Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) presented tlie second report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates during the present session of the House, as follows :-
Your committee recommend that the sum of $400, being the balance of salary which the late Emile Tremblay, one of the members of the staff of translators of the Official Report of the Debates, who died on the 17th instant, would have been entitled to receive had he lived to complete his share of the work of translation, be paid to his legal representative.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE moved that the said report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Tolmie :
That the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 57) to incorporate the Crow's Nest Southern Railway Company be discharged, that the Bill be withdrawn, and that the fees paid thereon be refunded, less the expense of printing the same.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I hope the hon. gentleman will tell us in a few words the reason for the withdrawal of this Bill.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The promoters of the Bill wish to withdraw it.


Mr. TARTE.: 


William Findlay Maclean: Why ? They came to this House and asked for a certain charter and there has been a great deal of discussion throughout the country in regard to this measure. Now ithat this Bill is to be withdrawn, a short explanation should come from the hon. gentleman or from some member of the government in regard to it.


Mr. SPROULE.: In view of what we see in the papers it would be in order to have some explanation. It is said that the promoters have decided to withdraw it because of an understanding with the Dominion government, that they may build to the boundary line under a provincial charter, and there connect with a road In the United States. If they do that, they must do it in violation of the law which compels them to come to the Dominion parliament for power to cross the boundary line by a railway. The Bill as amended in the committee, guaranteed that the people of the North-west and British Columbia could buy the product of the Crow's Nest Pass coal mines at as low a price as it would be sold to people south of the boundary line. It is interesting for the people of Canada, and especially the people of British Columbia to know what has become of that.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee it was understood that the promoters were to sign a certain agreement. This agreement has not been signed and therefore the government cannot agree to the passage of this Bill. The promoters have consequently withdrawn it. I understand that a charter has been given to the same company by the legislature of British Columbia. The government have not received that charter yet and do not know what the terms of it are, and therefore it is impossible to make a statement as to what is the attitude of the government on that point.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Has the agreement referred to been made public ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, it was before the Railway Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill withdrawn.

Mr.  C. H.@: PARMELEE (Shefford) moved the adoption of the sixth and last report of the Joint Committee on Printing and Stationery.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This report was not read.


Mr. PARMELEE.: The report is absolutely formal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I object to it as we do not know what it contains.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion stands.



RELIEF OF EUDORA SIBBALD.

Thomas Osborne Davis: That Bill (No. 154) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of Eudora Sibbald, be read a second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JAMES DOUGLAS (East Assiniboia) moved :: That the rules and orders of the House be suspended as regards Bill (No. 19) to amend the Act passed during the present session entitled :
' An Act to incorporate the Fort Qu'Appelle Railway Company,' and that permission be given by the House that this Bill take all its stages forthwith.
I may say that the Bill is only to change a single word and there was no opposition to it in the Senate.


Thomas Osborne Davis: What is the change 7


James Moffat Douglas: Simply taking out the word electric ' and putting In ' a railway.'


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, that is quite a change from an electric railway to a steam railway, and yet the hon. gentleman says it is of no importance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and the second time.
Mr. DOUGLAS moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the Bill.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the Railway Committee is decidedly adverse to this proposed change because there was not sufficient notice of it, or something of that kind. We are certainly violating the rules in this procedure now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The objection of the hon. gentleman is well taken, but I am informed there has only been a change in one word, which is of no importance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be of great importance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will see that when we get into committee.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: My recollection is that application was made for a charter for a railway from a junction on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Fort Qu'Appelle. There was no objection to it being either an electric or a steam road, but some of the promoters wanted to make it an electric road, and the hon. member representing the district wishes to give them power to operate a steam road if necessary. The only possible connection at present is with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I cannot imagine any objection to allowing them to have a steam road.


Thomas Osborne Davis: When a Bill is advertised and people read the advertisement, they suppose that a Bill on the lines of that advertisement is to be introduced and passed by the House. In this case the notice refers to an electric railway, and now it is proposed to change it to a steam railway. I think this should not be allowed, because though the promoter of the Bill and others say that there is no opposition to this, we do not know what opposition to it might develop in that part of the country if the people were aware that such a railway was being asked for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The difficulty is this, that oue portion of the Act applies only to electric railways and the other portion only to steam railways. This passed the committee as an electric railway. Now it is proposed to change it to a steam railway, and the question is, how are you going to make that portion of the Railway Act referring to steam railways apply to it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The change seems to be perfectly technical, but of course if there is an objection taken to the Bill it cannot proceed.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The only question seems to be whether or not the notice covered this Bill. Only a few days ago we* sent a Bill back to the. Standing Orders Committee to see whether the notice covered a change in it. If the notice covers this change, I see no possible objection to it but if the notice does not cover it, I do not see how we can act differently in this case from what we did in the other case.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If we had time to look into all these points, we might settle them ; but we have no time, and therefore I think the Bill should be referred back to the Railway Committee.
Motion of Mr. Douglas withdrawn, find Bill referred back to the Railway Committee.



MANITOBA SCHOOL LANDS COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior if I may soon expect the balance of Mr. Justice Prendergast's report in reference to the sales of school lands in Manitoba, as well as the evidence that was taken at the sittings of the commission which he held ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 gave instructions to have the papers prepared. I have not thought of the matter since, but I will send over to the department this morning and ascertain if they are ready.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. The balance of the report cannot be very voluminous, and that
might be brought in the meantime.

The MINSTER OF THE INTERIOR, We can get the report without any difficulty.



QUEBEC ELECTION LAW.

Mr. MONK.: I would like to mention to the right hon. Prime Minister, that I have been informed since yesterday by the Secretary of State that the petition praying for the disallowance of the Quebec provincial election law passed last session, has been duly presented to the Governor General ; and if that disallowance is to take place, in order that it should be effective, it would have to take place within six months. Therefore, I think, it is of great importance to the petitioner that his petition should be referred to the Department of Justice without delay.



SECOND INSPECTOR OF PENITENTIARIES.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported from Committee of the Whole respecting the appointment of a second inspector of penitentiaries (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read the second time and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 155) further to amend the Penitentiaries Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported from Committee of the Whole respecting sessional allowances to senators and members of the House of Commons of Canada (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read the second time, and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 151) respecting the Senate and the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved second reading of Bill (No. 143) respecting the Ottawa branch of the Royal mint.
William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what his estimate is of the salaries in connection with this branch of the Royal mint, and whether the government of this country will have anything to say as to the nomination of the officers who are to fill the various positions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 3,
William Findlay Maclean: When does the minister intend to tell the country what denominations hp intends to coin, and can the government do this themselves, or must they obtain an Act of parliament ? Suppose you wanted to coin a silver dollar, would you be permitted to do it without getting an Act of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My impression is that we can designate the denominations of the coins without coming to parliament. We may probably have to obtain the consent of the Imperial authorities, for coinage is to a certain extent under Imperial control.


Mr. CLANCY.: There is one thing which the hon. minister has not explained, and that is the terms upon which the Canadian coins are coined in the Royal mint.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Royal mint takes the bullion from us at its actual cost, and makes a charge for the coining, so that whatever profit there is in the transaction would pass to our government.	*


William Findlay Maclean: What is the silver issue of Canada to-day?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is difficult to say, but before prorogation I will give the information.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
LEAD BOUNTIES. *
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide as follows in order to encourage the refining of lead in Canada :-
1.	That the Governor in Council may authorize the payment of the undermentioned bounties on lead refined in Canada from materials produced in Canadian smelters from Canadian lead ore-
(a)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1902, $5.
(b)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year of 1903, $4.
(c)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year of 1904, $3.

571S
(d)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year of 1905, $2.
(e)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year of 1906, $1.
2.	The said bounties shall he payable halfyearly on the first days of July and January in each year.
3.	The total sum payable for such bounties shall not exceed $100,000 in any year.
If the sum payable at the rates per ton mentioned in resolution (1) on lead refined during the half of any calendar year shall exceed $50,000, then and in such case the bounty payable per ton shall be reduced as regards that halfyear to such rate per ton as shall make the amount of bounties payable in respect of such half-year not more than $50,000.
4.	If the sum paid for such bounties in any half-year shall be less than $50,000, the unpaid balance (being the difference between the sum so paid and $50,000) shall be carried to the credit of the bounty fund for the next succeeding half-year and may be paid out in such succeeding half-year in addition to the $50,000 hereinbefore provided.
5.	The Governor in Council may make such rules and regulations (including regulations as to rates and charges for refining) as may be deemed expedient in the public interest, for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and all payments of bounty shall be subject to the due observance of such rules and regulations.
6.	All bounties payable under these resolutions shall cease and determine on the thirty-first day of December, 1906.
He said : for many years the silver lead mining industry of British Columbia has been recognized as one of very considerable importance. There are three stages to the industry : First, the mining of the ore ; second, the treatment of the ore in the smelter, and third, the final stage of refining the product of the smelter at the refinery, where the various elements which enter into the bullion are separated, and refined lead and silver, etc., are turned out. Some years go we thought it desirable to encourage, not merely the mining of ore but the smelting, and in 1895 an Act was passed encouraging the smelting of the silver lead ores of Canada to the extent of $150,000. That Act has ceased to operate, but under Its operations several smelters were established. There are at present two in existence-one at Trail and one at Nelson. The business had a fair development, and there was every prospect of continued development until a very recent date. Under fair conditions, there would probably have been an output of silver lead ore in Canada this year of 100,000 tons, but, unfortunately, events in the United States have placed the Canadian enterprise at such a great disadvantage that it becomes a question whether the industry can continue at all. The lead companies of the United States have been consolidated into one large concern, known as the American Smelting and Refining Company, with a capital of $60,000,000, and it is reported in the press recently that that company has united its forces
with several of the great copper companies of the United States, and that the united capital of these enterprises will amount to about $500,000,000. Hitherto we have been able to sell in the United States our ores from the mine or our bullion from the smelters, but of late the Americans have taken it into their heads not to deal very liberally with Canada. The American tariff is so regulated as to give every possible encouragement to their own industry, under the operation of which it is very difficult for us to send our products into the United States. Then there is a certain advantage in the American system of refining, which operates in their favour and against us to a certain extent. The Americans refine foreign ores in bond, and are permitted to export 90 per cent of that and treat that 90 per cent as the Whole quantity. Thus, if they import $100,000 worth of lead in the ore and export 90 per cent of that, the 90 per cent exported is considered equivalent to the whole, and the 10 per cent remaining can be sold in the United States, where the lead market is the highest In the world. In that way, as well as by their general tariff policy, the Americans encourage their lead refining Industry. Of late they have declined to purchase our lead ores at all. They still consent to receive the bullion from the smelters and treat it in their refineries, but will only do so at a very large advantage in the cost of treatment, so that by these various means the business is being concen-, trated in the United States, and it becomes a question whether or not we will have any lead industry in Canada at all. We think that the policy now introduced is worthy of a fair trial. The conditions in Canada are favourable, and we ought to be able to establish the industry on a permanent basis. We therefore propose to do now for the refining industry what was done five or six years ago for the smelting industry. At first we had only the mining of the ores, then we granted bounties on the smelting of them, and now we desire to go a step further and say that, within moderate limits and for a reasonable period, we will grant bounties on the refining of lead in Canada, so that we may have within our own borders all the processes of manufacture carried on.
As to the extent to which we should aid this enterprise, that is a matter for consideration. The business involves a very large capital. It is not merely in the erection of a refinery, but the handling of the article that large capital is required. The company which will go into this business must not only establish a refinery, which in itself involves a capital expenditure of '$250,000 or more, but provide large capital to carry on the enterprise. The product has to be carried in stock a very considerable period, and if any company wants to go into the business, it will require a capital of $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. We have come to the con-

elusion to offer bounties on a sliding scale. The applicants aslced for a much more liberal bounty than we are granting, but no doubt that is the case in all such applications for government assistance. We hope, however, that with the aid of bounties on the scale we have laid down in this resolution, the industry will be established.
We propose beginning with the 1st January next-because we assume that some months will pass before a refinery can be established-to allow to any party wno established a lead refinery in Canada a bounty of $5 a ton for the first year, limited, however, to $100,000 per annum. For the second year we propose that the bounty shall be $4 per ton ; the third year, $3 per ton ; the fourth year, $2 per ton ; and finally, $1 per ton. We think that this system of bounties, if it is to be established, should be based upon the principle of gradually wiping the bounty out. Wherever you give a bounty to an industry of an even sum continually, tlie tendency is for the industry to rely bin the bounty to such an extent that the sudden cutting off of the bounty at the end of the term would so change the condition as, perhaps, to put the industry in peril. We think it best, therefore, while giving the aid that the government are disposed to give, to let the industry understand that it must look forward at a very early date to standing upon its own bottom, Therefore, we follow the system of reducing [DOT]the bounties year by year until at the end of the fifth year they cease and determine. And we propose to limit the total amount to $100,000 per annum. We anticipate that this will be no undue restriction upon the industry, but, perhaps in granting the bounties, we shall all feel better if we have a clear conception of the amount to which we ax-e obliged. In the case of iron and steel, there is no limit to the quantity upon which a bounty shall be paid, and so we may be called upon to pay a larger sum than we originally anticipated. In this case, we think it well that the House and the country should understand the extent to which the obligation is to go. Therefore, for the first year it will cost $100,000 on the basis of $5 a ton ; and if as the bounty per ton falls year by year their output increases, they may still get the benefit of tlie $100,000 at tlie lower rates. Then, we propose to make it cumulative as respects one year. That is if through any mishap the output in the first half of the year should be too small to earn half of the total maximum bounty, and, in the next six months the output should so increase as to earn more than half the maximum bounty, we propose that they shall still have the benefit of the total amount of $100,000 in one year.


Mr. WALLACE.: What about the next year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Each year will be complete within itself.


Mr. FIELDING.: 


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The output of one year would not be available to earn part of another year's bounty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, each year must be within Itself, and not more than $100,000 will be paid In any one year. It might happen that, owing to the suspension of the work or to some other cause they might, in six months not turn out enough to earn $50,000. In that case, we would credit them with the balance on the next six months, so that if they earned the $100,000 within the year that amount would be paid them.


Samuel Hughes: But, in case there should be an excess in the year, that would not be available for bounty for the first six months of the year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it does not pass from one year to another, but it does pass from tlie first six months to tlie second six months of one year. We make it half-yearly so as to suit a reasonable business convenience. But with each year the transaction closes and we start upon a fresh year.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, there may be more than $50,000 in one half year, but there cannot be more than $100,000 in any one year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My bon. friend is quite correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to give the House information as to the value to the United States refineries of the protection which he has referred to namely, the permission given them to export 90 per cent of what has been refined instead of tlie entire amount. We ought to know what that is worth to the American refiners in order to judge of the adequacy of the bounty proposed. Another point on which I would like information is the extent of tlie industry in Canada.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall have my papers here in a moment, but I am without them just now, because this question has come forward sooner than 1 expected. But I believe that the output of the product of the silver-lead ores of Canada from 1888 to 1900 represented a total value of about $20,000,000. During 1900 tlie value of these ores represented a total value of $5,000,000. There would be every prospect of the output increasing if we had the facilities for production. As to the value of this 10 per cent concession in the United States, it is represented to me that it is equivalent to $5 a ton. That figure I can only give from information supplied me by gentlemen interested in the lead industry. While necessarily this industry will have to be established by some one or two large companies-

not more than one I believe-the government bad before them a large deputation representing all interests in the lead business in British Columbia, these gentlejnen attaching so much importance to the matter tlial they came all the way from British Colum bia to Ottawa to present their case to the government, and I have reason to believe that the miners, the smelters and all eon cerned join in approving this scheme. For though the bounty will go to the refinery, it is realized that without a refinery you cannot have a smelter, and without a smelter you cannot have business for the miner.


William Findlay Maclean: The significant fact about this is that at last the government confess before the country that it is possible for the government to bring in such legislation as will develop the interests of the country and will protect the industries of the country against the unfair attacks of other nations. For a long time the Liberal party denied the principle of protection and that of paternal government. But now wo see them confessing that they believe in customs duties, not only ad valorem, but specific duties ; confessing that they believe in export duties-they are insisting on our logs being manufactured in Canada-we find them confessing that they believe in bounties of all kinds. Here is a bounty which proves it. And, still more significant than their proposal, is the fact that the knight from Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) with an eloquence unequalled in the history of this country, approves these things that for twenty-five years he condemned. His silent eloquence is the greatest endorsement that protectionist jjrinciples have ever received in this country. I take this opportunity now of at last congratulating the Liberal party on this forward step, and of congratulating the hon. member for South Oxford upon the eloquent silence with which he gives it his approval. What follows from the platform thus laid down by the Liberal party ? They must go one step further and adopt the principle of reciprocity of tariffs. To-day Canada is suffering from the hostile tariff of the United States which is designed to keep Canadian manufacturers out of the American market and out of the -markets of the world, if that can be done. We want but one thing more in the line of national policy, and we are coming to it. The Liberal party will be forced to adopt it, and the hon. member for South Oxford will be compelled to give it his eloquently silent support, and that is the principle of tariff for tariff as the only way in which Canada can hold her own in the face of the competition of the United States.


Mr. BOURASSA.: I do not wish to follow' the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) in his reflections on general principles, for I think that the country know's very well now that wre have protection. But, as a moderate
protectionist, I begin to fear that the government is going a little too far in the way of protection.
There was an industry which attracted a good deal of capital to this country, the phosphate industry, which existed mainly in the province of Quebec. I do not know if some of the members of this House have known of the details of this industry, but I may say that at one time it was one of the most prosperous mining industries of this country. It was carried on specially in the northern regions of the Ottawa valley, w'here several mines were in operation. Large amounts of British, American and French capital were invested in this industry. But competition arose from the discovery of an inferior quality of phosphate in Algeria, Florida and the Argentine Republic.
Although the phosphate of the Lievre valley was no doubt the best phosphate in the world, so aeknow'ledged in the exhibition of Philadelphia and in the French exhibition in 1878, at the same time the cost of working the mines being heavier than the the cost of mining in Florida and the Argentine Republic, the result was that all our Canadian mines have been closed. Several times, the owners of these mines have agitated the question of getting a bounty from a Canadian government. I think, even this winter proceedings were taken by some of the owners of those mines to get a bounty from the government. I was asked by some of those gentlemen, or the representatives of some of those companies, to urge their request before this parliament. I told them frankly that I thought the government and the majority in parliament were not in favour of bounties ; that they had been elected upon a free-trade platform to some extent; and they had kept the bounty on iron only because, as the Minister of BMnance said at the time, the iron-smelting industry had been developed by the establishment of these bounties, and it would not be wise to abolish them. 1 agreed at that time with the Minister of Finance, as X agree with him in regard to this present resolution ; but at the same time, if bounties are to be given to new industries, to interests that will be localized in a smaller territory than the phosphate industry, I do not see why an industry that had prospered in this country for many years and had attracted some $30,000,000, and gave work to several thousands of Canadian miners, should be refused, when they ask a smaller bounty than that which is given to any other Canadian industry. I understand, the owners of the phosphate mines would be satisfied with a bounty of $2 a year upon every ton of the article they manufacture and export. They do not ask for a bounty upon the article they sell in Canada. The development of this industry would mean not only employment for Canadian workingmen"; but it would mean a great assistance to Canadian farmers, because it would develop one of the best fertilizers

known in modern agriculture. In fact, phosphate of lime is one of the fertilizers that have enabled the Belgian and French farmers to develop their industry as they have been doing for the last few years. Now, chemical fertilizers are one of the most costly articles which the Canadian farmer has to use for the improvement of his farm ; but here is an industry the raw material of which is in the very heart of Canada, on the border of the Ottawa river, with good navigation and railway communication, an industry which could command an immense amount of capital, involving chiefly hand labour, an industry which has been taken up and abandoned because it had no encouragement and because the competition of foreign phosphates was too great for it to overcome. I do not want to make any objection to this bounty on lead, but I hope the government will remember the claim of the phosphate industry, which is so essentially a Canadian industry, and that next year they will be prepared to give it a bounty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I agreed with the establishment of the bounty on iron, and I do not object to this proposal to give a bounty on lead, because it is fallowing the lines of protection, which I am in favour of. If we can start any industry in this country by means of bounties, I think it is proper to do so. "With reference to the production of phosphates, I was in favour of it years ago, and am still. I was in favour of it for the double reason that it would be the means of starting the industry, and because it would furnish an article very useful to the farmers, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) says. But I regretted to find that while this government were prepared to assist the development of the iron industry, an industry which does not benefit the farmers at all directly, when a proposal was made to put a bounty upon beet-root sugar, that directly affected the farmers advantageously, and upon the production of phosphates, which would be of great use to the farmers, the government turned a deaf ear to appeals in their behalf. I regretted that, because it would be simply following the principle of protection in another form which we have always advocated. The action of the government to-day is a compliment to the principles the Conservative party have advocated for so long a time. It is an action taken on the extreme lines of protection for the purpose of bringing into existence industries that could not otherwise be started. But while the present action of the government is a compliment to the soundness of the principles supported by their predecessors, it is another nail in their coffin with regard to the policy they have always advocated in the past.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will not dis-*cuss the theoretical question of whether this Mr. BOURASSA.
is in line with protection or not. I am quite satisfied modestly to accept the compliments of the hon. gentleman, whether they are deserved or not; providing we get to the end of the session, we can well afford to forego a discussion as to whether we are on the right path. The only point that seems to be apparent is that everybody wants a bounty for himself. Even my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who is a moderate protectionist, thought we were going too far, if I followed his argument rightly, because we go to British Columbia to give bounty to the lead industry ; but if we only went to the county of Labelle, we would go far enough to satisfy him.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not only the county of Labelle, but the county of Wright and the whole province of Quebec.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The province of Quebec does not fare badly, I think. But the question is, whether we should give a bounty on phosphates. My hon. friend does not object to a bounty on -lead, but he wants it extended to phosphates. I will not at this moment express an opinion whether we should give a bounty on phosphates. But I will observe that the conditions are not at all parallel. We are forced to give this bounty on lead simply because the Belgian government, in their tariff, have taken a most unfair advantage of our smelters and our lead deposits. Under a natural condition of things there would be no necessity for a bounty. If we had reciprocity in minerals, with the United States there would be no necessity whatever for a bounty in Canada, we would have an ample field in the United States. I think with reciprocity in minerals we could undersell the Americans and take their market from them.


William Findlay Maclean: Do you think they will ever allow you to do that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a question for the future, I do not know, I make no prophecy. But if we are to get it, I doubt if we will get it by the methods proposed by my hon. friend. Moreover, if we were to give bounties and meet the Americans with their tariff, I am not prepared to say that we should go as far as my hon. friend would have us go. But, to come back to the question of the phosphate industry, my hon. friend from Labelle has stated that it was a prosperous industry a few years ago, and so it was. But all of a sudden, without any hostile legislation in any part of the world, it dropped, and why ? The hon. gentleman stated truly a moment ago, that our phosphate industry was- destroyed by the discovery of phosphates in Florida. But the conditions are not parallel. The phosphates in Algeria, in Florida, and, I think, in the Argentine Republic, are called, I think, vegetable phosphates. They have only to dig, they have to open a seam, and there

they have it without any cost of production, whereas, our prospects are different, as the mineral has to be reduced, and, therefore, the produciton of it must cost much more than the production of phosphates in Florida.
Under such circumstances I must say to my hon. friend that I have been approached [DOT]upon more than one occasion personally by people with the view of securing the granting of a bounty on phosphates, hut I have not had up to this day any satisfactory calculation laid before me as to the difference of the cost of production in Florida, our chief competitor, and the cost of production in Canada. While some of the owners of phosphate minerals in the Laurentian range in the province of Quebec have approached me personally in regard to having a bounty of $2 a ton placed upon the production of these minerals, up to this moment I have never seen the calculation upon which that bounty is based, showing the relative cost in Florida and in Canada. We can easily estimate what the cost of production in Canada would be, but if we are to be asked to give a bounty upon that industry my hon. friend would be the first to admit that we cannot entertain a proposition of that kind unless all the calculations are placed before us which would justify us in giving a bounty of $2, or $3 or $1 a ton, and so it is that we have not been able up to this time to ascertain on what this proposed bounty is based. When the application is made we shall have to look at it as we have to look at every application of a similar character which is made to us.


