaps the experience I have had in East Elgin may be of some assistance to the hon. gentleman if he expects a public building in his constituency.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I want to hear about it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will relate the preparatory work. In the first place, they buy a site and pay three prices for it to a political friend. Now, the hon. Minister of Public AVorks does not get much credit for being over-loyal. He has been attacked in this House on several occasions for being disloyal. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Taxte) saw his way clear to come from Montreal to St. Thomas the Saturday previous to the elections for the purpose of turning. the first sod of the building, although not one cent had been voted by parliament for the construction of that building.


Mr. BENNETT.: Did it bury Wilson ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and there is a stone there as a monument to mark his grave.
I he political friends of the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte), thought that perhaps he did not stand very well in St. Thomas, and so they sent over to London and raked and scraped all the military they could to come to St. Thomas with their bands. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) visited my opponents place, and I understand he had quite a tussle there before he could be induced to go out and turn the first sod. When he did go out, they got a very good crowd together after raking and scraping up the militia as I have said.


Edward Gawler Prior: A corporals guard.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, they got a corporals guard, and they went down and turned the first sod. After the Minister of Public Works had come all the way from Montreal to St. Thomas to turn the first sod for a building that no money had been voted for, they thought they could turn his presence to good account by holding a meeting 981	'


Edward Frederick Clarke: They combined business with pleasure.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and they got all these outsiders in to fill up the hall. Strange to say two or three little boys happened to be in the opera house and instead of going down the aisle they climbed over the seats and the Minister of Public Works was horrified to think that a gentleman from the province of Quebec could not come there to make a speech without being interrupted. The hon. gentleman (Air. Tarte) was looking for trouble that night, but the Conservative electors did not wish for a moment to put a straw in his way, and they maintained as good order as they could, so the only thing the Minister of Public AVorks could find fault with was the antics of two or three little boys. The impression given us was that the hon. gentleman came to St. Thomas especially for the purpose of trying to create some little strife in order that he might go back to the province of Quebec and say :	I have been insulted in the province of Ontario. It was for that reason and for that reason only V I have no excuse to offer for these boys, because if the King of England came there to make a speech the chances are these boys would have done' the same thing. There was nothing intended in the way of insult to the Alinister of Public AVorks.


Air. HUGHES (Victoria).: Did he hire the boys to do it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: No, he did not. If the Minister of Public Works is going to make it a practice to turn first sods, I would advise him not to do it the day before an election. It looks too much like making party capital out of it, and so far as our militia is concerned they will pay no heed to such a proceeding.


William Humphrey Bennett: He did not carry the constituency.


Andrew B. Ingram: No; the speech of the Alinister of Public Works worked the other way. I think I derived benefit from it. The hon. gentleman would have done much better in that constituency if he had stayed in the province of Quebec to assist his friends there. I have no complaint to make about the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman, and in fact I am very much obliged to him for it.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: If the little speech I made there did my hon. friend (Air. Ingram) any good, I shall certainly do it again. By the way, St. Thomas [DOT] did not vote badly at all. I spoke only there, and had I spoken elsewhere I do not think that the hon. gentleman (Air. Ingram) would be here to-day. However. I might try my hand at a future election. My visit to St. Thomas was one of the most pleasant I ever made. I was very well received. There was a great military dis-

play. There was no party politics in it. 1 was invited by two military men, both of them Conservatives, to turn the first sod and I did my duty.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Was the contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The couti'act was not let, but I consecrated the site.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I might say that perhaps if more people from Ontario would come in election times to Quebec, and if more people from Quebec would go to Ontario, it would be all the better. That is my opinion irrespective of party bias. If that were done, people would not be so apt to say some things that are now said. I may say that gentlemen of both political parties in Ontario will be welcome in the province of Quebec. If the hon. the leader of the opposition is kind enough to come to Quebec after the session, he will find Liberals welcoming him with both hands. They will be glad to make his acquaintance. I may add that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is wrong in saying that no money was voted for this building.


George Taylor: Who is the clerk of works at the Brockville drill hall ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOiUvS. Mr. Mix.


George Taylor: Is it true that this gentleman is superintending the erection of Mr. Fulford's palatial residence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some one wrote me that Mr. Mix had some outside work, and Mr. Mix has been informed that he must give us all his time and if he does not do so he does not do his duty.


George Taylor: What salary is Mr. Mix receiving V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $75 a month.


George Taylor: Why was Mr. Dillon the architect and clerk of works who was in charge up to a certain time dismissed, and Mr. Mix put in his place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Dillon was simply employed in a temporary way, and he was replaced by Mr. Mix. We are not bound to employ men for all times. If my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has an employee he keeps him or he does not keep him just as he likes.


George Taylor: Was there any complaint against Mr. Dillon not doing his work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not remember at present that there was.


George Taylor: Does the minister say now that Mr. Mix is devoting his whole time to the Brockville drill hall ?


Mr. TARTE.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say he has been instructed to do so. If my hon. friend says he is not, I will make inquiries, and, if he does not do so I certainly will not keep him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a great discrepancy between the salaries paid to clerks of works. One has $175 a month and another only $75. It seems to me that in Montreal we have a very good clerk of works for $4 a day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The clerk of works in British Columbia receives a large salary. Everything is large there. It is out of the question to get good men in British Columbia without paying high salaries. I was very much surprised to see that we paid $6 a day for a carpenter. It is very hard, but it is impossible to get men otherwise; my hon. friends from British Columbia will bear me out in that.
Ottawa public buildings, Including ventilation and lighting, repairs, materials, furniture, &c., $125,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. minister if he will approximately give the details of the different expenditures under this head ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend would not ask me to read all the details.


William Humphrey Bennett: I say approximately-so much for lighting, so much for heating, so much for materials, and so on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The lighting contract is not included in this. The lighting here referred to is altogether different. It means, for instance, that when, a chimney or a glass breaks, it has to be repaired.


William Humphrey Bennett: As there is an increase of $25,000, will the minister state roughly the large amounts which go to make up the increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have only to read a statement showing the different amounts which have been expended in the past, and it will explain everything. I may say at once that $100,000 is not enough to keep up these buildings ; it is out of the question to try to do it. I have tried to lower the expenditure as much as possible. Here is a statement showing the amounts voted and the amounts expended during a certain number of years :
Vote. Expended.
1879-80	
$220,000	00	$220,000	001880-	1	
175,078	25	149,938	481881-	2	
198,310	02	198,139	081882-	3	
181,780	00	185,149	571SS3-4	
198,835	00	197,790	301884-	5	
175,782	50	168,934	471885-	6	
202,175	00	228,497	46


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not like to interrupt the minister, but does he think it is of much use to give us these figures ?
3113 APRIL 16, 1901 3114


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They explain the whole thing. They show that there have always been larger amounts voted than I am asking now. I give my solemn word that I cannot do the work with the amount that has been voted, and I thought it was more frank to come to the House and say I cannot do it. Demands from the other departments are daily made upon us, and we cannot keep up these buildings for less money than I am now asking. Mr. TAYLOR. Will the minister give us the figures for 1894-5 ? The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes. There was a year or two when the appropriation was starved, as many appropriations were starved by the ex-Finance Minister, to the detriment of the country, and the detriment of his own party. Mr. TAYLOR. I did not ask the hon. gentleman for a speech. I asked him for the figures of 1894-5. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS. Well, I wanted to make that little speech of my own, just to explain matters. I will give the figures : Vote. Expended. 1886-7 	 $175,000 00 $195,074 29 1881-S 	 195,000 00 197,387 96 1888-	9 	 195,020 00 207,730 10 1889-	90 	 185,000 00 187,877 64 1890-	1 	 181,000 00 184,100 19 1891-	2 	 149,000 00 150,084 72 1892-	3 	 165,800 00 165,802 68 1893-	t	 119,000 00 118,762 04 1894'5 	 114,000 00 113,801 68 1895-	6 	 100,000 00 99,997 58 1896-	7 	 117,705 71 117,612 04 1897-	8 	 102,028 79 101,952 77 189S-9 	 86,000 00 85,992 72 1899-1900 	 100,000 00 100,072 91 Mr. BENNETT. The figures, which the Minister of Public Works has given, are very well in their way, but how is the House to know that the expenditures in those years were for exactly the same items as he now mentions for this year ? As I understand from him, the large expenditure that will be necessary for the electric or other lighting of this building and the heating is not at all included in this amount of $125,000. I understand the hon. gentleman assents to that, so that this whole amount Is to be expended simply in making the necessary repairs on this main building, the Eastern and Western blocks and the Langevin block. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. No. The various departments that are to be served are the Senate, the House of Commons, the Governor General's secretary's office, the Privy Council, the Auditor General's office, the Departments of Canals, Interior, Indian Affairs, Militia and Defence, Customs, Trade and Commerce, Marine and Fisheries. Public Works, Railways and Canals, Inland Revenue, Agriculture, tlie Postmaster General, the Library of parlia-,	ment, the Supreme and Exchequer Courts, the geological museum, post office, and the printing bureau. AVe have to supply furniture and everything required in the way of maintaining these buildings. If the Department of Justice requires a desk or a dozen of chairs or a carpet, it simply sends an order on us and we supply the goods. There is painting to be done, there are floors to be repaired, and other works of that kind, and it is out of the question that I should give every detail. Then there is a large heating system under this building. All that has to be kept up by the Department of Public Works out of this appropriation. The work we have to do now is the very same as was done in former years, but other governments spent more than we are doing. I cannot give the details of the work, but my hon. friend will find them in the Auditor General's Report. Mr. BENNETT. The figures of past years are of no use at all by way of comparison until we have It first demonstrated that the very same services that were included in the expenditure of years gone by are in the item now before us. What is this proposition ? It is that it will take $125,000 to make repairs in this building, the Eastern and Western blocks and the Langevin block. Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. And the Supreme Court, printing bureau and geological museum. Mr. BENNETT. I ask any hon. gentleman to look at this chamber and go through all the different buildings and see where there is anything to show for this large expenditure. The desks are the same that we have had for years. They have not even been repainted. Go through all these different departments and you find practically the same appearance that they have had during the past twenty years with the exception of here and there a fresh coat of paint. The bon. gentleman says he has to spend $125,000, and when asked where is this expenditure necessary, he falls back on the question of heating. Why, that has nothing to do with the item. He referred to the fact that there is an expensive apparatus under this building, hut that has no connection whatever with this item. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. It has. Mr. BENNETT. Why, lower down we find an Item for the salaries of the engineers and firemen and caretakers amounting to $67,000 for these very buildings, so that that expenditure is not included. He then says that certain money is required for furniture. But he has an item also for furniture of Dominion public buildings $12,000, so that that is not included in this item. And in the face of the fact that $85,000 a few years ago sufficed for the work covered by this item, the hon. minister is asking to-

day $125,000. Besides some years ago no doubt the expenses were larger for repairs, when, for instance, these walks around the buildings were constructed, which cost a good deal of money. But nothing of the kind has, been done this past ten years, if we except the famous fence which the minister had constructed near this building. So that this large sum of $125,000 is simply for repairs in the way of carpentering, painting and furnishing. Surely that is an enormous amount for the little work of that kind that is necessary in these buildings. It amounts to nearly $375 per day. Why, a man can go around these buildings and see to-day that many of the outside sashes in the windows have not been painted in years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not enough money.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let the minister state how much of that $125,000 will be spent in carpentering work and painting and how much on furniture, and we may get some faint glimmering of where this money is to go.


George Taylor: The hon. minister has made a statement which is the most misleading ever presented to this committee. I have just sent to the library to find a copy of the estimates for the years for which the hon. gentleman made up a statement. He said that the amount voted in 1887 was $175,000. I have the estimates of that year before me. It is true there is an item of $175,000 in that year. But what is it for ? We come down to the item that is covered by the vote that he is asking for here to-day 'materials for repairs, &c., in connection with ventilation and lighting of public buildings, Ottawa, $5,000.' That was the amount voted in 1887.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For this building ?


George Taylor: Yes, for just the same item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman can send out and get the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and I will give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) a fine hat if there was ever a year when $5,000 only was voted for the purpose for which I am asking this vote. It is a joke.


George Taylor: It is no joke. I make the statement from my place in parliament, and I read from the estimates. In 1887, the materials for repairs in connection with the ventilating and lighting was $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was a special item.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


George Taylor: ' Repairs, furniture, &c., heating, &c., $15,000.' The items were voted separately, and amounted to $20,000. Now, my hon. friend is asking $125,000 for the same services that were covered in 1887 for $20,000. We have the same state of affairs in connection with the salaries for engineers, firemen, caretakers, &c. The iron, gentleman is now asking $80,000, and the amount voted in 1887 was $44,000. Every item in the estimates of 1887 was half or less than half the amount he is now asking for. If he will refer the matter to a committee, it will be shown that the statement he is trying to palm off on the House has no foundation. Let any person who understands the estimates take the estimates of the two years, and he will see that my statement is true, while the hon. gentleman's statement is misleading.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am prepared to refer the matter to a committee. Of course, I take the statement prepared by my officer, and do not go into the books myself. I have not at hand a copy of the estimates from which my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) read, but, I know that it is out of the question, that for $5,000 these buildings could be maintained for a single year. I will look again at the estimates of 1887 to understand what the hon. gentleman has said. But, I am sure that my officers could not have made such a mistake. If my hon. friend will look at the accounts of one year, he will find that I am right in saying that every year the amounts spent on these buildings cover nearly $200,000


George Taylor: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no use in saying ' no '-it is true. My hon. friend is simply making a mistake- the thing is out of the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does this item cover expenditure for telephones ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, that is a special vote. .1 would be very glad indeed if some responsible man from the other side of the House would come to my office-I would be glad to see him any day-and look over the details of the work done and the calls made upon us. I am sure that that would convince the hon. gentleman that the work simply could not done for less money.


