[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the Canadian Nurses' Association.-Mr. Clarke.
Mr. MCLENNAN.: Mr. Chairman, before the preamble is adopted, I wish to make a few observations in regard to this Bill somewhat on the lines of the observations I made here the other evening. I hold the same views in regard to the objection to a group of nurses, or an association of this kind, securing incorporation for the purpose of enabling them to submit to re-examination their sisters in the profession throughout the Dominion of Canada. In regard to an examination as to competency, I would submit that if these ladies themselves could show a certificate of competency beyond the ordinary, there might be some reason in their thus expecting to constitute themselves a committee to investigate the professional competency of their sisters. All that they seem to think necessary for this is to name one here and there, throughout the Dominion, and to have them constituted into an association. This association professes to seek at the hands of parliament powers which it would really be unfair to confer upon them as compared with other ladies throughout the Dominion of Canada equally competent. As I said here the other evening, I say now, that no training school for nurses, recognized as such, in the United States or Canada would allow a nurse to go forth to practise her profession from its institution without a certificate of competency. The curriculum provides that two years must be devoted to the study of the various branches of knowledge required in the nursing profession. I think still that the bodies in charge of these recognized training schools of nurses, or in charge of respectable hospitals throughout the country, are really the very best authorities to judge as to the competency of a successful trained nurse. The qualifications for a competent trained nurse are quite different in many respects from those which would be necessary in a successful medical practitioner. A knowledge of the various branches of the science of medicine and of surgery would be necessary to the medical practitioner and to the surgeon, whereas there are a great many other qualifications that would be infinitely more advantageous to be possessed by the trained nurse than a knowledge of all these branches of science. Good health would be one of the prime necessities in a successful nurse. It cannot be expected that all the nurses that would come before this association, or before a board of medical examiners, in the various provinces of the Dominion, would possess this prime requisite. Suppose a sickly nurse should come before this board and know anatomy and physiology and all these other branches that she would be examined upon, thoroughly, it would not indicate her competency. One week's night vigil might render her thoroughly inefficient and incompetent to perform successful nursing in a case of a patient perhaps weeks on a sick-bed. Where is the ordinary practitioner to look for such a nurse, or how is this board, the members of which are strangers to these nurses, to take a matter of this kind into consideration? I say again that the only body which should be considered as competent to pass upon the various qualities which would constitute a successful nurse is the body with which that nurse has served a two year's course of training. While I have no objection to an association of this character being formed, I do object to its being vested with powers which would make it dangerous for the success of sister nurses throughout the Dominion, perhaps equally, if not more capable

than the members of this association to fulfil the duties necessary in the successful carrying out of their calling. While I have no objection to these ladies being formed into an association of this character, I do object to the clause which enables them to submit their sisters of the profession throughout the Dominion to an examination in the various branches. I, therefore, in order to allow this House and the members of the profession throughout the Dominion of Canada to properly consider a measure of this character, beg to move that this Bill be read this day, six months.


Mr. DEPUTT SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman's motion is out of order at this stage.


Angus McLennan: It will serve my purpose, and at the same time conform with the rules of the House, if I now move that the committee rise.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps it would be more convenient if the hon. gentleman would move an amendment to the third reading.


Angus McLennan: Very well.


Mr. SPROULE.: While this Bill meets with the approval of a great number of persons, there are also a great many who disapprove of it. Information which I have received leads me to believe that the medical profession have one very serious objection to it. They believe that there should be a representative of each of the prominent hospitals of the country on this board, which representative would likely be the medical superintendent. The fact that this is not provided for in the Bill makes it very unsatisfactory. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) should hold over this Bill for the current year, and in the meantime copies of it will be sent to the different hospitals and to the medical board which meets this fall, so that suggestions might be made which would overcome the difficulties which are apparent.


Mr. CLARKE.: The fact that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has made the suggestion that the Bill be held over until next session would under ordinary circumstances have a good deal of weight with me. But I would remind the hon. gentleman that tlie Bill was before the House last session and withdrawn. It has been redrafted since, and it was submitted to the House two months ago. After it was printed I sent dozens of copies to the medical profession, and to the hospitals in Toronto, and any objections that were made were submitted by me to the Miscellaneous'Private Bills Committee. I would remind hon. gentlemen that the Bill was not once but twice before the committee ; that it came before this House and was referred back for further considera-Mr McLennan.
tion, and that the Bill was amended in the committee so as to meet every reasonable suggestion offered. I do not know that I should take up the time of the House at this late period of the session, in answering the statements made by the hon. member for Inverness. There is nothing in this Bill which gives those incorporated under it any privilege over others engaged in the nursing profession ; there is nothing in the Bill which prevents any person who is qualified for nursing from doing so. The intention of the Bill is to improve the status of the profession in every possible way, and only reasonable provisions have been incorporated in the Bill. I do not know that it is necessary for the success of an association of trained qualified nurses, that they should have on their board a number of medical men. I think they are quite able to transact business respecting their profession and its interests, even without the co-operation and assistance of the medical men. At the request of the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) there has been provision made, that if the board of this association require that an examination shall be passed by those who seek admission to the association, then that examination shall be conducted by a board of medical experts to be named by the president of the medical association in the respective provinces. I repeat that the provisions of this Bill are reasonable ; that a demand exists for the establishment of the association which it is proposed to incorporate ; that organizations have been established in the United States and the mother land having the same objects in view ; that these associations have been productive of the greatest possible good both to the nurses themselves and to those placed under their care by reason of ill-health. The fact that the incorporators are women ; women of experience, women -who have passed the medical examinations necessary to qualify them as trained nurses, is of itself a sufficient guarantee. The fact that no males are seeking to be incorporated under this Bill is not in itself sufficient to justify the House in throwing it out. In view of the fact that this is the second time that this Bill has been before parliament ; in view of the fact that it has been considered not once but twice by the Private Bills Committee most carefully, and that every reasonable amendment proposed was accepted, I think I am justified in asking that the Bill be now proceeded with.


Mr. McCREARY.: I have a copy of this Bill before me, reprinted as amended and reported by the Private Bills Committee. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) states that this Bill lias been considered with great care, that it has been before this House on different occasions and that there are none but ladies incorporated under this Bill. I take up the first clause showing the names

of those asking for this legislation and I find the name, Elizabeth McKay, of Winnipeg. I believe she is a nurse though I am not sure, but at all events she is the only representative of the entire west from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. Looking through the names I see ' Johnston, of Chatham.' Apparently there is so much ignorance of the incorporators of the Bill that the Christian name of Johnston is not known. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) says it is the name of a lady, and it may be, but X believe that it may also be Rufus Snowball Johnston, a tonsorial artist of Chatham.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Forsythe McCreary: It may be one of the barbers of the town of Chatham, but the hon. gentleman from Kent would know more about that.' Here is the Bill reprinted and reported and yet we do not know who Johnston is.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) need not trouble himself about that. I have here the Christian name of the lady and I intend to move that it be inserted in the preamble when the proper time comes. The hon. gentleman may disabuse his mind as to the identification of that lady.


William Forsythe McCreary: Notwithstanding that the Bill has been amended four times it does not show much care when they could not insert the name of one of the incorporators. Although the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) says that this Bill does not mean anything, I find that clause 3 says :
The object of this association shall he to further the best interests and to establish and maintain a universal standard of training for all nurses.
What right have these people whom we do not know are professional nurses to arrogate to themselves the duty of establishing and maintaining a universal standard of training ? I contend that they have no right to do so without consulting the numerous nurses throughout the country who know nothing of this Bill or its provisions. We are making a very reasonable request when we ask that this Bill should be withdrawn for this session. I have the right to submit copies of this Bill to the various hospitals in Manitoba, North-west Territories and British Columbia, and to ask them if they approve of it, and if they have any suggestions to make. This is a new parliament and we know nothing of what was done by Dr. Roddick and the other promoters of the Bill last session. Clause 4 says :
The association may adopt a constitution, bylaws, rules and regulations for its government.
That means that they can practically exclude from their corporate body any person they desire. We all know how hard it is
to get men to agree on anything, but any one who has been at a meeting composed entirely of ladies will understand that a great deal of jealousy may be brought up, and that a qualified nurse might be excluded without any just reason. The Bill says in reference as to who shall be admitted :
Nurses from any hospital under the control of any provincial government or of any municipality of Canada, or who have graduated or hold certificates from any other hospital approved by by-law of the association, who shall have two full years' training-
That would bar out every sister of mercy and every nun in the whole country. It would bar out every graduate from an hospital in the United States. It would bar out every hospital graduate from the British Isles ; and in Manitoba and the North-west we have a good many graduates from hospitals in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, practising their profession-some in Winnipeg, some in towns, and some in remote districts in the country, where they give their services to many poor and needy settlers ; and this Bill would prevent them charging anything for their work unless they were, members of this association. It is tfn-wise and improper legislation, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the Bill, or hon. members to vote against it, so that we may have an opportunity to bring in a proper Bill at the next session of this House.


Mr. TALBOT.: I move that the Chairman leave the Chair.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: When this Bill was first introduced I raised an objection to some of the clauses. On that account there may be some misunderstanding that I was opposed to this legislation. I wish to make it clear now that I do not oppose it. I wish the nurses to have any legislation which will tend to raise the standard of the profession in this country. As the promoter of the Bill has accepted the principles which I advocated at that time, and has removed the objectionable clauses, I do not intend for my part to offer any further objection. But I may inform my hon. friend that since the discussion took place. I have received a great many letters, indicating that there is a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to this legislation, and suggesting improvements in it. So far as I am concerned, there is only one practical suggestion which I think might be adopted. If that were done, and good sound principles were laid down for the government of the institution, T have no doubt that the by-laws framed by the incorporated body would be perfectly satisfactory. The principal suggestion which has been brought to my attention is that there should be one uniform standard of examination. which I think we could all agree to ; and if that change was made applicable to all nurses becoming members of the asso-