Mr. OLIVER.: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize the difference between the conditions in regard to the phosphate industry and in regard to the lead industry in the matter of bonuses. The difference is *that the claim for a bonus for lead refining is not based upon the possibility of competition from other countries overthrowing our market. It is based upon the special conditions existing in the United States, not so much because of the tariff, as because of the combine which exists under that tariff. The proposal to bonus the lead refining industry is a means taken by this country as a whole to meet the combine of lead refiners and smelters of the United States. This is adopted as an experiment or as a temporary expedient for the purpose of putting our industry in a position, not whereby it can compete, but whereby it can be carried on as it cannot be carried on independent of the conditions imposed by the combine in the United States. It is not the case that the lead and silver mines of Canada do not produce sufficiently profitably to enable them to be carried on. They do produce profitably, as profitably as any other mines in the world, so profitably that if the process of putting refined lead on the market can be carried through that process can be maintained without government bonus or assistance. This is the argument that has been
placed before the government, and this is the argument that is being placed before the House. It is not that we have an industry in British Columbia that is not able to stand upon its feet other conditions being equal. It is because of the inequality of the conditions brought about by a special arrangement in the United States that we require to meet for the present in order to get the industry into an independent condition. Once it has been developed we then consider it can stand upon its own feet. The circumstances are such that it has not yet been developed independently having been dependent upon the conditions that prevail in the United States. These conditions having been changed by the combine in respect to the marketing of our products we find ourselves compelled to take such other means as may be at our hand to get our product upon the market. It is not, I say again, because our mines do not produce in competition with any in the world, but it is because of the special conditions relating to getting the product on the market. Once these conditions have been overcome we submit that there will be no further difficulty.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is very refreshing to hear hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House recanting their former professions. Our good friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), a staunch free trader who wanted the policy of free trade adopted and no restrictions on the great and glorious people of the North-west, now comes down as an apologist and defender of the only direct and positive form of protection ; that is the giving of bounties.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) allow me to correct him ? I have on several occasions in this House announced myself as a protectionist.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I (must, apologize to the hon. member for Alberta for characterizing him as a free trader, but I thought my memory was good enough to recall the fact that on several occasions he has made strong speeches in the direction of free trade. However, as he has told us that on several occasions he has been quite a protectionist, we will accept him and bid him welcome into the ranks of the protectionist party.


Frank Oliver: But not that kind of protection.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am sorry to hear that remark, because the kind of a protectionist I am is acknowledging the principle and not going in for protection just for your own constituency or your own pocket. If the hon. gentleman is advocating protection just because it is going to benefit his own constituency or his own community, then I do not think quite so much of that form of protection.


Frank Oliver: Just exactly like the members representing the manufacturing centres of Ontario.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, I was a protectionist when there were very few manufactories in my constituency of West York. I was an ardent protectionist in 1877 and 1878. Since then industries have grown up in my constituency, and I am glad to say-in every constituency in Canada. I am no more or no less a protectionist whether the industry may be situated in my constituency or not. I am a warm advocate and always have been of the principle of giving protection to silver lead industry of British Columbia, though It is not in my constituency, and is very indirectly connected with it. I have always favoured that, and I view it not as a temporary expedient as the hon. member says, and as the lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says, but as a piece of sound policy, and so long as our neighbours to the south of us continue the policy, which has not been in force only a few weeks or a few months as the hon. Minister of Finance has told us, of favouring the American refiner and producer of silver lead ore to the detriment of the Canadian producer of the same article. I shall insist on a fair measure of protection to our Canadian industries.
Why, if you go to the Sandon district in the Kootenay country you will find large and prosperous towns like Sandon and Kas-lo with thousands of men working. These places have been built up entirely by the silver lead industry, producing millions of dollars worth of lead, and if they are protected properly and given proper encouragement there will be established a great silver lead mining industry in that part of Canada. The Prime Minister says that he will not discuss whether this is protection or not because the session is so far advanced. Well, we do not know nor do we care very particularly whether the session is quite so far advanced or not. We have the rest of the whole year if it is necessary to perform our duty in parliament, and the plea that the session is so far advanced will not be an excuse for shirking the discussion of the question. The First Minister also told us that under reciprocity in mining there would be no necessity for the bounty. Well, why does not the government try and get reciprocity in mining if it is going to be so advantageous. They have been over five years in power, and they have been over in the States to get reciprocity. They did not go over until nearly two years and a half after they came into office. They spent some very pleasant days endeavouring to {get reciprocity, and for about two and a half years further they have not made an effort to secure reciprocity which they say would be so beneficial to Canada, at any rate in this silver lead mining industry. The cry is going through the country that Mr. WALLACE.
the government have begun to stand still. Of course, we know that in one important respect they have not stood still, because the estimates they have rushed through the House during the last few days show that so far as the expenditure of public money goes they are going at a pretty lively rate. The country will be amazed and alarmed to see that the government! have violated the pledges of the past, while they have para lyzed the country with their wild extravagances and enormous expenditures which they will be unable to defend before the people as they have been unable to defend it in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I propose to make a slight change in the resolution. I staled in answer to the leader of the opposition that the advantage arising out of the 10 per cent arrangement was said to be $5. That is hardly correct. It is a difficult matter to determine. I would say it ranges from $3.50 upwards, but there are said to be other advantages which make the total in favour of the American refiner $5 and $6. It has been represented to me that perhaps the refinery cannot be established by the first day of January next, and it will be noticed that these bounties under the resolution as at present, become payable in the next calendar year, thus implying that the business may be begun on the 1st of January. I propose to change the words ' calendar year' to ' fiscal year,' beginning the 1st of July next.' That will give them an opportunity to get the refinery in order and still leave them the five years. I will make the necessary change in committee, as the Chairman reads the resolutions.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Suppose they start before that, they will not get the bounty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will simply have to postpone their smelting for a month or two.


William Findlay Maclean: We will amend it next session if necessary.
Resolution reported, and read the first time.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the resolution be now read the second time, and agreed to.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the Minister of Finance will find a way of publishing statistics in connection with the payment of these and other bounties, monthly or quarterly, in the Canada Gazette. There is no such indication of the progress of the country as an official statement of the production of iron, lead, silver and gold in the country. It Is done in the United States. It is the best barometer of the condition of trade you

can have ; and now that we are coming to a system of bounties, there is no reason why a monthly or quarterly statement should not be published in the Gazette, and I throw out this suggestion hoping that next year the bon. gentleman will make some provision for it. When we are discussing the question of protection, I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said to-day, namely, that while we are carrying out protection in a great many directions, so far we have neglected the case of the farmer. There is no interest of the farmer which has such a future before it as the production of beet-root sugar in this country, and I believe the country will justify parliament in giving that production a very fair bounty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution read the second time and agreed ito.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 152) to provide for the payment of bounties on lead refined in Canada.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Brnnte Harbour, $7,000.
['the English Act has been framed with a very careful regard to possible difficulties which might arise in its enforcement. And it is the opinion of the legal gentlemen who have represented the different railway companies, and who have been conferring with myself, that we have chosen apt and sufficient language to enable the Railway Committee fully and adequately to exercise the supervising and controlling powers which the Railway Act was designed to confer upon the Railway Committee, and at the same time we avoid introducing any element which would be calculated unduly to interfere with the proper carriage of the traffic of the country.\nBill reported.']
Mr. HENDERSON.: I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works what progress has been made with this work. How much has been expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure up to March 1st has been $4,451.44.


David Henderson: Is it the intention of the minister to continue the work this year -both the dredging and the construction of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


David Henderson: What is the estimate of ithe entire cost of the work when completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $16,460, or $17,000 in round numbers.


David Henderson: Last year when this matter was before the committee the acting Minister of Public Works gave me the assurance that the work would be done by contract. I understand that no contract has been let either for material or for any portion of the work, and that it is being done by day's labour. Is it the intention of the minister to continue the work by day's labour, or to ask for tenders for the remainder ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We could only do the work by day's labour, for the reason that we have a certain quantity of material, and in my opinion these 180
works of repairs can as a rule be better carried out by day's labour. You never know, when you start repairing a wharf, what work you will have to do.


David Henderson: It is desirable that this work should be finished as early as possible, so that it can be used this summer.
Bruce Mines-Wharf, including addition (revote), $8,500.


Mr. BENNETT.: Has the work begun ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is under contract, i


William Humphrey Bennett: How much has been expended already ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Up to the 3rd of March, $5,074.47. Lemoine & Fortin, the lowest tenderers, have the contract. This will complete, and $13,800 is the whole cost.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will there be any revenue when completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will simply transfer the work to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and then the trade that will develop will bring in a- revenue, I hope. In any case it will be an accommodation for a considerable section of country.


William Humphrey Bennett: There was a dock erected a year ago at a place called Thessalon, which cost from $10,000 to $15,000, and which has never given a cent of revenue. Does the hon. gentleman expect auy revenue from the Barrie wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I do not believe that the policy of all the governments, present and future, has ever been or ever will be to build wharfs for the purpose of raising revenue. Wharfs are built to accommodate the developing trade, and the question of revenue is only an incidental one. When we get a revenue sufficient to pay the small repairs, that is about all. There has been nothing done at the Barrie wharf so far. The item was put in the estimates when I was away, and I intend taking up the matter and looking into it carefully. I have received petitions asking me to select different sites, but before doing any work I will look into everything.


James Clancy: Are these numerous petitions the outcome of the advertisement sent out by the acting Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Mulock), inviting the whole country to send in applications for public works. Did the hon. minister instruct the acting minister to take that course ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not give any other instructions to the acting minister than to administer the department to the best of his ability. As for



inviting petitions from all over for public works, I think that we have received sufficient petitions to dispense wth our advertising for new work.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the joke was perpetrated a year ago of building a dock at Hawkestone, the community of Barrie became infected with the contagion, and asked that a dock should be built there, and to the surprise of the people, the money appeared in the estimates. At Barrie, each end of the town wants to have the dock. On the principle laid down by the minister, that public money should be spent in Ontario because it is going anyway, I am in favour, as a property holder there, of having some expended in my constituency, but, on the general principle that it is an outrage on decency to build these docks all over the country, I am opposed to such expenditure. However, on the principle laid down by the minister, that the money is there to be spent, and that every constituency should have a share of it, I am in favour of this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not laid down any such principle, and do not intend abiding by the principle which the hon. gentleman is himself supporting. But, I say the public works are as necessary for the trade of the country as parliament itself is.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: I can name wharfs built by the late government now being repaired, and which are some eighteen years old, from which no revenue has ever been derived. That, of course, was not indecent then, but anything of that kind done now is indecent.


Samuel Hughes: There is an item for the wharf at Sturgeon Point, $500. I trust the minister will see that that goes through. Then, there is the bridge on the Scugog river, which was completed last year, but a good deal of debris still remains in the river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will take an amount out of the general estimate necessary to clear the river, and will have that work done immediately after the session.
Burlington Channel-Repairs to piers (revote), $45,000.


Mr. BRUCE.: Will that be sufficient ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it will require a much larger amount of money to complete it. It will cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000. We will ask for tenders after the session. We recognize the great importance of the harbour, and intend carrying on the work as speedily as possible.
Depot Harbour-Breakwater (revote), $75,000.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the plan of the hon. gentleman, and how much money does Mr. TARTE.
he intend to expend in this connection ? Is he going on next year with these works in the river to furnish an entrance to Lake Nipissing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.
Indian River-Dredging a cut across the Devil's Elbow and across the shoal at Sandy's Landing (revote), $2,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to strike out that item, because I have no information to offer to the House. I do not know much about it. Therefore, we might just as well strike it out.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister will remember that there was a dock built there last year. Perhaps it would be better to have the dredging done to get at the dock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to leave the item. I do not know much about it. All right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


David Henderson: Better strike the item out. Get an appropriation to take the dock down to the Trent canal, where it will be of some use.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think we will leave the item in.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister will remember that the plea for the construction of the dock put forward by the representative of the district was that they never had public money spent there, and it was time they should have some. Apply the same principle in this case. They have never had any dredging; let them have some. That is the principle on which the government is going.


Mr. LENNOX.: I am not given much to talking about these matters. But I understand the Minister of Public Works to say that the item should be struck out. Now, in the public interest, I think we should not make jokes of these matters if we can help it. The hon. minister said that he knew little about the work. If it is not needed, the item should be struck out.


David Henderson: I understand that it is struck out.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, struck out.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I understand the hon. minister restored it again. Now, we do not know where it is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Strike it out.
Item dropped.
Sault Ste. Marie

Harbour improvements, including dredging of approaches (revote, $10,000), $25,000.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Where is that money to be spent ?
.5733


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are going to make an addition to the old Plummer's wharf, and we are going to dredge the harbour so as to allow Canadian and American boats, especially Canadian boats, to call at our wharf. The port is so shallow, that, to our shame, Canadian boats are obliged to land at the American side. I am going to try to put a stop to that state of affairs.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I have been informed that the approach to the lock is about two feet shallower than the lock itself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are dredging to twenty feet, so as to allow our Canadian boats to call at our own port.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It should have been done long ago.
Sydenham Harbour-Dredging (revote), $5,000.


James Clancy: May I ask if this item is put in here as a sort of ornament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


James Clancy: I am glad to hear that. I think that this is the sixth session this item has been voted ; and I can tell the hon. minister that it has ceased to have any great attraction. Does the hon. minister intend to spend this money this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. In 1897-8 part of the work was done. I admit that the work that has been done is without value unless we complete the work, which will require a large amount of money. We have been unable to comply even with the wishes of our strongest political friends, because no dredges have been available. I intend to carry out this work as soon as I can lay my hands on a dredge.


James Clancy: I am glad to hear the hon. minister express so much willingness. Of course,- it is a matter of regret that he has not even been able to gratify even the reasonable wishes of his friends. I thought he had some disposition to conciliate the opponents, and perhaps he has some anxiety on that ground. I may say that I am weil acquainted with the locality and with the nature of the work required. If the hon. gentleman would accept a suggestion from me as being worth anything, I would like to tell him that the first thing to be done is to spend what would only be a small amount of money in clearing from that stream obstructions in the way of sunken logs and trees. These, lying at the bottom, cause an accumulation. He need not wait for a dredge, but if he will remove these obstructions he will perform a most useful service. If, after that, he wishes to expend a further sum in dredging, very well. But that is something to be done after the removal of these obstructions, if at all.
180*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only repeat that I do not wish to place items in the estimates if it is not necessary to spend the money. I am going on with, the work. My attention has been called to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has spoken of. I know there is an accumulation of sunken logs and trees there, and my chief engineer tells me that we can do good work by removing them, and this I intend to start immediately.


James Clancy: There is another matter which the hon. minister seems to have forgotten-Little Bear Creek. I think the locality had the honour of a visit from him at one time. I do not know how far he was impressed, but I have a very strong belief that he was not impressed favourably, because the vote which formerly appeared has disappeared from the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not impressed at all.


James Clancy: That being his opinion, I suppose I might as well subside.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall not carry out that work.
Toronto Harbour-
Works at eastern entrance, &e	 $10,000
Diversion of River Don and dredging in the harbour (revote)	 25,000


Mr. OSLER.: Has the hon. gentleman any complete plan for carrying out the work in Toronto harbour ? With the amounts proposed here, no practical result can be accomplished in the way of permanently improving the harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The question of the diversion of thg Don has been before my predecessors for a good many years and before myself ever since I came into office. I have sent for a plan, which will be here is a few moments, and which will explain the whole matter. The harbour of Toronto is being filled up by the silt brought down by the Don and also by the sewarage of the city, and for neither of these is the government responsible. The Don, which was naturally a crooked stream, was straightened by the city years ago. The result of that straightening has been that the silt and material of all kinds came down the Don in such large quantities as to fill the Toronto harbour. But the Toronto harbour is also filled up by the sewage. There are fourteen miles of sewage flowing into Toronto harbour. I do not propose to spend one dollar of public money in the port of Toronto, I will not budge until the city takes care of their own sewage. I cannot be expected to do anything else. I feel that we are not responsible for filling the harbour through the Don. Toronto is an important harbour, but it has no revenue, and the government has taken care of it. I feel we are doing only what is right in asking parliament to vote that sum of money. I

have here a plan which I offer to the inspection of members who take an interest in the harbour of Toronto. Under these circumstances I think I am justified in asking for $25,000. It will not be enough, our proposed work will cost more. But the city must first arrange with me. As soon as I have an arrangement with the city I am prepared to go on.


Mr. KEMP.: The city of Toronto has taken care of the sewage which falls into the bay, week by week and month by month. They are taking care of the sewage at their own expense, and I am sorry the Minister of Public Works has adopted this excuse in order to relieve him from the duty of making a fair appropriation to enable vessels of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canal to come into Toronto harbour. If the city of Toronto diverted the Don years ago, they did it with the approval of the government, and the government are legally liable to right the matter. We see large sums of money being expended by this government all over the country, in Halifax, St. John,-a bridge at Quebec, advancing $1,500,000 on certain bonds to help the city of Quebec ; we see appropriations made in places where we have been told this morning there is no revenue. We see the city of Montreal coming here and asking for a million dollars for an elevator, and getting it without any excuse from the government. But here is the greatest shipping centre in this country, a city which gathers more freight and sends out more freight than any other city in this country ; we see the Minister of Public Works endeavouring to find an excuse by which he can evade the liability which falls upon the government of improving Toronto harbour and putting it in such a shape that the vessels which pass up and down Lake Ontario and through the canals may get into that harbour, in order that it may receive vessels that are going to do business between the maritime provinces and the upper lakes, cultivating an interprovincial trade with the maritime provinces in water bound traffic. We cannot participate in this traffic, because the harbour is filled up with silt which has been brought down from the back country year after year. I say that is not fair treatment of the city of Toronto, considering the amount of business that is being done there. But the hon. minister says that before anything is done the city must come here and bind itself to take care of its sewage, which, however, furnishes very little deposit indeed as compared with the amount of silt. In any case I am prepared to say that the city is taking care of its sewage, they are dredging it out of the harbour as fast as it comes in. I hope the minister will reconsider this vote, and make an appropriation which will meet the need, and put the city in a position to accommodate vessels of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canal, vessels


Joseph Israël Tarte: that visit other lake ports and the maritime provinces. I notice on the following page $8,000 for dredging the channel at the mouth of the River Thames. I presume that is an illustration of what it means for a supporter of the government to go to them and say that he will resign unless he gets certain things done. Now if it would faci-liate the improvement of Toronto harbour, I would be very glad to resign my seat in this House, but I am afraid it would not be of any avail, because I am not a supporter of the government. I do not think that is a fair way to treat the people of this country. I do not see how the Minister of Public Works can say that he is dealing with this matter entirely from a non-political standpoint. I repeat that he should reconsider this matter, and deal with the city of Toronto as he deals with Quebec, Montreal and other cities of the Dominion. There is an item of $10,000 for the eastern entrance. I would like the committee clearly to understand that the government are under obligations to take care of the eastern entrance. Some years ago, in 1887, the city gave the government $i00,000, and the government assumed for all time the responsibility of keeping the eastern entrance in proper shape. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, we are under no obligations to the government in any way. But this vote of $25,000 is far from adequate to meet the present conditions. I wish to say that for the last three of four sessions a sum larger than that has been voted, and nothing whatever has been done to expend it. We do not know whether even this small amount, if voted, will be expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For years and years the hon. gentleman was just as influential with his political friends as he is to-day, and he endeavoured to get something from them for doing this work in Toronto. I do not blame him at all for that. Although Toronto has voted unanimously in favour of the Conservative government, he did not get that money from his friends. Now he has just spoken in a way that I must say is ungenerous. I say again that the records of the department will show that for years and years our Toronto friends applied to the Conservative government to 'get money for the diversion of the Don, and they did not succeed. But now, in face of strong and determined political opposition in Toronto, I have induced my colleagues to consent to putting in this sum in the estimates for the city of Toronto. I hope the hon. gentleman's constituents will not meet me in the same spirit as he has done. This government is in no way bound to do that work. The hon. gentleman knows every foot of the city of Toronto, he knows that the Don has been diverted by the city council, and the city should be responsible for the result. But because of the fact that the port of Toronto is being injured, be-

cause I have confidence in the harbour of Toronto and in the future of its trade, I am prepared to come to the aid of the city. And still my hon. friend tells me that I am not doing the right thing. I cannot believe that such treatment is fair ; it is not fair dealing. I am very frank about it. Perhaps I had some difficulty in getting that vote into the estimates and I should not be criticised as 1 have been in the committee today. All the same, I feel that I am bound to carry out what I have begun to do. We are not obliged to carry out the works at the eastern entrance. My hon. friend is altogether astray on that point. We have no legal responsibility whatever. My hon. friend is altogether mistaken when he says that poor Toronto never got anything. The Federal government has spent on the harbour of Toronto $1,200,000 of good Oanadiau money for which the city of Toronto does not pay one cent of interest. 1 think this government, not speaking of this political government, but the Federal government, have not done badly at all by the city and port of Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: During the time of the administration of the government which was in office previous to the present government, vessels of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canals in those days were able to come into the harbour of Toronto, but since last fall vessels of 14 feet capacity have been able to pass through the St. Lawrence canals, but they are not able to get into the harbour of Toronto. Now, we contend that a harbour of such importance as that of Toronto should receive the consideration of the government, and that it should be dredged to the depth of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The piers of the harbour of Toronto have unfortunately been built on quicksand, and we have a great deal of difficulty in dredging out more. All the same, my officers and myself are devoting ourselves to solving that very difficult problem.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. CLARKE.: When the committee rose at one o'clock, the Minister of Public Works had made the statement that about $1,200,000 had been spent on the harbour at Toronto, if I caught his figures correctly. Might I ask him to give the particulars of that expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The expenditure was made long in the past, and I have not got the particulars here, but I will get them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a most extraordinary statement, and we would like to have the particulars now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very glad to make a statement next year of the whole expenditure in detail. Perhaps any hon. friend has not understood me. The reason why I insist that the city should take care of its own drains and sewerage is this : The Don creates a current there, and suppose I straightened the Don just to the Bay, the current will not exist, and Toronto will simply be poisoned by the sewage. That is the reason I say the two works must go together. It will not cost a large expenditure of money for the city of Toronto to have a main drain for its own sewage. Perhaps we might take advantage of ' the cut ' I am making for that work.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is that the recommendation of the government engineer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My engineer and the city engineer will decide as to the nature of the work. I will try to arrange a scheme that will answer the purposes of the harbour and the purposes of the city.