William Humphrey Bennett: There has been a great deal of discussion indulged in. But, surely, with his officers to refer to, the hon. gentleman would be able to tell us where this $125,000 is to go. It is now nearly six o'clock, and he could have the information for us after recess. We might as well vote intelligently when we are giving away $125,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am ready to give all information. I

thought when I took office that the expenditure was very large, and, for months and months I followed that expenditure myself. The calls upon us are, in a sense, unforeseen. The Department of Finance, for instance, will call upon us for a change here or new furniture there, or other departments will ask for this or that. The demands upon us are at times surprising, and if we complied with them all, instead of spending $125,000 we should spend $250,000 a year. I can show dozens of letters from my colleagues, complaining that I do not give them what they require. All those who have been in large business know what it costs to keep up large buildings, and these buildings are immense. God knows how many chairs are broken every day, and how many desks need to be repaired or changed, or how many carpets or tables must be procured. I had no conception, before I took office, that I should have so much trouble in keeping up buildings.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is plain that the minister will be in a position to-night to furnish us approximately with these expenditures. In the meantime, it may be worth while to quote some figures from the Auditor General's Report, which will show where some of the public money goes. The Minister of Public Works tells us to look at the Auditor General's Report to learn what the expenditures are, but it is not easy, at a moment's notice, to go over all these figures. Perhaps we may judge of the rest of the expenditures by a few that happen to have struck my eye. There are no gentlemen now on the other side such as those who used to rail about public expenditure.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What has become of them ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The people have got rid of them, and they have gone to their reward. Those sitting behind the ministers now have no condemnation for anything that the Minister of Public Works may do. They are all dangling after votes for harbours, for docks to be built at places that cannot be approached, and petty grants of all kinds. We know how, in the days of Sir John Macdonald, hon. gentlemen used to rail at the expenditure of a few dollars for cab hire. But, let us see how these princes of the blo'od royal live at the public expense. Take, for instance, the Department of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior wants a telephone in his house. Of course, he should pay for his own telephone, to order any household supplies that he wants, but he asks parliament to vote that a telephone be supplied to him. And the deputy minister asks for a telephone also, and that must be provided at the public expense. Then, the private secretary cannot go down town to order his own groceries, and he asks that a telephone be installed in his house at the expense of the
country. And there is Mr. Pedley, a very ambitious gentleman, who used to be heard throughout the country. He is going to be as good as his master, and he asks for a telephone, which is put in and paid for by the public, go, it would appear that the ministers, deputy ministers, leading clerks, and clerks that are not leading clerks, have telephones installed in their houses, and the country pays the piper. How does the Minister of Public Works stand up in the House to-day and tell us that we should pay for, a telephone for these different subordinate clerks in the departments, and, furthermore, that he is going to let it run down to a subordinate clerk like Mr. Pedley Are the messengers in the service to have the same favour extended to them in the coming year ? Now, if this telephone abuse is going on, how bad must be the abuse in the expenditure of $125,000 ? I think before this side of the House will permit this item to pass, the minister must obtain from his officer approximate information to show us how this $125,000 is to be spent, how much is to be expended on repairs on the buildings, and what expenditures will be entered upon during the coming year.


The MINISTER OF PTJBLIC WORKS.: I must take issue with my hon. friend. He has only to look again at what he has read to find that he is mistaken in his interpretation. Let me read it : ' Material for repairs, &c., being in connection with the ventilation and lighting of public buildings, Ottawa, $5,000,' especially mentioning ventilation. Now, this does not cover repairs, furniture, &c.


George Taylor: Take the next item right under that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman give me time to explain matters, matters that are clear in themselves, but that need explanation after what the hon, gentleman has said. This was a special vote in connection with ventilation and lighting of public buildings.
Mr. TAYLOR, It is only material used for them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For ventilation and lighting, that is all, a special item. Hon. gentlemen on both sides can read for themselves what I am reading now on this page : Material for repairs, &c., in connection with ventilation and lighting of public buildings, Ottawa.' ' Material for repairs '-it was a special item then. Since then we have simply merged into the general expenditure that small vote; but for the very same year, 1897, there was a sum of $175,000 for repairs, furniture, heating public buildings in Ottawa. That is the whole thing in these two items.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the minister, after six o'clock, kindly bring down a detailed

statement about this $125,000? We should expect to have that information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must explain that it is impossible to give details of that kind. I will not undertake to do what I cannot do. The broad lines of the expenditure are contained in the Auditor General's account. These are the expenditures every year. My officers have been there twenty years, and they know that about the same expenditure has been made every year, except that it was more in the past. I cannot be expected to say to the House that a little piece of wall in some particular place will have to be rebricked, or that so many tables will have to be bought, or that the Auditor General will ask for a counter. I cannot do that. If the House does not trust the Department of Public Works, well, I would like to know what we are to do. I will give every possible information, but there are things that cannot be expected. Now, Sir, as to the telephones. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) will permit me-I am an older man than himself-to give him one word of advice. He has ability ; he does not gain anything by small criticisms like that. The telephone system has been established all over the world in profusion ; so much so that in large firms in cities they have a pri-yate telephone system with which they communicate to all their employees. Take large newspapers like the Star, La Patrie, La Presse, I am sure that in those offices there are forty or fifty telephones which communicate with all the branches of the concern. Suppose I am working in my new house- 'which I am sorry to say I have to do so often that I do not know whether I will work very much longer here-suppose I have to go at ten o'clock at night and open my letters, or in the morning, and open my letters in my room, or at night after the House has adjourned, if I want to communicate with my deputy minister, or with my private secretary, or if I want to speak to one of my colleagues, can I not have a telephone by which I can do so ? It is a saving of time, it is in the public interest, and I say without hesitation we have not enough telephones now. I am asking for more money this year. My hon. friend himself may be a minister some of these days, and I can tell him that in indulging in criticisms of this kind he will find out that he has made a mistake, both in the interest of his party and in his own interest. Let him reflect a little. Why should we grant telephones without any necessity ? There is no pleasure in doing so, I do not get any advantage from granting a telephone ; I do so because I think it is in the public interest.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works has undertaken to read me a lecture on the ground of my talking ' small talk.' I have this to say of the Minister of Public Works, that the man who criticises such


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: scandalous expenditure as this is considerably bigger than the man who makes the expenditure and who is so small as to ask the country to pay for it. This thing shows that the men who are in positions to-day on the treasury benches, go about the country treating their friends In a lavish way with wines, liquors and cigars, and afterwards come down and ask the country to pay for them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Who does that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It is not in his department. I think the Minister of Marine and Fsiheries is too big to do that work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not in mine either.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is in the items, and it will be shown before this session is through.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These expenditures he is talking about are not included in this.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say they were in his department, I say they are in the Auditor General's Report, and will be referred to before the session is over.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Before recess, I was asked to give some information as to the nature of the expenditure. I stated that it was impossible to give any details. I have met my officers since, and they tell me that about $60,000 in round numbers, perhaps a little more, have to be paid in wages. The balance is employed to buy new furniture; materials and so on. The Auditor General's Report contains all the expenditure for every year that has elapsed since confederation. By noting that expenditure in past years one can form an idea as to what the expenditure of this year will be. It is always about the same thing. We have several buildings, the Central Building, the West Block, the East Block, the Langevin Block, the Supreme Court building, the Geological Museum, the National Art Gallery and the Printing Bureau. All these buildings are large, and expensive to keep up. Of course, it is out of the question for any minister to follow day by day how many pounds of nails are used, how many chairs are broken, how many panes of glass have to be put in again, how many yards of paint have to be done. The work is under the supervision of the chief architect, Mr. Ewart, an employee of thirty years' standing of the Public Works Department. I have full confidence in him. There is Mr. Breton, who is foreman of the men, and an old employee, and

there is Mr. Ellis, who is foreman of the shops, and also an old employee. 1 have kept the whole staff, which is responsible for the expenditure, and which was there before I took office. I have kept the very same men there. I am sure that they do not expend money uselessly. I am sure that they are doing their duty to the best of their ability. More than that, I cannot say.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Does the hon. minister mean to say that these men, such as Mr. Ewart and the others whom he has mentioned, order goods from whomsoever they wish, or does he give instructions from whom they must purchase supplies ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The supplies, which in this ease amount to about one-third of the expenditure, are bought. I must say frankly, after competition, from the political friends of the party now in office-not exclusively though. I am often reproached, and once or twice I have been censured by my own friends, because they thought I was not partisan enough. Some of them believe that I should have dismissed the whole staff. I did not do so. I do not believe in that kind of business. When a man does his duty, I believe he has a right to stay. I speak of the heads. Materials are bought as much as possible from the friends of the party in office, as it was done years ago, and as it will be done when we are out of office.


John Dowsley Reid: I see, according to the Auditor General's Report, that there were some supplies got from Mr. W. G. Charleson. Is that the same gentleman who was before the Public Accounts Committee the other day ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Can the hon. gentleman tell me how much was paid to him last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I cannot say how much we paid him. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that although the prices paid to him are fair, I think that my officers bought too much from that man. I think that other friends should have received more patronage than they have in the past, although I have nothing to say against Mr. Charleson. I believe his prices are fair, but I think perhaps a little too much has been bought from him from the party's standpoint. because after all, it is a family quarrel. My hon. friends must not expect, now that they are out of office, that they will get patronage at our hands. That would not be fair. Of course, they would not take it.


John Dowsley Reid: Can the hon. minister give us any idea how much they paid him ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between $5,000 and $6,000, so I am informed. I did not look into, the figures.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I have not been able to go very largely into the Auditor General's Report, but I see here some $8,000 that this man got in two or three buildings.
j The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. It may be.


John Dowsley Reid: It seems to me ' that this is a very large amount for one man to get. The hon. minister makes the statement that his prices are fair, but I think his prices are most unreasonable. This gentleman, the other day, explained that he only started business in 1898, and that the government were customers to the extent of 50 per cent of his business. It seems a very strange thing that this man should furnish such a large quantity of these supplies. I, personally, think it looks rather suspicious, and I was wondering whether the officers of the department were really the ones that were responsible for dealing with this man, or whether it was the minister himself who would issue orders like that. I could hardly believe that any officer of the government would attempt to give any one man orders for such a large quantity of supplies as that. Now, another thing that I am really surprised at is this:
; I have been coming to Ottawa now myself, j for nine years, and if there has been any large amount of expenditure out of this $125,000 I on this building, in which we now are, it cannot be seen in any place. I was looking around this evening after we had left the House. I think the buildings around here are in a most disgraceful state, and if there is to be $125,000 spent every year we should have the assurance of the minister that this building will be put in better shape than it is in at the present time. The hon. minister must admit that when he goes through these corridors they are hardly fit for any person to be in at all. I do not believe they have been painted since the building was erected. The oilcloth and everything around them is in a disgraceful condition, and yet, there is $125,000 to be expended. I cannot see where the $125,000 goes to. Then, the hon. minister has told us that $60,000 are paid in wages. That represents at least $200 per day. There must be eighty or ninety men at work on these repairs. I think these public buildings should be kept in proper order with $125,000. According to the Auditor General's Report only $3,000 : of the expenditure reached this building that we are now in. I think we should have the assurance of the minister that there shall be more attention paid to this building than has been given to it in the past.


Robert Laird Borden: The ventilation of this building is pretty bad still. I would

like some information as to how much of this $125,000 is for the purpose of ventilation.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This money does not apply to the improvement of the ventilation, because I think the old system is radically bad. In this House we are simply locked up in these walls. The ventilation comes from beneath the floor and we cannot change it. 1 hope that in a short time the House will vote the money necessary to change the whole system. Anybody who compares the conditions with the necessities of the public service, anybody who has been some time here and who has looked carefully into the question must admit that a change has to come. There is no room; there is no space. I have heard my hon. friends criticising me because I have rented buildings outside. There is no pleasure in that. The buildings here are congested, and I suppose they will have to be changed some of these days. We do not know where to put our books in the library. I am not prepared to offer any plans now, but within a short time we will be obliged to devise a scheme between ourselves to change the whole thing, and then I hope we will have better ventilation. We are here for four or five months of the year and I agree that we should have better accommodation. The ventilation is better than it was before we introduced the new lighting system.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: From 1882 to 1892 when the House was lit by gas, the atmosphere in the evening became intolerable and the ventilation was then a burning question. The ventilation of the House is not so bad now in view of the improvements made within the last five or six years. When the summer days come, the windows are now removed and the Chamber is a paradise compared with what it was. I do not know of any large chamber in which you have any better ventilation under the improved system.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not agree with the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) that the ventilation is good. I think the ventilation of the Chamber is very bad indeed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So it is.


Robert Laird Borden: One would think that the system had been devised to keep the air as bad as possible and to secure as many draughts as possible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think we have now the best ventilation possible under the circumstances.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since six o'clock the minister has given us information which he failed to give us before, and perhaps now Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
we may get on with the estimates. The minister tells us that there will be an expenditure next year of $60,000 for wages in maintaining the public buildings here. That means that about 175 men will be employed every working day in the year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At what wages ?


William Humphrey Bennett: At about $1.50 a day. That is quite a small army to keep amused because they cannot be kept at work all the year round. The minister estimates that there will be an addition of about $40,000 in materials and furniture. It appears from the Auditor General's Report that the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) supplied one folding bed last year with the proper equipment. Who was that for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year I was very ill as everybody knows and I had a folding bed in my room in the buildings. If parliament cannot afford to supply that to a sick minister, I am prepared to pay for it; but I do not think the House will go to that extreme. I was very near dying last year. I sat late in the House here when I should have been away, and I had a folding bed put in my room.