ciation, I would be prepared to support the Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A provision has been made in the Bill for the express purpose of preventing the association from holding an examination that might be vexatious or might have the effect of excluding qualified ladies from membership in it. It is now provided that if an examination is required to be held in any case, it shall be conducted by a committee of medical experts under the direction of the president of the medical association in each province, which is the best guarantee that the examination will be conducted fairly and wnn the sole object of promoting the interests of the nurses' association. 1 may say again, that the objections which have come to this Bill have come because in many instances those who have made complaints have not been supplied with copies of the Bill, and have been but partially informed as to its purpose. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent any person going to the North-west Territories or to Manitoba, or to any other province, and practising his or her profession as a nurse. There is no advantage given to those connected with the association, except the permission to use after their names the initials which are permitted to them as members of the Canadian Nurses' Association. If it is a laudable thing for those ladies who have had many years' experience in nursing, by uniting together in an association of this kind, to improve their status and the status of all others engaged in the profession, I think the committee should give them that opportunity. They do not place a bar upon anybody and do not compel anybody to join the association. It is purely voluntarily, and if the Bill passes, I am sure that within two or three years from now Canadian nurses will occupy an even more prominent position in their profession than they do to-day. They ask to be placed in a position similar to that occupied by their sister nurses in the United States. Their request is a reasonable request, and I hope, in view of the fact that the Bill has been before the House for two months, that the committee will now allow it to pass.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It seems to me that while this parliament has the right to pass this legislation, it would be trespassing on what properly belongs to the several provincial legislatures. We have in the several provinces organizations not exactly similar, bi^ analogous to this. We have had applications for the incorporation of civil engineers. dentists and other similar bodies. Why should these applications not go to the several provincial legislatures, where they are better understood ? The conditions are different in the different provinces, and it would be much more feasible to settle these matters through the different legislatures than to attempt to establish a standard that Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
would apply to the whole Dominion. Each province has its own peculiar circumstances, and will have its own standard despite anything that this parliament might do ; and I am sure that this Bill would not be viewed with favour in the different provinces. Speaking for New Brunswick, I am satisfied that that province would not favour the incorporation of this Dominion organization. I shall, therefore, oppose the Bill.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I notice one clause in this Bill which, to my mind, is very dangerous, that is subsection 6, referring to examinations, and it is one which might possibly destroy the intended benefits accruing from this Bill. I would submit that any standard of examinations should be made subject to the ratification of the Governor in Council or some other controlling body. We have in the jn'ovince of Ontario a medical board which is fast earning the name of a tyrannical body. I submit that there could be no harm in retaining to the control of this parliament some immediate jurisdiction over this body.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be much better if the hon. member in charge of the Bill accepted the suggestion to hold it over, instead of allowing it to be prejudiced by being thrown out. It would not injure the Bill to hold it over, nor would it, I apprehend, do any injustice to the nurses of the country. I know, from complaints which I have had from medical men in the country, that the Bill as it now stands is objectionable to many of them. They desire delay, not for the purpose of preventing the Bill ultimately passing, but for better adjusting the differences that exist between the medical profession and this proposed nurses' association.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: It is not a question of the medical profession, but of the general public.
Motion for the Chairman to leave the Chair carried :	Yeas, 43 ; nays, 33.



BILL WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 8G) respecting the Trans-Canada Railway Company-Mr. Talbot.


Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	How much has been paid by the Dominion government to railways in Prince Edward Island, as railway subsidies, since the date at which the Island came into confederation up to the year 1900, inclusive ?
2.	How much has been expended on government railways in Prince Edward Island by the Dominion government since the time the Island came into the Union, to 1900, inclusive ?

3. How much has been expended by the Dominion government on harbours, docks and other public works, except railways, in Prince Edward Island by the Dominion government since the date of union of the Island with the Dominion of Canada up to 1900, inclusive ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Nothing has been paid.
2.	On capital account, $728,918.17.
3.	This question will no doubt be answered by the Public Works Department.


TELEPHONE COMPANIES' MILEAGE.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the mileage of all telephone companies, other than the Bell Telephone Company, operating in the Dominion of Canada ? Also, what is the number of subscribers of such companies in each province ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The mileage of all telephone companies, other than the Bell Telephone Company, operating in the Dominion of Canada, is as follows
Miles of poles	 13,607
Miles of wire	 32,541
2.	I have not been able to obtain the number of subscribers as asked for In this question, but I may furnish the number of offices in each province, as follows
Provinces.	Offices.
Ontario	229
Quebec	165
Nova Scotia	 150
New Brunswick	 79
British Columbia	 38
Total, including Prince Edward Island and North-west Territories	 743


ONTARIO RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
. Mr. HUGHES (King's) asked :
1.	How much has been paid by the Dominion government to railways in Ontario as railway subsidies since Confederation up to the year 1900, inclusive ?
2.	How much has been expended by the Dominion government on harbours, docks and other public works, except railways, in Ontario since Confederation up to the year 1900, inclusive ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	$6,458,889.28.
2.	By the Department of Railways and Canals, $45,546,547.89.



BINDER TWINE.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: What price per pound was added for labour on twine now being sold from the Kingston Penitentiary, and for the two preceding years ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The cost for labour and handling for the last two years was $1.58 per one hundred pounds. The cost for this year will be about the same as in previous years. This does not include wear and tear of machinery.



MR. JUSTICE ROBERTSON.

Mr. STEPHENS asked :: Has any information been given to the government, that one of the judges of the High Court of Justice in Ontario is unfortunately physically incapable of properly hearing the evidence adduced in cases tried before him?
In consequence of such physical infirmity, do some barristers arrange to have cases tried by some other judge ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Representations have been made to the Minister of Justice from various counsel practising at the bar of Ontario of Mr. Justice Robertson's physical infirmity, and some counsel of eminence have refused to take cases before him, on account of his very great deafness. The truth is Mr. Justice Robertson is, in the opinion of the bar, no longer fit for his duties, but up to the present time, he does not seem to realize, what is apparent to the profession and to the public.



QUEBEC DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. ANGERS asked :: 1.	Whether the hon. Minister of Agriculture is aware that the dairy industry has been extensively developed in the province of Quebec?
2.	Whether the hon. Minister is of opinion that it would be advisable, in the public interest, to publish full details in relation to such development ?
3.	Whether the hon. minister has noticed that the yearly returns for 1899 give but a brief note in relation to this industry in Quebec, while furnishing ample details in relation to the other provinces ?
4.	Why this difference ?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	The Minister of Agriculture has observed with much satisfaction the development of dairying in the province of Quebec.
2.	The Minister of Agriculture proposes to publish during the current year a full statement regarding the development in the several provinces.
3.	Much detailed information has ben collected by census enumerators, which will be duly published.



JAPANESE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1. What action has the government taken, or does it propose to take, with reference to the legislation passed by the legislature of the province of British Columbia last year, im-

posing restriction upon the Japanese in that province ?
2. What is the last date upon which such legislation could be disallowed ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The subject is now engaging the attention of the government. The last date for disallowance is September 17 next.



MONUMENT FOR MONTGOMERY.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Will the government permit the erection of a monument or tablet on government property in the city of Quebec to mark the spot where he was killed or to commemorate the death of the American General Montgomery, who with American troops unsuccessfully assailed the city of Quebec ?
2.	Is the government aware that it is the intention of the Montgomery Memorial Committee of the Sons of the Revolution, of Boston, U.S., to erect on the face of the cliff under the citadel at Quebec, a 12-foot tablet to commemorate the death of the American General Montgomery ?
3.	Is not the face of the cliff government property ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government have not been asked permission to have a monument or tablet erected to the memory of General Montgomery. The government is aware that an application was made by a committee of the Sons of the Revolution, of Boston, to the city council of Quebec for permission to erect a tablet at the spot where Montgomery fell in September, 1775. The parties who made that application have not addressed any petition to the government, and it is assumed that this monument would be located on municipal property, over which the government have no control. The cliff upon which a board has been erected for many years, with the inscription ' Here Montgomery fell,' is government property.



CANADA AND ALASKA-PROVISIONAL BOUNDARY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved that an order of the House do issue for a return giving :
Joint report of W. F. King, chief astronomer of the Department of the Interior, and Otto H. Tittmann, of the United Coast and Geodetic Survey, the commissioners appointed under the modus vivendi agreed to between Great Britain and the United States on the 20th October, 1899, to report in regard to the provisional boundary between the territory of Alaska and the Dominion of Canada, about the head of Lynn canal; also maps accompanying the said report, and copy of order in council of the 20th February, 1901, in which it is provided that copies of this report be laid before parliament.
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: 


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has expressed a desire that this report should be printed. I beg leave to move that the rules be suspended and that the House do order the printing of this report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide for the appointment of a second inspector of penitentiaries, at a salary of two thousand six hundred ($2,600) dollars a year.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The PRIME MINISTER.: There are at present five penitentiaries in the Dominion, one at Dorchester, for the maritime provinces, one at St. Vincent de Paul, for the province of Quebec, one at Kingston for the province of Ontario, one at Stony Mountain, for the province of Manitoba, and one in British Columbia. There is also, I _ may say, another one at Dawson City. We do not intend to have a permanent penitentiary there, but to have the convicts from the Yukon brought to British Columbia. At present we are under some difficulty with regard to this. We cannot at the present time, bring a convict to British Columbia except by bringing him through territory that is to-day in the hands of the United States authorities as American territory. The moment we brought a prisoner to Skagway City, for instance, there is no doubt whatever, he would be released from our authority. Therefore, we have to maintain provisionally a penitentiary, or, at all events, a prison that serves the purposes of a penitentiary, at Dawson City. As soon as the labours of the Joint Commission are resumed, which I think will be this year, we are in hopes of getting the treaty extended so as to cover the transfer of prisoners of one country through the territory of the other, under the proper surveillance, and so on. There is only one inspector of penitentiaries at the present time, and it is submitted by the Department of Justice, that, the extended business he has to perform is beyond the powers of any human being. I am sure the committee will agree with me that when a single officer has to undertake the supervision of all the penitentiaries from Dorchester to Dawson City, is it not expedient that there should be another officer added to the staff ?


Samuel Hughes: Is such officer to be inspector of the Yukon ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, but to have jurisdiction over the whole territory. But, at present we have only one inspector, and

he has to supervise all the penitentiaries, including that in the Yukon, and it is conceded that it is not possible that he can adequately perform the duties devolving upon 'him.


Samuel Hughes: Has not this officer, inspector of penitentiaries, been largely engaged in doing other work ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, he has been engaged in doing his own work.