Albert Edward Kemp: All the city of Toronto asks is that the recommendation of Mr. Roy, the government engineer, be carried out. The minister has made a very remarkable statement regarding the large amount of money which he claims has been spent on Toronto harbour. I never before heard that the government had spent so much money there, and I am very much interested in ascertaining the details of this expenditure. On what did the minister base the statement that Toronto is responsible for the filling up of the harbour, by reason of the alluvial deposits that come down the Don ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The city is responsible because the Don was a crooked channel, and the silt that came into the harbour spread over a large area. As soon as the Don was straightened, all the silt came down into the harbour. Mr. Grey, who lives in Toronto, is an old employee, and has given a great deal of attention to that point. A few weeks ago I was returning from a very unsuccessful errand and I thought I could make something good out of a bad job, so I stayed in Toronto, and gave my own personal attention to that matter. As to carrying out Mr. Roy's suggestions, I want to say this : I wish in the first place that my hon. friend will assume that I am in good faith on this occasion. I have no political purposes to serve ; we have no elections in view, and I am perfectly independent of the votes of my hon. friends from Toronto. The work in Toronto has not only to be looked to from the present, but from the future. That is the reason why I have asked my colleagues to place that amount in the estimates.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister states that on account of the straightening of the Don and

the deepening of the Don channel, the alluvial deposits flow more easily Into the bay.
' The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Quite so.


Albert Edward Kemp: Well, while the Don was straightened and deepened, the alluvial deposits which were washed into the Don river for miles hack were not lessened, hut the new channel of the Don has greatly filled up, until it is not now any deeper than it was before it was deepened, and consequently that much less of alluvial deposit has been retained in the Don, so that the deepening of the Don to that extent prevented it going into the bay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am speaking of the information given to me by Major Grey especially. He has given me most information on that point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister must not forget the great point in connection with the necessity for deepening the harbour of Toronto. My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) has pointed out that Toronto is the largest distributing point, possibly, in the Dominion of Canada, and if we are going to get the advantage which the hon. gentleman hopes, and which we all hope will result from the completion of these transportation routes, it is absolutely necessary that during the period of navigation we should have at Toronto facilities sufficient to1 enable vessels which can navigate the canal system to its fullest extent, to take cargo from Toronto to Quebec and the low7er provinces, and to bring return cargoes back again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must not forget that we are giving 16 feet depth in the harbour of Toronto now, While the canals have only 14 feet. We are having a good deal of difficulty at Toronto for the reason that the two piers have unfortunately been built on quicksand. but we are putting mattresses, and we are doing everything possible to remedy the state of affairs that exist.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would remind the minister that the work which is being done at the eastern channel is a work primarily necessary to the preservation of the harbour and the protection of the island. The damage done to the island years ago, before the work was undertaken, was so great that there were grave apprehensions that the island would be swept away altogether, and, of course, if that should happen, the harbour of Toronto would be completely destroyed. The city council of that day was moved by the government of that day, to give a sum of $100,000, which was agreed to by both parties as the city's contribution towards the work of constructing the eastern channel and of protecting the island. The government, of course, are loyally carrying Mr. KEMP.
out their part of the agreement, but new conditions have arisen since, and it is to these we must direct our attention. We have the minister's word that he will undertake that the harbour shall be deepened, as it ought to be, and it is not unreasonable that the minister should suggest that the city on its part should look after the sewerage discharge. But, as my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) points out, the city is looking after that, and it dredges the slips and approaches to the sewers year after year. But lest there should be any misapprehension in this matter, it is quite reasonable for the minister to have an undertaking from the city that the work will be continued, and that the harbour will be kept free from accretions of sewage deposits from year to year. We are willing to give that undertaking to the minister, but we want him to carry out his undertaking. He has put a very small vote in the supplementary estimates compared with the magnitude of the work, but if he will commence the work at once, the city for its part undertakes that there shall be no filling up of the harbour proper by reason Of the discharge of the sewers into it. That is a fair proposition. Toronto is the principal harbour on Lake Ontario. It is essential for the mercantile interests, not only of the city of Toronto, but of the whole province of Ontario, that that harbour shall have the necessary expenditure upon it, so that it may have its share of the great work of transportation which will go on from year to year in the inland waters of the Dominion. I hope the minister will give us a specific and definite statement as to his intention respecting the plan of that harbour work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Toronto is very near Ottawa; only a few hours away. The city of Toronto is approachable to other members as I am an approachable man myself, and I am going to approach the municipal authorities of Toronto. I am going to have an understanding with them, and before I have that understanding I will not budge. Without a very clear statement I will not do anything. My hon. friend must not ask me to go quicker than I am in the habit of going. I think I am suggesting a very fair proposition to the city of Toronto. Let them remove these sewers. The work that is described in these estimates does not call for the expenditure of an amount of very great magnitude.


Edward Frederick Clarke: All the more reason why the work should go on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These estimates will carry out the work because it is not a large work at all. I am going to go to Toronto as soon as the session is over, a week or two afterwards. The

city council would be glad to see me I am sure.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.
Mi-. MACLEAN. They would use you well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will discuss matters and arrange with them.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hou. Minister of Public Works tell us any case in which he lias refused to budge until the local authorities have come to an agreement with him in a similar matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a special case. There are not many cities or localities where there are fourteen sewers unloading the dirt of the city into the harbour.


William Findlay Maclean: Toronto is an important harbour as the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says. It is a harbour upon which if a very little money is spent will show substantial results. We are voting large sums of money for docks and wharfs that will give no results to the country at all. I hope the hon. minister will come up to Toronto. He will find the city disposed to meet him in removing the trouble caused by the sewerage system. I believe the sewerage system is responsible in a measure for it, and I think the city of Toronto would only consult the public health if they deal with that problem. The minister must go to Toronto prepared to do something for Toronto, and I think he may rest assured that he will be well received and that he will find the city of Toronto ready to meet him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to know, when I have placed this amount in the estimates if I do not mean to do something ?


William Findlay Maclean: What day shall we set for you to he there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The first day my hon. friend is able to stand a first-class lunch, I will go up there.


William Findlay Maclean: All right we shall have it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I mean exactly what I say.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Strike it out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman

-Some hon. MEMBERS. Strike it out.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes, I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Public Works before the committee rose. He suggested that the hon. member for Toronto did not, perhaps, properly appreciate the difficulties he had to contend with in getting this item into the estimates at all. I think the hon. members from Toronto will appreciate that fact, as many hon. members on this side of the House do appreciate, it very highly. The difficulty which the hon. minister has to keep his colleagues in order, to get proper amounts placed in the estimates in certain cases, and to control the amounts in certain other cases is very great, I have no doubt, and when he does come to the rescue, as he has done in this case, his action should be appreciated on this side of the House. But, in reference to making Toronto harbour what it should be, I wish to say, and I think the committee will agree with me that whenever it is ascertained that there is a necessity for a public work to be executed in the public interests in any part of the country it is desirable that a sufficient amount should be put in the estimates to complete it. Until this is done the money that will have been expended this year, for instance, perhaps, will have very little effect. It seems to me to be beyond argument that the harbour of Toronto should be made available for the vessels which are able to navigate the St. Law-repce canals, and that the time has come to put a sufiicient amount in the estimates to make that harbour available in order to give us direct results from the money expended. Now, in every effort the hon. minister makes, notwithstanding difficulties he encounters on the part of other members of the cabinet, he will, I am sure, have the general support of this side of the House. It is not a question of how much money has been spent in Toronto in the past. That is rather an argument, I apprehend, for voting an amount additional to what has been expended, in order to make that money available and remunerative. So I hope that the hon. minister, if he does not see his way to completing that work this year, will put a larger amount in the estimates next year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: I have already seen my way, for I am carrying out just the work to which the hon. gentleman alludes. We are dredging the entrance to a depth of 16 feet at this very hour. The money I am taking isi for the work to which the hon. gentleman alludes.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister think this $25,000 will divert the Don ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let my hon. friend remember that for nearly every work of importance we vote a certain sum of money each year.
Oakville-Repairs to east pier, &c., $6,000.


David Henderson: I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is his intention to spend this money this summer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and complete the work.


David Henderson: Will it be by tender or by day's work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is necessary to do it by day's labour, as it is a work of repairs. My hon. friend knows that as well as I do.
Blind River-Wharf, $2,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister where this place is, and whether it is the construction of a new dock or the purchase of a dock from some person ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is the construction of a new dock in the north channel of the Georgian Bay. It is a pretty important place and is developing rapidly.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any private dock there now 7 If not, is that due to the fact that no person has considered it worth investing money in one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is no evidence of that at all. This government has built hundreds of wharfs throughout the country ; and the fact that we have built them is no evidence that they are not necessary. Take a small community of 500 people, farmers or fishermen, who want to have a steamer or schooner call at their place. They cannot build a wharf for themselves. If my hon. friend during the recess, when he has some leisure, will look at the public accounts of the past, he will find that most of the wharfs, in Ontario especially, which have been built by private money have not been kept up, and the government has been obliged to take over these works and repair them. We must take things as they are in this world, not as we would like to have them.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no remarks to make in regard to places in other provinces where the government have built docks ; but in the province of Ontario it has not been usual for the government to build these docks. In the city of Toronto there is not a government dock. People go there and buy the water front from the government or


Joseph Israël Tarte: from private parties, and erect docks as investments. While the minister has never made any protestations of economy on this score, old members of the House will remember that when the Liberals were on this side of the House they denounced in season and out of season expenditures just similar to this. Now, what is to be done ? The minister has laid it down as a rule that wherever political leverage is applied-because that must have been the case in this instance-and wherever the member for the district supporting the government can make it appear that the parties living in the neighbourhood are not prepared to build a dock, the government will build it for them. There must come an end to this thing some time or other. I do not blame the minister personally ; I think if hej allowed his own judgment to sway him, he would not do this ; but it is done in response to appeals from his party friends. Take the case of Toronto. Here is a harbour which, if it were made deep enough for vessels of large draft, would be a benefit to the whole province ; and yet while the minister is spending thousands of dollars on docks throughout the country from which there will not be a single cent of revenue derivable, and many of which are being actually built alongside of the docks of private parties and rendering them useless, he is neglecting the harbour of Toronto. The country will understand some day that the minister is amenable to the influence and suggestions of his party friends.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hon. gentlemen must understand that the trade of this country is developing. There are farming communities and industrial communities rising from the ground, so to speak, every day. Our waterways are most important to the farming and other industries of the country, and a small wharf for a small community of 400 or 500 people is just as important to them as the big docks we are now erecting iu Montreal ; and I think that every Minister of Public Works who knows his duty will do just what I am doing. When a small fishing or farming community presents a petition to me representing that they cannot sell their products without a small wharf, I give them the wharf whenever my colleagues allow me.


William Humphrey Bennett: May 1 ask the minister if the erection of these docks is due to the fact that there is commerce to come from them 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly. The farmers are the greatest traders in this country. Theyi have rights, and one of the best accommodations they can have are these small wharfs. They do not cost much money. Two or three thousand dollars to equip a small farming community is in my opinion well invested money.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister wants to go along that line, that the greater amount of traffic that is to be concentrated at a point, the more necessity for the dock, then the larger points should have docks also.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly. I do not neglect the big points.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, why does the hou. minister not go right to the city of Toronto, where, if there were deep enough water, there would be hundreds of boats where there is but one calling at small points like Blind River ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Is there not a wharf at Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Are we not doing the right thing by Toronto ?


William Humphrey Bennett: There are scores of wharfs at Toronto, but ail built by private parties. Those parties purchased the water lots and built the docks. Any steamboat companies that wish to call at these docks must pay toll, and our contention is that, these steamboat people are using these docks which we have constructed all along the shores, free of rent, while the country pays the piper.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister says no. Let me instance the wharf at a pornt called Thessalon. The Minister of Marine says that not a single dollar of revenue is derived from it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That dock was built fifteen or twenty years ago. I was not the guilty man. I am only repairing It.


William Humphrey Bennett: All the more reason why the hon. minister should be guided by the errors of the past. When he sees a government dock there, on which he has to spend money for repairs, and from which he does not get a cent of revenue, why does he go on building similar docks all along the shores of Algoma. When on this side of the House, hon. gentlemen opposite denounced such expenditures by the hour, but this afternoon they swallow them without a word of protest. It is an outrage on the public to be spending the public money solely for the accommodation of steamboat companies. Right at Bruce Mines, there was a private dock for the use of which steamboat companies had to pay rent to the proprietor. But that dock has been made useless by the government building one and not gettiug any revenue. At Murray Bay, the government are spending a large sum for extension of the wharf, and yet the Richelieu Navigation Company did not pay a single dollar last year rental for the use of that
wharf. This kind of thing is going on all over the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me remind my hon. friend that I never made many speeches of the character he has just described.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not blame the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the last twenty-five years I have followed the debates of this House-have missed only two sessions-and I cannot forget that I have always heard the opposition criticise what the government does. When my hon. friends on this side were In opposition, they were just as critical as my hon. friend from Simeoe is now. But circumstances alter cases. However, I happen in this matter to be consistent, because I always approved of expenditure on public works when in opposition and am carrying out my views now, which are cheerfully shared by my hon friends on this side.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Since the hon. minister declares ihimself in favour of building wharfs for the benefit of the farmers at different points, I would draw his attention to a petition from the people at Gordon's Point, for a wharf down there. There is a coast line from Summerside to Charlottetown of over forty miles, and in all that distance there is only one harbour, Crapaud. Cape Traverse wharf, which was built some years ago, has been allowed to get out of repair and is falling into the sea. I believe that some fifty or sixty horses and men were put to work there two or three days before the election and kept on until the day after the election. When my hon. friend, Mr. John Bell, was not returned, the carts were immediately taken off. If this Cape Traverse wharf is not taken hold of at once, the thousands of dollars spent on it will be wasted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad my hon. frend does not share the views of the hon. member for Simeoe but is quite prepared to allow me to build wharfs in his riding. But I cannot build wharfs every where at once. If, however, he is right in his claim, no doubt the day will come when his wishes will be gratified.


Mr. POPE.: This is simply another evidence of the waste of public money on small docks instead of concentrating the expenditure on .some important public work. The hon. minister delivered a little stump speech a few moments ago with regard to the farmers and small producers in this country. But If he is taking a deep interest in the transportation of agricultural products, he must know that the largest taxpayer of this country is the farmer. The farmer it is who contributes the most of this tremend-

ous expenditure. After the farmer has paid for these wharfs and harbours and subsidies to railways and bridges, every hundred pounds of grain grown in Canada going out to Liverpool or any other port of Europe cost from 2 to 8 cents more than grain transported over the same Canadian route <but grown in the United States. If the hon. gentleman wants to do something for the farmers, he will remove that handicap, and In that way confer a greater benefit on the agricultural community than by building little wharfs here and there. I care not in what province.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite share the views expressed by my hon. friend. We are putting forth our best endeavour to have cheap rates.


Rufus Henry Pope: What are you doing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let my lion. * friend look at the estimates, and he will find that we are doing a great deal. We are dredging the St. Lawrence, widening and deepening the channel; we are equipping the port of Montreal, and Port Colborne and Parry Sound. The hon. gentleman follows public affairs and should not ask what we are doing. We cannot do everything at once. The Minister of Marine has asked for a large amount in order to provide better buoys in Sydney. Perhaps we are not doing everything that could be done, but we have to be careful although we are enjoying a buoyant revenue. On reflection, I think my hon. frend will admit that we are doing a good deal.


Rufus Henry Pope: I recognize what the hon. gentleman says and he knows full well that I am not at all opposing the expenditures, even though they be large.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know.


Rufus Henry Pope: But after we have made those expenditures, our people should realize as much benefit from them as do foreigners. I am here to state that if the hon. gentleman chooses to investigate, he will find that American grain loaded at Midland or any other port, brought to Port 'Colborne or any other port, and transported from Canada via Montreal, Quebec in the summer or from the United States via Boston or Portland in the winter, pays 7 cents less per 100 pounds than does Canadian grain.
That is the point I object to. If you deepen Port Colborne or deepen the channel of the St. Lawrence till doomsday, unless you regulate the freight rates, you will never do justice to the small producer in Canada. For, remember, this grain from the United States goes over precisely the same route, and is even shipped from Montreal under similar conditions. It is carried at these low rates by railway companies Mr. POPE.
and other organizations that have been subsidized with the public money of Canada. This is a handicap, an embargo upon the farmers of this country. And it is not right for this government or any other government to appeal to the farmers, saying : Give us money, because it is for you we are doing all this, for you the small producer. Why, the small producer is paying twice, first for the channel and the improvements that the hon. gentleman wishes to make, and then for the extraordinary freights he has to pay on every car-load that is exported from the country.


An hon. MEMBER.: And the Yankee pays nothing.


Rufus Henry Pope: The Yankee pays nothing ? You bet he jrnys nothing. But, he gets the benefits. In fact, this is an inducement to them to grow grain in the United States. It is time the ministry and the House took hold of this question. There is no doubt about the figures I have given, for I have them from the best authority. But, I have no right to any information that the ministry does not possess. If these are the facts, the matter is worthy of attention. We have heard of a railway commission to investigate matters. I was in hopes that something might be done. But, I find, as we are getting to the tail end of this session, that we have to congratulate ourselves on accomplishing only one thing, and that is, increasing our salaries.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) perhaps might have advised our predecessors on this very important question. I would like to ask him if he is in a position to offer an opinion as to the means to be taken to remedy the state of affairs to which he has just alluded. It may be that the Grand Trunk Railway are discriminating in favour of grain carried by Portland. That is a question to which we must give consideration. But, the government is not responsible for that state of affairs. We are taking the means to bring back the Grand Trunk Railway to the port of Montreal by equipping that port as it should be equipped, by deepening and widening the St. Lawrence route, and by making it safe. We cannot do more than that now. As to the transportation commission-I would not speak of a railway commission-speaking, not as a menfber of the government, I take this opportunity of saying, that on many occasions, many and many and many occasions. I find myself incompetent to deal with the important problems that are brought before me. I give them as much attention as I can. Those of my hon. friends on the other side that have been ministers know that our days, and a part of our nights, are taken up with questions of detail which forbid us applying our best attention to which men of the highest ability should give their attention.

Nobody would be more highly pleased than I if the government of the country, be it Liberal or Conservative, were in a position to receive advice from men who would have no political purposes to serve, but who would have only the interests of the country in view. I have been a minister for five years. And I have learned a good deal in that time. But, I have learned that a minister, however well he may mean, whatever his intentions may be, is obliged to consider political exigencies. The affairs of this country are conducted on party lines, but, over and above party lines, there are problems of transportation that a commission could help up to solve, and to solve in a way to advance the best interests of Canada.


Mr. BOYD.: As this question has drifted somewhat from the point that you have brought before the committee, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be permitted, seeing that the hon. minister has asked for advice


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: I think I must rule this debate out of order, if it is going to drift to a general consideration of the transportation question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to going on.


Nathaniel Boyd: The minister has asked for advice. Coming, as I do, from a portion of the Dominion where, possibly, we are more interested in that question than are the people in any other part of the country, I may say that, in my opinion, there is one point that has been lost sight of in this House to a great extent


Thomas Barnard Flint: I think I must call my hon. friend to order. The question before the House is, that of the repairs to this wharf.


Nathaniel Boyd: But, I was only answering the minister, who said he wanted advice.


The. MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) will have an opportunity later on.
Wendover-Wharf, $6,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is Wendover ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is in the riding of Prescott, on the Ottawa river.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the purpose of this dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Just the same as I have stated in the other cases. This is to give accommodation to a large population.


William Humphrey Bennett: Fishermen, this time, or farmers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A large farming population.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am sorry that the remarks from this side seem to have lost their effect. When this question was up before, we had a convert on the other side, an able assistant in protesting against these expenditures, in the person of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton). I am afraid he is lost to us. There seems to have been much in the argument that this is for the farmer and the fishermen, for he is one of the following of the government applauding this building of docks in unknown and unfrequented places.
Presqu'ile-Purchase of wharf and repair, $5,000.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Where is this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work has been applied for by both political parties. I have a petition signed by hundreds of Liberals and Conservatives, including the president of the Liberal-Conservative association.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I did not ask that. I simply asked where this wharf is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am always anxious to give information, but I cannot give it all at one stroke. This is situated at Owen Sound Bay, in a very fine location. The appropriation has been applied for by hundreds of Liberals and Conservatives. I have here the petition which I am prepared to lay on the Table of the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: As $5,000 is being asked for the purchase of the dock, I would ask who is the vendor, and who has appraised the dock as worth $5,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The name I have in my notes as the vendor is John Mackenzie. The property has not been bought yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: But it is to be bought ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has to be bought. I am just asking parliament permission to buy this property, following the example that has been set for me by my predecessors on many occasions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much for the purchase, and how much for repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not made a bargain yet. I will try to buy as cheaply as I can, but I will not bind myself to any price.


Mr. HORSEY.: I may be able to throw a little light on this matter. In 1899 the township councils of Keppel and Sarawak, which adjoin this dock, petitioned the gov-

eminent to take it over, for the reason that the present proprietors of the dock were not in a position financially to do such repairs as were necessary if the dock were to be of any further use to the community. Following* up the petition of the two councils, a personal petition was passed round the neighbourhoods which this dock serves, and was signed by everybody in that community. It was signed, I think, by every prominent citizen of Owen Sound, including the present local member for the constituency, and including my political opponent at the last election, as well as myself So that so far as the proposition at present before the committee is concerned, there is no political aspect in it whatever, I think. The purpose which the dock serves is simply this :	It is situated some nine and
a half miles north of the town of Owen Sound, on the western side of Owen Sound harbour. If there were no dock there it would be necessary for the farming communities of those townships to bring their produce, such as their grain, fruit, pressed hay, as well as their cattle, into Owen Sound, necessitating a drive in the case of the cattle of some nine or ten miles. I am not here to say there is much traffic over this dock ; for the past few years there has been practically no traffic whatever, for the reason that the dock itself has not been in such a condition as to allow traffic being carried on over it. Seeing that the dock was going into disrepair, and the present owners of the dock were unable to make the necessary repairs, the question arose whether it was better that the government should take over that dock, or should appropriate a certain amount of money for the repair of a private dock. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to take the stand that it is better the government should take over the dock. I may say that the dock was built in 1863 by the present owner, that it was held as a private dock from that day to this, that no fees or charges whatever from that day to the present time have been made on the people of the community for the use of that dock. As I say, the purchase of that dock is approved by the whole community.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is he asking for the dock now ?


Edward Henry Horsey: He is asking $4,000. There have been statements sent in as to the condition of the dock by men who understand that. The portion that is above water, as well as the storehouses, have gone out of repair. But $1,000, I believe, will put the dock in first-class condition.


William Humphrey Bennett: From the facts stated by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Horsey) it would seem that some parties away back in the sixties constructed a dock, and no doubt they constructed it as Mr. HORSEY.
an investment, and from that time up to the present, the hon. gentleman says, they have not been able to make any money out of it.


Edward Henry Horsey: They never charged anything, I said. I did not say they never made any money out of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Every man knows that, go where you will, wherever you find private docks, in Toronto, or Midland, or anywhere else, a private party owns the dock, and those who wish to use that dock, carrying produce over it in wagons, are forced, as they should be, to pay a fair remuneration to the owner. Now, what is the case here ? Here is a gentleman, Mr. Mackenzie, not able to make anything out of his dock, and he is unloading it on the government for the price of $4,000. Why, it is easy to understand that the townships won't buy the dock because it is not a good investment, and I will be bound to say that had the townships bought the dock, they would have come in for the strongest censure from the people. The people see that public money is given by thousands for docks from one end of the country to the other, and It is the easiest possible thing to get up a requisition signed by everybody asking the government to pay for this dock. No wonder Mr. Mackenzie could get the signatures he obtained. I have no doubt he pointed to that famous case at Hilton where a party sold a dock for $5,000 to this department that did not cost him $500. That is a notorious fact all through the district of Algoma. And here we have this largely signed petition. I notice one thing about the signatures, that they are all alike, it shows that some gentleman up there wrote a good hand.