William Humphrey Bennett: Before dinner the minister invited us to look at the Auditor General's Report, and I saw this item and I wondered who it was for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was for me. I ordered a very modest folding bed which is in my room and which will be there for the use of my successor.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is ice supplied to all the officers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: At page 103 of the Auditor General's Report it appeared that J. O. Charlebois was paid $42 for ice for the Hon. Mr. Sifton. Was he sick or unduly warm, because I do not see that any other minister was suffering to the extent of having to be supplied with $42 worth of ice.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some departments take ice in the winter and some do not. Those who want ice in the winter months have it and those who do not want it do not have it. I do not think there is any very great crime in paying $42 for ice in the year. I do not think the electors of the country will be very much influenced by the purchase of a folding bed for a sick minister and for ice for the Department of the Interior.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister invited criticism on these items, and as I did not know that the Minister of Public Works was so ill as to require a folding bed and that the Minister of the Interior wanted ice, when I saw tlie items here they excited my curi-

osity. It is to be hoped that there will be no rivalry on the part of other ministers to cause them, to buy winter ice also. How that the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has come down from his high horse and consented to give us information which should have been given before, so far as I am concerned, I will not oppose these items. The Minister of Public Works must understand that if he hopes to have his estimates passed he cannot take the high and mighty course that he did before six o'clock, and that it is better for him to do as he has done since, namely, play the meek and innocent minister.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe that I deserve that criticism. I always endeavour to be courteous towards members on both sides of the House and to give Information cheerfully. I believe that a minister should be at the disposal of the House to give information. Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that he is altogether mistaken as to the wages we pay our men here. As a rule we pay union wages and instead of the average of $1.50 a day which he calculates, our carpenters receive as a rule $2 a day. Painters are paid $2.50 and even $3 a day at times, and bricklayers $3 at times. We are paying union wages. I am sure there is no money wasted. There may be some little trouble here and there, as there is in the best regulated establishments, but as a rule I believe my officers do their duty loyally and faithfully.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the Auditor General's Report, the total wages paid last year were $90,575.24. Does the minister mean that this year there will be a reduction of $30,000 in wages ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure my hon. friend is mistaken. There could not have been $90,000 in wages paid for the maintenance of the buildings last year ; for I had a vote of only $100,000 altogether.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the Auditor General's Report, the total amount paid on account of Ottawa buildings-repairs, furniture, &c., was $148,526.85. In that $105,382 was paid for wages, less $14,806, leaving the net amount of wages paid $90,575.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect tells me that this year he does not expect to pay in wages more than $60,000. My hon. friend will find that the amount he has given covers renewals, repairs, rents, &c., of Ottawa and other buildings.


John Dowsley Reid: It is under the heading which I have given and I cannot see one item of rent in it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend looks at the foot note, he will find that in. this total of $148,526 the amount of $27,865 is for bills due before the 1st of July. I may say that when I took office there were bills overdue ; and for years the Department of Public Works has always been in debt. I have made up my mind to put a stop to that state of affairs, to make a clean breast of the whole thing, and come straight to this House and tell them that we cannot keep up these buildings with $100,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that previous to this the same system has been going on, of adding to the expenditure of the year amounts due previously.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It lias been going on for fifteen years. It Is a bad system.


John Dowsley Reid: Admitting that there was $27,865 from the previous year included in the $148,526, and deducting that, then the total expenditure of the past year has been $121,000. Therefore the minister lias exceeded the amount voted by at least $21,000. Am I right in that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I was not here last year, but my officers tell me that we got a vote of $100,000, and afterwards an additional vote of $23,000. Then there were bills due for $27,000. In point of fact, the Department of Public Works for the last fifteen years has expended more than it has got from this parliament. This year I made up my mind to make a clean breast of it ; and next year, if I am here, I pledge myself that there will not be one dollar of over-expenditure.


John Dowsley Reid: If my memory serves me rightly, we had the same explanation last year. Some minister came forward and made a clean breast of it in the same way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand last year there was not a woid of debate.


John Dowsley Reid: It may not have been on the Public Works estimates, but it certainly was on some of the estimates, because I was present and heard it. Do I understand from the minister that there will be no amount from the previous year charged in this $125,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not say that. We are in debt now. The appropriation has been short for years, but with this amount of money I will pay my debts, and will not incur any new debts. I pledge myself to this House not to make any new debts, if I am here.


John Dowsley Reid: If the minister is not here, how are we to hold the government responsible ?


Tbe MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of Public Works never dies.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It seems to me that the kon. minister proposes to spend about $05,000 on furniture and other supplies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The bon. gentleman has misunderstood me. Repairs to old furniture, and buying new furniture will not cover more than $25,000 or $50,000.


David Henderson: I am sorry to hear that because I had hopes that the hon. gentleman was going to make a new venture which is very desirabe. I thought be was going to provide better accommodation for members by giving them private rooms and furnishing them so that at least every three or four members would have a room where they could do their clerical work and study. I had hopes that with tbe large sum at bis disposal, he would have made some provision along tbe line I have indicated, and thus avoid the necessity for the complaints we have had in the past.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the supplementaries for next year, the hon. gentleman will find an item providing for the accommodation so much required.


David Henderson: We are all very glad to hear it.


George Taylor: The hon. the minister before recess gave the House a statement of the cost of public buildings at Ottawa from 1S82 to 1880-7, and in 1887, he said, the amount was $175,000 which was voted. I do not remember the amount he said was spent. I sent to the library and got the estimates for that year, and in those estimates the words ' public buildings, Ottawa,' do not appear in the item he read, and the hon. gentleman was misleading the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said it was for Ottawa.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman read what was printed in the book, and the words ' public buildings, Ottawa,' are not opposite that item, though they are opposite every item that refers to these public buildings, such as removing stoves, heating, electric light, telephonic service, salaries of engineers, firemen and caretakers. This $175,000 includes buildings outside Ottawa. If the hon. gentleman will take the estimates he will find one charge for $5,000. and another for $15,000, under the same heading as ' repairs, furniture, heating, Ac., public buildings, Ottawa.' The words ' public buildings. Ottawa,' are not in the estimates which he read at all. but are to be found in the items lower down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not mislead the House. I read a statement covering over twenty years, which proves that every year there has been an Mr. REID (Grenville).
expenditure varying from $220,000 per year to $125,000 for the maintenance of these buildings in Ottawa. We have spent in some years $150,000, and in others $200,000, and this year we spent a little less. And in those days we had not as many public buildings, although we spent more. For instance, we had not the Langevin block.


George Taylor: In the Auditor General's Report for 1897-8, I have seen that $175,000 was expended, but it appears it was expended on public buildings generally and not on public buildings in Ottawa. My hon. friend must admit that when he read from this book, he read * repairs, furniture and heating, public buildings, Ottawa, $175,000,' yet those words ' public buildings, Ottawa,' are not in the vote at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What I mean is this. When $25,000 additional were asked by my officers, I asked them to give me some reason for the increase. Then they prepared this statement which reads : ' Public buildings, Ottawa,' and I read it as they gave it. My officers still tell me that the money was spent in that way, but supposing that in 1887 there was a mistake, that would not prove at all that the amount was excessive.


George Taylor: My hon. friend need not again try to mislead the House, because he did not read from the paper, but from the book, and he read $175,000 for public building at Ottawa, when the words ' public buildings at Ottawa.' do not appear in the item he read. Further down, he will find the item just as he has it, ' material for repairs, Ac., in connection with the ventilation and lighting of public buildings at Ottawa. $5,000.' ' Repairs, furniture, heating, &e., $15,000.' If he says the $175,000 applied to public buildings everywhere, he must add this $5,000 and $15,001, which would make $190,000. The hon. gentleman had the book before him when he quoted the figures, and he should be man enough-


Some hon. MEMBER.: Order.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is no use talking that way ; I believe I am something of a man. When I make a mistake, I am ready frankly to admit it. But I do not believe I was mistaken.


George Taylor: If the bon. gentleman will take the book I have here and read the item as it is printed, he will see that he is wrong and he must admit that he misled the House-or tried to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not mislead the House. My officers gave me a statement, which I read. My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has sent me a book lirecting my attention to certain items which I also read. But I do not see wherein what I stated was wrong. But in any case, what do I care whether they spent $15,000 more

or less in 1887 ? I was not there, nor was my hon. friend.


George Taylor: I will ask the hon. minister to allow this item to stand and I will meet his officer, and, if it is not shown that the statement the hon. gentleman read was a [DOT] misleading one, there will be no further delay in passing the item so far as I am concerned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This seems to me a most unfair proposition to make. Why should the passing of this item depend on what was spent in 1887


Mr. COCHRANE.: Why did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) make the statement if there was no objection in it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not make it.


George Taylor: I am satisfied that ' Hansard ' will prove to-morrow that my hon. friend read from the estimate of 1887 ' repairs, furniture, heating, &c., public buildings, Ottawa, $175,000.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I understand the hon. gentleman, he says that I read this item as $175,000 for Ottawa. I do not think I read it so, but I may have done so ; and, if I did, I have no hesitation in saying that I made a mistake. Surely, I cannot say more than that.


George Taylor: I will ask the hon, gentleman to allow this item to stand, and I will prove to his officer that he made a mistake in putting that statement into the minister's hands, and that the amount that I have quoted was granted in the years stated for the same services as the hon, gentleman is now asking $175,000 for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We must make some progress in the estimates. There is nothing material in this statement after all. I will give every chance to discuss the matter, for I have nothing to hide. If I have misled the House or the hon. gentleman, I will be the first to admit it.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman comes down with a prepared statement to show that the late government spent much larger sums annually than he is spending, and when he comes down to the last year of that administration he says the government starved the public buildings. But when we go back to other years and study the figures for these services, we find that the accounts had been changed. But the Auditor General's Report gives the details of the items, and a careful study of them will show that no such sum was spent for repairs and furniture for the public buildings as shown on the statement the hon. gentleman has given. I am prepared to meet the hon. gentleman's officer and convince him that he has placed an erroneous statement
in the minister's hands. And it was placed there for the purpose of showing that the late government spent more than, the present government has been spending, whereas the fact is that he has increased it from 25 to 50 per cent, and in some cases even 100 per cent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: as I said, we shall have plenty of time to discuss these matters. I have placed the figures before the House as prepared by the accountant of the department. Let the item pass and I will undertake that every opportunity will be given for discussion.


George Taylor: I do not know how far we are justified in accepting these statements. The hon. minister promised a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to deal with another matter, but we are not to have a meeting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand there is to be a meeting.


George Taylor: I have had no notice of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why not ?


George Taylor: I do not know.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know either-Oh, yes, I believe there is to be a caucus to-morrow. But I will pledge myself to this-that this meeting shall be held.


George Taylor: A vote for the same service appears in the supplementary estimates for this year, and before that item comes up, I must have this statement revised by the Auditor General's Report of the expenditures for each year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will send a copy of the statement to my hon. friend.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Public Buildings-Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, &c. -Rents-Dominion public buildings, $31,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $10,000 here. Will the hon. minister explain that and state what these rents are for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for rentals for new buildings-the Sey-bold building, the Department of Labour and the building for the Interior Department.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these rents for buildings in Ottawa only ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, throughout the country.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the hon. gentleman a list showing how this $10,000 is made up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A list has been prepared, and I will supply


John Dowsley Reid: Why not let the item stand in the meantime ? We would like to know where these rented buildings are.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have here a list covering three pages. I hope hon. gentlemen do not expect me to read it. I must say that my physical strength will not allow me to do that. I would rather throw up the sponge and let the item go. But I will place it on the Table. It may look like obstruction not to read it, but I cannot do it.


John Dowsley Reid: Let the item stand for fifteen minutes so that we may have a new building-included in this list?


Mr. BIRKETT.: Is the building on the corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets-the new building-included in this list ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Birkett: What is the rent of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Thomas Birkett: What is the rent of the Se.vbold building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Thomas Birkett: Then the whole increase of the rents appearing in the estimates this year over and above last year, is the rent of those two buildings?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Birkett: Mr. Chairman, I do not ask through curiosity anything in reference to the rental of those buildings, but I have been requested to do so by a number of gentlemen representing both sides of politics who are not satisfied with the policy of the government in renting so many of our fine buildings, and at the same time withdrawing them from contributing to the city revenues to the extent of $31,000. This sum appearing in the estimates to-day for rental if capitalized at 5 per cent, represents $600,000 worth of property. That means to the city of Ottawa, at 2 per cent, $12,000, independent of water rates. I am well aware that the government have dealt with tolerable liberality with the city a year or two ago by giving them $60,000. But when giving this $60,000 the government withheld from the city all improvements on Wellington street, on Sappers and Duffenin bridges, on the Maria street bridge, and also on the slide bridges, and also $15,000 which the city got annually from the government for water supplied to the buildings. All these amounts have been taken from the city exchequer. Doubtless a good many members of this House think that this $60,000 was a donation to the city, and | Mr. TARTE.
that the city gives nothing to the government in return. I would like to tell those hon. gentlemen that there is no money the government has invested, either this government or any preceding government, that returns better value than that money given to the city. If these buildings were assessed the same as any ordinary buildings, assessed we will say, the same as Ontario buildings are, which is one-third less than the actual value, this government would have, to pay the city $40,000 for water rates alone. The assessment is about $10,000,000, take one-third off for exemption, and the balance would represent a taxation of $40,000 for water rates. Then take the exemption by the government of the civil service income tax, which amounts to about a million dollars, that would be $20,000, which makes up the $60,000 which the government donates the city independent of the water supply to the experimental farm, the fisheries, the geological museum and the bureau, those are still exempt, the city receives nothing more. Now it seems to me that if it pays individuals to erect buildings for the government, why would it not pay the government to expend their own money to erect buildings for themselves on their own property ? (I do not wish to find fault with the government in renting buildings ; what I find fault with is that in renting buildings, which I suppose are the best quality of buildings, they immediately become exempt from taxation, and so many dollars are withdrawn from the city exchequer. Now I have the opinion of a very careful contractor who stated to me that this building about which so much has been said could be altered for about $250,000, so as to concentrate all the offices throughout the city and make them much more handy and convenient. At the same time we would have, as has been said this evening, an office or a room where, if a friend came to see us on private business, we could take him. As it is now there is no place for us to go to unless it is into a little alcove in the library, and if we sit down at the table the chances are that some person comes in and sits down at the same table. That is not as it should be. We ought to have some place where we would be able to meet a friend and talk over matters with some degree of privacy. As I have said, I do not wish to find any fault with the government in renting buildings, nor yet do I want to find fault with the gentlemen who have buildings to rent to the government. At the same time we must look to the public interest. I notice that in 1896 the rents were only $12,397 ; in 1898 the rents were $14,852 ; in 1900, $21,buu and for the present year $31,000. Now it seems to me that if this matter is allowed to go on there is no knowing where it will end. The first thing we know we will have no *revenue coming in from the central part *of the city at all. I would ask the government to consider a report that was sent in