Samuel Hughes: Has he not been acting warden of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Mr. MORRISON.: I think this action on the part of the government has not been taken any too soon. I believe, in fact, that the government might very well go a little further and give assistance to some of the other chief officials of our penitentiary system-the accountant, for instance. From Stony Mountain to the Pacific coast, these institutions, in my opinion, suffer a great ideal from the lack of supervision by the officials who are now resident in Ottawa. The visits of the inspector and other officials are so rare that the supervision of these institutions is left almost entirely in the hands of the local officials. I do not say that these officials are not competent, but they have so much work of their own, that I think, in justice to the institution, and to the service, extra officials should be appointed. Now, as provision is made for an extra inspector, I submit that the new inspector should be, and I am confident that he will be, located in the west. He will have jurisdiction, I suppose, up to the Yukon. I think that in the province of British Columbia that inspector should be located. I am sure the government will not be unmindful of the facilities that will be afforded to the western portion of the Dominion in respect to penitentiaries, and will see that this extra inspector shall be selected from, or, at any rate, shall be located in the western part of the Dominion. I would also suggest the appointment of some other officials, especially an assistant accountant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know exactly what the duties of the inspector are. But, there are six penitentiaries, so the inspector has two months for each one. I should think that some of the smaller penitentiaries would not require so much time. We are informed likewise that the inspector is at present engaged in doing special work in one of the penitentiaries. This, surely, is evidence that he cannot be overworked in the performance of his duties as inspector, or he could not give time to this work in the penitentiary. It seems to me that we ought to have full information as to where the work is going behind, or why the inspector
is employed as warden of St. Vincent de Paul, if there is so much work to be done in the inspection of other penitentiaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At present, the inspector is not engaged at St. Vincent de Paul. He was engaged there for some time, but on representation made to the Minister of Justice, he was recalled and the work was done by the deputy inspector. As to the other information my hon. friend (Mr. ISproule) is asking for, I am sorry to say that I cannot give it off-hand. But I will ask him simply to consider this-that the present inspector would have to visit and look after minutely the penitentiaries at Dorchester, St. Vincent de Paul, Kingston, Stony Mountain and British Columbia, and has also to go to Dawson City. The hon. gentleman will understand and will agree with me, I think, that one man cannot adequately discharge these duties, prepare his reports and do all the other work involved. The complaint uttered by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) shows clearly that we have not moved in this matter too soon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not specially disposed to oppose the motion, but I think that, with the limited information we have at our command, we can hardly judge whether it would be the part of wisdom to make this additional appointment or not. The hon. member for New Westminster seems to take it for granted that if the inspector is appointed, he must be located in the west. I do not think that would be the best plan. If an additional inspector is appointed, he should be located in the most convenient place to reach the largest number of penitentiaries, that is, supposing his work is to cover the whole Dominion. With the improved methods of transportation already existing, and with still greater improvements probable in the near future, it will soon not be a matter involving much loss of time to go even to Dawson City, and I respectfully submit that the size of the penitentiary there is such that it is not likely to occasion great delay or occupy a great deal of time to do the work. So, it is not so much that his time is taken up with travel as the additional work that is imposed upon the inspector. I know that some years ago the inspector had plenty of time to turn up whenever an election was on in a constituency, to do little parish work for his party. I do not mean to say that is the case now, I am talking of what took place in the past. I neither know this gentleman nor do I know whether he is overworked ; but, it seems to me there ought to be some evidence, either of his work getting behind, or of his inability to do it, before the House is asked to vote the salary of another inspector.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know whether the hon. member for Grey (Mr. COMMONS
Sproule) is speaking of Mr. Stewart, when he says that in the past the inspector had found time to do political work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not speaking of Mr. Stewart, I said the inspector, that was Mr. Chamberlain.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Chamberlain is not an official of this government. But, I do not think that Mr. Douglas Stewart has been inspector of penitentiaries during the present regime. If he has been, It must have been when the hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I want to say one word with reference to the inspection. I have some knowledge of the Inspection of Dorchester penitentiary, N.B. Dorchester penitentiary is one of the smallest penitentiaries of the whole number in the Dominion, and it has been found that the inspector is not able to visit New Brunswick more than once a year, and some years he does not succeed iii getting there at all. When he goes there his work requires him to spend at least two months. Now, I would imagine that if he requires two months properly to inspect Dorchester penitentiary, he would require a longer period to inspect larger penitentiaries. As a matter of fact, it is very unsatisfactory to have the inspector visiting a penitentiary only once a year, or even twice. He ought to be able to make frequent visits, and to keep his eye upon the way in which the institution is being conducted. He ought to be able to make unexpected visits, so that he could drop in at a time when the officials would not be apprised of his coming. I have no doubt that what I have said with regard to Dorchester penitentiary can be said with equal or greater force of the larger penitentiaries.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I desire to ask whether it is proposed to divide the work according to territory, that is, for each inspector to be confined to one part of the country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think that it is the intention tb divide the work. I suppose the Minister of Justice will have to assign to the inspector his duties.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I think there is a good deal in the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. I submit it is necessary to divide the district. Now, what the Minister of Railways and Canals has said with regard to Dorchester penitentiary, is true to a greater extent in the west. It is impossible for a proper inspection to be made from Ottawa. Now that the government proposes to effect reforms, it should introduce this reform of ceasing, so far as possible, from directing everything in the extreme west from this remote part of the Dominion. I think some of the duties now entailed upon the head Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
officials in Ottawa should be relegated to officials in the extreme parts of the Dominion. In my opinion, this second inspector will be practically useless, as regards the inspection of the institutions in the west, if he is located in Ottawa. It will cost time and money for him to travel.from Ottawa to these remote parts of the country. The inspection is of no use unless it is effective, and, in my opinion, many of the investigations which have been held in various penitentiaries would have been obviated if there had been thorough and frequent inspection. You cannot have that from Ottawa, at least in the west. The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) made some remarks about the majority of the penitentiaries being .in the east. That is not so. Stony Mountain and Regina, if I mistake not, and New Westminster, have penitentiaries.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Not Regina.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Well, there is a jail at Regina which is inspected, or, at least, which the inspector visits. So, when we have this additional one in Dawson, we will have the same number in the west as there is in the east. These in the east are all accessible to the officials in Ottawa. I think an effective inspection of these three large penitentiaries in the east affords sufficient work for one man, and if the selection of a second inspector can be justified, it would be for the purpose of assigning to him the exclusive care of the institutions west of Stony Mountain. On that ground the government would have sufficient justification in asking for the appropriation of this amount and the appointment of this extra official.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is one difficulty in getting effective inspection when it is made from Ottawa, that is, when the official is otherwise largely occupied, and only goes out there on spasmodic trips. But, there is also a good deal to be said in favour of the work being centralized at Ottawa. I have charge of a department having a large amount of work to be done in distant places, and there is much to be said in favour of the minister having the inspector directly under his control. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will be well advised to take this fact into consideration when he is making his arrangements.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I may state that the method is adopted in respect to other departments. We have an inspector of customs for the province of British Columbia, for instance. We have also an inspector especially for timber, we have a number of officials of that kind, and I think the appointment of an additional inspector of penitentiaries for the distant distrcts would not be a departure from the policy of the

government already adopted. A close inspection of penitentiaries is often more desirable than a close oversight of some of these other departments that I have mentioned.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Is it an officer of. the department you intend to assign to this duty ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 am not in a position to answer my hon. friend on that point. The Minister of Justice has not told j me his intentions.
Resolution reported.



COUNTY COURT JUDGE, VANCOUVER CITY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to provide for the appointment of a county court judge at Vancouver City, B.C., at a salary of two thousand four hundred ($2,400) dollars per annum.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The PRIME MINISTER.: This resolution,
I am sure, will cause no surprise to the committee. It is rendered necessary by the growing importance of the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver, when it first came into existence, was included in the district of New Westminster, but the growth of the city, which has attained very large proportions, and which, I am glad to say, is increasing, has been such that it compelled the legislature of British Columbia to divide the district and to create a district for Vancouver of which Vancouver City is the chief point. That division took place some few years ago. There has been a court at that place for some time now as a result of this action of the British Columbia legislature, but the duties of the county court judge, up to the present time, have been discharged by judges of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice McColl has informed the Department of Justice that the growing business of the province makes it impossible for himself and his colleagues to take the county court business at Vancouver and therefore we have no option now but to provide for a county court judge at this place. That is the explanation of this resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: How many county court judges are there in British Columbia ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to give any information to my hon. friend. I do not think there is any county court judge in the vicinity of Victoria. I think the duties of the county court judge at Victoria are discharged by the judges of the Supreme Court There is one county judge in the Kootenay district, and there is provision made in the
law for a second appointment. There is one also at New Westminster, and there will be one at Vancouver. Whether there are any others, I do not know. However, I speak under correction.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: There is only one county court judge for the large district of Kootenay and I understand it is proposed to appoint one for that district in addition to Judge Foran, who now resides at Nelson. Then, there is one for Cariboo. There are ! five county judges altogether. There is one in Cariboo, one in Yale, located at Vernon, one at New Westminster and one at Nanaimo. The city of Victoria has no county court judge and there is none at Vancouver. It is absolutely necessary to have at least two county judges in addition to those who are at present acting in the province, and even then, in the Kootenay district and the Cariboo district, they will have very large territories with a great deal of work owing to the growth of population and to the development of mining and other operations going on there. The position of a county court judge in British Columbia is a very important one indeed. I think, however important the position of a county court judge is in other portions of the Dominion, it is more so, in my opinion, in the mining districts of British Columbia.


Mr. WALLACE.: Would the hon. member (Mr. Morrison) tell us how many high court judges there are in British Columbia ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: There are five.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Five high court judges as well as five county court judges ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: There are five county court judges.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There are five high court judges as well ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: There are five high court judges, but all the high court judges, with the exception of the Chief Justice, who resides in New Westminster, reside in Victoria and go on circuit through the country. At the present time, in Vancouver, the work of the county court judge is being done by one of the Supreme Court judges. There is really a necessity for more county court judges than the two extra ones who are now being selected. The provincial government only this last session put matters in such a shape that we could here appoint an additional judge. According to the Act which was in existence we could not select an extra judge for the Kootenay country, because it only formed one county, and until the provincial government carved out a new county we could not select a new judge. An amendment has been made to the county court Act whereby the province of British Columbia has adopted the method of Ontario by em-

powering the government to appoint a junior county court judge, and that is what is being done in the case of Kootenay. The new judge will be a junior county court judge. For Vancouver it is a new appointment altogether.


John Graham Haggart: Were the districts set apart by the provincial authorities, and has a request been made for these new judges ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The legislature, as I said a moment ago, some few years ago, created the district of Vancouver and created a county court at Vancouver, but up to this time the duties of a county court judge have been discharged by the Supreme Court judges. We have had no representations made by the provincial authorities but representations have been made directly by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has informed the Minister of Justice that it would not be possible for the judges of his court in future to discharge the duties of a county court judge at Vancouver. Therefore, we have no option but to provide for the appointment of a county court judge at that place.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It appears to me extraordinary to propose the appointment of this judge. We are told that a junior judge is to be appointed to the Kootenay district.
The PRIME MINISTER, Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That has been provided for, and we are to have a new county court judge at Vancouver.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Here is a population of
70.000	or 80,000 people, I presume, and perhaps the census will disclose a much larger number. I hope it will.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: For what district ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The whole province.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: The hon. gentleman is not serious in saying that there are only
70.000	people in British Columbia ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: According to the figures we have now, I think 80,000 or 90.0000 would represent the whole population, including Indians.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: It is more than that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is by the last census. I hope the population is very much larger now. There are five county court judges now and five Supreme Court judges, and it is proposed to add two county court judges with a population of how much ? How much does the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) say the population is ?
Mr. MORRIS0N.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Do you mean for the city of Vancouver ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, the population altogether.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I will tell the hon. gentleman that for the city of Vancouver alone there is provision made for a population of possibly 35,000-at any rate of 30,000. In the Kootenay country I would be very much disappointed if there are not at least 70,000 people within the radius in which these two judges will officiate.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I hope there will be a good many more, but in my judgment, and I have gone through all this country, there will be a good many less. But, the government have no knowledge of that. The only knowledge they have is derived from the returns of the last census and the general knowledge that the population is increasing. They are proposing to appoint two additional county court judges although they have already five county court judges and five Superior Court judges. They will have to borrow lawyers from some place else in order to fill all the appointments.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think
so