Edward Henry Horsey: That is a copy. The original is in the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend states that his political opponent signed it. Of course he would sign it, any man would be a fool who would not ask for public money when he sees it being thrown around by the handful, and which the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) the other night denounced. No wonder everybody in the neighbourhood says. When the money is going we might as well have a piece of it. The minister cannot defend this. He is going out of his way. I will be bound to say that Mr. Mackenzie is a political friend of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know him.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, the hon. member for North Grey knows him.


Edward Henry Horsey: I do not know that he is any the worse for that, Mr. Chairman.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am bound to say that If he was not a political friend, there would be no job and no proposition to buy his dock for $4,000. The whole country understands it. The minister says, Come along boys, all you who are political supporters of this government ; if you have not got a new dock to sell, then sell an old one. There is not an hon. gentleman on that side of the House who will rise in his place and denounce these jobs. The hon. member for Kingston had the temerity to do it the other night, but the lecture read to him by the Minister of Public Works was too much for him, and he has not opened his mouth since on this matter.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman should have approached this question from a different direction. We are supplying wharfs to the farming, fishing and industrial communities, we are simply helping trade in this country, which is developing by leaps and bounds. The hon. gentleman finds fault with us. Well, I never was able to please him, and I really despair of being able to do so.


David Henderson: The disclosures this afternoon are rather a surprise to me. It apiiears that the government is adopting the policy of buying private docks in small harbours throughout the country. I remember well a few years ago, during the regime of the late government, it was thought desirable to have an old wharf improved and some dredging done in what was called a private harbour, because it belonged to one individual. The government of the day, however, replied that it could expend no money in such a case, that it could not expend money on a private harbour. In order to get an -appropriation of public money, the municipal council of the township went to the expense of purchasing this harbour to put themselves in a position to ask the government for a grant on the ground that it was public property. Now, I think it will be a surprise to my Liberal friends in the county of Halton, who went to the expense of purchasing this dock and this harbour, to find that in other counties friends of the government are more highly favoured, that their old docks are not only improved, but actually bought by the government. If the municipality of Trafalgar had known what the policy of the government was to be, they never would have gone to the expense of purchasing this old dock at Bronte on which the hon. minister is spending about $17,000, and with that I am finding no fault. I am very glad that I am to have a slice of these large expenditures in my own county.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) applied for this expenditure himself when his friends were in office.


David Henderson: Most assuredly, and I am telling the hon. gentleman the reason why I could not get it. I could not get it because it was not public property. It was owned by a private individual, and I told the people of the county that a grant could not be obtained because the government had not adopted the policy of granting money to improve private property.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman applied anyway.


David Henderson: Friends of hon. gentlemen opposite took the matter up, and in order to make it a public property the municipal council acquired the property and then made an application. They were more successful than I was, on account of the greater liberality of the government. But, it will be rather a disappointment to these gentle-ment who have spent their own money in acquiring a private wharf, when they find that this government are not only improving private property of the same character as that wharf, but that they are actually buying it up and then improving it. I believe that the friends in my county have not been fairly dealt with.


William Humphrey Bennett: I stated a while ago that I understood fairly well why these people were asking the hon. minister to shoulder the expense of a wharf and to take it over from Mackenzie. On the very petition itself the reason appears for it and it is this :
Your government in 1896 purchased Marksville dock from Elizabeth Duncan for $5,000; see Public Accounts, page 2, 157.
There is the reason assigned; it was because another party had been able to get $5,000 for a dock which it was a matter of notoriety in that neighbourhood was not worth one-half. It is refreshing to see the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce sit there in silent acquiescence with what is being done. There is not an hon. member on the other side of the House who will stand up and protest against these wharfs being bought with public money in order to provide for needy party friends. If so, so mote it be. Such things as these were quoted in North Bruce, and it is no wonder that the candidate of hon. gentlemen opposite was defeated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: North Bruce comes a little too often. The fight is over and my hon. friend has carried it. To speak seriously, I may say that wharfs were erected by private parties years ago and many of these works have gone into decay. It is necessary to have a wharf at this place. The requirements of trade demand it. Now, the government has to do one of two things, either buy the old property or build a new wharf. We are confronted with that state of affairs especially in Ontario, as I stated to the House last evening. A lot of works have
.5755

been erected in Ontario and they could not be kept up. The government have to decide whether they will construct new works or take over these old ones and repair them. My hon. friends always impute sinister motives. They say that we must please this friend or that. Of course, we are not here to displease our friends. We would be great fools indeed if we used our best endeavours to displease our friends. But when a question of this kind comes up it seems to me that it should be judged on its .jown merits.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Here is the question : Is it useful for the farming community to have a dock at this point ? I would say yes. Now the question is :	How much are we going to pay
for that property ? I stand here pledged to no price. If the gentleman asks too much I won't buy his property; that is all.


Mr. BRITTON.: I stand by the view that I held at first in reference to this matter, and while I hold that view I do not charge that the hon. Minister of Public Works now is doing any differently from what has been done by other ministers in other parliaments all along the line, and therefore, what is the use of doing any more than simply . stating one's opinion in a matter of this kind ? I think it was a mistake that this private wharf was taken over by the government. It seems to me that while we all admit farmers need facilities for getting their produce to market, that they need good roads and need river transport, no government ought to be such a paternal gov. ernment that it would take charge of the private affairs of individuals and regulate them in that way. I think it is a mistake that the government has taken over private wharfs and maintained them at the public expense. I am not talking of one part of the Dominion any more than another, because I find that there has been a great deal of expenditure in Ontario in this direction. It seems to me to be a very difficult thing to stop it. Personally, I cannot see any reason why, when an individual builds a whai-f and it does not pay, that he should appeal to the government to take it off his hands and that it should be taken off his hands. In some cases it has been done, and I suppose will be done again, and all we can do about it is to enter one's protest. But I do not think it is fair, that being the state of affairs, to attempt to make political capital out of it.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) state the cases that he refers to in which the late government purchased wharfs ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not know any case in which they purchased wharfs, but I ; know cases in which they built them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


John Graham Haggart: Where ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a list of them.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I might refer to a case that I know of, but the hon. Minister of Public Works has a list of them.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman stated that he knew of lots of similar cases in Ontario.


Byron Moffatt Britton: If I said that I only said what has been stated.


John Graham Haggart: 1 would ask the hon. gentleman to give a single case.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I will give a case. A wharf was built at the public expense in the village of Portsmouth near Kingston. This was under my own eyes, and that wharf has been maintained at public expense. Last year there was a sum in the estimates for repair. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said, in reply to me, that at the time that wharf was built there was no penitentiary dock. I found out since that he was altogether mistaken in that. There was a penitentiary dock, and the wharf I mentioned has no connection with the penitentiary at all. It was built at the Portsmouth landing. There is a bay between the penitentiary and this wharf, which is built on the opposite side of that little bay. There is a government wharf that has been maintained at the public expense. Then, you may call it a lecture, it was rather a sharp rebuke that I got from the hon. Minister of Public Works, but as he had the facts on his side, perhaps he was quite right in saying what he did, and as he said it to me. I believe the fact to be so, that there were under former governments expenditures of this kind on new docks and for the purchase of docks from private owners which were maintained at the public expense or built at the public expense, and which have to be maintained. I think this was a mistake and I think it is a mistake to continue it, but I think it is unfair to the hon. Minister of Public Works to try to make political capital out of this when we find in the estimates such as we have here such large appropriations into* which, it does not seem, any polities enter at all. Even in a place so Conservative as Toronto when they are receiving consideration at the hands of the government, the members for that city attack the minister and try to make political capital out of it. It seems to me that it is carrying politics too far.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I differ altogether from what my hon. friend (Mr. Britton) has just said. I have not consented to buy wharfs because my predecessors did so. I was not actuated by any motive of that kind. Here is a place where a wharf is required for the farming and fishing community, and I will either have to buy the old wharf there or build a
*5757

new one. Where is the harm of buying the *old one if it costs less ? I don't see why I should apologize for carrying on a simple transaction. There is no use in apologizing ; apology is a bad business.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) object to the members from Toronto criticising the action of the government in regard to the meagreness -of the appropriation made for Toronto harbour ? We are not asking the government to buy any private wharfs. We are asking -the government to make the harbour of Toronto suitable to accommodate the trade of the port. We are not asking for any favours. We are asking for our right. Does the member for Kingston think that we would be discharging our duty if we did not demand for the harbour of Toronto what it is entitled to receive ? Does the member for Kingston object to fair criticism ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not object to fair -criticism, but I believe the member for East Toronto blamed the government for something in connection with Toronto harbour, because that city was on the opposite side of politics.


Nathaniel Boyd: I rise to a point of order. You are allowing these members to wan'd er from the subject, and you called me to order.


Thomas Barnard Flint: Your point of order is well taken. The item is carried.
Harwood-Wharf on Rice lake, $500.
_ Mr. BENNETT. Where is Rice lake, and is this wharf for fishermen or for farmers or for duck shooting ?


Mr. McCOLL.: Harwood and Robin's Landing are on the north shore of Rice lake which forms a part of the Trent valley system. The canal is completed east of Rice *lake as far as the village of Hastings-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


John B. McColl: All right, let it be carried.
Penetanguishene-Dredging, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is it intended to -do the dredging at Penetanguishene ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two different plans have been submitted.


William Humphrey Bennett: This cannot be according to the plan which was announced just before the elections, because that would cost $75,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, I do not know anything about that at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works early in the session said that he would put an item in the supplementary
estimates to do some dredging at Thoru-bury harbour, or, that he might be able to take it out of the general vote for dredging. Has that escaped the attention of the minister ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not like to make any promises that I am not sure to carry out. The trouble is that we have no dredge available.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the minister gave me the promise.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will visit Meaford to see the works there, and if there is only a few days' dredging to be done we might be able to divert a dredge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the municipality made application last fall.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer does not remember it, but when I go to Meaford I will get information about it, and if it is only a few days' work I will do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Thanks.
Dredging, $350,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained this matter. We are just beginning to build a new dredge in the government yard at Sorel. We are going to train Canadian skilled men to do that work. We have already built successfully several dredges, and the one we are now building will, I hope, be a credit to Canada. The dredge is being built not only under the direction of my own oflicers, but also under the direction of a very able Canadian engineer who has made his mark on the other side of the line-Mr. Robertson. After having served for several years in Montreal, he went to the United States, where he has built about 120 dredges.
Public Works-Temporary clerical and other assistance, inclusive of services of all persons required who were first employed after July 1, 1882, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $11,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the reason of that-' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The reason is that we cannot pay for temporary employees a higher salary than $400. and, as my hon. friend knows, we cannot get skilled men for that amount of money.


John Graham Haggart: But they all ought to pass the civil service examination unless they have some techniacl qualifiation ; and in that case the technical qualification should be mentioned and the vote taken separately. Here is a lump sum of $11,000, which will employ about twenty-five clerks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: )The same thing has been going on in my department for twenty years. The work

has increased so much that I cannot possibly carry it on with the same number of employees.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There are three items here together. The first is $11,000 for temporary, clerical and other assistance. Then there is $9,500 for salaries of the architects, draughtsmen and clerks in the chief architect's oflice. Then, in the chief engineer's office, there are the salaries of the engineers, draughtsmen and clerks, $9,500, making a total of $30,000, in addition to the main vote. That would mean fifty additional clerks, at an average salary of $600 each. What are the appropriations already for these three departments ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Who is the chief engineer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Lafleur. He has not yet been permanently appointed chief engineer, as I like to try a man before entrusting him with a responsible position. When Mr. Coste resigned, Mr, Lafleur was next to him, and was appointed acting chief engineer. I began by increasing his salary, and increased it again a few months ago, which proves that I am satisfied with his services.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is his salary now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three thousand dollars. He is not paid enough. He is a hard working man.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is Mr. Coste to be reinstated ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he is following his private avocations now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do these two items of $9,500 each represent the new temporary employees ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, No, there are some increases of salary. Mr. Routhier, the assistant architect, has had his salary increased by $500. Those men are often obliged to work at night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be better to give reasonable salaries at once instead of increasing them every year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not know these officers when I took office, as I do now. When you have appreciated a man and know his work and give him an increase of salary, you encourage him. Mr. Routhier is a relatively young
man,	sober, active and trustworthy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me improvident to make these men depend upon a yearly vote for the remuneration of their services. Would it not be better to fix their salaries instead of leaving them doubtful every year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as the heads of departments are concerned, it would be better to provide a large salary. The fixed salary of the chief engineer is $3,200. Mr. Lafleur only receives $3,000, although doing good work. He is
able,	sober, active and always ready. I am afraid he is not paid enough. My views may not be shared by everybody, but I feel that the good men are not paid as they ought to be. My hon. friend knows that in Montreal we could not get a first-class engineer for that amount of money.


John Graham Haggart: None of these are on the superannuation list ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: That has been the practice of all governments in Canada-to pay the men engaged on this 'scientific branch pretty fair wages, but without superannuation, and with the understanding that they are liable to dismissal at any time. It was thought that in that way we could get the most efficient people.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Has the minister had time to consider the case of Mr. Johnston, the military college engineer who died ? I see that no provision is made here for a gratuity. Also, has he had time to consider the case of the architect, Mr. New-Iands, to which I called attention some days ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I regret to be obliged to say that I have not yet had time to consider these cases,

bnt they will be taken *Up as soon as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under these two items, does the hon. minister employ extra or temporary officers, and where does he get them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Temporary, In a way. Most of them are professional men-architects, engineers or draughtsmen. By the way, if I could find some good draughtsmen, I should be glad.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Would you employ a Tory ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Chief Engineer's Office-Salaries of draughtsmen and clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $9,500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister was going to give us an explanation about this office. What amount was in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the main estimates there was an amount of $49,000, covering the salaries of resident engineers all over Canada.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the statement presented in the estimates is a very misleading one. It does not show that under these three heads of temporary assistants, chief architect's office and chief engineer's office, there are increases of salaries, wholesale increases. So, of course, we have no means of judging whether the increases are justifiable or not. But, one thing is clear, increases ought to follow some certain rule. In the main estimates, the amount voted for temporary clerical and other assistance was $25,000. and here, under these estimates, we have an additional amount of $11,000, making a total of $30,000. For the chief architect's office, the amount in the main estimates was $22,700, and now we have an addition of $9,500, or a total of $32,200. For the chief engineer's office, we voted, in the main estimates, $49,000, and here is an increase of $9,500, making a total of $58,500. That is to say, for the temporary assistance, engineering staff and architect's staff, we are voting a total of $126,700. For these three services we voted in the main estimates $96,000, and now we are adding over $30,000. This is on a par with the extravagant and wasteful expenditure of the government in every department of the public service. For clerical engineering and architect's staff, last year, we voted salaries of $96,700, which we may safely assume was a large increase over former years. And now we are adding over $30,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I ask my hon. friend to judge my department fairly; I hope he means to do so. When I took office, the expenditure under my de-181
partment-in 1896-reached only $1,600,000. For one reason or another, the department has been starved, to a very large extent. This year the budget in my department is $6,700,000, both capital and income. How could the heads of these offices be expected or asked to carry out their much heavier work with the staff they had four or five years ago ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If a public building is being erected and an inspector is sent to it- I take it that the inspector's salary is taken from the appropriation for the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not always.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think always. It is not included in the items we are voting here to-day ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Take, for instance, Mr. Routhier, who is assistant architect-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister does not understand me. I am speaking of an inspector who is to be on the ground inspecting a public building. Say, for instance, we are putting up a public building at Toronto Junction-though, I may say, I have no great expectations of it, and still less anxiety-the inspector there would be paid out of the appropriation for the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then, he is not paid out of this amount ? The plans are made out here, and these plans are charged against the building also ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, against this appropriation.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: In every instance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I understood that some of these expenses were charged against the works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may have happened, on very rare occasions, that an outside architect has been employed, but, as a rule, the cost of preparing the plans for a public building comes out of this appropriation.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who has more practical knowledge of the working of the construction departments, says that very often that is done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not in my department.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very rarely.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps not lately, but often It has been done. The bon. gentleman will remember the celebrated case of the Prince Edward Island wharfs where even two or three pistols were charged to the construction of the wharf, and the expenses of the party going down there, and there was no wharf built at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My deputy minister informs me that we had not those appropriations then. To-day the rule is that the plant is prepared and [DOT]charged against the appropriation.
Public Buildings-Rents, repairs, lighting, water service, janitors, watchmen, charwomen, Ac., Yukon public buildings, $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How much has ~been voted in the main estimates in addition to these for Yukon public buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the main estimates we had an amount of $75,000, and now we are asking for $100,000. The buildings to be erected are these : Completion of the court-house, estimated to cost $45,000, with a deduction of $5,000 expended during the current year. We intend erecting an administration building which we estimate will cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000. We intend also erecting a residence for the commissioner, $25,000. Now we have $10,000 for the architects' salaries, superintendence, &c.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How much are the architect's fees ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The architect is Mr. Fuller, son of the late chief architect, whom I found employed in the department when I took office. He has been entrusted with the duty of carrying on the Yukon works.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is his salary paid out of this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is contrary to what the minister told us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When he was employed here he was paid out of this appropriation, and now that he is employed there he is also paid out of this appropriation.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister said the inspector's salary was taken out of the appropriation for the work, but the salaries for the engineers and architects were taken out of this appropriation of $126,000. Now we find this man is paid out of another appropriation altogether, the appropriation for the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a special case.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How special from any other case ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER. OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All those who are employed here in the Department of Public Works are paid out of the appropriations that we have voted.
Harbours and Rivers-Lewes and Yukon river improvements, including additional allowance of $1,100 per annum to superintending engineer, J. C. TachS, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $15,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the engineer getting now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is getting $1,700 as a regular salary, and we are giving him $1,100 extra on account of the work he is doing there. He is a permanent officer.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When an officer goes away all his expenses are paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You are increasing his salary by 60 per cent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that is a fair increase, all the departments have done the same thing. There is a lot of extra expense, that cannot be charged against the government, that these men are obliged to make in the Yukon. Living is very high there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But all his expenses are paid.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not all. His board and lodging are paid, but not his clothing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You even paid the overcoats of some of the men sent to the Yukon.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some of the men got their rough clothing paid for by the government, but not their ordinary clothing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Clothing is as cheap out there as anywhere else.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not in the Yukon.
Amount required for trails, roads and bridges, Yukon territory, $70,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be necessary to make a statement, not at very great length, but still at some length to have the matter thoroughly understood. The total amount voted by parliament is as follows : In 1899-1900, $175,000, and in 1900-1901, $50,000, making a total of $225,000. In the main estimates passed in committee this year, there is a further sum of $40,000 for the next fiscal year. These amounts have been disposed of as follows : In the summer of 1899, Mr. McCarthur, an old surveyor employed in the Department of the Interior was despatched to the Yukon on the recommendation of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) for the purpose

of improving the winter road between Bennett and Dawson. He spent on that work $17,750. He started his work from a point at the foot of Lake LeBarge touching the Nordenskiold river at some point a little below Five Finger Rapids. During the same year the Department of the Interior informed the Department of Public Works that Mr. Ogilvie had expended in making the roads in the Klondike district, in the vicinity of Dawson, $90,000, and they asked us that the sum be defrayed out of tne appropriation of $175,000 that has been voted by parliament. This was agreed to, but the accounts were not in proper shape at the end of the fiscal year so that only $70,000 of the $96,000 could be paid out of the appropriation. In 1900, while I was away, but 1 quite approve of the decision taken then, it was decided to place an engineer of the Department of Public Works in charge of the road-making, and Mr. Tache was sent out there. Out of the appropriation he spent $15,000, so that the total amount expended out of the sum voted for the year 1899-1900 was as follows : Expenditure of Mr. Me-Carthur, $17,750 ; expenditure of the Department of the Interior, $70,000 ; expenditure of Mr. TachC, $15,000. In other words, the total expenditure was $102,750. The sum of $72,250 lapsed, because the accounts, as I said, were not in shape at the end of the fiscal year. For the year 1900-1901, $50,000 was voted with an expenditure up to date of $32,000, leaving a balance of $18,000 which will be spent up to the 30th of June, making then a total expenditure of $70,000 by the Department of the Interior ; $64,750 by the Department of Public Works, or a grand total of $134,750. For this year the Department of Public Works are asking $40,000 in the main estimates and $70,000 in the supplementary estimates. The Department of the Interior have sent us an account of the expenditure made by Mr. Ogilvie amounting to a little over $94,000, that sum being made up of $26,000 of expenditure made in 1899-1900, the accounts for which could not be put in shape for the end of the fiscal year, and about $68,000 for the actual expenditure made during the last year by Mr. Ogilvie without reference to any authority of the Public Works Department. In other words, the Local Council spent $68,000 in the way I have just stated, placing us under the obligation of asking $80,000 to reimburse the Local Council for the money they have advanced and of asking for $110,000 to be spent under the direction of the Department of Public Works on the following roads. Perhaps those of my hon. friends who take an interest in the Yukon would like to look at a map of the roads which have been built in the past and of the roads that are to be built. The roads that have been built in the past are represented by the plain lines. The roads that are to be built with the $110,000 that I am asking are represented by the 1811
dotted lines. I may say that the roads proposed to be built have been approved by Mr. Tache and Mr. Girouard, an employee of the Local Council. The roads proposed to be built are the following :
From Dawson to Hunker, about 8 miles.
From Hunker to Summit, about 20 miles.
From Summit to Dominion Creek, about 4 miles.
From Dominion Creek up to 75 below Lower Discovery, 10 miles.
On Last Chance Creek, 5 miles.
From 30 Eldorado to Quartz Creek, 8 miles.
On Quartz Creek, 6 miles.
On Sulphur Creek, 10 miles.
From Gold Run to Clear Creek, 39 miles.
Along Bonanza from Grand Forks to Ridge road, 12 miles.
Making a total of 122 miles. All these roads have been approved by Mr. Girouard who discussed the question with the Department of Public Works, and by Mr. Tache, the engineer of the Public Works Department there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: After the lucid explanation which the hon. minister has given, which I am sure not a single member of this House could follow intelligently to ascertain how the amounts are accounted for, I suppose we will have to vote this sum, but it looks to me like voting $164,000' without a knowledge of what it is for. How much of this amount will be expended upon these roads ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asking this year $110,000 for 122 miles of road. This time I will know where the money will go. I have wired the new commissioner, Mr. Ross, that the Department of Public Works or the government will not stand one cent of expenditure that will not be authorized first. I do not want to recriminate or blame anybody, but I am obliged to ask parliament this year for $80,000 for roads over which the Department of Public Works had no control. They simply made the roads and the accounts came in and we had to pay them. That will not happen again. I wired the new commissioner that I will not ask parliament to vote a dollar for roads that have not been built under the control of the department.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister knew nothing about the $80,000 until it was spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not know a word about it. The council presided over by Mr. Ogilvie built the roads, and we had to pay.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is the way our money goes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the roads are built all right, but all the same It must not occur again.
57G7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would ask that the Item would he amended by charging these items to capital account instead of to income, under the rule and practice that the opening of trails and roads and bridges are charged to capital.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
St. Maurice District-Working expenses, $13,500.
Byron Moffatt Britton: What is the revenue from the slides in the St. Maurice district ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year the revenue was $30,000, and it is increasing from year to year, as the trade increases.
Ottawa-Construction of astronomical observatory, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of the Interior is most anxious to have this most necessary improvement, and he has asked me to put an amount in my estimates.
Mr. oPROULE. Where are you going to put the observatory ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe the Minister of the Interior intends to put it on Nepean Point, but nothing has been decided yet.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a question about Nepean Point, as there may be vibrations by the trains passing there. The Minister of the Interior may have to select another location.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
For steamship services during the year 1901 between Quebec and Blanc Sablon, calling at ports and places along the north shore of the St. Lawrence between such terminals, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is for the purpose of giving three trips per month along the north shore of the St. Lawrence, extending from Quebec to near Belle Isle. It is a very long distance and serves a very large number of small places. It will not cost exactly this amount, because the Post Office Department will effect a saving in the carriage of the malls.
Additional for steam service during the year 1901 between St. Stephen, N.B., St. Croix River points, Deer Island, Campobello and Inner Islands, Passamaquoddy Bay, L'Etete and Black Bay, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The Post Office Department pays this amount, but objection has been taken to the two departments paying for the service.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In estimating the expenditure of the Post Office Department, how do you do with the subsidies to mail steamers ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are charged as separate votes. The reason for that is that in a great many cases, although the mails are bound to be carried, the mail subsidy is to a great extent a subsidy for freight service for the purpose of encouraging general communication. In this case the Post Office saves, and this department will have to pay the whole service.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the minister if the large subsidy for carryiug the mails to Great Britain is charged to the Post Office Department ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It has never been charged to the mail service. Of course, while it is desirable, and has always been held iso by both parties for a long time, to maintain a mail service from Canadian ports to Great Britain, the great bulk of our mail from the very necessity of the case, goes by New York and other American ports, from which there is an almost daily service, and a faster service than ours, and we cannot refuse to our merchants the right of communicating by that. The consequence is that only an insignificant portion of the Canadian mail matter goes by our weekly service. It is perhaps a service which should be charged against the Post Office Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are none of these mail subsidies and steamship subventions charg-able against the Post Office Department ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: None; but the Post Office Department in some cases pays an extra sum.
Steam service between Sydney, C.B., and Bay St. Lawrence, and calling at way ports, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a new service called for by the increased development of Sydney. The local government gives a considerably larger subsidy-about $3,000.
Direct fortnightly steam service between Montreal, Quebec and Manchester, Eng., during the summer season, and between St. John, Halifax and Manchester during the winter season. Provided that if service cannot be obtained on the terms of this vote, the Governor in Council may make any change of details without exceeding amount appropriated, $35,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the government been doing anything lately towards securing a fast Atlantic service, or has that matter dropped out of their category of business ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, it has not by any means; but, as the hon. gentleman knows, times have been very unpropitious until now for entering into any new contracts. The cost of building steamships during the last two or three years has increased so much as to be almost prohibitory; but the subject is engaging our attention, and at the present time some negotiations are going on upon the subject, though they are not in a state to enable me to make any positive statement to the House. I may mention one thing; that is, that the enormous increase in the cost of coal is a very serious consideration in the estimate of cost for this service. I am not quite certain how much it amounts to, but certainly the cost of coal is now 50 per cent or 60 per cent more than it was three or four years ago; and in the case of vessels expecting to traverse the ocean at any great speed, that is an enormous factor in the possible cost of a voyage. However, the subject has been by no manner of means abandoned, and it may be, though I cannot venture to say positively, that in the course of the next two or three months we shall be in a position to obtain some reasonable offers. The House is aware that the concurrence of the British government is necessary on this subject, that is, if we are to obtain the benefit of the offer which was at one time made to us, and we are at the present moment negotiating with them on the subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope the hon. gentleman will see toy this time the mistake this government made in cancelling the contract which was entered into by their predecessors. I have no doubt that they have seen it many times since; but I think a good many people will agree that we are losing ground every season that we are without a faster and better trans-Atlantic service. It seems to me that the trade is going by the United States, and we are making that country a thoroughfare for both passengers and products from this country; and I think
we cannot avail ourselves a moment too soon of any opportunity we can have of getting both a faster and a better Atlantic service than we have at the present time.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I may remind my hon. friend that the contract to which he refers was anything but a fair contract. The Allans never made an offer which satisfied us. That matter has been discussed a great many times in the House; but I must protest against it being supposed that the offer was to be considered a fair offer.