by a sub-committee appointed by the Privy Council in the fall of 1892, and which was handed in to the Privy Council on the 3rd of January, 1893. If the government will act upon this report, so far as I am concerned, I will be perfectly satisfied, because I think the government are inclined to do what is right and just by the city, I think they are trying to help us as much as they can. So far as the action of the government tends to deplete the taxes coming into the city treasury, I presume it is from want of thought more than anything else. The portion of the sub-committee's report which I wish to read is the following :
That instructions be given to all the departments to make no covenant or stipulation in any lease hereafter made as to the payment of taxes by the Crown, and that in all leases or lettings by the Crown there shall be a stipulation that the lessees shall pay taxes to the city; also that copies of this be sent to all the departments.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that, having drawn this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, he will give it that attention that the sub-committee referred to required should be given.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully sympathize with what has been said by my hon. friend. The system which we have been following is altogether wrong. We have been renting right and left, hut we were hound to do so. Space was necessary, it had to be obtained, and we could not help ourselves. The great trouble is that when the Minister of Public Works comes before his colleagues, or comes before the House to ask for money, he is looked upon as a sort of public enemy, everybody is down on him, he is spending too much. Well, if I had my own way I would no doubt follow the policy that has just been suggested. This year my hon. friend will find in the estimates that we are beginning to do what he has advocated. I hope we will be able to start work on the museum, which is a most necessary work indeed. We have taken risks' that no government should have taken-I do not speak of this government alone, but of all governments. We are going to try to make up for lost time. What is the plan to be adopted,
I am not prepared to say to-day. When the estimates come down I will be prepared to offer some suggestions and to state my views. But I fully sympathize with what my hon. friend has said. It is quite true that every building we rent is so much withdrawn from the taxation and from the city >
revenue, and dt is not fair from the point of view of the city. At the same time, the ho>n. gentleman will admit that this government has not been unkind to the city of Ottawa. We have done things that no past government lias done, and I hope that even "my hon. friend will not forget us in his
prayers. I think we should all be proud of this city. This is the capital of the Dominion. We should do everything we can, without spending too much money, to make it a worthy capital of the great country that Canada is.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Could the hon. minister tell me how many buildings the government have rented in Ottawa now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, the list is in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: There is only one list; we cannot all have it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers cannot say exactly. It is all in the list. It is in the hands of my hon. friends on the other side of the House.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Can yon get it all down on one sheet of paper ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is the list which I put on the Table of the House. I think we have six buildings rented.


William Humphrey Bennett: Could the hon. minister tell me the date when the Seybold building was rented at $6,000 a year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In December, last, I understand.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well then, I will call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that on the 5th March he came down to the House and asked for $10,000 to spend on that building. On that afternoon there was a very lengthy discussion. It was stated that the Seybold building had been sold for $20,000, and I think it was also stated that the assessment of that building by the city of Ottawa was upwards of $40,000. On that occasion the hon. minister assured the House that the rent was $3,500 a year, and the whole contention that afternoon was, that, in view of the fact that the government was spending $10,000 on the building, that rental of $3,500 a year was too much. It cannot he that there was a typographical error or that the minister was misunderstood on that occasion in stating it at $3,500 a year, because I find on page after page of ' Hansard,' different hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House referred to the fact that the rental was $3,500 a year. In the face of the positive statement of the minister on the 5th of March, that the rent of that building was $3,500 a year, how is it that he now states it to he $6,500 a year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot understand it. I did not correct the proofs. I may say that I do not correct the proofs of statements I make in the debate on the estimates. I cannot understand how that statement is there. My

officers were here and it was well known to me that the rental was $6,500 a year. X cannot understand how that statement Is there because there was nothing to hide. It was a public act. There was a deed signed. My officers were here. Surely I had no idea of deceiving the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would inform the hon. minister that in the report of ' Hansard ' on the discussion of that day, I see no mention of the fact of a lease having been executed, but I find it spread over several pages that hon. gentlemen, all afternoon, referred to the fact that the rent was to be $3,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I found that out myself.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, in the face of that statement, the minister sits here all afternoon, he hears the discussion going on, he hears the statement made as to the value of the building, he hears the contention put forth as to the amount which was to be expended on the building, $10,000, he hears what is said as to the value of the building, as it had been assessed by the city of Ottawa, and he hears the contention of the members of the committee that $3,500 for that building is a high rental. Now, the minister comes down and tells us that the rental is not $3,500, but $6,500. The minister cannot rely upon the fact that it is a typographical error, because there has been no error at all. -ill through the debate, a debate lasting for a considerable length of time, reference was made to the fact that there was to be an expenditure of $10,000 on the building and that the rental was to be $3,500. The minister sat here that afternoon and heard those statements and now that the vote is being put through for .the rental the minister changes his whole front and says that instead of the rental being $3,500 a year it is $6,500 a year. It was stated that afternoon that this building, which is the property of a gentleman who is very prominent in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite in this city, was assessed for $40,000, that it had been sold a little time before for $20,000, that $10,000 was a very large expenditure to benefit that building by way of repairs and that $3,500 was a large rental on that investment. Now. the minister comes down and does not ask for the amount that he assured the House would be the rental, but he tells us that the rental is $6,500 a year. Once again I repeat that the minister cannot rely on the fact that there has been a typographical error because that afternoon the whole discussion went upon the basis that the rental was $3,500 a year. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that after assuring the House that he had made a contract for $3,500 a year, he comes down and says that the rental is to be double that, or $6,500 a year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say more than this that I do not know how I got mixed up. I knew very well that it was $6,500 a year. My two officers who are here to-night were sitting by me then. They knew that better than 1 did because they had made the bargain themselves. I cannot understand how that misstatement has been made here. Surely I cannot be accused of any intention of hiding it. It is a public affair, a public transaction. I cannot understand it. I suppose that my hon. friend may have made slips.
I may have made a slip, I must admit, and a bad one, but there cannot be any evil intention in it, because it is such a clear case.
1 could not hide it if I had any intention to do so, which I had not. When somebody called my attention to it I said :	Surely I
did not say $3,500 because I knew it was not that. I suppose I got mixed up because we * paid $3,500 for the Interior Department. I do not know how I did it, but I did it. I cannot deny it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister stated on that day that they were paying $3,500 a year for three years, and that they proposed to expend $10,000 in repairs on that building.
It is the intention of the minister to spend $10,000 and to pay $6,500 a year besides ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The department is obliged to spend a large amount of money for the requirements of the census. The census could not be postponed. We had no other place that we could find that would suit. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), myself and his officers, and my officers put their heads together with the result that we rented that . building. We had no accommodation elsewhere and we rented it. We are responsible for it. I do not believe that the rent is too high, although I grant it is high. In Ottawa things are pretty high. It is just as it is in British Columbia at times. Sometimes I think we are in British Columbia.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that when the hon. minister made this lease in December last, it was for $6,506 a year for three years instead of $3,500. and that the department is to expend $10,000 for repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Taylor: For what term has the hon. minister rented the building that is being put up at the corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For ten years.


George Taylor: At $3,500 a year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Taylor: What is the building to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. The Department of the Interior require the accommodation for the surveyor general. The officers of that department started negotiations in this matter.
>Ir. TAYLOR. Did the minister agree to pay $3,000 a year without knowing the cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is not only the cost of the building, but the cost of the site.


George Taylor: I understand that the site cost $1,000 and the building is to cost $12.000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
George Taylor: I am credibly informed that the owners bought the site for $1,000 and have a contract let for $12,000 for the common plain building they are putting up You have rented the Seybold building for $0,500 a year for three years and you are to spend $10,000 for improving it, which improvements will revert to the owner at the end of the three years. In all you pay Sev-bold $29,500 for the three years. The gov eminent knew that the census had to be * taken and why did they not put up a building of their own for that $29,500. This is simply giving the money of the people to political friends. In another similar job you pay $3,000 a year for ten years as rent for a building that I am credibly informed will cost $12,000. That is the way the Minister of Public Works is doing business for the people of this country who entrust him 'VI,1 "*eir money. He makes this contract without consulting parliament or anybody else and lie pays his political friends exorbitant rents. I do not wonder at my hon. mend (Mr. Birkett), who represents the citv complaining that under this system the government is robbing the municipality of Ottawa ot' taxation it properly should receive. If this $29,o00 were expended on a building erected on a site near the printing bureau you would have proper accommodation for your census work, and when that was done the building would belong to the government and could be used as an addition to the printing bureau.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Me have agreed to pay $3,000 a year for ten years for a building to accommodate the Surveyor General. That had to be done without the authority of parliament because the Ottawa Bank gave notice that the Surveyor General would have to leave the office which he has occupied for a good many years before we took office and for which we paid $1,800 a year. The Surveyor General had to get accommodation to do his 99
work, and I did what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) or any other business man would do, namely, to secure offices for him before the 1st of May. I could not do anything else. As to the Seybold building I could not help myself either. The census of Canada had to be carried on from the 1st of April and there was no time to wait. What is the use of saying we are adding $10,000 to the value of that building ? We were obliged to make partitions and elevators and so on to accommodate our census officers, and that will not add much to the Intrinsic value of the building. I am prepared to stand censure front hon. gentlemen opposite because I provided for this national work, but I believe the people of Canada will understand there was nothing else for me to do.


Andrew B. Ingram: The criticism is not because the minister has secured the buildings. but it is because he is paying too much rent for these buildings and spending too much money on them. According to the minister's own figures this building will cost $5,000 for the site and $12,010 for the buildings, or in all $17,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They will cost more than that.


Andrew B. Ingram: The man who rents that building for $3,000 makes from 18 to 20 per cent on his investment. That is a good investment for the citizen of Ottawa who rents to the government but it is a very poor investment for the country. It would be far better for the government to erect their own buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I grant all that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely it is not necessary for the government to pay such high rents.


John Dowsley Reid: In Dawson City the rent for the commissioner will be $300 a month this year, and it appears to have been $1,200 a month last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of the Interior, I suppose through Mr. Ogilvie, has re-rented these buildings and as the Department of Public Works pays the rente the bills have simply been sent to us. However, that state of affairs will not last long in Dawson. We have one building ready and another building is being erected now. and when the estimates come down my hon. friend will find that we take a vote to provide ourselves with a home in Dawson.


Thomas Birkett: I think the Minister of Public Works misunderstood me; a moment ago. I was not finding fault with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) or with the government for renting any building in or about the city of Ottawa, nor with the rent they are paying. Neither was I finding any fauit



3 HO
with what the government has done for the city. On the contrary, I give them credit for doing as much as we reasonably could expect. But what I am finding fault with is this. The government in all cases is a good enough tenant to enable the landlord to pay the taxes. So long as we get the taxes, we do not care what the government pay in a reasonable way ; and if they would stipulate that all leases made in the future should provide for the payment of taxes by the landlord, we should be perfectly satisfied.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The policy of the government, not only in Ottawa, but everywhere, has been not to pay taxes on buildings which we rent. Whether it is a good policy or not, I am not prepared to say. I quite understand that there are objections to it on the part of municipal authorities.


Thomas Birkett: I understand that the government are exempt from taxation on any property they occupy ; but that does not prevent them carrying out the recommendation of the sub-committee of the Privy Council that in all future leases the landlord should be subject to pay taxes. We do not ask the government to pay, but we want the landlord to pay.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the minister if there is a sum in the estimates for the improvement of the public buildings at Brampton, Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not free to speak now of the supplementary estimates, because they have not yet passed council.


Mr. FOWLER.: I would like to ask the minister if the building which is being constructed is rented now ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, l'es, it is rented now.


George William Fowler: Then the contract was made before the building was started ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Then I cannot understand why the government did not erect the building' themselves. Surely they were in as o-ood a position to erect it in time as a private individual could be. If the man who is building it is making from 18 to 20 per cent on his investment, without any taxes to pay, he is making a very good thing, and it would have been as well for the government to have made that for the country as for a private individual.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I admit that the position of the Minister of Public Works in the matter is not only an embarrassing but a ridiculous one. I quite grant that any business man would


Thomas Birkett: have done what the hon. gentleman says the government should have done ; but what is my position ? I have not one dollar at my disposal. I could not expend one dollar of public money without a vote of parliament ; and, after discussion with my colleagues, they came to the conclusion that it would be better to do what we have done. The great trouble is that when there is no money voted, the Minister of Public "Works does not know what to do. He is placed at times in very embarrassing circumstances. It would have been very difficult for me to go before my colleagues and ask them to give me a Governor General's warrant for a public building. Under the circumstances it was thought best to do as we have done. But I am very glad of this criticism. Far from blaming my friends, I feel inclined to be very thankful to them. Up to the present we have been proceeding altogether on a wrong basis, and I hope that my colleagues and some of my friends will not grumble when I come before the House and ask for money to erect buildings that are necessary.


George William Fowler: I do not think there could have been any difficulty on account of parliament not being in session, because the system of getting Governor General's warrants has been used to a very large extent in the past. I think it was used in 1896.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not for public buildings.


George William Fowler: It was for other matters, and it could just as well be used for public buildings as for anything else. It seems strange that the hon. gentleman's colleagues, are so lacking in business sense and perception.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say so.


George William Fowler: They must be, because it would have been a very proper thing to have saved this large amount of public money which is being expended for rent. As a new member, I had the idea that the hon. gentleman had a great deal more influence with his colleagues than he appears to have.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a wrong impression.


George William Fowler: It is a matter of surprise to me to learn that the hon. gentleman is so handicapped by his colleagues. I wish it had been true in this instance that he had more influence with them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not speak of myself alone. I speak of the position in which all the Ministers of Public Works have been placed. But, again, I am thankful for this debate.