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the right hon. gentleman thinks he can get sufficient lawyers in British Columbia to fill the positions, without having to travel over the Dominion to coax lawyers to go out and act as judges of the courts, it relieves our minds to a certain extent, but it looks extraordinary to me that ten judges for the small population of British Columbia are not sufficient to administer justice. I can tell the right hon. gentleman that it is a law-abiding country. You could go to Rossland in the early days when jjeople of all nationalities were crowding into the mining region, and you could travel the streets of Rossland day or night in perfect security. The law-abiding nature of the people throughout that whole country was marvellous and it was in marked contrast with that of the mining districts of the United States.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is highly satisfactory to know that these law-breaking foreigners recognize when they come under the British flag, that they cannot break British law1 without swift and exemplary punishment being meted out to them. They apparently1 have a wholesome terror of British law. That is one of the reasons why there is no necessity for the increase in the number of judges. Five Supreme Court judges seem to me to be an extraordinary number, and' seven county court judges in addition would be entirely unreasonable.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) has answered his own

objection. He has stated that the population of the Kootenay is law-abiding, and he has extended that well-deserved compliment to the whole people of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman should remember that the legislators of British Columbia who represent that law-abiding people, and who are competent to deal with this question, have declared that these two additional judges are necessary. We have no initiation in the matter; we do not act upon our own impulse; we simply carry out the will of the legislature of British Columbia. It is true that there is little crime in British Columbia, and that lawless foreigners have a holy terror of British justice when they get to British territory. But to make that certain, British justice must be adequate to deal promptly with all offences. Surely, in view of the fact that this legislation is demanded by the law-abiding people of British Columbia, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) will withdraw what he has said, and admit that it is imperative on us to give effect to it. I believe that there is a large judicial body in British Columbia for the population given in the last census, but I anf confident that the next census will show a very great increase. If the relatively small population were confined to the Island of Vancouver or to a few of the cities, we would not require so many judges, but the hon. gentleman will remember that British Columbia is the largest province of the Dominion territorially, that it is yet without any great railway communication, that the population is separated by long distances in small communities, and under such circumstances the number of judges must be larger than in the older and more compactly settled provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: It would seem that the number of judges in British Columbia is large for the population, but as the right hon. gentleman has said, the circumstances of that province are very exceptional. It has a small population scattered over an enormous area; the means of communication are not very easy, and therefore the smallness of the population cannot be altogether taken as a standard in this matter. Further, it seems to me that where the provincial legislature has made provision for another judge, and where the Chief Justice of the province has stated that another judge is necessary, this House has no option at all to do otherwise than to provide the additional salary required for this judge.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I would point out to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), that in 1881 the population of British Columbia was 50,000, and that in 1891 it was 100,000, just double. At no time during the ten years from 1881 to 1891,
was there such an influx of people as during the last decade, and it is certainly a matter* of fair surmise that this present census will* show the population of British Columbia to1 be 200,000. I am surprised that the hon, gentleman (Mr. Wallace) should make the statements he has made with reference to the population of British Columbia. He has been several times in the province of British Columbia, and perhaps thereby hangs a tale. He should be familiar with' the tremendous growth of population in the Kootenay district, and he should also know, as the hon. leader of the opposition has stated, of the remoteness of the settled portions of the- province from each other. Our judges have to exercise jurisdiction over a tremendous area. It must be known to the hon. gentleman that there is a great volume* of litigation in that province, greater I believe than in any other province of the Dominion. Had I anticipated this debate, I could have satisfied the hon. gentleman, that in Rossland, Nelson, Kaslo, Vernon, Greenwood, Grand Forks, and other districts there are more writs issued, and there is more legitimate bona fide litigation than in other parts of Canada. The city of Vancouver with about 30,000 population has greater interests involved in litigation than are to be found now in the older settled portions of the country, so that it is necessary to have the courts constantly open there and available to litigants. There is no comparison between the condition of the judiciary in British Columbia, and the other provinces of the Dominion. The provincial legislature has been alive to the situation, and has not restricted the Dominion off Canada to one appointment, but has given* to this parliament an opportunity of selecting as many judges as they see fit for each of those counties.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know that the provincial legislature has recommended the appointment of another county court judge, and I also know, as the First Minister tells us, that we have no alternative, but to appoint when the local legislature creates the vacancy. That is one of the anomalies of our constitution. The local legislature can very easily be prevailed upon by some little manipulation on the part of those who are looking for office to make that vacancy. I also notice that the hon. member for Westminister (Mr. Morrison) Is sitting to-day on that row of seats in the House where we usually see seven or eight members who are looking for judgeships. There are a number of them there now, just behind the ministers, and the hon. member (Mr. Morrison) has moved Into that row.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I am not in that row.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You are there to-day, because there is a judgeship looming up in British Columbia. He is only there tern-

porarily perhaps, but he is there at any rate to see that the judgeship appointment goes through; and of course these gentlemen are looking out for themselves.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: It is a laudable ambition.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not know that it is quite so laudable for a member to work his way into parliament, so that he may have a political pull to get himself appointed to a judgeship. I think it would be much more laudable to do like other members of parliament who come here from disinterested motives, to serve their country rather than to serve themselves. The laudable ambition which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) acknowledges I think he would have been a good deal better without. I think it would have been better for him to have come here in the interests of his constituents, and not in the interests of himself.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: Speaking of the population of British Columbia, the hon. member for Victoria stated the other day that it was something over 150,000. The hon. member for West York has praised the people as being a peace-loving, orderly people, which I was pleased to hear ; but I am very sorry to find that there is such a spirit of litigation among those people, which perhaps is not the best sign of a peaceable and orderly people in any country. I am in the position which the hon. member for West York has referred to : I came here in the interests of my constituents, and I have no personal ambition to serve, further than to do the best I can in that respect.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 150) further to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts.


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

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
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 of 1902, $5.
'(b) On every ton of lead so refined during the calender year 1903, $4.
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: (c)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1904, $3.
(d)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1905, $2.
(e)	On every ton of lead so refined during the calendar year 1906, $1.
2.	The said bounties shall be 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 ihe 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 half-year 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 31st day of December, 1906.
He said : These resolutions have received the assent of the Crown.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I move that the House go now into committee to consider the following resolution, to which the Crown gives its assent :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend section 25 of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada so as to provide that the sessional allowance of $1,000 payable as therein provided to each member of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada shall be increased to the sum of $1,500, beginning with the present session.
Mr. Speaker, I venture to express the hope that the resolution which I now introduce will commend itself to the favourable judgment, not only of the members of this House on both sides, but of the people to whom we are responsible. Everybody will agree that perhaps the ideal way of dealing with this matter is the way In which it) has always been dealt with in England, where members of parliament give their services to the country gratuitously. But England occupies in this respect a position which is absolutely exceptional, so far as my information goes -and I think on this point my information is correct-a position which is not shared by

any other country in which there are representative institutions. The conditions of England in this respect are particular and peculiar. The representatives of England go back to a very great distance in the past. They were introduced at a time when they were confined to the wealthy classes-to men who could give their services to the country without any remuneration or compensation. In those days the legislative power was confined to a very narrow limit of electors ; and the men who had the control of the legislature in those days could well afford to give the whole of their time to the state without impairing at all their own personal business. When the legislative power was extended by the Reform Bill in 1832, and later on in 1867, and when England became practically a democratic country, the people had become so wealthy and there was such a large class of leisured men, that it was possible to find men in all classes who could give their services to the state gratuitously, though there has been of late an agitation growing up, not very strong as yet, but still felt in Great Britain, in favour of a departure from that rule on behalf of those classes who cannot send representatives to parliament without impairing their fortunes.
With the single exception of England, I believe every country in the world which is blessed with representative and democratic institutions, has come to the conclusion that it is not fair to expect men who serve their country as legislators in parliament to give their services to the state gratuitously ; and this country is no exception to that rule. The reason is a very obvious one ; it is that, as a rule, in countries situated as Canada is, members of parliament cannot be absent from their own business for three or four or five months in the year without greatly impairing their business and their means of earning a livelihood, and that unless they received some indemnity for their services, it would be impossible for the very <?reat majority of them to do so. But upon this point I think we are all agreed. The people of Canada came to the conclusion many years ago, even previous to confederation, that it was fair and just that those who were called away from their business for several months in the year to attend to the legislative business of the country should receive, not a salary perhaps, nor any adequate compensation, but some indemnity which would enable them to perform the services expected of them. The only question is whether the increase which I propose of $500 to the $1,000, which was fixed in 1873, is fair and reasonable. That is the only point. If we compare the condition of things to-day with the condition of things which existed some twenty-eight years ago, when the indemnity of members of parliament was readjusted, we will come to the conclusion, I think, that the increase which I propose is not unreasonable or unfair. It 176
was contemplated in 1S73, so far as I have been able to get a familiar acquaintance with the debates of that time, that the session would rarely extend beyond eight weeks in every year. That was the very moderate and perhaps too moderate view taken of the business of the country then.
When I first entered parliament, twenty-six years ago, an hon. gentleman, whom some older members will remember-Mr. Holton, the leading parliamentarian of his day and one of the leaders of the House-said to me very frequently that even at that date four months were not too much for the business of the country. Everybody knows that the business of the House has increased enormously since then, and that a session of two months is a thing we will never see again. It is hardly conceivable that any session of this parliament in the future would last less than three months, and in all probability the average will between four and five months.
If then it was fair and reasonable twenty-seven years ago to provide an indemnity of $1,000, is it not reasonable to provide that in future the indemnity will be at least $1,500. How does this indemnity compare with that paid by countries similarly situated. If we look to the country to the south, which in many respects we resemble, from which we differ only in point of population, we find that the indemnity given members of Congress is $5,000 a year. I grant at once that the amount of business transacted in that country, with a population of
75.000.	000, is far larger than what is called for in this with a population of only
6.000.	000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The sessions in Washington are about the same length as ours.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 56U3

this country. With the exception of a very few men in this House, whom I could count on the fingers of my hand, everybody here has to work for his living, has to provide by his own labour for himself and family. We find that some 200 men in this House have to depend on their own exertions for the support of themselves and their families, and have to leave their own business from three to five months in the year. It is therefore not unfair to say that $1,500 is a very moderate indemnity for the labour they have to give to the work of the country to the deprivation of their own families.
But if this increase in the indemnity is voted by this parliament, I wish it to be understood by all hon. members that whatever may be the future length of any session-whether four, six, seven or eight months-there will be no increase of indemnity. In the past, when a session was extended to undue length, parliament has sometimes thought it advisable to give an increase for that particular session. I deprecate such a practice. I have always thought it unwise, and if we are to increase the indemnity now as proposed, I wish it to be well understood that in the future, whatever may be the length of any session, the indemnity must remain at $1,500 and no more. With these observations I submit this resolution to the serious consideration of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the main question we should bear in mind is the probable effect which this increase in the indemnity will have upon the character of the representation in this House. I do not think that this country will object to the increased indemnity proposed by the right hon. the First Minister, if the probable effect will be to continue or even improve the character of that representation. This matter has been discussed more or less in the country during the past few weeks, and among other objections urged against it is this, that the increased indemnity will bring into parliament a class of men who might properly be described as professional politicians-men who come to parliament solely for the sake of the indemnity. If I thought that the proposal would have any such effect, I would be prepared to object most strongly to it. I have turned that question over in my own mind and discussed it with public men, and have come to the conclusion that it will not have any such effect, but that it is more likely to bring into parliament men who more closely represent the great industrial interests of the country. What we want in parliament is men who represent the business life of the country, the manufacturing interests, the labour interests -all the great industrial development which is now going on and must continue. We not only want those interests represented in parliament but represented by the very best men. The question is whether or not the