William Findlay Maclean: I believe we shall never have a satisfactory fast Atlantic service until we build our own steamships. I believe we could build at a comparatively small cost two fast steamers which would be sufficient for a beginning. They do not so much need to be very large as they do to be modern and up-to-date. I believe there are men who would go into such a proposition. I believe there are men in Halifax and in Cape Breton who are considering it, and the sooner we start doing our own ship-building in this country the better for ourselves. As to the dearer coal, that is due to the enormous combine which has sprung up in the United States, and which has taken possession of the railways and some of the Atlantic liners, and are controlling the coal fields of the United States. It is also said that they are controlling the coal fields of Canada and dictating the price at which they will sell the coal. To fight that combine this country will have to build its own steamships and perhaps own its own coal fields.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: and experienced artisans, and it would take some considerable time before the plant could be put in such a position that a tender could be made. I do not desire to throw cold water on any proposition for constructing steamships of the largest capacity and best description on this side, if it can be done, and there is reasonable ground for the hope that the works now being started at Sydney will ultimately be so developed as to bring this within the range of reasonable probability.


William Findlay Maclean: If the hon. minister would let it be known in England that the Canadian government is prepared to negotiate with any large shipbuilding firm from the Clyde, Tyneside, or Belfast, and give reasonable encouragement, it is very probable that one of these large firms would transfer a portion of its establishment to Canada, and be able to build this class of steamships in a very short time.
We have given protection to steel plates, and I believe that we will be manufacturing plates at several places in Canada, and now is the time to advertise that we are prepared to offer inducements to some great shipbuilding enterprise to transfer its works from the old country to Canada. I believe that such an announcement ought to be made and that some kind of a response would come which would end in Canada having, in a year or two, a first-class shipbuilding industry. We have the iron, and the coal, and the capital, and we need the ships. The only satisfactory transatlantic service that Canada will ever have will be one which will be controlled on this side of the Atlantic, and which we will be in a position to use for the development of our Canadian ports. I urge this on the ground of national policy, and because what other governments have done we can do. Germany has built up one of the largest marines in the world, although the Germans were not a shipbuilding people, and had no marine engineers. But through the protection given this industry, the German establishments are turning out the largest ships in the world. All we require is confidence in ourselves, and if we announce a policy of assisting the establishment of such an industry, I have no doubt that some of the great shipbuilding firms will take advantage of our offer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree most heartily in what the hon. gentleman has said, as to the desirability of our utilizing this great contract-if we are to make one-as an instrument in assisting the establishment of a great shipbuilding industry in this country. I have given considerable attention to that policy myself. While no formal negotiations have taken place which can be submitted to parliament, I have taken pains to see that great shipbuilding companies in the old country have been communicated with on the subject. Intimation has been given them that if any Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
one of them would approach this government with a proposal, they would find the government ready to give every possible consideration to it. I have had some conversations with gentlemen connected with very great enterprises of the kind in the old country, and while willing to consider the idea they rather estimate the difficulties in the way as more serious than my hon. friend does. People speak of the building of a steel steamer sometimes as if the great consideration was the making of the steel plate, whereas the steel plates are only a very moderate proportion of the total cost. The real difficulty is in assembling the material, especially the machinery, and also in the Importation of a large amount of skilled labour. The difficulties of that character are much greater than those connected with the production of steel plates. The latter we will overcome in a very short time. I am only too pleased to find my hon. friend taking the view Hie does of this matter. If we are to give this contract to any company, and that company is disposed, at a small advance, to undertake to build the ships in Canada, we would be disposed to give such a proposition every consideration. And I may say that while we have had no formal negotiations, the matter has not been overlooked, and a proposition of that kind may yet be submitted.


Robert Laird Borden: We should all rejoice if the building of ships out of steel in Nova Scotia and other provinces should become a great industry. The building of wooden ships was a very great industry with us, but owing to the changed conditions, that is now largely a thing of the past. Men who are familiar with steel shipbuilding tell me that the character of the work is to some extent the same, and that the artisans employed in the building of wooden ships in Nova Scotia, would be very apt men in the building of steel ships. I would regard it as rather a large undertaking to begin the business of shipbuilding in our country by the construction of steamers such as are suitable for the fast Atlantic line, but if it can be done, I hope those steamers may be built in our own country instead of on the other side.
Referring to what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few moments ago, there cannot be much doubt that if this government had persevered in the policy adopted by the late government, we would have had a fast Atlantic service before now. But, instead, this government cut off $250,000 from the annual grant, reducing the-grant from $750,000 to $500,000, and the Imperial government made a like reduction.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They made a contract for $500,000, but the grant was not reduced.


Robert Laird Borden: It really amounts to the same thing. The contract made with Petersen, Tate & Co. called for $500,000 a-

year, and the Imperial government were to give $250,000 per year. The proposal made to the Allans was $750,000 by our government, and one-half that amount by the Imperial authorities. The result of the policy of the present government was that we did not get the fast Atlantic service at all. It is somewhat amusing to look back at the debates of 1807-8, and read the assurances of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell), that the opposition should really be very much ashamed of themselves when they observed the tremendous success which had attended the efforts of this government, which was providing a splendid service at a cost of $250,000 per year less than that offered by the previous government.
He almost made us, on this side, feel ashamed of ourselves when he explained what a magnificent bargain it was, and what an assured success. And we had the same intimation from the right hon. leader of the House. And month after month, and year after year, this went on. The first boat. I think, was to have crossed the Atlantic in 1899, and all of them were to be built before the end of 1900. This is 1901, and the keels are not yet laid. More than that, the enterprise has been completely abandoned. Now, perhaps it is not of much use to talk about that-it is passed and cannot be helped. But, it may be useful for the good of my hon. friends opposite, as showing that when they depart from a policy laid down by their predecessors, they are apt to go wrong-and they certainly have gone very wrong in this case. If they had persevered in the policy of the Conservative administration, no doubt, we should have had a fast Atlantic service by this time. More than that, as suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, even If we get the fast Atlantic service now, the cost of building ships is very much increased.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is diminishing very rapidly.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that it was diminishing, but I did not know that it was diminishing very rapidly. Is it yet down to the figure at which it stood in 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I do not think so, but it may be.


Robert Laird Borden: It may get down to that. I hope it will. For, the more the price diminishes the better our prospects are. But, it seems to me that when, eventually, we do get this fast Atlantic service, the country will find it necessary to revert to the policy of the late Conservative government, which, when it was presented to this House, if my memory serves me right, was unanimously approved by parliament. I trust that the negotiations which the Minister of Trade and Commerce says are being carried on with regard to this matter will result in something satisfactory at an early day, for I believe it to be of very great importance to this country as a whole-not alone to the maritime provinces and Quebec, but to the whole Dominion-that this service should be upon a proper footing at the earliest possible moment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I say a word or two on this subject, it will not be to follow exactly the line of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I think there are questions which may, with great advantage, be discussed without bringing in particularly the political aspect of the matter. I feel that we are entirely of one opinion in this parliament-and I think the same might be said by the country at large as to the importance and desirability of pursuing a policy that will, at an early day, result in the construction of steel ships in Canada. In my own constituency, I am glad to say, the subject is arousing a great deal of active interest among men who are large owners of ships, and who have established a very successful line of ships for ordinary freight purposes, but who are prepared to devote their energies toward the organization of a company which shall take up in earnest the subject of ship-building in the maritime provinces. I know, from frequent conversation with the gentlemen who are identified with, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, that they are not anxious to aid and encourage such an enterprise as one of the branches incident to their undertaking. Some of these gentlemen have been in close communication with the parties I have indicated in the city of St. John. There are very good grounds for entertaining the hope that these people will succeed in establishing a ship-building industry in that city. The gentlemen I have indicated are, as I have said, already the owners of some ten or twelve ships which, of course, have been built on the other side of the water. But. with their knowledge of the subject, and with the feeling which exists among the people in the maritime provinces, that ship-building is an industry entirely in keeping with their instincts and training, they are confident that, with some encouragement from the government, at the outset. at all events, of the undertaking, they will be able to put such an industry upon a successful footing. My hon. friend from East York, who has espoused this matter so jealously, may rest assured that the matter is not going to escape the attention of the government. There are many who are very anxious, indeed, that energetic steps should be taken in order that it may not be many days before we may have a shipbuilding industry in this country. I think it will be a rather ambitious commencement to undertake the construction of such ships as we would hope to have arranged for in connection with the fast line from Canada. I think that a company, to be

successful, would need to start in a more modest way, and that it would be more certain to establish ultimately a prosperous business if it were so to start. I think that everybody who has thought on the subject recognized the extreme difficulty of securing the construction of the necessary machinery in Canada for some time to come. They would only hope to construct the hulls and other Incidental portions of the ship, and would look to procuring the machinery very largely in the old country. In common with my hon. friend, I hope that we may, at an early day, pride ourselves upon the establishment in Canada of such an industry as he has referred to.


William Findlay Maclean: Just another word, Mr. Chairman. While I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has said, the point is this- the empire is growing, and the thing that is manifest now is, that an industry is as valuable to the empire if it is in Canada as if it is in the mother land. Once the great capitalists of Great Britian see that they can carry on their industry in Canada as well as in the mother country, they would be willing to transfer that industry to Canada. They will bring their shops and yards here. The plates for steamers designed for the fast Atlantic service can be rolled here. For the first one or two, we may bring the engines from the old country-


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


William Findlay Maclean: Well, for a start, we might have an engine or two built there. But, if an existing ship-building firm brings its industry here, it will be able to build engines of the largest kind. There is no reason why that cannot be done. It will be done if the statement goes abroad that the parliament of Canada is prepared to encourage some large shipyard now in the old countiy to transfer its industry to this side of the Atlantic.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: I am heartily in accord with the idea that this country should have a fa'St Atlantic service. I am also in accord with the idea that this country, if it is to have a fast Atlantic service, must have that service in connection with the government system of railways. I believe that it is not too ambitious a project to undertake here the building of large steamers. In my own town of Sydney, the material for the construction of such steamers can be brought together more conveniently than in any other part of the world. And I may say that from a gentleman of Sydney, who is now in England interviewing large firms of ship-builders to induce them to come over and look at the site, I am perfectly satisfied, and every hon. gentleman who knows the situation will be Mr. BLAIR.
satisfied, that Sydney presents to ship builders opportunities which should induce some of them to remove from the old country and establish themselves there. The materials are there, and it is not at all too ambitious a project for this Dominion to entertain.
Additional for direct steam communication between Prince Edward Island and Great Britain, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The House will recollect there was a vote of $5,000 granted for this purpose. That has been found too small to secure anything like adequate steam communication, and the vote is therefore asked to be increased to $10,000. With that I think we will be able to obtain six trips during the season of navigation.


Mr. HACKETT.: Has the hon. gentleman concluded a contract with any firm of shipowners ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We are negotiating with them now. We have considerable difficulty owing to the fact that we had only $5,000 to offer. Now that we have $10,000, I think we will be able to secure a reasonable service.


Edward Hackett: I remember that three months ago the hon. gentleman said they were negotiating with a firm for tne Prince Edward Island service.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have not been able to assign a contract yet.	>


Edward Hackett: Now is the time that the people require this accommodation.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They will get it when this vote is passed.


Edward Hackett: I trust the hon. gentleman will see his way at once to conclude a contract.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am taking the best means to do it, getting $10,000 instead of $5,000.


Edward Hackett: I am glad to see that parliament is ready to vote this money. It will be said in Prince Edward Island that the government of Canada is endeavouring to do them a small measure of justice.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think it has done some justice to Prince Edward Island.
For a semi-weekly service between Halifax and Canso during the season of navigation, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will they carry the mails ?


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I do not think there will be much mail service done by these boats, but what mail there is will be carried by them.
For a winter steam navigation service between Quebec and the St. Lawrence harbours down to Murray Bay and Riviere Ouelle, $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose this is to test the navigability of the St. Lawrence in winter ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is largely the intention. A vote of $5,000 'was struck out of the main estimates in order to replace it by this sum. We found that $5,000 was of no use for the purpose of obtaining a winter service. We may have to get a boat built for the service.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you be able to get one in time for navigation during the coming winter ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 1 am informed that the parties concerned hope to be able to supply one.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the experiment limited to the route between Quebec and Murray Bay anid Riviere Ouelle ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If that is found to be navigable during the winter, I am informed it will go a long way towards solving the problem of winter navigation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, it is not intended to go further down at present ? Will there be regular service between Quebec and those places, so far as practicable, during the winter ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is our intention. The hou. gentleman knows there is a large population to be served by that, we have no communication otherwise.
Administration of Justice-Supreme Court of Canada-To provide for one second-class clerk, R. G. Davis, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,100.


John Graham Haggart: What is the reason of fixing the salary notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Mr. Davis is secretary to the judges of the Supreme Court. The intention is to permit him to go, without examination, from the position of a third-class clerk to that of a second-class clerk. He is secretary and stenographer to the judges of the Supreme Court.
To provide for the appointment of a judge of the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in New Brunswick, $500.


William Findlay Maclean: What has the Solicitor General to say in regard to voting money Cor divorce courts in one province and not supplying them in others ? We had that question up the other day. If) the Dominion is paying money to establish a divorce court, or to assist in maintaining one, in New Brunswick, why should he not give similar jurisdiction to maintain a similar court in the province of Ontario, and thus avoid the scandals that have been going on in connection with divorce cases in the Senate ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would remind the hon. gentleman that we are not establishing a divorce court. In the province of New Brunswick there is one in existence, and has been since previous to confederation. The intention is merely to provide for a payment of $500 to the judge who presides over that court, and who heretofore has done so without remuneration.


William Findlay Maclean: You should do the same thing for Ontario.
Administration of Justice in the Yukon Territory-Additional amount required for maintenance of prisoners, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had a large amount in the main estimates for that purpose.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This will make $40,000 for that purpose. It is represented that it costs $2 per day to maintain the prisoner in that country. These amounts are paid out by the North-west Mounted Police and charged against the Department of Justice and we refund them. In order to justify the amount I may say that the average daily number of prisoners in that part of the country is 52. My hon. friend can estimate the cost of maintaining 52 prisoners daily for 365 days in the year and he will find that it amounts to something over the amount that we are asking for.


William Findlay Maclean: I think this is a good territory in which to provide for the ticket-of-leave system. It is far better to ship these men out of the country than to pay $1,000 each to retain them.
Gas and Electric Light Inspection-Further sum required to enable the department to purchase necessary electrical instruments for head office for standardizing purposes, $2,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me with the large number of new electric light plants

that we are having established all over the country there is need of some independent inspection, because I am quite satisfied that municipal corporations and individuals who are obliged to use this light are frequently not getting what they agree to get when they enter into their contract. They may stipulate for a 16-candle power, or a 32-candle power, but it is very often much below what it is represented to be. How often does an inspection of electric light take place ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: Once in five years, but at any time the consumer or the contractor may ask the government inspector to inspect his meter. As I explained the other day, the party in default has to bear the expense, ranging from 75 cents to $2 per light. This item is to enable us to get instruments which are to be bought on the requisition of the electrical engineer in order to perfect the system of inspection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two classes of meters. There may be a meter at a private dwelling and in another case there is no meter at the private dwelling at all, but the meter, if any, is at the place where the plant is located. If it is found that the lights are not up to the requirements, and complaint is made, how would the person complaining secure the services of the inspector ? Would the individual or the municipality, be able to have an inspection at any time ?
The	MINISTER	OF	INLAND	REV-
ENUE. Any party interested, the contractor, or the consumer, or the municipality, may ask for an inspection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the party who asks for the inspection must pay the cost of it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	INLAND	REVENUE.	The party	in default.Mr.	SPROULE.	How	often are	these
meters inspected ?


The MINISTER . OF INLAND  REVENUE@: Once in five years, but any party interested may ask for the services of a government inspector, but the official inspection takes places once in five years.
Inspection of Staples-Additional sum required to pay salaries of chief inspectors, inspectors and other employees under the General Inspection Act and the Manitoba Grain Act, $35,000.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The reason why this sum is required is that it is proposed to pay the chief inspector and the assistant inspectors by salaries and not by fees, and that such fees be refunded to the credit of the consolidated fund. The fees of the inspection, we think, will equal the expenditure, this sum being simply an advance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is to be the salary of the chief inspector ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is not yet fixed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. gentleman no idea what it is to be ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We cannot tell. It will be $3,000 or $4,000, I suppose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I believe it is proposed to appoint a number of additional inspectors. How many Inspectors have you now, how many more do you propose to appoint, and if it is agreeable, could the hon. gen-, tleman tell us whom he intends to appoint ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have no inspectors under the disposition of the new Act which was passed last week. We propose to appoint as many inspectors and sub-inspectors as are required by the trade. There will be one chief inspector, and an inspector in every locality, where the services of these inspectors are required. Those _ appointed now are in Manitoba under a different Act, but these officers mentioned here are to be appointed throughout the Dominion outside of Manitoba where the system of inspection is regulated by another Act. These appointments are to be made under the terms of the new Act. We do not know how many officers will be required for the service. There will be one at St. John, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and perhaps some other places, but the amount of the salary is not fixed, and the number of these officers is not determined.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would not say what the salary will be ?
The	MINISTER	OF	INLAND	REV-
ENUE. No, the chief inspector will have about $3,000 or $4,000 a year salary.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where will he be located ?
The	MINISTER	OF	INLAND	REV-
VENUE. Probably in Montreal, and there will be inspectors in several other places such as Toronto, Quebec, Halifax, St. John, &c.


William Findlay Maclean: What qualifications will these inspectors have ?
The	MINISTER	OF	INLAND	REV-ENUE. They have already passed^ an examination before a board of examiners at the Boards of Trade in Toronto and Montreal.	These examinations have	taken
place in both cities within the last few weeks. A board of examiners was chosen, and the private individuals who applied for the position of inspectors were required to pass an examination, some in Toronto and some in Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the results of the examination be made public-the percentage of marks obtained by those who went up for examination ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, the marks are not generally given, but the board issue a certificate to those who have qualified themselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will these selections be made out of those who have passed this examination, or are these positions to be open to others as well ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Others may be examined later on. The examination has been held at intervals in order to be ready to put this Act into operation. These examinations have taken place in Montreal and Toronto, and I suppose that among those who have passed the examination the government can make a selection.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will you chose the candidates who have obtained the largest number of marks ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I cannot say that ; I do not know.


James Clancy: Is it proposed that the chief inspector shall be selected from among those who are already in the service, and have been for long periods, or is it proposed that the selection shall be made from outside the service ? I ask that question because experience is of very great value in so important a work as this. A man of long training and experience would necessarily render more important service to the country.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The selections can be made from among those who have passed the examination, or those who have been grain inspectors in the past, or from amongst those who have passed their examinations recently-


James Clancy: I have asked the hon. gentleman if a selection is likely to be made from among those who are engaged in the service at present ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I cannot tell, because no selection has been made.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
\	Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
To pay the representatives of the late senator, Hon. J. J. Ross, who died during the session of 1901, the amount of his indemnity, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg to move that the following words be added to that item : ' Payment to be made to such person as the Treasury Board may determine.' The explanation of that is that sometimes there is a question as to the person legally entitled to receive these moneys, and it is thought best that instead of placing
them in the estate they should be disposed of as the Treasury Board thinks best.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the increased indemnity ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will have to be settled afterwards.
Senate-Further amount required for salaries, $3,226.


Mr. WILSON.: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All l can say is that the Senate decided to increase the salaries of some of its employees and it did not consult the House.