George William Fowler: have done is wrong according to hon. gentlemen opposite. The officers are clever men, and men who have been in the department for years, and I am glad to hear these statements from the other side of the House. No minister can be held responsible for these details. He must trust some-bodv, as the head of a big firm must trust the heads of branches. I cannot be responsible morally. Of course, I am responsible politically, X am fully responsible for it, and I believe my officers have done right. But I am surprised to hear so much criticism of them, considering that they are men who have such long experience, and considering the able men under whom they were trained in the past.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not like to find the minister seeking to shelter himself behind his officers. It is unfair to the House, and it is an unfair attack upon his officials. A few minutes ago I asked the minister who was responsible for giving Mr. Oharleson the order for these supplies, and he admitted that he wTas the man who told the officer to give Mr. Oharleson the order.
The MINISTER OF rUBLIC 'WORKS.
I never said that in my life.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Did not the minister say that Mr. Ewart had to buy the supplies-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very far from it. I said that I never knew that so much was bought of Mr. Charle-son.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister did not know that there was $8,000 worth bought from Mr. Oharleson. But does he mean to say that he did not issue orders that these supplies were to be purchased from Mr. Charlesou ?


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not believe that I ever suggested a single order to be bought from Mr. Charle-son. I may have done so. Mr. Charleson's name was placed on the patronage list, as was that of so many others.	.


John Dowsley Reid: What I was getting at was how the supplies were purchased from Mr. Oharleson. Will the hon. minister say that Mr. Ewart bought these goods from Mr. Charleson on his own responsibility. or was there intimation from the minister that they must be so purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The officers of the Department of Public Works have a list of those from whom they buy, I do not control these things-I do not


Joseph Israël Tarte: profess to do it, and could not do it. I do not tell my officers to buy here or there. Occasionally I say that I would like if purchases could "be made from this one or that.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister mean to say that this site was selected by Mr. Ewart without it being intimated to him by the minister The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Certainly not. I say that I acted upon the advice of my officers, and the advice of Mr. Ewart especially, he being chief architect, and a man in whom I have implicit confidence, because he is a man of competence and experience. He has been in the department for thirty years. I think it is reasonable that I should take his advice. My hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville) when he hires boats must follow the advice of those who know something about it. And, in matters submitted to my charge, I follow the same course.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that Mr. Ewart may have hail said that tliat building was perfectly satisfactory, but the choosing of the site and the amount paid for it, Mr. Ewart had nothing to do with.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He had everything to do with it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister is trying to shield himself behind his officials. There has not been a word said reflecting in the slightest degree on the officials, but simply to show that it is the minister who made the bargain for everything. I am simply trying to defend the officials in this matter. There is not one otlicial who would admit that he had anything to do with it except to carry out the .instructions of the minister, who asked him if it would do and instructed him to recommend the bargain, and the official knew very well what would happen if he did not comply. No doubt Mr. Ewart was called in and instructed to write a letter saying that the rent was a fair and just one, and if refused he would not hold his position twenty-four hours. The minister should not stand up here and try and throw any insinuations on the officials, for we believe that they are too upright and honourable to recommend this site on the annual rent except at the dictation of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the case of the building, the officer from the Department of the Interior suggested that site himself first as a suitable one. The matter was submitted to the chief architect, who made a report approving the site, and 1 approved the decision of the officer of the Department of the Interior and the opinion of the chief architect. I am responsible politically, and am not attempting to shirk any of that responsibility, and if my hon. friend wants to bring on a vote of con-

fidence lie is perfectly welcome to do so. I am politically responsible, but in tliis matter I took tlie advice of tlie cbief architect, a man of long experience. I am not sheltering myself behind his opinion, but have a perfect right to give that opinion in defence of the action I have taken.
Mr. REIl) (Grenville). So far as the officers are concerned, I believe they are not responsible for the site or the rent. The minister of the department generally decides these matters himself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not do it myself this time, but approved of the advice given me.


John Dowsley Reid: The only reason I took up the matter was because the minister throws the whole blame on his officials.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes tlie hon. gentleman is trying to shield himself behind his officials, and I thought he made a most unfair attack on men who have been in the service so many years. I know Mr.' Ewart and several of the officials, and believe they are honourable men and that although the minister has a letter signed by Mr. Ewart recommending this site and rental, if Mr. Ewart was sent on his own responsibility, he would not have chosen that site or would have given a great deal less rent for it.


George Taylor: J would like to ask the hon. minister if the contractors are to put in all the heating apparatus and complete the building in every particular ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Taylor: So that the building cost $15,000, and the lot $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will come to a great deal more than that.


George Taylor: I asked the hon. gentleman how much the building was going to cost and he did not know, and I am informed that the contract price was $12,000. The Seybold property, I am informed, was offered for sale a short time ago for $20,000, but say it is worth to-day $54,000, the government are paying 20 per cent interest on the money. In three years we will have paid $10,500 and $10,000 for permanent improvements, which makes 20 per cent interest on the money. I think it is outrageous and am going to take the sense of the House on it, and I therefore move that the item be reduced $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I think it is pretty unfair, but we will, I suppose, have to stand it. What the hon. gentleman's motion means is that we must not pay the rental we have agreed to.
He may make up figures to suit himself and to prove that we are paying 20 per cent, but there is nothing easier than to put up a man of straw and then demolish him. The Seybold building is a special case, as I have explained over and over again. We had to find accommodation immediately. We required it for the 1st of April. As to the other building, it will cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000. The site cost $5,000, the contract for the bare building $17,000, the architects fee $1,000 and perhaps more, and there is an elevator costing $4,000, which makes in round numbers $27,000. Under the circumstances I do not see that I could have done anything else. I had no money to put up a building, and if I had attempted to erect a public building without a vote from parliament, there would have been twenty-five times more noise than we have now. However, I cannot help it, and let us take the sense of the House.


Mr. CHARLTON.: If the motion of my hon. friend is adopted, I doubt very much whether the course he lias pursued will commend itself even to his own judgment. The statement made by the Minister of Public Works as to the pressing necessity of providing quarters for the census bureau and enumerators, is one we ought to consider and the passage of this motion will em-barass the operations of the department in carrying on this necessary work.


Mr. CARGILL.: Would the Minister of Public Works kindly tell us what he thinks the Seybold building is worth ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not an expert in the value of land or of property. All I know is that when we want to buy property in Ottawa, we are asked pretty high prices. A few days ago I tried to buy a property, and some friend of mine told me it was worth $50,000, but I was asked $100,000 for it. It is a fact that real estate is rapidly increasing in value in the city of Ottawa. The land itself, I think is worth $40,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many feet are there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sixty-six feet frontage by ninety-nine.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At what is it valued for assessment purposes ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. I do not think you could buy the land alone to-day for $40,000. I venture to say this property is worth at least $100,000, and it is ridiculous to talk about $20000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The government is making no use of the vacant lot.
Amendment (Mr. Taylor) to reduce the item to $21,000, negatived, and item voted.

Rideau Hall, including grounds, $17,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must ask the minister to give us some idea of what this expenditure is for. I desii'e to remark here that our work would be very much shortened if we had a little more information given in the estimates. Here we have in the public accounts a volume so unwdeldly that we can scarcely carry it, giving us the audit of last year's accounts, a volume far more unwieldly than the audit of the accounts in England. But when we come to the estimates we have no information at all, and we are obliged to ask the minister all kinds of details which might very properly be given in the estimates themselves, and thus much diminish the length of the debate upon the various items. The committee will notice that where there is an increase of $25,000, or $35,000 over the preceding year, and when we are asked to vote $125,000, for instance, for ventilation, lighting, repairs, materials, furniture, &c., it is impossible for us to consent to such a vote, and do our duty to the country, without getting some information. It is regrettable that we have to press for that information, and in many instances the information is nob forthcoming as quickly as we might expect. That is the reason we have taken up so much time in discussing some of the items. I do not blame the Minister of Public Works, he complains of feeling unwell this evening, and I do not believe there is any member of the committee who would not be ready to postpone an examination of these Items if he desires it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Last evening we had under discussion the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, and we could get very little satisfaction from him upon the larger items. The fact is that most of the information that we were calling for last night we should have had in this book, and when we applied for it to the Minister of Agriculture we had to wait for a conference between himself and his assistants upon points which, to my mind, he should have been informed upon before coming to this House. Now I take this item, it has been in the estimates nearly every year since I came to parliament. It was in the estimates before, and was very severely criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am sure that there is not a member of this House who would not be pleased to vote any amount necessary to keep In a proper state of repair the residence of the Governor General, to keep it up in a way befitting the residence of the representative of the King in this country. Let me refer to the expenses of last year in connection with this object. We have, as indicated by the public accounts, at Y-3 : Rideau Hall, additional wing and furnishing, $14,128.89 ; V-S9, furniture and fix-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: tures for new wing, $5,144.33 ; total indicated at V-29, $19,273.22. Then we have in the expenditure of last year's General Paylist, Rideau Hall, V-12, 121, and 122, $17,050.92 ; fuel and light, $8,000 ; remetalling drive, $1,053.86 ; a total of $45,378 last year. In the estimates for the present year we have virtually the same item reappearing, $17,000 ; for fuel and light, $8,000 ; removing snow, $2,500, or a total of $27,500. Under these circumstances I think we should know what this item- of $17,000 is. Let me say to the Minister of Public Works that I have been impressed a good deal by the temper with which he has received criticism, however heated it may have been at times, from our side of the House. Time and again the Minister of Public Works stated that he was himself happy to hear the remarks we were making, that they would give him power with his colleagues to induce them to consent to what he deemed to be the sensible thing. Therefore, although the discussion may have been prolonged, I do not think it has been lost if we have been able to impress the Minister of Public Works. For my part, though I cannot claim to be an architect or to be conversant with the management of real estate, I venture to say that I would undertake to keep the Dominion public buildings in this city in thorough repair, or at least in as good repair as they are at present, for $50,000 a year, and I could make money out of it. I am perfectly satisfied of that. I do not care what may have been spent in previous years. Nobody will make me believe that it is necessary to keep the buildings which have been indicated by the hon. Minister of Public Works in fair order to spend $125,000 a year. The moment you leave the matter of repairs in the hands of architects, you are carried far beyond what is legitimate in the way of repairs. The moment architects are called upon to make repairs, unless these repairs are of such importance that you must employ an architect, the expense is far greater. I appeal to any hon. member of this House who has had occasion to employ architects for repairs to say whether this is not so. We ought to have here a man who would not be an architect to attend to such repairs, a man of practical knowledge, a clerk of works, and I venture to say that with a system for the purchase of supplies such as they have in England and with a staff regularly employed to make these repairs, the cost of them would be reduced by more than one-lialf. I see from the statement of the hon. minister the way that these repairs are done. He knows nothing about them. Everybody who has been connected with any administration, smaller than this one, knows how difficult it is to check the mania for repairs that exists among public servants. I was for many years a member of the school board of the city of Montreal. We had eight or ten schools, and I am sure, that, mustered all

together, they were far more expensive, or at least, as expensive, as the public buildings covered by these items.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Look at the number of employees that we have to provide for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We had ten or twelve of these schools and we had 19,000 children wearing them out. We had these repairs for $35,000 a year. We attended to that ourselves and left no discretion to the architect. We purchased supplies on the English system and we had a building committee constantly at work.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the English system ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The English system is that the English government gets a list printed of everything that is required, for instance, every description of paint, nails, wood and of ail materials required. That list, which is a very complete one, is printed and the English government sends a circular to parties who have established to the satisfaction of the government that they are able to carry out their contracts, who hand in their names with that list and on that list there is one column where the British government marks down its prices for these materials and the party tendering marks his own prices, which are either more than the prices stated by the government or less, and the lowest tenderer is the party who is selected to furnish these supplies. If that system were adopted here a great deal of trouble that the hon. minister is put to would be avoided. I cannot conceive, coming from Montreal, that property should be valuable enough in any part of the city of Ottawa to command a rental of $0,500 a year. It is to me an unheard of thing and I am sure if it were known in Montreal that you could get such rentals, the people there would sell out their property and come up here. We are paying $6,500 for this property. The hon. minister might inquire how much the Cassidy Company pays for its property on that same street. We are moreover under this short rental of three years, undertaking to make improvements to the extent of $10,000. With a rental running for three years, we are making these improvements and paying $6,500 a year. It is almost $10,000, as a matter of fact, of a rental. I do not claim to know much about rentals in this city, but they are far above anything you could get for a building of that kind in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were years when a little less was spent and there were years when a good deal was spent at Rideau Hall. Rideau Hall is a large property, it is a pretty old property and it costs a large sum to keep it in order. Out of this $17,000, there are $9,000 spent in wages. We have a clerk
of works there. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is suggesting that we should have a practical man. We have Mr. Hutchison who has been there for twelve or fifteen years. He has charge of ail repairs and all work at Rideau Hall. Out of this $17,000 money has to be taken to keep up the grounds, garden and so on, but, the whole work is under the direction of our architect who goes there himself many times. My hon. friend has very properly said that we must do the best we can for the Governor General and the people with him in Rideau Hall. He alluded to the expenditure of money that was incurred a -couple of years ago in erecting a new building. It was found necessary to make that addition, but it was an expenditure that will not come up again. Of the expenditure which ranges from $15,000 to $17,000, a year, $9,000 goes into wages, and the balance is employed in repairing furniture, buying new furniture and so on.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is this work let by tender as far as possible ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no tender possible. There is a staff of men who practically do what their Excellencies ask them to do in the matter of repairs.


John Dowsley Reid: Personally I do not like to criticise, nor would I criticise, the expenditure on behalf of the Governor General. I think the Governor General should be treated as fairly as we possibly can, but I simply rise to ask if the Governor General has control in the ordering of these supplies without doing it through the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they make orders upon us and we authorize them. I may authorize Her Excellency to buy some little thing herself, but the accounts are always sent to us.


John Dowsley Reid: In this $17,000 all these items are for supplies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there are $9,000 for wages and the balance is in repairs, &c.


John Dowsley Reid: The amount is very small for wages.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $9,000 ?