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: proposed increase is likely to better that representation. For my part, I am inclined to think that it will, or at least continue it as it is at present. As as has been pointed out by the right hon. gentleman, if we are to expect the best element of this country to be represented in parliament we must get them from the active business life of the country. '
The men whom we want in parliament are men who have business interests of their own. And it is? well known to all of us- well known to most of us by experience- that to participate in the public life of this country involves a very great sacrifice to the business interests of any man who has any real business to attend to. That being the case, is the proposed increase wise or unwise ? The indemnity was fixed, as the right hon. gentleman says, in 1873. I have looked carefully over what record there is of the debate in that year ; I have looked carefully over the record of the debate in 1885 with respect to the special increase for that year, and over the debate in 1891 wiiu respect to a similar matter ; and I believe that if any hon. gentleman takes the pains to look at these debates, he will undoubtedly say that when the indemnity of $1,000 was fixed in 1873, it was fixed upon the basis that sessions of parliament should not extend beyond the period of three months. Now, what is likely to be the duration of future sessions of parliament ? I am inclined to think that the business of this country cannot be done by parliament in any such length of time. I believe that in the future-looking to the next twenty-five years-the business of parliament will require four months if not five months. Let us look at the record of the present session. I think that no hon. gentleman in this House will be disposed to say-I think that no reasonable person in the country will be disposed to say-that during the present session any considerable length of time has been unprofitably used in discussing the business of this country in this House. On this side of the House we have honestly endeavoured, as far as we could, to expedite the business of the government. And the result is that this session will run to at least three months and a half. Moreover, it has not been to any extent a controversial session ; very little controversial matter has been introduced. And we may expect in the future, during the next session and during the following sessions, that the business of the House will necessarily occupy a considerably greater time than lias been occupied during this year. Now, if this country fixed the amount that I have spoken of in 1873 having regard to the business which had to be transacted then and having regard to the length of time which was then necessarily occupied, it does not seem to me that, twenty-eight years afterwards, we are unduly departing from any principle then laid down if we say that the sessional indemnity

should now be increased to $1,500. In doing that, I believe we are fixing the amount of the indemnity for a great many years to come, we are fixing it with a view to the necessarily longer sessions of the future, and we are doing it in view of the enormously increased business of this House, business which must continue to increase during the next twenty-five years, unless we are all very much mistaken as to what the future development of this country will be. I have, therefore, to say, Sir, that, so far as I am concerned and speaking for myself, I am inclined to support the resolution now before the House, for the reasons that I have placed before you.


Mr. RICHARD  BRAIN@Peel: Before this motion is finally disposed of, I desire to offer a very few remarks. I rise with considerable hesitation, because I am surrounded by men of very long parliamentary experience, men who have devoted the best portions of their lives to furthering the interests of the Canadian' people, and men who have arrived at what I understand to be a very unanimous opinion that the indemnity of the representatives in parliament/ should be increased. I have always understood that it was the custom of the Canadian parliament to follow as closely as possible in the pathway laid down by the British ijarlia-ment. But I admit that the right lion. Prime Minister has made a very lucid explanation why, in the opinion of this parliament, men should not be asked to represent Canadians in parliament without having some indemnity therefor. In the last general election at which we were all returned to this House, this question, as I am informed, was not very generally debated. But, as I always understood public questions of this kind, it is expected from the government of the day that, when any great proposition is about to be placed before parliament, it should be made an issue before the people. In some sections-very few,
I confess-this question was taken up for consideration and discussion. I, either fortunately ar unfortunately, come from a section of the country in which the question was considered ; and if I understand the feelings of people there correctly-and I think I do-the people there are not in favour of any increased indemnity ; and that is my position on this motion. '


An hon. MEMBER.: Then, don't take it.


Richard Blain: Now, I am careful to say that I represent a very small portion of the Canadian people


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman says [DOT] hear, hear.' I will give to that hon. gentleman the right to represent his people as well as he can, and I think that I ought to have the same right in the parliament with regard to my constituents. I say that 176*
this question was something of an issue in the election in my constituency. I am here to say that I did not introduce it myself ; I am /lot responsible for its introduction into the contest ; and, therefore, I am not called upon to say that I am altogether responsible for the position I take in this House to-day. It may be that, had my experience in parliament been longer I would better understand the duties that devolve on a representative of the people in these long sessions where very much legislation is introduced-legislation that requires the best attention and close application of every member here-it may be that I would entertain other opinions than those I am expressing here to-day. But, as I say that, for myself, understanding as I do that, in the discussion that took place in the general election, there was a very strong complaint that the debt of this country was growing very rapidly, and that the public expenditure was increasing very largely, I am not quite sure that the Canadian people would endorse the proposition that is now being presented to this House. However, I am just going to offer these remarks ; I do it in all kindness ; I do it because I feel it to be my duty. And I say again that I hesitate to say even this much, surrounded as I am by men whose opinions will certainly be of more value than mine ; men who have had long parliamentary experience, and whose experience must have brought to them knowledge that I do not possess in discussing the important question that is before the House to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: That was like a good British cheer. Mr. Speaker, i have addressed this House a number of times during this session. And I must say that I have been unpopular in my remarks sometimes with hon. gentlemen on one side and sometimes with hon. gentlemen on the other. And I think that, perhaps, the remarks I am about to make now will be the most unpopular of all. I feel something like this-and I usually express myself as I feel-that it was the duty of this government at an earlier stage of this session to acquaint the people that they proposed to introduce this legislation, so that it might have been discussed by the press of the country. I am pretty sure that most of the newspapers will call this, as they called the giving of an extra amount to the members some years ago, ' a salary grab.' But, the government have introduced it. and the opposition, of course, are quite willing it should be introduced. The government are pushed on by a tidal wave from behind, and there is no force springing up to resist the movement. Now, I think the people should have been consulted. This subject was never mentioned on the hustings in my county, at least. I never heard of it until I came here. Therefore, I protest

against it. It may be proper to give this extra salary to members of parliament ; it is possible some of them earn it, but, I know some of them do not.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Name, name.


Jabel Robinson: I could give you the names, but it would not be pleasant. I do not desire to be personal in this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, suppose that you had hired a man on the 7th day of last November, with the understanding that he was to work for certain wages, and that before the expiration of the year he had gone into your granary and taken out nearly as much again in value as you had promised to give him, what would you think of that hired man? That is exactly the position this parliament is in with regard to the people of this country. The people have hired a man, and he has sold their grain and put the money into his pocket.


An hon. MEMBER.: You do not have to take it.


Jabel Robinson: I would have no objection to hon. members taking this money, providing the country had been consulted on the matter. Now, we had a statesman in this country some years ago- and I am sure hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, if I mentioned his name, would receive it with respect-who stated that he had to stand over the public chest with a club to keep his friends' hands out of the government chest. Now we find that both sides of the House are trying to get their hands into the public chest. It seems to me that is the real point of the case. We have not discussed this matter with our constituents. If it had been proposed that the indemnity was to be increased, candidates would have been breaking their necks to get the job, they would have been tumbling over each other to get here, I am satisfied of that. Therefore, as an independent member of this House, I desire to say that I do not think this is an opportune time for introducing this legislation. With all due respect to the mover and seconder of that motion, I think they should have waited another year. The members should have had a chance to consult their constituents about it, because they are our employers. I do not think I ought to discuss this matter any further, as it is nearly one o'clock ; but, I could talk for a long time on this subject. I could show that this country is becoming heavily involved in debt. The Minister of Finance told us in his budget speech that we were now quite possibly on the crest of the wave ; and that we were likely to be going down. I think we should keep that fact in view in the course we are taking.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at one o'clock.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Speaker, as a young member of this


Jabel Robinson: House I feel rather delicate about offering any lengthy discourse on the motion that is now before the House. I have no doubt older members will understand better than I can what it costs them to reside in the city of Ottawa during the session, and what under these circumstances they should have. They are no doubt in a better position than I am to judge as to what the indemnity should be, but I have to say that during my campaign in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I was asked, not by my friends, but by people who were anxious to defeat me, what my position would be if the question of increasing the sessional indemnity came up. I told them that my position was that I would oppose the raising of the indemnity. I told them that I believed in the practice of economy as much as possible, and on these grounds I propose to op-, pose any increase in the indemnity.


Mr. JOHN McGOWAN (Centre Wellington).: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat embarrassed in regard to this matter which is now before the House, but the feeling of my constituents is pretty strong on this question. They are opposed to any increase in the sessional indemnity. This is not a matter of party politics, because I notice that the leading Liberal paper in the city of Guelph, the Mercury has come out very strongly in opposition to an increase in the indemnity. I regret very much that the government has seen fit to bring down this proposal. I remember that when I was a member of the Ontario legislature they increased the sessional indemnity, but the opinion abroad in the country was so strong against it that the legislature had to back down and return to the old indemnity again. I think it would have been better if the government had allowed this matter to go on in the old way. Like the hon. member for Cardwell (Mr. Johnston), I am a young member and not as familiar with the expense of living in Ottawa as older members are, but, notwithstanding this, I think it would have been better if we had gone on in the old way. I feel it to be my duty to oppose this increase.


Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac).: Mr. Speaker, as an humble member of this House I desire to say a few words upon this question. I have placed a resolution on the Order paper that I do not suppose will be reached this session, and I have expressed the view that I think the time has arrived when the sense of the House should be taken as to the advisability of reducing the representation of this country in parliament. As hon. members may have seen, the question of the abolition of the Senate and of the legislative councils was referred to in my proposed resolution. Whether legislative councils come within the purview of this House or not is a question. At all events, I am one of those who think, with a great many people all over the Dominion,.
tliat this country is over-governed, and holding that view which I have indicated in the motion of which I have given notice, it may appear inconsistent for me to approve of the increase in the sessional indemnity which is now being considered by the House. I am not at all opposed to the increase of the indemnity. I believe, that considering the time that lion, gentlemen occupy in framing the legislation of this country, they are entitled to an increase of indemnity, but, Sir, I think that the time has arrived when the question should be considered as to the reducing of the representation. 1 think we could get along fairly well with a less number of members of parliament. The increased indemnity certainly adds to the cost of government and will make the people of Canada more alive to the necessity of agitating the propriety of abolishing the Senate and of reducing the representation. I believe there is a strong feeling in that direction at the present time. Here, we have been going on since confederation. We talk about a Reform party and a Conservative party. What great reforms have been brought about ? The time has arrived for the consideration of this great and important question. I should have preferred that the subject should have been introduced by an hon. gentleman with more parliamentary experience than myself, but I say there is a feeling abroad in the country which I trust will be felt by the people's representatives in this House and which will go to the extent of inducing them to take up this very important question. I will leave the country to consider the matter in the meantime, and I trust that at an early stage of the next session my resolution may be properly considered and that there will be an expression of the opinion of this House upon it. I see that there is a strong feeling evinced by both sides of the House in favour of the proposed increased indemnity. As has been mentioned by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), to men who have important business engagements to attend to. commercial men, lawyers, doctors, if you will, and other hon. members who constitute this House, whose time is of great value, and I am sure that as far as the monetary consideration is concerned, even $1,500 is not the equivalent of their services. I am only an humble individual, a merchant, and I do not consider that it is any proper compensation for my services, such as they are, in this House. I am not going to oppose the increase in the indemnity, particularly as I have already stated, I think it will have the effect of bringing the people of this country more readily to see the necessity of reducing the representation in order to make the machinery of government less cumbersome and less expensive. Representatives in the United States Congress have $5,000 a year each, but it must be remembered that
each member of the Federal House represents a population of 169,000 or 170,000, whilst we represent a population on an average of 16,000 to 17,000 souls.
An lion. MEMBER. No.