Uriah Wilson: Can they do it that way 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They cannot do it unless the government put in an item in the estimates to cover it.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose you want to live on good terms with the Senate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As a matter of fact they did pay the money out of their general credit vote, and the Auditor General took exception to it.
To provide for hydrographic survey of Lake Winnipeg, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no chart of any kind of Lake Winnipeg, and the consequence is that it is impossible at present to get insurance for vessels plying on that lake. The Minister of Marine estimates the total cost of the survey at $25,000, and he asks this $10,000 on account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you a tug there to make the survey ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know what the arrangements of the Minister of Marine are to carry on the work, but it is possible one of the Public Works tugs may be utilized. If the tugs are too busy a small vessel can be hired.
North-west Territories-Additional amount to schools, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have here a statement which shows that the payments of the North-west Territories government on account of school grants have increased to such an extent that this year the increase over last year amounts to over $20,000. The large number of foreign settlers going into the Territories makes it imperative that some special assistance should be given for the purpose of establishing a system of education amongst them. This is for the purpose of enabling the North-west government to do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do we pay the North-west government for the maintenance of schools ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We do not pay them anything specially for

tlie maintenance of schools. We pay them a lump sum in the same way as we pay the provincial subsidies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the usual amount ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the main estimates it is $332,979. It is described as ' grant for schools, clerical assistance, printing, &c.'


Robert Laird Borden: Have they a system of free schools ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, and on account of the sparseness of settlement it is necessary to give them a larger grant than would be the case if the settlements were closer together, and they were able to help themselves more by local taxation.
For the equipping and maintaining of an assay office in British Columbia or Yukon territory. $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that in one of the papers it was stated that there was a proposal to establish three or four assay offices. Is there to be only one, or more than one ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I notice that one of the British Columbia papers suggested that it would be a profitable investment to establish three or four offices, but no decision has been reached as yet to establish more than one. The question whether there should be one in Dawson and one in British Columbia, is worthy of consideration. Certainly, we do not propose to establish more than two, and probably only one. This vote is to provide for one.
To provide for expenses of a judicial inquiry into alleged paper combine, $3,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Does this cover the expense of witnesses ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some witnesses will be paid out of this vote ; but so far as our determination as to the manner of conducting the investigation is this : The gentlemen who made the complaint intimated their willingness to make out their case, and we think they should be permitted to do so. As respects witnesses and counsel, they will make their own arrangements. The parties on the other side will do likewise ; but if the judge in his discretion should wish to call other witnesses, we think he should be free to do so, and the cost of all witnesses summoned by him will be paid out of this vote.	4


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the inquiry be held at one place ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inquiry will be held in the first place by the judge at Montreal ; but, if necessary, he will be free to hold it anywhere else. That is a matter on which we have given no instructions.


Mr. SIFTON.: 


Robert Laird Borden: Will the government be represented at the inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At present we do not think it necessary. We will watch the inquiry, but we think there will be a strong contest between the two sides, which will bring out the truth.


Robert Laird Borden: You think the public will be sufficiently represented by the judge and the people who make out the
case ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, we think so. This is the first ease of the kind.
Astronomical Observatory-For purchase of telescope and apparatus, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We took an appropriation for the purchase of a telescope a couple of years ago, but there was no appropriation that year for an observatory. We are now taking an appropriation for the construction of a small observatory besides this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you decided yet what telescope you will purchase, and the size of it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, not positively. The chief astronomer suggested at the time we took the appropriation before that a telescope with a 10-inch lens would probably answer the purpose. That would probably cost $6,000 or $7,000. But, we now think a larger one will be necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be a great mistake to put up a small one, or one that would not be acceptable at the capital of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the practical object of this expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is absolutely necessary to check the work; of the Surveyor General's Department by astronomical observation. As I said when I explained the previous item, I do not think that anything is more disgraceful to the government service than the way in which the astronomical work is compelled to be carried on, with practically no accommodation at all.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I do not think it will be of any practical value at the present time to have a lens of less than twelve inches ; and a first-class optician ought to be consulted, so as to get the latest results of science. I would suggest that the government might confer with the firm of Alvin Clark, in New York, or Grubb & Son, in Dublin, who would be able to supply the most approved glasses.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I may say that the chief astronomer of the department, Mr. King, has been in con-consultation with Mr. Clark's people, and the work will be done by them if possible.

Census-Additional amount required, $100,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may say that the Minister of Agriculture has departed and is not able to present this item himself. He informed me, however, when leaving, that it would be necessary to obtain this further appropriation. It does not mean any additional cost for the taking of the census ; but the returns are coming-in so rapidly that it is believed that the work can be finished in a shorter time than was anticipated. Consequently, it is deemed necessary to take this further appropriation for a larger staff.	.


William Findlay Maclean: Can the minister tell us when* he will have the population returns ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And what is he going to do about the census enumerators who are grumbling about their pay ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will probably be July or August before we shall have the population returns. As to the other question, the minister has already made a statement to the House to the effect that there was a misunderstanding on the part of some of the officials-that they -were not going to be paid so small a sum as they had imagined, but were to be paid on a very liberal scale. It is piecework, but I think it is all that the parties themselves expected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told by some of them that that was not their opinion of it, and they were threatening vengeance on the government if they did not get $3 a day. I think some of them went so far as to say that they would sue the government.


David Henderson: Perhaps the minister can give us a little further information. The statement is very commonly made throughout the country, that on the authority of enumerators, the population of a certain village is so much, and of another it is so much. I would like to ask the hon. minister if the enumerators are permitted to give out the figures, showing the population of any particular place. I have always understood that they were not permitted to give out any information before furnishing it to the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman's view of the law and practice is quite right. No enumerator is at liberty to give information. If he has done so, he has done it in violation of the instructions, and, I think I may say, of his oath.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The difficulty about the pay of the enumerators is that it will work very hard in cities and towns and work out all right in the rural municipalities. There was a general understanding, I think authorized by the instructions, that the enumerators were to get $3 a day. To pay according to the number of names would suit in the rural municipalities, especially
where each enumerator is allowed a horse and can use his own horse to go around, but in cities and towns, especially where the ward is small, the pay will be very little and there will be a good deal of grumbling. What is the settlement arrived at ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing to be said except to refer to the circular issued to the commissioners, who -were instructed to explain to the enumerators what was intended to be the remuneration. I hope the enumerators will find that they have been needlessly alarmed and that they will earn $3 per day. There may be eases in which the returns will not give that amount, but it is fully expected that the enumerators will be able to earn that sum if they are at all active.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned (Hon. Mr. Blair) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2, subsection 1,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I desire to move a slight amendment. The correction was made when the resolution was going through, but, there was a further mistake and words that should have been omitted were not omitted. This should read ' for a line of railway from a point on the Intercolonial Railway at or near New Glasgow,' all reference to Sunny Brae being struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 4,
Robert Laird Borden: Are these clauses exactly word for word with the resolutions ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In every case, except the one to which I have drawn attention.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that you do not await for the completion of the railway, but provide for paying the money on progress estimates. Is that the same provision as before ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been no change in that respect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it apply to all the roads ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is the same clause as heretofore.
Bill reported as amended, and read the third time, and passed.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 145) to further amend the Railway Act (Hon. Mr. Blair) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may say in explanation of this Bill that it is introduced for the purpose of defining the meaning of the word ' facilities ' in section 240 of the Railway Act. We have had occasion, in interpreting that Act, which confers powers upon the Railway Committee, to enforce the granting of facilities by one railway company to another, or by one company having connection with another company, whether a steamship line or a railway line, and the question of what the word ' facilities ' actually means, has given rise to a good deal of controversy before the committee. Section 240 of the Railway Act was almost identical with a similar clause in the English Railway Act, when it was adopted, or as it was enforced at the time when our Railway Act passed. But subsequently to that period, the same difficulties and troubles have arisen, I presume, which we have found to arise in interpreting the meaning of the word, and the English parliament amended their Railway Act. We are now proposing to amend ours practically in the same direction, not adopting the same precise language, because the conditions which exist in England are not identical with the conditions which exist here. In order that we might avoid the pitfalls which are constantly liable to be encountered when you undertake to deal with traffic matters without full knowledge, we have given notice to the larger and more important railway companies in this country, sending them a copy of our original draft, and asking them to confer with us in respect of the proposed Bill. They have done so. We have had a good deal of debate with them, a good deal of discussion, and the result of the conferences which have taken place is that we have agreed upon the clause as it is now presented to the committee. I think that no reason will suggest itself to the committee why this Bill should not pass.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the same as the English clause exactly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not Identically the same in its language. But, as I have endeavoured to explain, we could not make it identical with the English Act in its phraseology, because the conditions which exist there are not identical with those which obtain here. We have made it as nearly alike as possible, because there is no question but that


William Stevens Fielding: the English Act has been framed with a very careful regard to possible difficulties which might arise in its enforcement. And it is the opinion of the legal gentlemen who have represented the different railway companies, and who have been conferring with myself, that we have chosen apt and sufficient language to enable the Railway Committee fully and adequately to exercise the supervising and controlling powers which the Railway Act was designed to confer upon the Railway Committee, and at the same time we avoid introducing any element which would be calculated unduly to interfere with the proper carriage of the traffic of the country.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Department o£ Finance and Treasury Board, including J. Fraser at $2,200, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $49,927.50.
['I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada a certified copy of the judgment of the said court in the election appeal for the electoral district of the west riding of the county of Durham, by which the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Street was affirmed and the appeal therefrom dismissed.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is introducing a somewhat novel principle and I do not think one that has been dealt with before. If properly managed it might be all right, but if improperly managed it might be all wrong.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I shall have to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) to trust me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must not he regarded as a precedent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It will be understood that tbis will not be taken advantage of to put men into the service who have not passed the examination.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I might have to put a man in for a few months who has not passed the examination, but it will be only until the next examination. I contemplate that anybody appointed shall have the necessary qualification, if not immediately, at an early day.


John Graham Haggart: It would be far better if the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) would specify what sum he wants, instead of asking the whole sum to be placed at his disposal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not dealing with actual vacancies, but I am dealing with vacancies which I contemplate will occur owing to the illness on the part of the members of the staff. If I retire a man at $1,400, and appoint two men at $700 each I shall require this amendment to enable me to do it. I could not give definite information because the vacancies do not exist at this moment.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand this privilege only applies to the $200 extra salary. The hon. minister would have the right to appoint a man at the minimum salary, but he wants to appoint them at $700 each. It is only in regard to the extra salaries that he requires the authority that be seeks by this amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In answer to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I said it was possible that I might have to appoint a man who had not passed the civil service examination and keep him in the department for a few months. Suppose I could get a good accountant at once who had not qualified himself by passing the civil service examination, the House would justify me in appointing him on the condition that he shall take the civil service examination when it is next held. That is the idea in my mind.
Resolution, as amended, concurred in.
Department of Marine and Fisheries, including J. F. Fraser at $1,900, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Aot, $62,440.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That the resolution be amended by striking *out the figures ' 1,900,' and inserting instead thereof ' 1,000.'
Resolution, as amended, concurred in.
Department of the Interior-Clerical and other assistance, including $790 for J. D. Bollard and $480 for T. W. Hodgins, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $4,215.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask a question in reference to the records of the Hudson Bay Company. I understand it is
impossible to get access to them, and since the time of the transfer of the property in 18G9, there are people interested who cannot find out the facts in reference to their rights. Is it the intention of the government to have these records kept in the Department of the Interior so that they may be accessible to those interested ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The department has all the records or copies of them and they are accessible to any person who desires to get information, in the same way as any other record of the department.


Mr. BRODER.: Are those with regard to lands to which the title was passed previous to the transfer in 1869 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Previous to the transfer the title to land was shown by the Hudson Bay Company's books of record which were like a register.


Andrew Broder: Is this in the possession of the department and accessible ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, I believe they are all there.
Department of Marine and Fisheries, $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the resolution is concurred in, I wish to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister, if any conclusion has been reached by the government with respect to giving aid to Capt. Bernier for his expedition to the North Pole ? That is a matter in Which members on both sides take a deep interest. In committee, a very inconclusive statement was made regarding the attitude of the government, and I now ask the right hon. gentleman if it is the intention of the government to give some aid to Captain Bernier, who I believe is a worthy man and well deserving of assistance, to enable him to proceed with his expedition to the North Pole ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The government has come to no conclusion with regard to the expedition of Capt. Bernier to the North Pole.	The government has not
thought it advisable to ask parliament to vote any appropriation this session. I understand, from information supplied to me personally and I believe supplied to members of the House generally, by Capt. Bernier himself, that he expects his contemplated expedition would cost in the neighbourhood of $120,000. Capt. Bernier has asked the government to give $60,000, or half the cost. I repeat that the government has not thought fit to ask parliament for this appropriation ; not that the government would not be disposed to contribute generously to such an object as that, but the government did not think it would serve any good purpose to vote any sum to Capt. Bernier unless there was some reasonable expectation that the balance of the money required would be contributed. I have no authority at this

moment to speak for the government, but speaking for myself personally, my disposition would be to aid Capt. Bernier if there were resources coming from outside which would enable the expedition to take place.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a pity the government cannot give us some clear idea of its intentions in respect to this expedition. It is a well known fact that Capt. Bernier's chance of receiving subscriptions from the public generally and from scientific societies depends a great deal upon the assurance which the government will give to assist the project. In fact, at the present moment I believe Capt. Bernier has succeeded in obtaining promises of subscriptions to the extent of $20,000, although he has only been put in default to do so, a short time ago. There is no doubt whatever that if the government will promise to help him, he will very soon get the amount mentioned by the Prime Minister. Under these circumstances it is a pity that he should be put off for another year, and that in the interval the construction of the ship in which he is going to undertake his perilous voyage cannot be proceeded with. In view of the sentiments expressed in this House on more than one occasion the government might give him that promise of assistance which would enable Capt. Bernier to go courageously to work in obtaining these subscriptions, which he would undoubtedly obtain if the government would promise aid.


David Henderson: I very much regret that the government has not taken action to assist Capt. Bernier. I feel satisfied that no $70,000 could be spent by this government that would advertise Canada more throughout the whole world, even though the expedition should fail in finding the pole. If the government could see their way clear to bring down a further estimate for $75,000 or $80,000, to be paid over only when Capt. Bernier has secured private subscriptions for the balance of the money required, I have no hesitation in saying that in a very short time the entire sum would be contributed. The government then need not pay anything unless their grant was supplemented by outside subscriptions. It would be a matter of pride to every man in Canada if a native Canadian of the character of Capt. Bernier should be the first to place the British flag on the North Pole.
Post ofoce Department, $60,780.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That resolution contains the words ' allowances for excessive cost of living in Manitoba.' These words were imported into the Act when they were no doubt suitable, but it is represented that they now give an erroneous impression as to the cost of living in Manitoba, and the Post Office Department has asked that the words should be struck out. I beg to move that the words be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
["That resolution contains the words ' allowances for excessive cost of living in Manitoba.' These words were imported into the Act when they were no doubt suitable, but it is represented that they now give an erroneous impression as to the cost of living in Manitoba, and the Post Office Department has asked that the words should be struck out. I beg to move that the words be struck out."]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Supreme Court of Canada, $22,460.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to draw the attention of the government to the large expenditure that is incurred for the Suprenie Court of Canada. We started with a very moderate allowance, but it is quickly increasing to almost the expenditure of a department. I think it is largely in excess of the requirements of the court.
The Exchequer Court of Canada, $10,955.


John Graham Haggart: Here is another unjustifiable expenditure, largely in excess of the requirements of the court. It seems that if we establish a court of any kind, it starts at a moderate standard, but the expenditure increases year by year. So large an expenditure as this is certainly not required.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What item does my hon. friend object to ?


John Graham Haggart: The whole expenditure. There is an enormous expenditure on the staff, apart from the judge's salary.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would like my hon. friend to point out in what respect there has been an increase in the expenditure connected with the Exchequer Court except in the travelling expenses of the judge, who has a great deal more business than he formerly had, and who has to travel from Halifax to Vancouver in the performance of the duties of his office. If there is a court in the country that gives speedy and satisfactory justice, it is the Exchequer Court.


John Graham Haggart: The salary of the judge is, I suppose, $7,000 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, $6,000, and it has never been increased. My hon. friend must remember that the judge of the Exchequer Court now performs all the duties which three arbitrators used to perform under the Arbitration Act, much less satisfactorily and at greater expense.
Post Office-Mail service, $2,227,000.


Mr. BIRKETT.: Yesterday I placed a resolution on the Order paper, asking the attention of the acting Postmaster General to the increase of salaries which, he admitted, he intended giving the letter carriers. I was one of the deputation that waited on the hon. the Postmaster General a day or two before he left, and he assured the deputation that the gentlemen he was leaving in charge of his department would see that the matter was carried through. Several deputations have since waited on the acting minister, and I think it would be a gracious act on his part to carry out the promise made by the Postmaster General. The letter carriers are a very deserving class of men and certainly have presented a case that is well worthy of consideration.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My lion colleague, the Postmaster General, had taken the matter Into consideration before he left, and had practically devised a scheme by which these men would be given an increase. I had two or three deputations of the letter carriers wait on me. There was some difference of opinion as to the best plan to be adopted, and after full consideration I concluded it was best to allow it to stand over until next session. I think that the letter carriers themselves were pretty well satisfied also to have the question remain over. While I am not in a position to say what will be done, I can assure my hon friend that the Postmaster General and the government are favourable to an increase, and that a plan will be adopted which will, I trust, meet the views of the letter carriers and the House generally.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand, from what the acting Postmaster General has said, that a plan had been drafted and that that plan had been submitted to the carriers themselves, who waited on the acting minister, and that the reason it was not put into effect is because there was difference of opinion among the letter carriers as to the best method of carrying it into effect. Is that correct ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Not quite. We discussed different plans, and after full consideration it was thought better to leave the matter stand over until next session. It was late in the session and there was a great deal to do. And I think that the letter carriers themselves were satisfied that it would be in their interest to let the matter stand until next session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the hon. gentleman submit a plan ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I said that we had discussed the various methods with the deputation.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the letter carriers themselves are not satisfied as to the best way to have this increase granted them, it is not an unreasonable suggestion to have the matter stand over, so long as the intention of the government is expressed to make provision for the increase next session. A very large deputation waited on the Postmaster General who, I think, was accompanied by the Minister of Finance, and the men who appealed on behalf of the letter carriers made a very strong presentation of their case, and seemed to impress the Postmaster General and his colleague very favourably. So long as the men are made aware that it is the intention of the government to increase their salaries and that the only reason for the delay is some difference of opinion between the acting minister and the carriers themselves on some matter of detail, it is perhaps not unreason-
182 '
able that the matter should be held over ; but it is also not unreasonable to ask that the men should be consulted and satisfied before a scheme is finally brought down, and I hope that when it is brought down there will be provision in it for this year's increase also.
For the relief of distressed Canadians in foreign countries other than the United States, $500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move to 1 strike out the word ' foreign.' This is intended to apply to the relief of distressed Canadians in other countries, including Great Britain.
Resolution as amended, concurred in.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Northwest Territories-Registry office, lock-up and police accommodation, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move to strike out the word ' registry office ' and substitute the word ' court house.'
Resolution as amended, concurred in.
Cornwall Canal-Enlargement, $22,500.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance to allow this item to stand. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) is anxious to say a few words in reference to the superannuation of a man name Shields.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) is present.


John Graham Haggart: I know, but the papers have not been fully brought down and he wants to make some remarks upon the matter, or on any other canal item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is awkward to suspend an item such as this is in the estimates, but perhaps my hon. friend will consent that the item shall pass, with the understanding that on any other item he may have an opportunity to make his remarks, and that no exception will be taken.


John Graham Haggart: All right.
Steam service fortnightly between St. John and Liverpool, Great Britain, during the winter season of 1901-2, not less than ten round trips $20,000.


John Graham Haggart: In connection with this item, I would ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to a report cabled from London, to the effect that the premier of Newfoundland has been on a visit to Ottawa, that he has made an arrangement with the Canadian government by which it was permitted him to enter into a treaty with the United States, without Canada interfering. In the correspondence which took place between the Imperial government and the Canadian government, it was stated that no colony would be allowed to enter into a commercial treaty with a foreign country



*which would he iu any way detrimental to and other colony, and that on the receipt of any complaint in that regard the Imperial government would immediately disallow such a treaty. According to the cabled report, the Canadian government have withdrawn objection to the arrangement between Mr Bond, premier of the Newfoundland government, and the authorities at Washington to negotiate a commercial treaty without the consent of the Canadian government. Is there any truth in that report ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no truth whatever in the statement which has been telegraphed from London, to the effect that the Canadian government had withdrawn their objection to the treaty known as the Bond-Blaine treaty, which was negotiated some ten years ago. Since that treaty was negotiated in 1890, as everybody is aware, a joint commission has been appointed by the governments of Great Britain and Canada. and the United States, with a view to settling many difficulties, amongst others the fisheries 'question, a question which is common to both Newfoundland and Canada. On that commission Newfoundland is represented. The commission has not yet accomplished any treaty, but it has not come to an end. It is simply suspended, and I have some hope-indeed, I have strong Pope-that the negotiations may be resumed at any early day, probably during the course of the year. As Newfoundland is a party to the negotiations, as she is represented by a commissioner, as she has accepted the invitation which was tendered to her some four years ago to participate in the acts of the commission, it seems only fair that before any further action is taken toy any government. whether the government of Great Britain or the government of Newfoundland, the negotiations of this commission should come to an end. Should the negotiations fail, or should they not be resumed within a reasonable time, or should they be resumed and not accomplish any purpose so far as the interests of Newfoundland are concerned, then the matter may be again opened for further consideration. But at present the matter remains just as I have stated ; and the position taken by the Canadian government, apart from the merits of any question, is that as there is a commission in existence to which Newfoundland is a party, the question ought to be left in abeyance.


William Findlay Maclean: As this question is up, is not now the i>roper time to resume negotiations with Newfoundland, looking to its joining this confederation ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not heard of any disposition in Newfoundland to that effect yet.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But the right hon. First Minister did hear something in that direction under the old government of Newfound-


John Graham Haggart: land, and I do not think he was favourable to the idea then.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When was that ?


Mr WALLACE.: Under the government of Sir James Winter. That government was friendly to the idea of joining the Dominion of Canada. I presume the First Minister knows that very well.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware of that.