John Dowsley Reid: Well, admitting $9,000, the other $8,000 is for supplies. 1 think if the Governor General were allowed to spend the $8,000 himself, he could probably get a great deal more because the prices seem very much higher than what they would be if these supplies were purchased by any ordinary person. I notice here W. C. Edwards & Co., flooring $28.50. You can buy Mr. Edward's best flooring for $18 a thousand in ordinary car lots. These are exorbitant prices.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect, who ought to know something about it, and who is on the floor of the House, says we canuot buy it for less than that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville) is a medical man, and I suppose he knows more about it than the chief architect.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not practising now ; he is making money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I apologize to him, I thought he was a medical man.


Mr. SCHELL.: I am surprised to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) talk as he does. He is paying about $18 a thousand for common mill-run basswood, without dressing, drawing or finishing, and he has been paying that for years for his own factory.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) compare basswood with pine flooring. He knows there is as much difference between the two as between chalk and cheese.


John Charlton: How much difference is there ?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) says that I am paying $18 for common mill-run basswood, and when he says that he is making a statement which is untrue.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not know exactly the amount you are paying, but I know you are paying not far from $18 a thousand at Cardinal.


John Dowsley Reid: I am paying $19 a thousand for clear basswood, and if there is any inferior lumber it is measured out. I will ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) this question : Is it not a fact that $18 a thousand is a fair price in the city of Ottawa, and that you can buy the very best pine flooring for $20 or $21 a thousand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is it too much to pay $28.50 for 1,297 feet ?


John Dowsley Reid: If it is for that quantity it is all right.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Sit down, then.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course everything we do is wrong, and the chief architect does not know his work.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister is again hiding himself behind his chief architect.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, if I am asked to be responsible for every piece of flooring that is bought I do not know what to say.


The PRIME MINISTER.: You are floored.


John Dowsley Reid: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Indeed I am.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You evidently cannot take the starch out of the member for Grenville (Mr. Reid). We were astonished to learn the other day that we were to pay $3,500 a year rental for the Seybold building, but now we are told that the rent is $6,500 a year, and that in addition to that we have to pay $10,000 for alterations. For three years we pay $19,500 for rent, and $10,000 for improvements, in all $29,500, or about $10,000 a year rent to a landlord who has to pay no municipal taxes, because the buildings are rented to the Crown. Now, a lease usually carries with it the condition that if you make alterations in a rented property which are not advantageous to the property then when your lease expires you have to restore the property to the condition it was in when you rented it. I presume that to-day this building is fitted up with shelves and counters and suitable appliances for a dry goods warehouse, and if the usual clause is in the lease that we must restore the property to the condition it was in when we took possession, it may cost us some thousands of dollars more to do that. For this reason we want to see this lease, and it should be laid on the Table of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The lease will be brought down ; there will be no trouble about that.
Ottawa Public Buildings-Gas and electric light, including roads and bridges, $18,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same vote as last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That does not quite satisfy us, because last year there were very meagre explanations. I would like to have some statement as to the form of contract, and so on, with regard to this electric light.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For the first 3,000 lamps we paid $2.50 per lamp per year ; for the balance, $2 per lamp, which makes $14,500. For twenty-six arc lights on roads and bridges, at $85 each per year, we pay $2,200. We are still using gas for some purposes, for which we pay $1,200. For renewals of lamps, fittings, and so on, we pay $600, making the total of $18,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the contract for lighting so much per lamp, or do you pay by the meter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By the lamp.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that include the lighting of this building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Do we pay the same for a session of two months as for a session of eight months ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We pay $2.50 per lamp for the year, which is a low price. There are many lamps that burn the whole year round, night and day, in the basements and many of the offices.


Robert Laird Borden: There are 960 just above us which do not burn more than one-third of the year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are 10-candle power ; but we pay at the rate of $2.50 for a 10-candle lamp.
Dominion Public Buildings-Salaries of engineers, firemen, caretakers, &c., $85,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for buildings all over the country, excluding Ottawa. The increase is because we have more public buildings in all parts of Canada, Nova Scotia included.


Robert Laird Borden: I may have to criticise the hon. gentleman, because we are very anxious to see public buildings there. In the city of Halifax we have been waiting for three years. I hope my hon. friend is not charging us with rent before we have the building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect tells me that the plans for that building are nearly completed, and my hon. friend will have the pleasure of having one of the finest buildings in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Before we leave /this item, I should like to point out that the hon. gentleman is getting $224,000 for the maintenance, heating, and lighting of the public buildings in Ottawa, exclusive of Rideau Hall and the experimental farm-just for the departmental buildings. I should be inclined to think that with that very moderate sum at his command, he should be able to keep them in reasonably good order during the ensuing year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a problem. I will do my best. Whether it is myself or somebody else, there is not much pleasure in it.
Harbours and Rivers, N.S.-Abbott's Harbour -Beach protection works, $1,105.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this an additional work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an additional work, and this will complete it.
Beaver River, N.S.-Extension wharf, $2,100.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will complete the work.
Big Bras d'Or-Wharf-Repairs, $400.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will complete the work.
Boularderie Centre-Wharf, $1,100.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will complete the work.
Canada Creek Breakwater-New block, $500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the new block?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is found necessary to build a kind of block at the end of the wharf.
Cape Negro Island-Repairs to and extension of breakwater, $500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work.
Chebogue-Harbour protection work, $1,320.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work.
Cheverie-Breakwater extension, $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the purpose of this breakwater ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an extension of the old work, 100 feet in length and 20 feet wide. The existing breakwater was 130 feet long, and we are adding that length to give additional protection.


James Clancy: Are all these works done under contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is done by day's labour. Some of the others were done under contract, and many of them by day's labour.


James Clancy: Why were not all done under contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because that is not always practicable. The repairs cannot easily be done by contract, and when you can find a good foreman it is much better and cheaper to have the work done by day's labour. Of course, I generally advertise all our important works.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says it is better in many instances to do the work by day's labour. No one would expect him to be precise and say it was better in the interests of the party.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is better in the public interest. It gives more trouble, and the minister has no possible interest in having the work done by day labour, but workmen have their rights and prefer day labour. The contractors have to make profit out of the men, and I do not see why the government should not be their own contractors. I am speaking as one who has acquired a pretty valuable experience in the conduct of these works, and I have found that whenever you

can find a good foreman, work done by day labour is preferable to contract work. But nevertheless, most of our works are advertised, as my hon. friend knows.


James Clancy: The legitimate conclusion from the hon. gentleman's statement is that, under all circumstances when you can get a good foreman, it is better to have the work by day's labour than by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that.


James Clancy: It would be very difficult to draw any other conclusion from the hon. gentleman's statement. The experience of the whole world is quite at variance with his. There is no business man in Ottawa, who, if he had a block of buildings to erect, would think for a moment of employing a foreman and having it erected by day labour. Men who are working for the government feel that they have more latitude than they would if working for contractors, and do about just as they please. No ten men in Ottawa will do as much work by day labour on a public building as they would for a contractor. In some cases, it is no doubt impossible to do the work otherwise than by day labour, but the cardinal rule should be that wherever possible the contract system should be adopted. Otherwise, only men are engaged by the day who are in political accord with the party in power. Why, my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has told how in his own city, if a man was not of one political stripe, he could not be employed on the building being constructed with public money. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) may not know of this particular case, but he has a general knowledge of what goes on all over the country, and he cannot be absolved from the responsibility. I hope he will retract his statement, and that he will enter upon the sound and wholesome course of having work done wherever possible under contract. I recognize that much of the work of the hon. gentleman's department and of other departments ns well, must be done by day's labour. But. we should have a reiteration of the sound principle, at one time advocated by the Liberal party, of public tender and contract. I see hon. gentlemen on the other side who did the country groat service by advocating this principle. I recognize the good they did. though it led them to criticise the party with which I am in sympathy. But I would ask these hon. gentlemen to take the same course to-day and not to accept silently the declaration of the hon. Minister of Public Works that work should be done by day's labour, and not by contract. If we do not have a retraction of the hon. minister's statement, but if that is to indicate our course for the future, we may well despair of any fair return for the people's money expended in public works.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is not, I am sorry to see, a progressive man. There are some progressive countries, New Zealand, for instance, that have done away with the system of advertising for contracts.


James Clancy: That does not prove the system wrong.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, but it proves that in some enlightened countries, and British colonies, the workmen have learned to assert themselves, and public men have learned to appreciate the position of the workers. I say, as I have often said before, that I am in favour of day's labour wherever the circumstances will allow it. I have never hidden my views. It is true that I have not always followed my own views, for most of the works carried on in my departments have been advertised. But I say without hesitation that workmen are better treated and they do as much work for us as they do for a contractor-


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, they do as much work-provided you secure a good foreman ; that is the essential condition. The hon. gentleman has not enough confidence in the workingmen of his country. I say that the workingmen are just as houourable as any other class. Treat them well and they will give you good work. That is the reason why I say without any hesitation whatever that work carried out by workmen under proper supervision is a system that should not be denounced by any man who follows the progress of the country. This is not the first time I have stood in this House and advocated the system of day's labour. Again, I say I have not always followed my own view. I fear I have not followed them often enough. I should have been given more latitude. Suppose the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways should train a certain number of foremen and that we should do our work ourselves. There is no reason why we should not succeed. The workingmen would be better treated and the contractors would not make the profits out of their earnings. For very large works, perhaps, we are not prepared now for this system ; but the day is not very far distant when my hon. friend will not dare to express the views he has expressed to-day. For the workingmen are asserting themselves. I am not a demagogue, far from it. But I say that the workingmen of this country are growing better educated every day, and they are entitled to fair treatment at the hands of the government. I rebuilt the Western Block by day's labour, and I challenge any man to show that there was $25 of useless expenditure. The work has been splendidly done by union men. We are not ready yet to carry out that system

as I would like to do. In tills country we have stood by tbe system of the lowest tenderer. I state without hesitation, after five years of experience, that the system of the lowest tenderer as it is practiced here is an infernally bad one. If it were practiced as it is praticed in England, Germany or France, it would be a good system. In those countries they ask tenders from a selected list of competent men. But we ask publicly for tenders. Any Tom, Dick or Harry may put in a tender. Sometimes you get a tender which your chief engineer or architect reports far too low. But the man who makes the tender is able to put up a deposit, and you are morally bound to give him the work. The consequence is that he does not pay his men, that he does not pay for his materials. I admit that since I became Minister of Public Works I have had dozens and dozens of cases like that.


James Clancy: It was the hon. gentleman's own fault.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, I am guilty of everything. As to the case in St. Thomas, an hon. gentleman who is an old member of the House, has told us that in order for a man to secure work on a public building there, he must be a Liberal. But what are the facts : I have' stated them before, but I will state them again, for I cannot allow the hon. gentleman's statement to pass unchallenged. The contract for the work in St. Thomas was given to the lowest tenderer. Can I interfere there, can I say to that contractor: You must hire this man, or you must discharge that one ? But I fear we have departed from the item under debate.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman in his earnestness has not yet told us what the original purpose of this breakwater was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was to give protection to ships.


Robert Laird Borden: To form a harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: I do not propose to allow the hon. Minister of Public Works to give a free lecture such as he has given, without an answer. The hon. gentleman declares that he is not a demagogue. But I venture to tell the hon. gentleman that he is, unconsciously perhaps, one of the greatest demagogues the country ever new. Now the hon. gentleman declares that it is in the interest of the workingmen. I tell him that the moment he assumes the parental care of the workingmen of this country they have a very doubtful sponsor. What does that mean in the hands of a minister of this country ? Why, it means that these political hacks will get all the work, and that none
others will; it means that the workingmen are all selected by the hon. gentleman himself or by his minions. There is not a little twopenny-hapenny public work going in Canada to-day in which you cannot trace the hand of the Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman is very indignant about that case in the city of St. Thomas. When my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Ingram) declared that the work was only given to Liberals, the minister asked, What difference 'does that make ? Does he not know that a contractor's life would not be worth anything as a contractor if he did not give the work to Liberals ? If he did not agree to the exactions made upon him by the men put over him by the minister, his contract would be utterly worthless. I know some most disgraceful cases. The hon. gentleman sent a dredge up to the River Sydenham. His agent, before he knew the political complexion of the parties, went unwittingly and bought a little butcher's meat on several occasions while the dredge was working there. This man was told one day that it had been discovered that he was a Conservative, and he could no longer furnish a few pounds of fresh meat to the dredge. I venture to say that is going on from one end of Canada to the other. It seems a very dangerous thing to allow a minister of the Crown to control so much patronage when he permits a thing of that kind.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not only did I not permit it, but I had no knowledge of that case. The hon. gentleman has been misinformed. How could I interfere with that man ? Suppose he does not want to give the work to friends of hon, gentlemen opposite, what have I got to do with that ? That man is free.