Thomas Murray: That is a fact. I have been looking up the statistics and I know what I am talking about. As I said before, 1 desired to express my opinion considering that I had placed the resolution referred to before the House, and should I be spared I mean to bring the question up again at an early stage of the next session of this parliament.


Mr. THOMAS CHRISTIE (Argenteuil).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss the question as to whether the indemnity ought to be increased or not, but it does appear to me that it might be advisable to postpone it until after the next general election in order that the matter may be discussed at the polls, and if members are returned with a clear mandate from the people, then, I think, it will be time to increase the indemnity.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker, I have been at home for a fortnight commingling with my constituents, and I am very much opposed to an increase of tha sessional indemnity to $1,500, on the ground that it is an insult to parliament. Any member that is fit to be in this parliament ought not to be insulted with the offer of an indemnity ' of $1,500. I repeat that it is an insult to this parliament. The people of my county, before I was there, thought that we had an indemnity of $4,000, and they were very much surprised to find that the people of Canada had insulted them by rewarding a man like Sir Adams Archibald, a member of the late government, with the miserable indemnity of $1,000. I am glad that I represent a county in which there is not a man who is so small as to discuss a question of $1,000. They want the indemnity to be adequate to the services of the men thejf send to parliament, and I will undertake to say that the day for the discussion of these miserable indemnities has gone by in my county. They will have none of it and they will not disgrace themselves by offering a member who is fit to be here an indemnity of $1,000. I think the government should have been much stronger and that when they approached this question they should have put the indemnity on a basis that would be commensurate with the qualifications of the men who are here. No man is fit to be in this House who can be indemnified by $1,500, and he ought to be turned out. I believe in frankness and integrity in matters of this kind, and while I support the government in doing it I condemn them for not rising to the occasion and making this indemnity larger.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution considered in committee and reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['If my hon. friend buys a house, does the house belong to him or does it belong to this', 'country ? What I meant to say was that we had no possible interest to build wharfs there.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the government to an article that appears in last Saturday's Montreal Herald, written by Mr. Devlin, and dated from the Canadian Government Office in the city of Dublin. That article contains a very strong criticism on certain members of this House. As a rule, I do not pay any attention to what is said about me in the newspapers, but having been criticised by the same gentleman on the 11th of May, in United Canada, I wish to say that if Mr. Devlin has tbe right to criticise Members of this parliament. I presume every official in the civil service has the same right. If one official has that right, then all should have it, and every civil servant should be entitled to criticise any member of this House.


Mr. COWAN.: Did he tell the truth ?


Uriah Wilson: No, he did not. It is not worth while to enter into the details at this late period of the session, of Mr. Devlin's statements, but if I am spared, I expect to be able to show at some future time, that either Mr. Devlin or the reports of the Department of the Interior are entirely wrong. I simply want to call the attention of the government to the fact that Mr. Devlin, a public servant, is criticising certain members of this House, that he has done so unfairly, and that in fact he has made untruthful statements. As it is so near the end of the session, I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I expressed my opinion on this subject the other day in Committee of Supply, and I have nothing to say in justification of the course adopted by the gentleman referred to. I will endeavour to see that no official in my department offends in that direction again.



Thomas Murray: I have asked by notice of motion for certain papers and correspondence between the government of Canada and the people of the county of Pontiac, in regard to the railway indebtedness of that county. Many lion, gentlemen will remember that in 1891 I was elected for the county I have now the honour to represent. This question of the railway indebtedness of the county has been before the people for many years. The people of Pontiac unfortunately voted a large bonus in 1881, to the Pontiac Pacific Junction Railway. to be paid under certain conditions which were not fulfilled by the company.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The county resisted payment, and the result was that they got involved in a much larger debt, the amount with interest being in all about $200,000. The question came before the people at various elections, and the government candidate as a rule said : ' Vote for the government candidate and get relieved from the bonus.' In that way the county was carried for the late Conservative government for many years. In 1S91 there were three candidates in the field, namely, the late Mr. John Bryson, the Conservative candidate. Mr. Maclean, Independent candidate, and myself, the Liberal candidate. Both my opponents had certain advantages over me, as they said they had the ear of the government if they should be returned to power. I stated to the electors that so far as I could I would do all that was possible for the public in regard to that question, and in regard to every other question affecting their welfare. At all events, I was elected, but I was unseated in the courts, and the late Mr. John Bryson was a candidate against me in the by-election. He would not accept the nomination of his friends until he interviewed the government of the day to know what they would likely do in regard to this question.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I rise to a point of order. I do not think that the time of the House should be wasted at this late stage of the session. The hon. gentleman is discussing a question, a motion with respect to which is on the Order paper.


Thomas Murray: I thought that on going into supply, I had the privilege of touching on this question. I will not take up much time of the House, but I merely want to show


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is out of order. He is entering into a matter that will take up days of discussion in this House if he is answered.


Thomas Murray: How ?


Samuel Hughes: You are making charges against the conduct of past elections.


Thomas Murray: I merely want to show my reasons for asking for this information

Some lion. MEMBERS. Order. ,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When notice of motion has been given to bring a question before the House, an lion, member has no right to discuss the subject-matter of the motion, even on going into supply. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) is discussing a question with respect to which he has given notice of motion, he has no right to do so now.
Hon. Mr. I-BAGGART. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) has given notice of motion for the purpose of getting certain papers and information. He now merely wants to

make a statement on the matter without asking for any papers or referring to them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the hon. gentleman proposes to discuss a question of which he has given notice, he has no right to do so.


Thomas Murray: I was going on to say that the late Mr. John Bryson stated at the by-election, that he had interviewed the government and that he had a promise from the government that they would relieve the county from this railway debt. Hence it is that I moved for this information. Pontiac is a large county, requiring development und colonization, and this debt, which is a heavy burden on the people, is calculated to retard our progress. The county council has sent a memorial to the government, asking for the desired relief. I think the exMinister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will remember that this question was brought before the attention of the Conservative government, and he will know whether any promise or intimation was given which would warrant the people in expecting that they would get this relief. When I was a member of this House before, although I was in opposition to the then government, I interviewed Sir John Thompson in his own office, and I frankly state that the late Sir John Thompson was personally disposed to do something to relieve the county of Pontiac in this matter. I am now endeavouring to discharge my duty to my constituents in bringing this question to the attention of parliament. I say that it is but an act of justice for this administration, or any administration, to come to the rescue of the people of Pontiac, who are so handicapped by this very heavy financial burden. This debt has the effect of not only preventing new colonists coming into the county, but it tends to drive our people who are already there out of the county. 1 do not wish to take up any more time at this late period of the session, but I would mention that the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Eraser) was at the nomination in Pontiac, and I think he will remember well that the late John Bryson stated there, openly and above board, ' Vote for me, and I will get you relief from the debt, and if I do not do that within a year, I will hand back your mandate.' It is no wonder that I was handicapped and defeated by a pretty large majority in the last by-election. I do not want to say any more on this subject. The members of the county council have memorialized the present administration, and I hope that they will give the matter the consideration it deserves, and that next session they will decide to relieve the county of its present burden of railway indebtedness.


QUEBEC ELECTION LAW.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to put a question to the government in connection with a petition
which asks for the disallowance of an Act passed at the last session of the legislature of Quebec. I have brought to the notice of the right hon. gentleman the facts relating to the position taken by the petitioners in the matter, and I have also communicated to him for his own information, and for the information of the Department of Justice, a memorial which was prepared in support of that petition.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House in discussing the matter, as there remains a great deal of business to be gone through with before prorogation day. The facts of the case are quite familiar to all those who have watched the provincial legislation. We all know that law of exception which debars petitioners, in many cases, from the right of proceeding with the trial of the election petitions which they have commenced, and which also forbids entering an action before a court of criminal jurisdiction. In their petition, the petitioners deliver all particulars and give all the necessary explanations as to the facts of the case. If I refer to this matter I do so at the request of the interested parties, in order to call the attention of the government to that petition and to ask the right hon, prime minister to see to it that this petition be given due consideration, should it be referred to tile Department of Justice.
Feople are apt to think that the power of disallowance applies only to laws which are ultra vires of the province ; but those who are familiar with the matter know very well that such is not the case. As a matter of fact, we find sufficient protection in the courts from laws which are ultra vires of the province. The power of disallowance applies still more forcibly to laws which encroach upon vested rights, and which interfere with public policy of the country, although such laws are intra vires of the province.
As set forth in the petition in question, the legislation referred to interferes with the two principles I have just alluded to. In the first place, that law prevents the courts from taking cognizance of six and, I believe even seven, election petitions entered in due time, but which were stayed during the session of the provincial legislature. Were the legislation to which I call the attention of the government to be maintained, the result would be that the petitioners would be deprived of the right of proceeding with their cases, and they would incur heavy legal costs. Moreover, in each of these cases, it is set forth that corrupt practices have prevailed ; and that those elections were not conducted in a proper and regular way, and that the candidate returned was not the free choice of the electorate.
It seems to me, Sir. that by thus staying the trial of those election petitions and by depriving the petitioners of the privilege of enforcing their rights, you strike a blow at public morality under such circumstances.