Mr WALLACE.: Nothing apparently has been done to bring about such a union. Now, a new government has come in which is not so friendly, I assume, to the idea of confederation, as the late government was. In fact, it went to the United States and negotiated a treaty-one which was considered so detrimental to the interests of Canada by the then government of Canada, that it entered a most vigorous protest against that treaty being confirmed, and I think very rightly-perhaps we all think very rightly ; because the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada have a kind of joint interest in the British fisheries on the Atlantic coast, and if that bad treaty had gone into force, there might have been conflicts, or there would have been powers given to the United States to which Canada had not consented, and which she would have been debarred from objecting to. Now, if nothing comes of this commisison, which we are told will probably resume its sittings this year, and if it does not succeed in accomplishing anything, then Mr. Bond will renew his demands on the British government to have the old treaty confirmed, and we may expect that the United States will be more anxious to make a treaty with Newfoundland than one with Canada, because they can apparently secure from Newfoundland terms that will suit them better than any they can get from the Dominion of Canada. The remedy for that is for the government to open negotiations for the admission of Newfoundland into the confederation. There are many other reasons for that; but this appears to toe the strong immediate inducement. The fisheries are along the Atlantic coast, the coasts of Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, being the joint possession of the two countries, and if Newfoundland were added to the confederation, Canada would have the undisputed right of dealing with these fishery questions with the United States, or with any other foreign power. I therefore say, for myself, that I think the government should take active measures to see if Newfoundland cannot be brought into the confederation of the Dominion of Canada. There would be manifold advantages in other directions. A sentimental consideration is that the whole of this northern part of North American continent would then be under one government, and our trade with Newfoundland and Newfoundland's trade with the rest of Canada

would be stimulated. It would be good for ibe trade of both countries. It would also be good in forming a still more loyal sentiment. But the government apparently have not made any move in that direction, principally, I presume, because the French shore question has not been settled, and they are afraid to touch any question in which the French nation might be brought into any hind of conflict with the Dominion of Canada. But, I do not consider that a reason why all negotiations should cease. I think rather that Newfoundland's ease, being apparently strong in itself, would be made infinitely stronger by the fact that not only the small province of Newfoundland, but the whole Dominion of Canada, would be directly interested in a settlement. The question must be settled. It has been pending in such an unsatisfactory conditon during these years and creating so much friction that it will have to be settled by the great powers ; and, to my mind, a settlement could be reached more quickly if Newfoundland were a portion of the Dominion. That colony is taking a position which seems to be a very moderate one, and one that could be readily defended, backed up by the Dominion of Canada, but I presume we will go drifting along doing nothing, as the government has apparently been doing, since the delegates were here some years ago.
I am not prepared to say whether the terms proposed, when Mr. Bond was premier of Newfoundland, were such as Canada should have accepted; but in a matter of such great importance I think we made a mistake if we allowed small financial considerations to interfere and prevent Newfoundland entering our confederation. That was a matter in which great national consideration should have outweighed the question of pounds, shillings and jience.
But since then our government has had greater opportunities, because there has been an administration in Newfoundland friendly to confederation, which the Bond government was not. The government appear to me, in this as in many other matters, would be simply drifting along without any definite policy. If they have a definite policy, they have not stated it to the House and the country.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I thoroughly agree with one or two remarks the hon. gentleman has made. There are international questions concerned, the settlement of which should not be governed by a mere consideration of dollars and cents. There was one occasion when our great scheme of confederation could have been completed by bringing Newfoundland into the Dominion. That was when the hon. gentleman himself was a member of the late administration. But that time unfortunately was allowed to go by. The material question of dollars and cents was allowed by the administration, 182*
of which the hon. gentleman was a member, to control this international matter. The hon. gentleman himself is responsible.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was not a member of the cabinet.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He may not have been a member of the cabinet, but he was a member of the administration and is thoroughly responsible for the failure which overcame the efforts of that administration. And the general opinion has grown stronger more and more since that failure was due to a picayune policy of pounds, shillings and pence.
The hon. gentleman says that this gov-eminent has never laid down a policy with regard to the admission of Newfoundland. He is wrong. Two years ago that policy was laid down in clear and concise terms. Two years ago this government declared from these benches their anxiety to do everything possible to bring Newfoundland into the confederacy on any reasonable terms. There was nothing more we could do. If this government made any attempt within the past three years to force confederation on Newfoundland, that would have been a dismal failure. We have held out the right hand of fellowship; the people of Newfoundland know our views; and there is no evidence whatever that Newfoundland is willing to receive overtures. We hope the time will come when they will be willing to respond to our advances, but at present it would be most inopportune for us to make any further move in the matter. The hon. gentleman himself said that the time was not opportune.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I did not say that the time was not opportune to-day. On the contrary I said that it was not so opportune when the Bond government was in power as it was two years ago, under the government of Sir James Winter.


The MINISTER. OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Since the failure of the negotiations undertaken by the late Sir John Thompson, of whose administration the hon. gentleman was a member and supporter, there has not been an opportune time when we could have negotiated effectively with Newfoundland.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There has been.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No. We have announced ourselves time and again as willing to resume those negotiations, and the government of Newfoundland are well aware of that fact. The hon. gentleman referred to the French shore question, but that question has ceased to be a material factor. It is now rather a sentimental one. The interests of the French nation on the west coast of Newfoundland are now merely sentimental, and those who have read the

views of the French admiral know that to he the case. The British government are anxious to deal with that question when the proper time arrives. My right lion, friend the First Minister has explained the course which Newfoundland lias taken since the initiation of the Joint High Commission, on which Newfoundland has a representative concerning the negotiations of that commission, and there seems to be no reason for taking the step the hon. gentleman has mentioned. As regards the bank fisheries, they are not the territorial fisheries of Newfoundland, nor do they belong to the Dominion. They are international. The key to the bank fisheries is in the fact that Newfoundland possesses the fresh bait. That is where the key lies. The hon. gentleman knows well that Newfoundland has been for years back negotiating with Canada and endeavouring to bring about a general treaty with the United States and Great Britain, which will cover the fisheries of Newfoundland as well as those of Canada. Judging by the expressions of opinion of the leading statesmen of Newfoundland, you could not do more harm than by making any overture at present for the purpose of bringing Newfoundland into confederation. Speaking-only for myself and not for the government, I am perfectly satisfied that any oversteps to bring about that union must come from Newfoundland herself. And when we have announced our cordial desire to entertain overtures that may be made by them, we have taken every step, I think, which ought properly to be taken by the Dominion to bring about a uniou. And I am perfectly sure that if you try in any way to take stejjs which would be looked upon by the mass of the electors of Newfoundland as forcing their hand, you will do more harm than good to the great scheme. The hon. gentleman can rest assured that the government are alive to the importance of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the resolution is carried, I would like to say that if we have entered into negotiations, formal or informal, on the subject of the union of Newfoundland with the Dominion in the last four years, I am not aware that parliament has be0" informed of them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not intend to say that there were negotiations. The hon. gentleman said that the policy of the government had never been announced, and I said that a few years ago it had been announced.


Robert Laird Borden: What was it ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: A cordial desire to bring about negotiations, but a statement that, under the circumstances, it was better that overtures should come from Newfoundland, because when we announced our desire to open negotiations, we had done all we


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: thought we should do, and that any effort beyond that would rather defeat than further the object in view.


Robert Laird Borden: I would gather from what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says that there has been nothing in the way of negotiations, formal or informal. beyond the statement on the floor of parliament that the government is ready to entertain any overtures of the kind. The hon. gentleman refers to the efforts of the late administration and condemns as a picayune policy their policy in so great a matter. When he spoke in such terms as he did of failures on the part of the late administration, I think he must have forgotten some of the failures of the present administration. I do not know any more dismal failure than that which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues have made in carrying out their promises with regard to better trade relations with the United States. If he can point out a more dismal failure, I should like to have him do it. Is it due to a picayune policy on the part of this government ? He said there should be no picayune policy of dollars and cents in these great international matters. Is that why lie, as one of the members of the commission, failed to bring about an understanding with the great republic to the south of us ? I suppose that these matters of dollars and cents have to be regarded when negotiations are going on either with a great republic like the United States or with a province like Newfoundland. I think, perhaps, the hon. gentleman was speaking without the book when he referred as he did to the efforts of the late administration.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand the premier to say clearly that any commercial treaty which possibly might lie made between Newfoundland and the United States discriminating against Canada, this government would protest against?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I did not refer to that question at all. For, as I said, at the present time there is no occasion whatever to go into the merits of this question. At the present time, both Canada and Newfoundland are engaged in negotiations with the United States, with a view to settling questions in which Canada is concerned alone, and questions in which Canada is concerned with Newfoundland, and, so long as these are not matured in some way, there is no occasion to go into the question my hon. friend has alluded to. But I may say that, so far as I am informed, even if Newfoundland intended to negotiate with the United States, they have no intention of discriminating against Canada.
In lull settlement of Gilbert Dredging Company's claim (revote, $10,500), $16,480.


John Graham Haggart: I move that this item be not concurred in. I will not discuss it now, it was fully discussed in com-

mittee, and, perhaps, some few remarks may be made on it later. To show my appreciation of the vote, I move that it be struck out.
Resolution concurred in on division.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to remove doubts concerning the non-continuance in office of judges of Dominion and provincial courts, upon the demise of the Crown.-The Solicitor General.
Bill (No. 150) further to amend the Act respecting the judges of the provincial courts.-The Prime Minister.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 148) to further amend the Criminal Code, 1892 (the Prime Minister), read the second time, and House went into *committee on the Bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: Under subsection 6. paragraph 2, the Credit Poncier du Bas-Canada. is exempted from the lottery clause. The authorities of that institution say that they do not want their enterprise to be considered as connected in any way with lotteries, and an amendment is introduced to carry out this idea. Another clause has reference to the larceny of a branded animal. and is chi'fly applicable to the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. The only change of any importance is with respect to the custody of certain documents in the province of Ontario. They desire to have the documents under the control of the clerk of the court, as it is inconvenient to have them under the control of the police magistrate as at present.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


INLAND REVENUE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 144) to amend the Inland Revenue Act (Hon. M. E. Bernier), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The abolition of the positions of Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and the substitution therefor -of the position of deputy minister.


Uriah Wilson: At what salary ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The salary is not fixed.


Uriah Wilson: What are the salaries of the two you are doing away with ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: One had ?3,200 and the other, I think, about $3,000.


Uriah Wilson: Can the minister give us some idea of the salary he intends to attach to the position of deputy minister ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It will be the same as the salary of the commissioner, Mr. Miall, who is retiring.
Bill reported.


CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS - WEST DURHAM.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada a certified copy of the judgment of the said court in the election appeal for the electoral district of the west riding of the county of Durham, by which the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Street was affirmed and the appeal therefrom dismissed.



WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Ways and Means.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one formal step yet to be taken In regard to the tariff. In the budget speech it was announced that no changes were to be made except with respect to the admission of certain materials for use in the construction of beet-root sugar factories. I desire now to move :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Acts respecting customs duties by adding the following to the free list:-
Machinery of all kinds and structural iron and steel when imported under regulations to be made by the Minister of Customs for use in the construction and equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beet roots until April 1, 1902.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is very doubtful if any company will be able to take advantage of that ; but if it is done, it seems to me that it will be the part of wisdom to extend it for a longer time. It is only for about a year, and it takes so much preparation to build a factory that it is questionable whether any company would be jirepared to bring in machinery within that time. There is one I believe in contemplation. Whether it will be ready in time or not is very doubtful.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In view of the announcements which have already been made, I would hardly care to make a change now ; but if a case arises as suggested by the hon. gentleman, we can consider it on its merits. If this applicatiou had been made somewhat earlier, perhaps we could have taken some steps concerning it ; but as this provision was announced some time ago, I think we should deal with it as it stands, reserving to ourselves to deal with it later on should circumstances require an extension.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not believe that a single company or individual in this country will thank the Minister of Finance for this supposed concession. There is no concession about it. The matter was placed be-for the Minister of Finance and his colleagues by a large deputation of those interested who were forming companies ; and there will be no advantage taken of this provision during the limited time that the machinery is to be free. It is only a small matter, at any rate, because a large portion of the machinery would be made in this country anyway, in the ordinary course of things, and there would be no duty on that. But that industry is not going to be established under the conditions that at present exist, for I understand that one of these refineries costs $500,000 or $000,000. So that the supposed concession made by the Finance Minister does not amount to a row of pins.
Last year I think the rule was that all would be free of duty which could not be made in Canada. The government say that they have made a change, which they announce with a certain flourish of trumpets, as if it were very valuable and important that not only those machines which are not produced in Canada should come in free of duty, but all the machinery required, whether it can be made in Canada or not. I do not think that is going to be of any benefit to the starting of the industry in this country. It will require greater stimulus to induce people to invest the capital required to start an industry, which, in this country, is almost entirely experimental from the beginning.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Two weeks ago the agent of the Canada Atlantic Railway came to Renfrew. We held a meeting under the auspices of the board of trade, presided over by the mayor, and the agent of the Canada Atlantic stated that if the town of Renfrew would undertake to induce the farmers to grow the beets, there was an individual prepared to put $500,000 into a beet-root sugar factory in the town of Renfrew.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for West York rather underestimates the importance of the concession. The deputation which waited on the government. while they would have been much pleased to receive further concessions, attach considerable importance to this one. The concession made a year ago limited to machinery not made in Canada was too restrictive. It was alleged that there were advantages in having the machinery of a beet-root sugar factory purchased in the one establishment abroad. If you expect to have a well-equipped factory, you would have to place your order in the hands of one person and allow him to get the whole machinery from abroad, because the getting of one portion in one place and another in another led to difficulties. If it costs $600,-Mr. FIELDING.
000 to establish a beet-root sugar factory, $400,000 would probably represent the machinery and structural materials, which will be free by this resolution, and the duty on that would be a considerable sum. It would probably be not less than $100,000. While they would have been well pleased to have had further advantages, the gentlemen who propose establishing this industry attached considerable value to this concession, and I hope there will be, as my bon. friend from Renfrew suggests, a disposition on the part of capitalists to put money into the enterprise on the encouragement offered. True they may have been scared off lately. Something has happened since this resolution was brought in. My hon. friends opposite, by numerous speeches, have advocated the removal of the duty on sugar, and that would be cutting off the protection which beet-root sugar has in Canada. They may thus thoughtlessly have scared off intending investors. But nevertheless I trust that the enterprise will be established,, and that the degree of encouragement we are giving will be appreciated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was the government that scared them off by not giving them the aid, in the shape of a bounty, that they are entitled to. The government are willing to give bounties for the manufacture of lead, and iron and steel and other lines, but they are not willing to give the farmer any assistance at all. There is a proposal to establish a beet-root sugar factory at Wallaceburg. But how ? By asking that small town to give a bonus of $50,000. Representations were made that in view of the fact that the government had given little or no assistance, they could not afford to establish a factory unless the locality gave them substantial aid. But it is unreasonable to force the people of a locality to tax themselves so heavily, when the object could be accomplished by the government giving a slight bounty on the sugar.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No matter what the government may do. the parties will always go to the municipalities for a bounty, and nothing we could do would prevent applications of that character.


David Henderson: 1 am surprised to-learn the reason why the government increased the duty on imported sugar. It seems now that it was entirely for the purpose of encouraging the growth of the beet root and the manufacture of beet-root sugar. That certainly is a surprise to me, as no doubt it will be to other members. Last session the Minister of Finance made a very strong statement of the reasons why he increased the duty on certain atticles, and I presume that sugar was amongst these. He said that the government wanted to maintain a firm financial position. They wanted to have plenty of money to spend. * and because the duties had been reduced on

certain articles by* the preferential tariff, It was necessary to increase them on other articles, so as to make up the deficiency. When he reduced the duty on woollen goods In order to aid the workingmen of England, he felt bound to tax the workingmen of Canada so as to make up the deficiency. But now he says his object was to encourage the production of beet-root sugar. Yet he refuses to our farmers the assistance which he is willing to grant the smelters of lead in British Columbia, and the producers of iron all over the country. He refuses to grant any bounty, and it seems to me that his reasons must be a surprise to the whole House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The argument of the Minister of Finance will hardly bear investigation. The hon. gentleman says that there will be $400,000 worth of importations for the proposed new factory, on which there will be a saving of $100,000 in duty. I stated that a large portion of the machinery could be got in Canada, but the minister replied that by buying the whole machinery from one firm you could secure a better outfit than by purchasing from different firms. I presume that the manufacturers of sugar refineries are not manufacturers of steam engines and boilers, and you would have to get those steam engines and boilers elsewhere. It will be immaterial, if you want a 400 or 500 horse power engine and boiler, whether you get it from one establishment or another, because they are all now made on certain plans, and our Canadian factories can turn out as good machines as you can get anywhere. But the building and the whole outfit must necessarily be made in Canada, even if some portion of the machinery come from the United States. I have no specific knowledge what these machines are, but I should suppose them to be rather in the shape of large tanks and boilers than in that of any intricate or complicated machinery. So, the saving by duties, I think, would be of the slightest character, and would not reach one-quarter as much as is estimated by the minister. Of course, that is a matter of opinion. The hon. gentleman has no data for his opinion, and I have not very much more. But the other point raised by the hon. gentleman for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), is very important. About $10,000,000 is spent by the people of Canada in importing the raw sugar or refined sugar, and syrup and molasses. It is proposed, if encouragement is given that all this shall be produced in Canada. It has been demonstrated, apparently. that we can grow the raw material, the sugar beet as well as any other place in the world. The standard requires 11 to 12 per cent of sugar in the beet for profitable production. But in Canada the percentage runs as high as even 17 or 18 per cent. The manufacture of sugar here
would mean the saving to the people of Canada of that $9,000,000 or $10,000,000in this way, that instead of sending the money out of the country, it should go to give employment to the people here, and we have plenty of people engaged in farming pursuits to do the work. So, an industry of that kind, I think, is one that ought to receive the first consideration of the government. But, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for East Grey, the government is preparing to give a most liberal bonus for the manufacture of iron and steel-amounting in this province, including what is paid by the Ontario government to $7 a ton, and $G per ton in the other portions of the Dominion-this bonus representing a large proportion of the cost of producing articles, as we learn from the prospectus of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Then there is a bounty, a smaller bounty it is true, for the lead industry, and it is one that, so far as I am concerned, I approve of. But why should the farmers of this country, who are asking to have an opportunity of producing many millions of dollars' worth of beets, as well as the artisans and labourers who will be employed in the manufacture of sugar, be deprived of the opportunity by reason of this parliament adopting a different course from that which they adopted in the case of the iron and lead industry. It is utterly unjustifiable in my opinion. The principle having been adopted, and adopted on the most liberal scale so far as the manufacture of iron is concerned, the government should carry out that policy to its legitimate conclusion. And. where a case has been made out as it has in the case of the beet-root sugar industry in Canada, the Canadian farmers should he given an opportunity. The farmers are looking for that opportunity. All over the country the farmers find that they must look for new sources of revenue, and the production of the beet root is attracting their attention. And, while an opportunity for the develop-uient of a new industry is opening up to the farmers, it is set aside by the course taken by the government. And they are told that, instead of employing the Canadian manufacturer to produce their machinery, they are to be given an opportunity. and even encouraged, to go outside. For the minister has made the statement that his information is that it is better to buy the whole outfit from one house. What the reason for that is I do not know. I repeat that the farmers will not be satisfied with the course of the government, in its failure to adopt the same policy for the protection of the farmers in this industry as is given to the producers of the iron industry.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The argument of the hon. gentleman is that the encouragement here proposed will not be

5S08
effectual. Tlie lion, gentleman says that nothing will be accomplished by it. He says that the agricultural interests have been unjustly dealt with, because we have given a bonus for the production of iron and lead, and have not given a bonus in this case. But the hon. gentleman will see that there is a difference in the two cases. An iron mine is of no value to the owner or to the country unless the ore is wrought into iron-it cannot be turned to any other purpose. And the same way with the lead mine-its output can be nothing but lead. But the farmer with 100 acres of land is not in the position of being obliged to grow beets or grow nothing. If he cannot grow beets, he will grow something else, as he has done. And, in doing so, has prospered as we are all glad to know he has done, and hope he will prosper more. But there may be advantages to the farmer in putting his land to the growing of beets rather than in growing other things. The Ontario government have seen fit to bonus this production, and the Dominion government is going to the extent that is here proposed to encourage it. And if the industry is brought into existence and proves beneficial to the farmers, every one will be delighted. But for the hon. gentleman to say that nothing will be accomplished, is for him to take a position for which he is nol able to show any warrant. Hon. gentlemen opposite would not want this government to give more than is necessary to bring this industry into existence. They do not wish the money of the country to be given in greater abundance than is needed. The hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) tells us that the probability is that a factory will be established at Wallaco-burg. I understood from those promoting this industry that the inducement that we are giving by this change in the tariff would be sufficient to accomplish that. The hon. member from East Grey also evidently thinks it will be. I noticed in a newspaper a telegram from London, Ontario, as follows
The Sugar Beet refining Company of this city have already made contracts in various sections surrounding London and St. Thomas for the growing of 400 acres of sugar beets. The company agrees to pay $3 a ton on board cars. They supply seed free.
I give this as a piece of news, showing that contracts have been made this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are paying a price that the Marine City Sugar Factory paid last year, $3.25, laid down on the bank across the river, then 50 cents a ton for duty, and the balance for transportation, which made up $4 a ton, to get them to the Marine Sugar Factory.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I take it, this is the refining company that has been Mr. PATERSON.
organized for the purposb of beginning an establishment there. When the hon. gentleman says it guarantees them $3 a ton, I suppose the contracts will guarantee that amount at any rate. I think the hon. gentleman will find that there will be one sugar beet refinery started, if not more. We will know better in another year what the result of this has been. I rather think that the fears of the hon. member for West York that nothing will be done, will not be realized.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite sure that does not mean that the London company proposed building a factory and manufacturing those beets in Canada, because a large number of contracts have been made at Wallaceburg for the Marine City Factory at $3.25 ai ton for beets laid down on the bank of the river. The reason why they could not afford to pay a higher price is that the beets were not analysed to ascertain the percentage of sugar in them, and were to be sent into The United States, which meant that duty and freight had to be paid on them as well, they accepted them just as they were. I think these contracts are made for the same purpose, the beets to be taken out of the country.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not see anything in the argument of the Minister of Customs that the protection of iron and the protection of the 100-acre farm are to be judged by two different standards. He says that if the iron is not converted into pig iron it remains there, and the man on the 100-acre farm can grow something else. That is just the difficulty. The farmer in western Ontario, we will say, where all these refineries are, finds that he has to give up growing wheat, that is practically what it means. He cannot make it a profitable industry at 65 to 70 cents a bushel, and even lower than that in many cases. He has to go out of the production of wheat and to look around for something else to turn his attention to. In years gone by wheat and barley were the two great products of the farmers of western Ontario, as the Minister of Customs knows. Barley had gone down in price so much that the farmers went out of the raising of barley except for feeding purposes on their farms. They now have to go out of the raising of wheat, very largely. They were looking round to find some other industry in which they could profitably be engaged, and grow other crops on their 100-acre farm ; and they made up their mind from what they had seen and heard, that sugar beets could#be produced here, and the refineries could be seen and heard, that sugar beets could because the farmer on the 100-acre farm has to turn his attention to some other industry that he is now very much disappointed.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 15G) to amend the customs tariff 1897.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in Commitee of Supply.
To acquire from the Dames Ursulines de Quebec the property known as the Plains of Abraham, a sum not exceeding $80,000.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There has been a good deal of comment upon this matter in the newspapers during the last few weeks, and for some time since this matter has been discussed In Quebec, first by the Historical Society, then it went into the field of municipal politics, and then into the field of federal politics. A good many comments were made upon the position of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell) in that matter. I regret to see that that hon. gentleman is not here in order to explain what were those great objections which he had, not only as the representative of the county where this property is situated, but as a member of the government also.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I beg your pardon. The property is in my constituency, and I have no objection to it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The property is very close to the residence of the hon. member for Quebec West, and very close, I understand, to the property that was sold by his brother-in-law. Of course, all these matters have become of jmblic interest, and I think it would be well that the government should give the committee some explanation concerning the question. I would also like to know what were the reasons given to the government for the purchase of this property.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The property, which is known as the Plains of Abraham, is now owned by a religious community known as the Dames Ursulines de Quebec. It has been in their possession, I suppose, for some 200 years. It is now under a lease to the government of Canada, passed in 1803, for a term of ninety-nine years, which term expires on the 1st of May, 1902. After that date the possession of this property reverts to the Dames Ursulines. It seems to be the general impression, from certain rumours current, and probably true, that it is the intention of the Dames Ursulines, as soon as the property reverts to their possession, to divide it up into city lots and to sell them.
It has been represented to the government by numerous bodies, and numerous individuals, that it would be very proper indeed that this land, which is held by Canadians of all origins as sacred, should not be
allowed to pass into the hands of private parties, but that it should be acquired by the Canadian government and remain as a national property. The government share that view. The government is of the opinion that it would be most unfortunate if a ' property of that nature, about which so many historical associations are centered, were to be treated as ordinary property, bought, sold, divided into lots and treated as any other piece of land would be. Acting upon this consideration, we think that we meet the views of the House, that we meet the views of the Canadian people, when we ask parliament to authorize the purchase of this property. That is the reason, I may say in answer to the last question of the hon. gentleman, that has prompted us to ask for the appropriation that we are asking parliament to vote. There have been certain rumours to which my hon. friend has made allusion, as to which I wish to say a word. There have been certain allusions to the fact that the adjoining property of March- . moiit has been acquired by a certain gentleman with the view of exchanging it with the nuns who are the owners of the plains.
I am not concerned with these transactions. Whatever may have taken place in respect to this does not and cannot affect the government, because we ignore altogether any such transactions. We have no intention of buying any other property than the Plains of Abraham and no intention of dealing with any other parties than the owners of the property; that is the nuns. After we have bought the property and paid the money, whatever they do with their money, whether they buy real estate, or whether they put it in the bank, or use it in any way they see fit, it is no concern of ours. The only thing with which the House is concerned is whether or not we are paying a fair price. It is understood we can buy the property for $80,000, and I must say that at first blush when I heard that this property could be had for the price of $80,000, I thought the price was perhaps a little of an overcharge.