James Clancy: No man is free under the hon. gentleman. The moment a man comes under the power of his department, he is a slave afterwards. When the hon. gentleman parades himself as the champion of the workingmen and takes the public money and gives it to his heelers, then I tell him he is a menace to the workingmen of this country, and a menace to their interests. Men who are not in political accord with the hon. gentleman might just as well go to the poor house as look for work from him. The workingmen of this country understand him very well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since I have been on this side of the House I admit that I have given patronage to our political friends. Hon. gentlemen opposite did the same thing for their friends during 20 years. They seem now to have forgotten that. What is the use of singing that tune here ? We all know that patronage belongs to the party in office. At present, other things being equal, the patronage belongs to the Liberal party. We have been out of office for eighteen years, now we have

been In office only four or five years, and yet bon. gentlemen opposite already grumble and cry as if they had been out of office for eighteen years. When they have been eighteen years out of office they will have some right to complain. But after they have only been five years out of office, they already begin to complain. Really they should take their medicine with better grace. Now, it may be that in the riding of my hon. friend, the man in charge of the dredge was instructed to buy meat from the political friends' of the party in power. That was the proper thing to do. When lion, gentlemen opposite get over to this side of the House again, they will do the same thing, they know it perfectly well. They will do what we are doing. But there is one thing in which they will not imitate us. We have left too much in the hands of employees appointed by bon. gentlemen opposite. This government has suffered more criticism at the hands of its friends than our hon. friends opposite seem to know. Ministers of the Crown have been assailed by our friends on this side, and reproached violently because we have not dismissed enough men, because we have not given all the patronage to our friends.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not think you are to blame.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not deny that I have done my best to serve the Liberal party, and I believe I have not committed an injustice willingly, anyhow. I do not believe I have dismissed a man unfairly, I do not believe I have wasted public money. Other things equal, I have favoured the Liberal party, as it was right to do, and I may add, as it was my duty to do.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister says that because my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is opposed to certain works being done by contract, that therefore my hon. friend is opposed to the interests of the workingmen. Am I correct in sizing up the hon, gentleman's argument ? Will the hon. gentleman answer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let the hon. gentleman go on, we are not in confession here.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sure if the hon. gentleman made a confession he would find himself in an embarrassing position. I remember some years ago. when the Conservative government were making repairs to certain harbours and were doing them by day labour, no hon. gentleman in this House took a stronger stand against the government at that time than did the present Minister of Public Works. I maintain that it is impossible in many cases to ask for tenders for the improvement of harbours. I believe that owing to the fact of a public work being in a state of decay, to piers Mr. TARTE.
being in a dilapidated state, it is often impossible for either a government engineer or any other person to ask for tenders to complete the improvement of a harbour. That is a case, in my mind, that cannot be done by contract, but there are cases, and in my county at the present time there is a work going on that could have been let by contract if the government desired to let it by contract. I do not say that the government would derive any advantage by letting it by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What work is that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the improvement of the Port Burwell harbour. The improvement of the Port Stanley harbour is being done by day's work and I want to say to the hon. minister that there has not been a Conservative employed on that harbour, and there will not be a Conservative employed there, so long as the gentleman who has the patronage of that riding has the patronage of this government. I may say that Port Burwell is not subject to the whim of the gentleman who has the patronage of East Elgin, and the work is being done in a creditable manner by the gentleman who has charge of it.


John Charlton: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: In respect to the purchase of supplies from the friends of the government, I quite admit that, all things being equal, the friends of the government have a right to furnish supplies. But, while I admit, that, all things being equal, the government have a perfect right to give this patronage to their friends, if they are not equal, then, the furnishing of these supplies should not be given to their personal or political friends.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree that that is a sound principle.


Mr. BRITTON.: Has that principle been violated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has not been violated.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) has not very far to seek for a violation of that principle.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not know of its having been violated there.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am afraid my hon. friend would be very hard to convince that a violation lias occurred. I am afraid that he is as blind as the Minister of Public Works. In respect to the armoury at St. Thomas, I am sorry to say that the patronage is not always controlled by a man, but that the other side of the House appears to have something to do with the patronage in East Elgin." I do know that the word has gone forth that no Conservative can lay any bricks on the armoury.
31G1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never heard a word of that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know if the lion. Minister of Public Works is aware of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not aware of it. This is the first intimation that I have got of such a state of affairs, and I have never given any orders of that kind.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman remedy any case if he finds the statement to be correct ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to ask lion, gentlemen opposite what they would do if they were only here. Here is a contractor who was the lowest tenderer. Have I a right to tell him: You must not employ this man, or that man ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has a right to lay down a rule.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot interfere. The only thing I can do is to see that he has delivered the goods he has undertaken to deliver to me.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman say, to be perfectly fair in a discussion of this kind, if a vicious principle were admitted upon both sides of the House to obtain throughout the country, that he could not prevent that or that he could not take precautions in the letting of his contracts guarding against a recurrence of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly not.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that he cannot prevent it. The hon. gentleman knows quite as well as the contractors know and as his friends know that he does not want to prevent it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I only met Mr. Green once and he seems to be a perfect gentleman. I cannot conceive that Mr. Green would go outside of the riding to get men because he could not find Liberals to do the work there.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not the statement at all. Mr. Green is perfectly willing if allowed to give work to anybody.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who is interfering with him ? I am not interfering with him.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have already told the hon. gentleman that it is the party who has the patronage who seems to be running the armoury building there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is nobody who has the patronage there. As far as this work is concerned I have this patronage, and this is the first intimation I have had that such a state of
affairs exists. I believe the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has been misinformed.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. minister will inquire of some of his political friends in St. Thomas, they will bear out the statement I have made.


George Taylor: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the building of the pedestal for the monument down at Wellington street is being done by day labour or contract ? The reason I ask this question is that the hon. minister says he believes he can get work done cheaper by day labour than by contract. This is a practical illustration of the way in which work is done by the hon. gentleman. The lumber came there yesterday morning planed and all ready to go into the work. For two days a gang of men has been working on that monument. Yesterday there were eleven men. To-day there is a less number. I am prepared to say that any two good carpenters will put the whole thing together in two days, and yet the hon. gentleman had eleven men at work yesterday and six or seven to-day.


John Charlton: That is a very complicated piece of work.


George Taylor: It is a very complicated piece of work. Let any hon. minister look at that work and say if he cannot find in his constituency two men who will do it in two days. This is a practical illustration of how the hon. gentleman gets work done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) can always find a cheaper and better thing than any man under the sun. I compliment his riding upon electing him. We have received a statue of the Queen. We do not know where we should put the monument which is a very fine monument indeed. I was told by a connoisseur and by an Englishman who is competent to speak upon the subject, that the statue is the best in existence. I think that As right. Before locating that monument the chief architect thought it would be better to make a model so that we might see where the best location is. Well, the work is going on. My hon. friend says there are eleven men employed. He has a lot of time to spare to stand around and count the number of men that are working there.


George Taylor: I could count them in a minute going down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot go and watch these men. The chief architect has that duty. We have a practical man. Mr. Breton, a very old employee. He is no good, I suppose.


George Taylor: I do not say that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If any two men can do that, they must belong to the riding of the hon. gentleman.

We have not been able to find such men in Ottawa.


Mr. OSLER.: We will give the bon. minister eleven men if be will promise not to erect tlie monument where be bas it now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not going to place it there.
Clark's Harbour-To complete breakwater and Temove rocks from channel, $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Neil's Harbour-Breakwater, $14,000.


James Clancy: This may be a very neees-sary outlay, but the minister should give some explanation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new work for which tenders are now being asked.


James Clancy: Was the $3,000 voted last year expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The lowest tender will be accepted.
Parrsborough-Wharf, $2,000.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Is there any revenue derived from this wharf ? Does the minister get any revenue from these public wharfs V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the work is completed we transfer it to the Department of Marine, which collects the ordinary dues.


James Clancy: Can the Minister of Marine tell us about this ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: When the wharfs are handed over to us we always charge the customary dues.


Mr. CL  VNCY@: Is there any considerable revenue derived from the wharfs, or are they merely for the convenience of the fishing industry.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: From isome wharfs we get a reasonable revenue, but from others the revenue is very small. The hon. gentleman will see the revenue from each wharf set out in the Auditor General's Report.
Harbours and Rivers, N.S.-Parrsboro'-Reconstruction of beach protection works, $1,550.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I have asked the minister repeatedly for the construction of a retaining wall at Battery Point, at the entrance to the harbour of Lunenburg. It is a work that is most essential, and the government are seriously neglecting their duty when they refuse to grant a certain amount of money for the construction of that work. If it is not given in a short time, the whole Mr. TARTE.
foundation of the lighthouse erected there will be endangered. I, therefore, ask the hon. Minister of Public Works to recognize the statement I am now making, and provide in the supplementary estimates an amount of money sufficient to construct a retaining wall at that point. This is not the first appeal I have made for it. I have made appeals on repeated occasions, and the work would have been done if the late government had remained in power. While I am on my feet, I might say that there are other public works for which I have made appeals to the government; but my appeals have not been received favourably. There is a breakwater wanted at Broad Cove, in the western end of my county, near the county of Queen's, represented by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Then, there is the Petit Rivi&re breakwater, which was commenced, and on which a large amount of money was expended ; but the plan was not carried out, simply because the hon. Minister of Public Works was not willing to give the required grant to complete it. That breakwater was commenced for the purpose of making a harbour. It is on a part of the Atlantic coast which is without any protection for boats. A great deal of the breakwater is going to ruin, and it will be utterly useless in a short time unless something is done. The breakwater has been affording protection for fishing boats. It still affords a partial protection for such crafts ; but if the work were carried to completion, it would be very useful both to fishing boats and as a harbour for fishing vessels. The next work is a breakwater at a place called Hiltz Narrows, which I asked to have cared for, but nothing has been done up to the present. That work is falling into decay, and in the course of a short time all the money expended on it will have been rendered useless. I will not enumerate more of these required works than are absolutely necessary, although there are others, because I do not want to tire the House. But one special work I will refer to, that known as Mill Cove breakwater at St. Margaret's Bay is worthy of recognition. There is a very large settlement of thrifty fishermen found there, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is fully aware of the location, as it is opposite the east side of St. Margaret's Bay. I do not know of any work on the whole coast from Cape Sable to Cape North more needed for protection of property than Mill Cove breakwater. It is a populous shore, and the people depend entirely on the shore fishing, save a few who fish the deep sea ; and they find it very inconvenient to have to draw up their boats whenever there is a prospect of a storm. They want a breakwater so that they can have boats sufficiently large to prosecute the deep sea fishing, which will yield them a larger revenue

than the shore fishing at present does and to which they are at present confined, owing to the want of this breakwater. I trust that the hon. Minister of Public Works will attend to this appeal, and grant the assistance necessary to meet it. I feel satisfied that if he consults his own political friends in the district, he will become fully satisfied that the appeal I am making is a just and reasonable one. I hope he will not fail to recognize, but will give the required aid.


Robert Laird Borden: I fully agree with the remarks that have been made by my hon. friend from Lunenburg with regard to the necessity of some such work in the county he represents, in which there is a very large fishing industry. I believe, indeed, that the fishing industry is carried on in that county with probably greater success than in any other county in Nova Scotia ; and anything that would assist the fishermen in pursuing their industry would be a very important advantage to the whole province.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I have not yet heard an answer from the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am here to listen ; I cannot make promises. I have listened with great care indeed. I may say, while on my feet, that I have never received a report from the Department of Marine and Fisheries that the lighthouse at Lunenburg harbour is in danger. As to the other works, I may say that it is rather difficult, with all the goodwill we may have, to comply with all the demands made upon us. There are demands by the dozen from every riding-perhaps from Nova Scotia especially, because its coast line is so dangerous. The fishermen have a right to our consideration and sympathy. They are conducting a great industry under great difficulties. I grant all that.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: With all due deference to my hon. friend's remarks, I do not look with a jealous eye upon the various items appearing in the estimates for Nova Scotia; but when I see the counties represented by my friends so bountifully provided for in these estimates for public works, and the county I represent, which has a larger fishing industry than any other county in the Dominion, not provided for at all, I feel satisfied that it lis neglect on the part of the Minister of Public Works, aside a cause for complaint, that he fails to come to the relief of those fishermen who are contributing so largely to the revenue of the country. I feel that the people have not been dealt justly with since the present j government came into power. I am here for the purpose of claiming their rights, and I will not hesitate to raise my voice loud and long in the interest of them.


James Clancy: After the appeal that has been made by my hon. friend, I think the Minister of Public Works might go as far in this case as he goes in some instances. I always read his speeches, which are always readable and interesting, and I remember that when he goes into a town where a drill shed is required, he says that if he cannot promise them a drill shed, he is glad to observe the military spirit that prevails.


Robert Laird Borden: Rather it was in the words of the old song : ' Whisper and I will hear.'


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: The hon. member for Lunenburg is no doubt making a very just claim in the interests of the fishermen in his county, but he must not forget that he represented a county during all the time the late government was in power, and that was the time when he should have brought pressure on his friends to ha ve the improvements made for which he is now appealing.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I did get a number of improvements for the county of Lunenburg when the Conservative party were in power, but a certain interruption took place, on a change of government, and I am trying to convince the hon. the Minister of Public Works that injustice is now being done my county on account of that sudden interruption.