I hope that the petition in question will receive due consideration at the hands ol' the executive. The right lion. Prime Minister has no doubt remarked that in the concluding portion of the memorial which I placed in his hands many authorities are quoted which have a direct bearing upon the case which is now referred to the executive for consideration. Those authorities are taken from Hodgins ' Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1867-95.'
I shall not take up the time of the House quoting those authorities. Let it suffice to say that those authorities show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the power of disallowance has often been exercised by the Governer General in Council. And surely, If the power of disallowance can be resorted to when vested rights are encroached upon, and when attempts are made to prevent the courts from taking cognizance of questions which are still sub juiUce, it is under such circumstances as those referred to.
I may call the attention of the House to the fact that the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, so far as my information goes, voted against that law. That goes to show that the Attorney General shared in the opinion given expression to in the petition asking for the disallowance of the Act referred to.
I hope that this petition will receive due consideration at the hands of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is not within my knowledge that any such petition has been received by the Governor General. If it has been presented, it must have been within the last few days, as I am sure it has not yet been referred to the Privy Council.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may state that I handed the petition to the Secretary of State myself, and he gave me a written acknowledgment, which I sent to the petitioner, and in which I think he stated that it was about to be put into the hands of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That must have been within a very few days, for I am sure it has not yet been submitted to the Privy Council. Perhaps it has been referred to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice has not yet made his report upon it. However, my hon. friend has been kind enough to give me communication of the petition, which asks for the disallowance of the Act to which he has referred. In the memorial which has been placed in my hands, coming, not from several petitioners, but from Mr. Nantel himself, he states that he was a candidate in the election which took place on the 7th of December last in the county of Terrebonne, and was declared not elected, and that he entered a petition under the Controverted Elections Act against the return of liis opponent. His Interest, therefore, is to have the law set aside, so that the petition which he has Mr. MONK.
placed in the hands of the court may be proceeded with. Without going into the merits of the case, perhaps my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has noticed already that even if the Act were to be disallowed, Mr. Nantel could derive no benefit from that disallowance, because, according to the memorial which has been placed in my hands, a judgment of the court, pronounced by Mr. Justice Taschereau, has been rendered between the parties, sitting aside all the proceedings, and declaring the petition to be null and void. Under such circumstances, even if the Act were disallowed, I do not believe Mr. Nantel could revive that petition, which is res judicata between the parties. My hon. friend is right in saying that the power of disallowance applies not only to laws which are ultra vires of the province, but more forcibly still to laws which are intra vires of the province ; because, as he suggests, laws which are ultra vires of the province do not require to be disallowed, because the courts will set them aside when their attention is called to them. This law was certainly within the powers of the legislature of Quebec. Whether the legislature acted wisely or unwisely, I am not prepared at this moment to say ; but if I were to express an opinion, I would say that if I had been in the legislature, I would have voted with the Attorney General of the province against the law. But that law lifts no effect, so far as the election in the county of Terrebonne is concerned, the judge having set aside the petition and all the "proceedings ; and if we were to disallow the Act, the disallowance would only apply to other sections of the community where elections are pending ; but we have received ino petition from anybody that I know of except Mr. Nantel, and I submit, with all due deference, that he has no more interest in the matter.
With regard to the representations made by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray), I have only to say that so far as my information goes, after searches made in the department, we find nothing to warrant the statement made in the election in the county of Pontiac, that the government of ' the day were to come to the rescue of the people of Pontiac. If such a promise was made by the late government or by any government of Canada, of course we shall be happy next session to bring down the papers.


Mr. RUDOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will allow me to add a word or two to the remarks just fallen from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in connection with the petition asking for the disallowance of an Act passed at the last session of the Quebec legislature. I do not *stand up here for that legislation, but I merely wish to call the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to the fact that the legislation referred to was not a govern-
5617 MAY 20, 1901 5618	
ment measure, but that tbe promoter of It was a private member, and moreover, that it received the almost unanimous support of the House, including the leader of the opposition, Mr. Flynn, himself. Motion agreed to, and House went iuto Committee of Supply. Improvement at Port Colborne entrance (revote, $150,000), $300,000. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. This is a continuation of the work being carried on for the deepening of the entrance from Si to 22 feet deep. We are proposing to place on the extension of our entrance pier a couple of projecting piers, so that elevators may be constructed upon them and ships go directly into the harbour from the lake. The whole expenditure will be in the neighbourhood of $1,100,000. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Has the minister a plan of the improvements ? I understand that the Public Works Department assumes a portion of the work there. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. None of this, only the breakwater. We had a plan here, and the hon. gentleman must have seen it. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. I have not seen the plan. I saw the proposition of the engineer who made the estimate, and I understand a part of that was abandoned and only a portion of the work is being done. Surely a little sketch, which we could see at once and understand, should be furnished. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. The hon. gentleman must be able to recollect the statement I made last year. It was to the effect that the Department of Public Works was constructing a breakwater about three-quarters of a mile to a mile in length, out from what we called the mouth of the canal. The other works which we are engaged in are primarily the creating of a sufficient entrance through the canal into the canal mouth. We are making that 22 feet. It is now 16i feet. That channel will give a direct outlet from the mouth of the canal into the lake, from 500 to 700 feet wide. This vote is all for the building of dredges for carrying on the dredging incident to the making of that entrance. In addition to the making of the entrance of this depth and width, we are proposing to throw out a couple of piers on the westerly or northerly side by one of the side piers passing out from the lake. We propose to add a couple of piers of some 550 feet long and 200 feet wide to afford accommodation for steamers to come up straight from the lake. The steamers can lie up alongside the canal on one side and have their barges lying on the other, and the grain shipped from the steamer into the elevator and from the elevator into the barge. We have two of those piers about 200 feet distant from each other.	Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Are these piers at right angles to the channel ? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. They are running rather in the direction of the channel, so the steamer will have no turn to make, but can go directly in and lie at the piers. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Who is putting the elevators on the piers ? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We have no arrangement or contract yet. Have only a contract with respect to dredges. The piers are in this contract, but will not be gone on with until the breakwater is under sufficient way to afford protection. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. What is the cost per foot ? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. $2.95. Mr. INGRAM. What amount has been expended on Port Colborne up to date [DOT]' The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We have spent up to $151,000, down to the 9th May. To deepen portions of long level, Welland, $30,000. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We thought it would be better to have this long level deepened further. There has always been a doubt expressed whether there is a clear fall of 14 feet of water over the mitre sill at the entrance of the canal, and we have thought it advisable to lower the mitre sill by one foot and at the same time we will clear out the base of the canal to a depth of 15 feet for the long level. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. You are lowering the mitre sill on the first lock after the guard entrance lock one foot ? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Yes. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. I said there was a mistake in the construction of the canal in the levels, and the lock was one foot higher than it ought to be. The hon. minister disagreed with me then. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I did not differ from the hou. gentleman. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. No doubt the lock is constructed at a foot higher level than it should be and thus necessitates the lowering of the mitre sill on the first lock and the lowering of the whole fall right to Lake Erie. Have you any trouble from the pressure on the banks and the bottom being forced up ? The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We have not. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. You are lowering the mitre sills at the entrance lock at Port Colborne.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the other one is all right, I understand.


John Graham Haggart: I understood it was all wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the depth on the mitre sills in the Welland canal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have had a good deal of conversation with Mr. Thompson from time to time, and his statement has been that there was fourteen feet at the mitre sill at the entrance, but he said thepe were times when the wind blew into the lake very strongly and carried the water out, thus lowering the water on the sills. That was his statement and report frequently made to me. He did not acknowledge to me that, when the lock was constructed there had been any error in the depth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may have been that there was no mistake, but the experience for a long time has been that the water was lowering. It seems to me, that, as we take away obstructions and allow a freer flow, of the water this must be the case. I have said before that it seems to me that the true policy would be rather to place some obstruction in the Niagara to prevent the water flowing away so rapidly. And the same way in Lake St. Clair. I think the time must come when there must be locks for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: What does this mean ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to form a dam between Adam's island and Galop's island. We want to block up this channel and direct all the water into the other channel.


John Graham Haggart: Then, vessels will not be able to go in from the channel you are digging into the Galops rapids ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes, this will not interfere with their doing that.


John Graham Haggart: Vessels wishing to go down the rapids will have to strike over into the American channel ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No. This is to prevent the cross current and to stop the run of water between the two islands.
Hon.	Mr. HAGGART. What are the
details of this expenditure ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. It is to make the ordinary rock and ballast dam.


John Graham Haggart: Is it under contract ?


John Graham Haggart: How much Is the variation in the height of the water, six feet ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, six or eight feet.


John Graham Haggart: Will this provide for the lowest depth ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not affect the entrance to the lock to any such depth as that that I have spoken of-perhaps to not any appreciable extent. Rut we are advised that the lowering to this extent will amply sufllce to give us the due supply of water. We are dropping the mitre sill one foot lower than at present.
Galops Canal-Enlargement, $90,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have in the main estimates for the current year a vote of $330,000, so, that this will make a total of $420,000 for this purpose.


John Graham Haggart: Will that finish it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it is estimated to cost $80,000 more.


John Graham Haggart: Is any portion of that going for the deepening of the rapids ?


John Graham Haggart: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it would come under the contract and schedule of prices on the north channel contract, the contractor for which is Cleveland.
Lachine Canal-Towards building new lock, $500,000.


John Graham Haggart: What does this mean ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I presume that the hon. gentleman does not remember the explanation that I gave when the vote was given last session, so I will restate it. There are two locks at this point, at the mouth of the Lachine canal, which are in a very dilapidated condition. One is so much disabled that it would be a waste of money to attempt to repair it, and it must be rebuilt if the locks there are to be continued. We have invited tenders for a contract for a lock 600 feet in length. Wc thought it well to adopt the plan of substituting a long and large lock, knowing what might possibly occur in the way of desiring to have large steamers go through our canals. At all events, in this particular instance we ask for tenders upon that basis. The lock will be 600 feet long, 50 feet wide, and with 20 feet of water on the mitre sill. We have not awarded the contracts yet. Some question has arisen,

since we invited tenders, as to whether it would be possible to make arrangements with the Harbour Board of Montreal for the utilization of their guard pier at Windmill Point, which would inclose a magnificent basin. We would like to utilize that, and have a lock at the end of it. That subject is under consideration now, but, owing to press of business towards the close of the session, we have not yet been able to consult with the harbour authorities on the subject, but we hope to very soon. We desire to satisfy ourselves whether or not it would be possible to carry on our work in that direction.


John Graham Haggart: I entirely approve of making this lock, because it increases the harbour accommodation of the city of Montreal. especially for vessels bringing coal up to the city. The depth should be at least 20 feet on the mitre sill, I think we ought to make it 20 feet and 6 inches. X do not know whether a breadth of 50 feet would be sufficient. But, I would like him to make the breadth of the locks correspond with the locks on the proposed Georgian Bay canal, in case we ever have there a new inland system of canals. I think 20 feet of depth is hardly sufficient, because the water varies so much in the St. Lawrence below. I think all the new locks on the Lachine canal were built of that size. I presume the depth above the locks for a certain distance will be 22 feet.
Building slope walls, dredging pontoon gate, power-house enlargement, $86,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The slope walls are on the enlarged and deepened portion of the canal ?


John Graham Haggart: What are you paying per yard for the slope walls ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $2.50. We estimate .$10,000 for the slope walls, $20,000 for dredging.
Trent Canal, $141,500.


Mr. OSLER.: Has the minister any idea of what it will cost to finish the Trent canal, 'so as to make it of any use-if it is ever going to be of use, which I doubt very much ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I gave some figures on that subject when we were discussing the main estimates. I could get them again for the hon. gentleman, but he will find them in the 1 Hansard.'
Lachine Canal-To pay a proportion of the cost of paving Mill street, $20,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why is this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is all on our own ground. We have been repairing it from time to time, and have taken periodical votes for that purpose. But, it is in very bad condition,
and we think it will be more economical to pave it.


John Graham Haggart: It is not land along the basin, it is a public street of the city of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they will not take it, they do not recognize it. If the hon. gentleman can suggest some method by which we can give up the control of a highway that we have been maintaining for years, and which has not been taken over by the municipality, so that we may avoid responsibility for it,
I would be very glad indeed. It is between the canal and the river, some distance away, with a number of buildings alongside of it, and these people must have access to it.


John Graham Haggart: Could the hon. gentleman say whether our canal extends the whole way alongside of it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, certainly, right along. Do you know where the Pillow-Hersey Company is located ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes. That is on a portion of the street across the Wellington street bridge.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, it is not there at all.