William Findlay Maclean: How many acres are there ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are seventy-one acres and a fraction.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are those French acres or English acres ?


Mr. MORIN.: I think they are French acres.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. English acres. I have a report from Mr. Genest, surveyor of the city of Quebec, who states that the property is 71 acres, English measure, equal to 84 and a fraction arpents, French measure. It was understood that the nuns estimated the value of the property at 10 cents a foot. When I received

this report I caused an inquiry to he made by two competent engineers and architects from the city of Quebec, Mr. Berlinguet and Mr. Peachy. They valued the property at 5 cents a foot, which would make it worth $130,000. Some time ago a deputation waited upon the government as to this question, and amongst the gentlemen who waited upon the government were some of the leading business men of Quebec. One was Mr. H. M. Price, who is well known as one of the leading merchants in Quebec. Another wras Mr. Victor Chateauvert, also a leading merchant and very well known in political circles, who was at one time the member for the central division of Quebec in the local legislature and who was the Conservative candidate for the local legislature in the last general election. These are gentlemen whose testimony is unimpeachable and whose respectability is above cavil. They both stated that in their opinion the property at $80,000 was cheap. They gave an opinion in writing, but another gentleman, the secretary of the delegation on that occasion, Mr. Chambers, told us in the presence of the delegation that he was authorized to say on behalf of Mr. Andrew Thomson, president of the Union Bank, and of Mr. Garneau, a member of the legislative council and other well known business men that the property was cheap at $80,000. I am glad to say that the opinion which I at one time held, that the price at $80,000 was perhaps too high has not been verified. Hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the city of Quebec are aware that for a great many years that city was, if 1 may say so. under a commercial cloud when -property, which at one time had been of great value, was very much reduced, and I am glad to say that at the present time there is a different condition of things prevailing in Quebec, that business is extending, that property is reviving and that property which could have been bought a few years ago for a nominal sum could not be bought now except at a very substantial price.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that property in the neighbourhood of the Plains of Abraham ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: All over the city.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There are some parts of the city, for instance, about the Cove at which we were looking which do not appear as if they were sharing in the prosperity that has undoubtedly manifested itself in some other parts of the city.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That will come. This Cove which the hon. gentleman saw the other day when he paid a visit to it, for which I am very thankful and very glad, was at one time the most valuable property in the city of Quebec. It has gone down, but there is no doubt whatever that when the bridge is built and when lue railway has been brought towards the Cove this Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
property will revive again, but in the meantime property in the upper parts of the city has increased very considerably. One of the leading merchants of Quebec is Mr. Gaspard Lemoine, and I must say he is not one of my political friends. He belongs to the Conservative party. I hold in my hand a letter in which he says that property on the other side of the street from where the Plains of Abraham are situated is worth from 20 to 35 cents a foot. He says :	If you
were to divide the property into two, if you were to put a street across the Plains of Abraham the property adjacent to what is known as Les Grande Allee would be worth $70,000, and the rest of the property between that street and the river would be worth at least $290,000. His estimate of the property is that it would be worth in the neighbourhood of $300,000-between $250,000 and $300,000.


Samuel Hughes: Does the property go down to Champlain street ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it goes down to the cliff. I do not pretend that the property can be sold to-day for the price that Mr. Lemoine names, nor do I believe it is his intention to convey that impression, but he says that if we were to divide the property into city lots to be sold as city lots it would be worth between $250,000 and $300,000. Under such circumstances I think that if we can secure the property for $80,000, we are getting it at a cheap price.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I saw it stated that the Ursulines had sold under certain conditions. I understood from the Prime Minister that the government was not concerned about any conditions, and that they had made the purchase of the property outright.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not what I said. I said that for our part we wanted to deal with the Ursulines alone, and we understand that the Ursulines are prepared to accept such an offer if we make it before the 1st of June, or thereabouts.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is there a condition imposed by the Ursulines as to keeping the property up as a public park ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have had no negotiations with the Ursulines whatever. There have been voluntary negotiations between the mayor of Quebec and the Ursulines, but in view of this very rumour to which my hon. friend has alluded, we have carefully abstained from having anything to do with them, and we have declared ail along that we would not deal with them except with the Ursulines direct. We have had no negotiations with them up to the present time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to be the sentiment of the House that it is a wise thing for the government to purchase this property.

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that we have been too neglectful In the past of those historic spots. There are many In the province of Quebec which have now dwindled into instgnificance on account of our neglect. Certainly, a battlefield as interesting as this one, and fraught with such imperishable memories should be preserved to the nation if possible. For my own part,
I do not think that the price which is mentioned in the resolution is an excessive price for such an extensive property, situated in proximity to Quebec. I have no doubt that if it were divided into lots and utilized for commercial purposes, it might produce a much higher price than that mentioned in this resolution. But it seems to me that the right hon. gentleman has not answered satisfactorily the question of the member for Labelle. Whilst we all agree on the propriety of this transaction, there is no doubt that rumours have gone abroad that there was a deal contemplated-I think that is the proper expression-and that this purchase would not go through unless the Ursu-lines bound themselves to acquire another property which the vendors intended to part with, at a profit of $30,000. Those rumours were very widespread, and some colour of truth was given to them by the attitude taken by a member of the government. In view of these circumstances, I think that the right hon. gentleman should say that the government had made an investigation, and that it had come to the conclusion that no such deal was contemplated. Some assurance front the Prime Minister on that point, would have been very satisfactory to the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I can say that if my colleague from Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) were here, he would give my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) all the satisfaction he wants on that point. Mr. Dobell is not here to-day, but he will be here next session, and all the information can be given then. For my part. I am quite certain that nothing of the kind has taken place. But I must say to my hon. friend that even if anything had taken place, even if there had been such a deal, the government could be in no way responsible. We will deal with the nuns directly and with the Archbishop of Quebec, who is their legal adviser in these matters.


Samuel Hughes: I think there has been a misconception in regard to this property. Have not these people been the owners for many years.


The PRIME MINISTER.: About 200 years, and we have been in possession under the lease for 100 years. Suppose it had been contemplated that there would be a purchase of the Marchmont property, it has been stated that Mr. Tanguay bought Marchmont with the intention of making an exchange with the nuns-suppose that occurred
we disclaim all responsibilty for that. I assert this at once, and I give to my hon. friend the statement now as the basis of the appropriation for which we ask parliament ? that the government has nothing to do directly, or indirectly, with anything of the kind. We do not propose to purchase Marchmont nor to exchange it for the Plains of Abraham. We do not propose to have any transaction with anybody except the nuns. If we pay the money we can have the property for $S0,000, on the condition that it be made a public park. We will deal with the nuns directly, and we will pay them the money. What they do afterwards is no concern of ours. Whether they buy Marchmont at $20,000, or $40,009, or $100,000, is no concern of ours.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not even if they are obliged to.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says that the price is fair and right, and I understand he wants the property to be bought. From whom can we buy it ? What does he want us to do ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is a case where the government should investigate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Investigate wbat ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Investigate if there is any truth in the allegation that the nuns cannot sell this property unless they bind themselves to buy this Marchmont property.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I can tell the hon. gentleman that there is no truth whatever in the statement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what I wanted to know.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have nothing to do with anybody but the nuns, and the Archbishop who is advising the nuns.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are there any conditions attached to the sale ? /


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have been informed that the nuns wanted it to be a public park and not divided.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Anything further than that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Nothing whatever. I may say that when we have bought the property and have the deed, we shall put it on the Table of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am satisfied with the declaration of the right hon. gentleman that after investigation he finds the nuns are not obliged to purchase this Marchmont property, and that it is not a condition.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: There will be no objection in Canada to the government purchasing the Plains of Abraham. It is a historical spot. It is where the two races that are prominent in Canada shed their

581G
blood together. A beautiful park there, nicely planted with trees and flowers, would be an attractive spot for all Canadians to visit. I am sure it would be very wrong, indeed, for this government or the people of Canada, to allow the Plains of Abraham to be divided into building lots and built over, as I understand will he the case if the government do not secure the property. I think the government will do a very wise thing if they will purchase those seventy acres of land for the amount mentioned, and therefore, I will support the vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am obliged to say that I disagree with those who say we are doing wisely in purchasing this property for the amount of money mentioned. I have no doubt it would be a pleasant and proper thing for the country to own it; but from information which we have had of late, that property in the same locality sold a few months ago for about one-fifth the monev and was considered well sold, it seems to me that there is something of a job being perpetrated on the government in this transaction. I do not know what could account for the sudden rise in the value of property in that locality lately. I have it from the bon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell; that property which he sold in that locality a few mouths ago was sold for about onc-lil'th the money that is being asked for this property to-day. Another feature of this transaction is that if the property is purchased by the government, I understand that it will be held as a public park in the interest of the city of Quebec. It is true, it is a historical spot, and a great deal of sentiment that we all like is connected with it, and we would like to owii the property; but if the people of Quebec require a park, they should endeavour to purchase it for themselves without expecting the Dominion of Canada to purchase it for them, and keep it for that purpose. I think the citv of Quebec will be likely to get practically nearly all the use it will be to anybody. The sightseer may go there out of curiosity, and it would be a very pleasant place to visit; but it will always be principally for the use of the people of Quebec, and I think they should purchase it for themselves. I do not think that the argument of the First Minister that if this property were cut up into small lots, a great deal more could be realized .from it. is much of an argument; because it would be necessary to spend money in making streets, and so forth, and a large part of the property would probably remain unsold for a long time before any return could be got from it. So that though a larger price might be realized from it if cut up and sold in that way it is no evidence that the property is worth the same per acre when sold en block. But what principally influences me is the fact, as I am told, that a few months ago property was actually sold in the same locality at Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
about one-fifth the price that is asked for this property.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I do not wish to oppose this item at all; but some hon. members arc, I think, labouring under a wrong impression about this property being a historical spot. According to some historians, it is not the place where the battle of the Plains of Abraham took place. I have just read in the last report of the Royal Society of Canada, a most valuable paper by Mr. Doughty, one of the officials of the provincial government at Quebec, in which it is demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the -battle did not take place on that spot, but much nearer the city of Quebec; and he arrives at this conclusion after having quoted all the officers who served in and who wrote on the subject. It is a historical error to say that the battle took place on that ground. However, I am not opposed to the item.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have just one word to say in reply to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who thinks that the price is exaggerated. To this there is a very obvious answer. The nuns are not particular to sell; they do not care to sell. They are satisfied to keep the property, and divide it into lots. My hon. friend says it takes a long time to dispose of it in that way. So it does.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do they make it a condition that if the government purchase the property they shall keep it as a park ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because they have patriotism enough to sacrifice some profit and take this xn-ice for it on that condition. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), if we are to go minutely into what are called errors in history, I am afraid we shall have many of our illusions taken from us. We had better perhaps keep our illusions. Tradition says that this was the battlefield. Perhaps the actual collision between the French and the English troops may have taken place further to the east; but my hon. friend forgets that there were two battles- one in 1759, and the other on the 2uth of April, 1760, and there is no doubt that pai-t of the battle was fought on that very ground.


Mr. BROCK.: I do not rise for the purpose of making any objection to the vote or finding fault with the price, but I rise for a little information. We in the city of Toronto are very desirous of having parks, and when we think of acquiring a park, we do not think of coming to the government and asking the government to buy it. and hand it over to us under any excuse: but the corporation buys it. There appears to be a different view applied to Quebec. I am not finding fault with it: but the government need not be surprised, after

buying little bits of property all over the country, If demands are made upon them from Toronto and Hamilton and other cities. We have historical sjiots ; but if we came and asked the government to buy a park within the vicinity of the borders of Toronto for $80,000, what kind of a reception would we meet with ?
We are told that property in Quebec is going up by leaps and bounds, and that it is so valuable it is almost dangerous to go near Quebec just now, and yet this Dominion is asked to supply that city with a park. In fairness to the rest of the Dominion, the city of Quebec should undertake itself to purchase this particular park, even though it be a historic park, and even though some gentlemen want to knock all the romance out of it. The government should arrange with the city of Quebec so that the city will agree to maintain the park in perfect order, for when we once get it on our hands it will be too late to make any such arrangement.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I was not aware that the city of Toronto has such sacred property within its limits as the Plains of Abraham. If it has any property of that character, and if the demand of the city of Toronto that we should take it over be backed by the whole people of Canada, as in this instance, my hon. friend will receive the same treatment. We have had piles of correspondence asking the government to purchase the property-correspondence from Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, and all parts of Canada, but we have had no demand to buy an inch of property In Toronto on historic ground.


William Rees Brock: We are a little modest in Toronto, and would not have the cheek to ask the House and the government to do anything of the kind for us. But there are historic spots right inside the city of Toronto. There is the property there which is now the property of the government, which is historic, and which the city would like very well to have, and if you will hand it over to the city, we would get considerably more than $80,000 for it.


William Ross: The historic spots in Toronto are where political battles were fought by William Lyon Mackenzie.


Samuel Hughes: I would ask the Solicitor General if Wolfe's monument is included in the purchase of the Plains of Abraham ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is already Federal government property. All the property from the eastern limit of the Plains to the Citadel walls, except the small strip fronting on Grande Allee, is government property.


Samuel Hughes: How is it the jail is built on that property ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That was built previous to confederation, and an order in council was passed in 1872 or 1S73, giving the jail, with the ground immediately about it, to the province.


Samuel Hughes: It would be only fair to ask the provincial government to remove the jail from the Plains of Abraham.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is a fine building.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, but very objectionable. If we are to have a public park, on the field of battle where Wolfe fell, we would be yielding to national sentiment by having the jail removed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might remove it to Lindsay.


Samuel Hughes: We have no cause for a jail in Lindsay. Let it be taken down to the lower town of Quebec or somewhere else. I have consulted many military men in Quebec with reference to this question. They all point out that the bargain is a very fair one, that the property would bring much more than $80,000, and that, as the property which the nuns are going to purchase, will face on the Plains of Abraham, they will in that way be recouped to some extent. Our good friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) has referred to historic ground in that city. Let me tell him that General Pyke, one of ike most famous explorers and travellers this continent has produced, led an American force to Toronto and was shot within the precincts of that city. I for one would not object to voting for the purchase of the grounds in order to make a park for die city of Toronto. More than that, I would be willing to allow the American sympathizers of General Pyke to erect a monument to him in that city, and also to allow the American sympathizers of General Montgomery to erect a monument to him in the city of Quebec. It displays very narrow spirit on the part of Canadians to object to our doing this. In the recent South African war, a British general had a monument erected on the field of battle over the remains of an officer who commanded the Boer forces. I do not see anything humiliating or demeaning in allowing our American friends to erect these monuments. I would also encourage the government in setting apart these historic spots. I drew the attention of the government to the old historic Huguenot fort of La tour at the mouth of the River St. John. The early Huguenot settlers in the maritime provinces are a race of which this country may well be proud. I would willingly support a resolution to preserve that fort, and also the forts of Annapolis and Beau-sejour on the border between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I regret that X cannot support this motion. My opposition to it does not arise from any financial point of view. I think that the price paid for the property is not exaggerated. From what I have heard and know of the property, the price is moderate. But what I object to is the spirit which prompts its purchase. I have no objection to commemorating everything historic which is sacred to the memory of the Canadian people as a whole. For instance, the battlefield of Chateauguay, where the Canadians made themselves illustrious in defence of their country.	XVe hoar very often-and
every time I hear it I applaud-of the necessity of building up Canada as one nation and leaving aside all recollection of past differences. But we are now asked to commemorate an event which, X admit, we not only must accept, but the consequence of which I accept as having been

An lion. MEMBER. A blessing.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would not say exactly a blessing, but of having turned to the advantage of the country, and which the descendants of the brave French soldiers who fought there have accepted loyally. But there is something more than that in this matter. The movement that was started in Quebec, and which led to the acquisition of tills property, was for the purpose of our commemorating the last defeat of French arms in America, and the decisive victory of English arms. I acknowledge that the descendants of the English race are entitled to be proud of that triumph, just as we can boast of several victories of our ancestors. But I say that all such recollections should be effaced as much as possible.
Hon. gentlemen who went to Quebec on the late excursion, whilst walking on the splendid Dufferin terrace may have seen a small monument erected on the western side of the terrace and dominating the River St. Lawrence. The foundation of that monument was laid by an English Governor nearly one hundred years ago, to the memory of the two great generals who fought in that battle, Wolfe and Montcalm. There is upon that monument a Latin inscription, the text of which I do not remember, but the meaning of which is : ' Their valour gave them a common death, history a common fame and posterity has erected this monument. That should be the spirit presiding over everything we do to commemorate noble deeds in this country. The movement which was at the bottom of this purchase was started by a small handful of gentlemen in Quebec, gentlemen for whom I have the greatest respect, and to whose action I would not object if they wished to commemorate that event for their own sake. But, when the movement is carried to the parliament of Canada with the idea of celebrating the last defeat of French arms in America and glorifying the Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
final victory of England, I do not think it fair to ask the Canadian people at large to pay for that glorification. As I said at the beginning, I have no objection to the acquisition of the historic sites where the two races fought for the common defence of the Canadian soil. What we should seek to keep is not the remembrance of English victories, or of French victories, but of Canadian victories in defence of Canada ; and, whenever the government asks for means to commemorate such events, I shall give my vote in favour. But, in the words of the Minister of Public Works on one occasion, I would say : Let bygones be bygones. There are many dark pages in our history that have been turned-let them remain turned. The history of the Canadian nation does not go far back, but her life has been long enough that both races may find many great events to commemorate without going back to a period of history which, while it was glorious to both races, has also bitter memories for both. Though 1 think the spirit of the government was a good one, I do not think the spirit which brought this movement forward and forced it upon the government was a proper one or one that should lie encouraged in this country where we all want to have good remembrances and not to keep alive the memory of the sad events in our history.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) will reflect a moment, I feel sure he will change the views he has just uttered. He finds no fault with the monument erected to the memory of Wolfe and Montcalm. There is no Canadian who visits Quebec and looks at that monument but feels proud of his nation that we have been able to forget our differences and divisions in this tribute to the memory of the great men who lost their lives on the Plains of Abraham. But if he finds no fault with the idea which suggested the erection of a common monument to the memory of Wolfe and Montcalm, I ask why he should object when we propose to consecrate the ground where Wolfe and Montcalm met their death. Is it not the same idea after all ? And if he can look with pride on that monument cannot he look with greater pride on the ground on which these great men met their death ? To me it seems a noble idea that in this ground where our common ancestors shed their blood we should bury the last of those differences to which my hon. friend has made allusion. That is the thought that inspired those who approached the government on this question. That is the thought that has inspired.the government also-that we, should have another memento, that we should consecrate the very ground upon which these great men lost their lives and that it should remain free from polu-tiou for all time.


Uriah Wilson: There seems to be a very general feeling that the money should be

voted for the purchase of these grounds. But I think there should be a clear understanding as to who is to maintain the park. I recollect when hon. gentlemen who are now on the Treasury benches were on this side of the House, many of them found fault with the government of that day for keeping up Major's Hill Park here. There should be a clear understanding that, if the land is purchased toy the Dominion, the city of Quebec should keep up the park.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister will tell us what the grounds have been used for since they were leased.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The ground was leased for military purposes, to keep it as a military ground. It was used as a race course for many years


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: And grazing ground.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It has been put to no very special use.
Mr. 'WILSON. Is it understood that the city of Quebec will keep up the park ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it should toe understood that the city of Quebec shall maintain it.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think the city of Quebec should toe allowed to take that ground. There should toe a parade ground there. It may be very valuable for military purposes in the future. Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), I am surprised that a gentleman of his chivalric nature should not see that in this very movement there is something that will have a tendency to fuse the two races even closer together. I pretend to be as loyal a man as he, but I can stand on the field, for instance, of Caril-lon# or Ticonderoga where the British met severe defeat at the hands of the French, and yet feel as patriotic a Briton as though the British had won.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would you advise that they be bought ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly, if that could be. But, unfortunately, it is in Yankee territory. I have little sympathy with a man who, in this enlightened age, is so narrow that he would object to the purchase of a property of this kind on the ground that it would breed a feeling of race antagonism.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret the absence of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell), and I think it is a pity that there should be any misunderstanding as to his attitude on this question. It has been suggested both here and in the press that that hon. gentleman opposed the acquisition of the Plains of Abraham. Whatever else may be said of the hon. member for
Quebec West, one fault he cannot be accused of, and that is want of loyalty or devotion to the best interests of the city of Quebec. He is a foremost citizen of Quebec, and has been most generous in his attitude toward the city. As a matter of fact, he was one of the warmest advocates of the acquisition of the Plains of Abraham. But he thought that property could be acquired for a less sum, and he was anxious that we should acquire it for a less sum. But, after investigation, we concluded that that could not toe, and this sum is therefore asked for. But anybody who gets the impression that the hon. member was not enthusiastic in his advocacy of the acquisition of the Plains of Abraham will do him a great injustice ; and in his absence I wish to state that fact.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite sure that there was no intention-at least, I know that it was not my intention-to leave on the minds of hon. members the impression that the hon. gentleman from Quebec West was opposed to the purchase of the property, but only opposed to the purchase at the price offered, because he thought it was too high. And I still entertain the opinion that the government were buncoed a little by the nuns proposing to divide this property and sell it in lots. It was a business transaction and they used that as an advertisement, I think, that the government might be advised to buy. The very fact that they stipulated in the sale that it should not be used for any other purpose than a park, leaves that impression upon my mind. If they so much desired it to be a park, why did they threaten to divide it up into lots unless it be to get a higher price for it ? I would like to say one word with regard to the observations of the hon. member for Labelle. It did seem to me when the proposal was made to purchase this property, that if there was one thing more than another that ought to cement the affections of the two races, it would be the fact that the country had got a property that was sacred to both alike. After hearing him, I am disposed, with the consent of the committee, to withdraw all that I have said against the purchase.


Mr. CALVIN.: I desire to enter an objec-ton to the argument made by the hon. member for West York, concerning the value of property in the city of Quebec. The inference which he has drawn from the dilapidated state of the property in the neighbourhood of the coves, is not justified. The depreciation of the value of that property has arisen from causes over which no merchant in the city of Quebec has any control. The forests of the country have been lessened, and the method of exporting wood has been changed, as a result of which that property has become almost absolutely valueless for the purposes to which it was put thirty years ago. Those gentlemen who visited the city of Quebec a few days ago saw the

disadvantages under which the city had laboured on account of the decay of that [DOT] industry, and the same remark will apply to the decay of the industry of wooden shipbuilding. Notwithstanding these hinderances, those gentlemen saw the prosperity which is evident throughout the town itself, the fine streets, the new buildings, the factories that were seen not only In the upper town, but in St. Roch and St. Sauveur. They could see that this city had prospered mightily in spite of the drawbacks. Now, as regards the price of this property, I do not pretend to be an expert, but I know Mr. Price, and Mr. Chau-teauvert, and nearly all the other gentlemen whose names have been mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister. They are men in whom I have eveiy confidence, and I am delighted to see that this property is being purchased.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 22, 1901.