Mr. KENDALL.: I would also remind the hon. gentleman that during part of the summer season his fleet is not about Lunenburg, but down the coast further east. If the great breakwater at Cow Bay was allowed, for the want of a few repairs, to go to destruction, now that hon. gentlemen on this side are coming to the rescue of that breakwater and making provision for its renewal, he must admit that his fleet is getting more consideration at the hands of this government than it did when his friends were in power.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: What I am1 objecting to it is the unfair distribution. While some harbours receive a good deal, others receive nothing.
Porter's Lake-Dredging and breakwater at entrance of channel, $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of that work at present ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has only been a very small sum spent, -about a couple of hundred dollars, and what we are asking to-day is the amount necessary to carry out the dredging of the [DOT]canal and construct protection work.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this work designed to prevent the overflow of the road at certain periods of the year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The channel will be dredged and an entrance pier made and beach protection afforded, and there will then be a harbour of refuge. At the same time this work will prevent the overflow of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The reason no doubt is that the plans are not ready. My hon. friend must not forget that there are in the estimates some 1,500 items which entail a very large amount of work, much larger than the staff are able to accomplish in the one year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was more work done than my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works thinks there was. Porter's Lake is navigable, and the channel has become choked up. It is an old story, the difficulty of keeping the channel open. One effect will be to prevent the flooding of the road, but it is also intended to open a channel into the lake and build protection works to keep it open. Some considerable work has been done.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: The recent storms that prevailed on the Atlantic coast closed up the channel. There was at least a week of easterly gales in the vicinity, and the surf of the Atlantic threw the gravel and other material into the channel and filled it up, so that it will be necessary to clear away that material and deepen and enlarge the channel. The roads in the vicinity were submerged under six feet of water which caus ed a good deal of devastation to land belonging to the farmers, and the amount in the estimate will no doubt have the object of freeing this land from the water when the channel is open.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. the Minister of Finance is correct an saying that a large amount was spent. There was great activity in connection with that work early in November last, and I think there was then some rule made, no doubt in the public interest, that no one would be employed unless he had a vote in the Dominion election then coming on.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: As this is an item for dredging, it appears to me that I would be in order in bringing to the notice of the hon. minister a visit he made some time in the summer before last to the town of Lunenburg and some other places in my county. I had an interview then with him at Lunenburg and pointed out to him particularly the need that exists for dredging that, harbour. He came there when the tide was about half high, and from the time he left Battery Point till he got to the pier the waters of the harbour, showing a large quantity of mud. were considerably stirred up by the propellor of his boat, which was Mr. BOUDEN (Halifax).
an indication of the shallowness of the water. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that there is no port of the whole province that has a larger number of vessels belonging to it than the port of Lunenburg. There is no port, save that of Halifax, that has a larger number of vessels entering it. There is no work of dredging that Is more important than that of this harbour. There was a cargo of salt arrived at that port a few days ago, and the ship laden with it was unable to get beyond Battery Point. It could not come to the piers because of the shallowness of the water. An immense amount of money is expended in the deepening of Yarmouth harbour by the use of a dredge every year, with few exceptions. I am glad to see Yarmouth receive this assistance. But why should Yarmouth be singled out for continual benefits of this sort to the sacrifice of the trade and commerce of the rest of the province and the sacrifice of the harbour of Lunenburg and La Have harbour, which is frequented by ships of heavy draught, to take on deals for the old world and other places. A depth of eighteen to twenty feet is required in La Have harbour, but the trade is interfered with in consequence of its shallowness, and vessels are put to great inconvenience in consequence. There is also the harbour of Mahone, which is also frequented by a large number of 1 vessels. Now, all these harbours require the attention of the Department of Public Works in the way of dredging, and we ask the minister if he is going to neglect that work this summer. He promised when there that the work should have attention. I think he said it would be attended to the next summer. He modified that afterwards by saying that he could not give it the attention it deserved, but he saw the importance of the work and would not overlook it. We have had to look on scornfully since at works undertaken by the minister not nearly of so much importance as the work of Lunenburg harbour. I ask the minister if lie will consider the importance of the trade of that port and remedy the evil complained of through the neglect that has been shown. We are having in the county this year something like forty vessels constructed, though many of the builders hesitated to build, fearing that they would not be able to bring them into the harbour. I trust the hon. minister will consider favourably what I have said, and that I shall not be wasting my breath in appealing to him in this important matter any longer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very much surprised at the heat displayed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaul-,bach). I think he should be a little cooler. He lias been long in parliament, and for many years his friends were in office. I do not like to use that language ; but the fact is, his friends were in office when the har-, hour of Lunenburg needed dredging, as it

does to-day. Why did he not induce his friends to do the work ? If I had the dredges at my disposal I would try to repair the neglect of his friends, and his lack of influence in the past. There was something wrong with him. If he had used the same warm language that he is using now, he would have succeeded, perhaps.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am sorry that the hon. minister has not a better knowledge of the work of his department. If he will refer to the record of previous expenditures, he will find that the harbours of Lunenburg, LuHave and Malione had work done in them. But the banks of these harbours are alluvial, and the continual wash has caused the waters to become more shallow, and that is why this request is made of the minister. The hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) is present, and he can verify my statement that Yarmouth harbour has had a dredge, with few exceptions, every year. Why should the county of Lunenburg be neglected as it has been when an appeal has been made to the minister so frequently, and reasons given why the work should be done. And especially when, three years ago the hon. minister in the presence of hundreds standing on the pier, at Lunenburg when taking his departure after I had appealed to him to say if the work was not essential, said, ' Yes, Kaulbacli, look out, you will have it soon.' I have not got it yet, and I suppose I may speak for some length of time this session before I get an answer satisfactorily, still I hope he will not delay beyond this session, but wall place an amount in the estimates that will enable the work to be done in a satisfactory manner.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman says he has not neglect-'ed his duty, but, at any rate, he did not succeed. If there was a dredge there for some time, it could not have been there long enough. We have only three dredges in Nova Scotia, the St. Lawrence, the Judge Mackenzie and the Canada. They cannot be everywhere at the same time. The port of Lunenburg is an important port and I am willing to dredge it. I would like to give him what his friends did not give him.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: They did give it to me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman got from his friends everything he wanted, why is he speaking here now ? Either he did not get what he asked for or he did not ask enough. There is something wrong, as I said. What it was I do not know. He did not exert himself as he is doing now. But times have changed. The dredges in the province of Nova Scotia have not been idle. I shall be glad to dredge the port of Lunenburg as soon as circumstances will permit. I have under contract a new suction dredge, and when it is completed I shall be in a position to do a great deal more work than I have done 100
in the past. There is no reason why that port should be neglected in the future as it has been in the past by friends of the hon. gentleman. We do not mean to do anything of the kind, we mean to be fair to everybody.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. minister is not improving his position at all by speaking of me in the manner he has done. He knows well that there is not a member of this House who has done more for his county than I have done in the interests of my county, and if he will refer to the records he will see the proof of it. I am indefatigable in my efforts in its behalf, day by day, and never neglect it. The hon. gentleman has made a reflection which I fling back to him. My record shows what I have done in the past. 1 care not what the Minister of Public Works or any one else says, I am here to defend my own rights. I can prove that my efforts have been commendable as a representative of the county of Lunenburg. I am here to tight for its interests, I care not which party is in power, and I shall continue to do so as long as I have the honour of a seat in this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me in what year the dredge last worked in the harbour of Lunenburg ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think it was about ten years ago, but I would not be certain. But at that time the work was not completed because the dredge broke down and the government promised that after her repairs were completed she would return to resume work. But there were so many other calls made upon the Public Works Department that the work was put off from time to time. But speaking with all due deference to the hon. minister, I must say to him that I will not be jumped upon in the manner he has done, when I am asking for a simple right for the county I represent. I feel that what I am asking for now is simple justice, it is something which the people demand, which the fishermen demand, and which the country demands. They contribute to the revenue indirectly more than any other county I know of, and why should they be refused this small work I am asking for ? If the hon. gentleman wishes to crush out the ship-building industry which has been a success in that county, the only county in which it has been a success for the last ten years or more, why, then I can understand his action and his language. That business is increasing, owing to the earnest efforts of a few parties who, under unfavourable circumstances, sought unselfishly and persistently to keep the business in existence and to bring it to a successful issue. It has become a success, and is affording employment or labour indirectly all over that part of the country, the county of Queen's included. I think the Minister of



Public Works should be the very tirst to come to my rescue and to say that be will do all be possibly can to further that industry. I feel satisfied that I have the support of my bou. friend tlie Minister of Finance who represents the adjoining county. He will endorse every word that I have said, that it is in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as of the county, that the appeal that 1 am now making to the government should be acceded to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman says that a dredge worked in the harbour of Lunenburg ten years ago. Well, we have only been in office five years, therefore during, the preceding' five years under the Conservative regime when the hon. gentleman was a member of the House he did not get a dredge to go to the harbour of Lunenburg. Now, he blames me because I employ the dredges elsewhere. Why did he not impress his friends at that time with the importance of this work ? I do not mean to say that because the Conservative government neglected the harbour we are justified in doing so, but I say that the hon. gentleman has no right to blame me as he has done. I fully recognize the importance of the port of Lunenburg. When I was there I was favourably impressed by the port.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I believe you, but I want to see the proofs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You will see the proofs in due time. The fact is that at present the Department of Public Works have not at its disposal the implements that we should have to carry out all the works that are necessary. But we will have a full investigation of the port. The chief engineer has been instructed by me to take a note of it. I understand it will take two seasons more to carry out the work. I do not want to pledge myself to things that I cannot carry out, I never do that, but when I say I will do a thing, I do it. In this case I do not say that I will carry out the work in the port of Lunenburg, I only say that I have not got the implements to do it.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Will the hon. minister inform me if there is any work in the shape of dredging which is more important than that at Lunenburg ? Is it not more important than Porter's Lake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think there are works as important anyway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think dredges have been sent to Porter's Lake, as far as my recollection goes.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The minister has referred to my remark in regard to the harbour of Lunenburg being dredged ten years ago. He says that five years have elapsed


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: during which I had the leading strings of the government in my hand, and that the work was not done. Well, now, the hon. gentleman must see that there are sis years during which he and his friends have been in power.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It seems very long, but it is not.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Well, to please the hon. gentlemen, we will call it five years. During that time, in consequence of the nature of the adjacent banks, the alluvium which is being constantly washed down into the harbour has filled it up to an extent that it is almost impossible to keep vessels afloat. The inconvenience that is being caused to every vessel of heavy draught is such that I cannot properly describe it to you. There was a vessel the other day bound for Buenos Ayres which was loaded with deals at the railway wharf. We had to watch for the highest tide in order that we could get her away from the pier. She was a vessel of 500 tons only. The industry of fishing is carried on to a large extent there, and those engaged in it require salt. There is a ship loaded with salt that is now unable to get into the harbour jn consequence of the absence of a sufficient depth of water, and under these circumstances the hon. minister must see that he is crippling that industry, and thereby depriving the people of that port of having a harbour sufficient to enable a loaded ship of salt to get into it. This is only one of many reasons that I give to the hon. minister that he may be convinced that what I am saying is not that I may capture votes by it. That is not my object at all, hut I am claiming what I contend is the right of the fishermen and those who are engaged in trade and commerce there. I ask for the improvement in the way of dredging the LaHave River as well. Bridgewater requires a peculiar kind of dredge, a suction dredge such as will take sawdust in large quantities out in a partially liquid state, and convey it to the nearest point for deposit. The bottom of that harbour is composed of sawdust principally. This is a very important work, and one that should be attended to at an early day. I hope the bon. minister will see that a dredge is sent to Bridgewater, and that he will not forget Mahone at the same time. Mahone is increasing its number of vessels and tonnage from day to day, about twenty vessels are now being built there. I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works to come to the rescue of these people at the earliest moment; let it be this summer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon.
gentleman calls for the dredging of three harbours in bis county at the same time. These places, in the order of their import-

ance, in my judgment, are Bridgewater, Lunenburg and Mahone. Before any reference was made to this subject of the desire to have dredging done at Lunenburg, communications had passed between members and ministers with the view of having the harbour at Bridgewater dredged. I have asked the Minister of Public Works to give Bridgewater priority over the other works, and I think he will do so, and after he gets through with Bridgewater, if he can then attend to Lunenburg and Mahone, I would be pleased to have him do so. But. before the Lunenburg question was raised at all, I had urged upon the hon. Minister of Public Works to dredge the La Have river approaching Bridgewater harbour. The hon. Minister of Public Works has not made any difficulty in regard to money for Lunenburg. A vote was taken for the dredging at Lunenburg, and the hon. minister was willing to undertake that, but the difficulty was in obtaining dredges. We had hoped that we could, hire dredges to do the work, but the system which is available on the upper lakes of hiring dredges is not available in the lower provinces. We have been dependent on the small government dredges. The hon. Minister of Public Works proposes to build a large dredge which will be available for such work as this. I would merely remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) that the hon. Minister of Public ' Works had two appropriations for dredging these harbours, and that the only difficulty has been in obtaining dredges.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. minister will see that last year just previous to the election, an appropriation was made for dredging Bridgewater, or the La Have and Lunenburg.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Mr\ KAULBACH. And that all last summer had passed by without any effort being made to have the work completed. I do not want to impute wrong motives to members of the government that it was done for a certain purpose, but it looks suspicious.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well then, you want to strike them out.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: No, but I want to see the work done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have made an appropriation but you are not satisfied.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I want to see the work done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So do we, but we cannot get the dredges.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: There is no better expenditure at this day than in the construction of dredges in sufficient numbers to complete the work that is required.
100J


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree with you.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are going to do it.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Yes, but going to do it and doing it are different things.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are criticised for spending too much every time.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: In Cape Breton we have required dredges for two places, but we have been unable to obtain them there for the same reason given by the Minister of Public Works, that the dredges were not available.
Mr. CLANCYr. What is the extent and nature of the traffic into Porter's Lake where this work is proposed to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a small place. It is a harbour of refuge for fishermen.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some lumber mills up the lake.


James Clancy: Do boats run up there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, boats run up there. Porter's Lake is a. navigable lake, not for heavy draft vessels, but owing to the channel being closed the traffic has been very little. I have seen vessels carrying lumber from the mills up at the head of the lake.


James Clancy: Is that a lumbering district ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know whether the mills are at present in operation. I once represented the county in the local House, but I have not been there for some years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works where these three dredges were in Nova Scotia last summer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One was at St. Mary's river, one at Yarmouth, and one at Larry's river.
Scott's Bay-Repairs to pier, $2,030.


James Clancy: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to build an extension of the breakwater and to maintain an opening into Jess creek.


James Clancy: I did not hear the explanation which the minister gave.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That work is composed of 29,000 cubic feet of cribwork at 7 cents a yard. After the 31st December, 1900, the sum of $500, appropriated for 1901, was expended in constructing two blocks of cribwork. one on either side of a little brook or creek which issues at this point. The northern block is

115 feet long, 10 feet wide and 12 feet high; the southern block, 50 feet long, 10 feet wide and from 6 to 9 feet high. Both blocks are of crlbwork well filled with ballast and covered on top with round piles well spiked down. Their object is to replace an old breakwater destroyed many years ago. That is all the explanation I can give as I have not been there myself. My engineers tell me it is a good work, and parliament has voted the money.
Windsor Harbour-Shear dams, training dykes and deepening River Avon, $2,300.


James Clancy: What are these training dykes ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know something more about this work because I went there and examined it with care. The harbour is filling with mud and we have built sheardams to create a strong current there.


James Clancy: Carried.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad that my explanation is so clear to the hon. gentleman this time.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the discussion on the transportation question should end at a comparatively early hour to-morrow, what business will be taken up ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I suppose we will go on with supply.


James Clancy: It was expected that the Committee on Public Accounts would meet to-morrow, but I hear there is some reason why it will not. When will it meet, and will we have two meetings, as was promised, this week ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not dare to make any promise in the absence of the chairman, but I hope we will be able to meet on Friday. The reason for postponing the meeting on Wednesday is one which is common to both sides and it is a well understood rule that in such a case the committee meetings are cancelled. I hope there shall be a meeting on Friday morning, but without consulting the chairman, I do not care to make a more definite statement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.in., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
"Wednesday, April 17, 1901.