John Graham Haggart: This is a street that runs up alongside of the canal.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. It is on the side of the canal between the river and the canal.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman explain what the total cost of the paving is and who is paying the balance ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	ANDCANALS. I believe	the cost of	paving is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $50,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but it says :
To pay a proportion of the cost of paving Mill street.
What is the proportion ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The decision of counsel is to say to the municipality that we will be prepared to contribute this amount towards paving the whole of the street if they will take it over and assume the balance and we will be done with it. We have been discussing this matter for a very long time and we thought this would be the most satisfactory mode of bringing the question to an end.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, the municipality is to take the street over ?
noTvnvroNS


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, and assume the responsibility for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Responsibility for keeping it in repair in future V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For maintenance in future. That is our proposal.


Robert Laird Borden: The proposal of the government is that this shall be the last contribution ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the proposal that we are proposing to make. We have not made it yet but council has decided upon asking parliament to make this appropriation upon the understanding that anything oyer this amount shall be met by the municipality. We have not decided, nor is it our present purpose, to spend any portion of the money unless and until the municipality agrees to accept the offer and to take the road off our hands on these terms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think this is a most exceptional thing to do and that it is an odd situation that we find ourselves in. We have government property, the municipality 'requires it, and we have no further need of it, the municipality is using it. and we propose to give it over to the municipality but we do not propose to give it over until we have spent $20,000 on it. We are not only making a gift but we are proposing to add to the gift by spending public money. It seems to me that it would be a proper thing to give the roadway over to the municipality and let the municipality keep it up. What right has the country to keep it up. What right have we to add to the gift by spending $20,000 as an inducement for the municipality to take it over ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to look at things pretty much as they are. You cannot entirely obliterate what has occurred before. We have been recognized as being answerable, whether rightly or wrongly, for the condition of this highway. We have been spending $2,000 a year in keeping it in repair. We have our own workshops on it and the public must have access to these shops, while other people have established businesses there and they also have to have access to the property occupied by them. At the outset, I suppose, we required that this highway should be opened for our own convenience and later it was found also to be necessary for the convenience of the public, and recognizing this, we have been paying from year to year for keeping it up. It looks to me a somewhat serious matter that we should be burdened with the responsibility. year after year, of spending $2,000, or $3,000, upon it and it occurred to us that if we could make an arrangement with the municipality whereby it would


Robert Laird Borden: take this road over and assume the entire responsibility of maintaining it, it would be a very excellent business arrangement to do that.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, I was down there one time and I saw men excavating rock from the canal, and drawing the rock and placing it upon this particular portion of the street. I was wondering what business we had to be macadamizing it at all and I stopped them. I believe the municipal authorities took the stone that was delivered on the road and did the work themselves. I never could understand what business we had to do any thing at all upon the street.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this roadway is for general use what reason have we to spend money upon it at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We may require it for our own purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it is necessary to have this thoroughfare as a means of access 1o to our own shops there might be some reason for it, but if it is for the public convenience I do not see what justification there is for it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have leased a good deal of our land along the highway at fairly remunerative rentals to people who have taken this land, have put up buildings and have established themselves there, and they must have access to these buildings.
Macadamizing road from Cote St. Paul, $2,500. Hon. Mr. IIAGGART. Is that for the approaches to the bridge ? Surely this part is part of the city's work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have made appropriations, just how much I cannot say, at this moment-perhaps the deputy minister will know-In connection with this work. It is claimed when this canal was built that we should have macadamized this road which was established in connection with the canal. We either diverted or interfered with some other highway and we provided this highway in place of it and it is contended that we should make the highway serviceable. That claim has been recognized and we voted money for macadamizing the road in previous years. There is another portion that we propose to macadamize out of this vote.


John Graham Haggart: All I have to say is that the municipality of the city of Montreal ought to do this. When we went to the expense of building bridges the municipality ought to pay for the expense of macadamizing the road, instead of having to keep the road up in perpetuity.
To repair tug Frank Perew, $2,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What tug is that V


John Graham Haggart: Do we own this tug ourselves ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, this tug came to us in connection with the property we took over from Mr. Stewart and it requires some repairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is being done with it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will have to repair her.
Hon. Mr. HA6GART. You gave the plant to the new contractors. Did you give this tug with the plant ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Schreiber says the contractors did use her for a while.


John Graham Haggart: Then they ought to have repaired her.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My deputy says that they handed the tug back in the same condition they received it.
Welland Canal-To raise walls of old canal looks, $7,000.


John Graham Haggart: You never use the old canal. What are you raising the walls for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The timber is rotten and we must renew it.


John Graham Haggart: The walls are of stone.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The timber is rotten and the walls will be restored to their original height.
Carillon and Grenville Canal-To rebuild guide, $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: There seems to me an enormous sum of money expended on this canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not a great deal.


John Graham Haggart: The total cost must be enormous. Who is the contractor ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Martin Hogan Sons, and Le-moine.


John Graham Haggart: Was there a tender for this canal ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.
Trent Canal-Towards rebuilding bridge over Chemong lake, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this work under contract now ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The bridge is pretty nearly completed. We are contributing towards the cost.


Uriah Wilson: Is it the policy of the government to build all the bridges over the canals ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, Sir.


Uriah Wilson: Then why are you doing it in this case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have endeavoured to avoid responsibility for any bridges that we are not directly charged with. When the government raised the dam here the water was raised so as to render the old bridge of no use. The municipality has to construct a new and a higher bridge, and we thought that in justice we should pay a part of the cost.


Samuel Hughes: In the absence of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Kendry). who is very familiar with this, I. may lie permitted to say a word. What the minister says is correct. Chemong lake is between Peterborough and Victoria counties, and before the water was raised for canal purposes the people from the western side of the lake had free access over the old bridge. This bridge has been rendered absolutely useless by the raising of the water, and I believe the government would be in a court of justice liable for the whole cost of this new bridge. They are perfectly right in asking for this vote.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I pointed out to the municipality that they would be getting a new bridge instead of the old one, and I thought that 25 per cent of the estimated cost would be a fair proportion for us to contribute.
Welland Canal-To rebuild dam and bridge at Iiunnville, $43,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This dam is in a very dilapidated condition.


John Graham Haggart: What use is a dam or bridge to you there ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You cannot hold the water there and furnish a proper supply under the leases that we have granted, unless you repair that dam. The lessees have expressed much dissatisfaction. Some of them have not paid any rents for water for three years, and if I can carry out my intention, I propose to have all these rentals adjusted as a condition precedent to our assuming liability in connection with these dams.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why don't you have your rents readjusted before going on with the expenditure ? If we have several thousand dollars uncollected, and if we add to that by spending several thousand more it makes it worse.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope to have the whole thing established on a satisfactory business basis. There will be new leases and the quantity of water adjusted. Some claim that under their leases they can use more than they are entitled to, and all complain that the condition of the dam is such that the water runs away and that they cannot get the quantity they contracted for. Consequently they insist that they ought not to be asked for rent.


John Graham Haggart: What was the amount you expended on it last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did not expend very much last year.


John Graham Haggart: You had a large gang at work during the elections, fixing up the dam.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You can put a large gang on for a day or two without spending a great *deal.


John Graham Haggart: All I have to say is that this is an enormous amount of money to spend on a dam that is perfectly useless. It was formerly used for the purpose of supplying water from the Grand river to the feeder of the Welland canal but that feeder has been done away with, and the supply of water is now being taken from Lake Erie. It is true, there are a couple of little mills there, one owned by a former member for Haldimand, a supporter of the government ; but I venture to say that the amount these mill-owners have agreed to pay for the water power is not a tithe of the interest on the cost of the improvements which you propose to make this year. I do not think you will get $1,000 a year from them, or anything like it. An expenditure of $43,000 is an enormous expenditure on a work which is of a purely municipal cliarac-Iter. It is not of the slightest benefit to the government. It is wholly in the interest of a couple of Individuals, and I think is entirely unjustifiable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What obligation rests on us to build a bridge at all ?
The' MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. The main cost will be the reconstruction of the dam. To make a bridge with a highway over it will not substantially increase the cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the necessity of building the dam at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend knows that after any public work has been in operation for a long time, and industries have grown up in the locality as a consequence, it is not possible, without raising a rebellion, to stop the maintenance of the work, even if you could Mr. SPROULE.
make a fine technical argument to prove that there was no absolute public need of it. Moreover, these people have taken leases from us, and have established their mills.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You say they are not paying their rent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have not been, because the water has been running away, and they have not been getting the supply which they had reason to expect we would furnish them. Year by year this dam has been getting into a worse state of repair, and water has been diminishing, and year by year these industries have been becoming injured ; and it has come to be a question whether or not we shall maintain this dam as originally [DOT]contemplated, or let it all go. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman, if he were in my position, would like to take the responsibility of saying that it should not be maintained, but should be allowed to fall into decay, and that these people, who are our lessees, and who put up these mills, should be left to shift for themselves. I, at any rate, do not feel like taking that responsibility, and it seems to me that the amount of expenditure necessarily involved in this work would not be sufficient reason to justify us in taking any such course as my hon. friend suggests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it were necessary for the purpose of keeping the water in the canal, this darn should be maintained ; but, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says, that reason does not exist to-day, but that the dam is only for the purpose of making a water power for the benefit of the locality, it seems to me that it would be better for the government to sell it out by tender to some individual or private company, and let them maintain the power themselves.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do I understand my hon. friends opposite strenuously to oppose this vote as one that cannot be justified ? If they say so, we will consider the proposition. My hon. friends know the situation. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways, has probably heard the hon. member who last represented Haldimand in this House most pressingly urge on the government that we should build this work as a necessary and important work, the failure to maintain which would lead to disaster to the community and to the industries established there. If my hon. friends opposite say that they are strenuously opposed to this vote, I will allow it to stand, and consider the matter.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister says that I heard my late colleague from Haldimand urge the rebuilding of this work. I do not remember anything of the kind.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think ' Hansard ' will bear out the hon. gentleman's statement. I know the place as well as I do the bridge down here. The work is of no use at all except in the interest of a couple of mills, and I protest against the expenditure of the enormous sum of $43,000 upon it. If you feel yourselves morally bound, on account of these two particular mills, to keep the work in repair, let there be an arrangement with the mill-owners by which they will do the work themselves. The only liability you have to the municipality is this : by building a dam across there, you entail an increased expenditure on the municipality for the building of the road, and to that the government ought to contribute ; but if you take away the dam and leave the place as it was before in the course of nature, you have no right to contribute anything. The only question with the minister is whether he is morally bound to keep up the dam for the sake of these two establishments.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think there are more than two.


John Graham Haggart: There are two flour mills and an electric apparatus which provides electricity for the town.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman made that lease himself.


John Graham Haggart: I made it conditional on the surplus water not being required. If the hon. gentleman thinks that the government is morally bound, on account of the leases, to keep up this dam, he will find it a very expensive work. All I "can say that it is of no further use as a feeder of the canal, and its only use is for the purpose of supplying powers to these industries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This dam was built by the late government as a public work. Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the late government committed an error ?


John Graham Haggart: No, but the principle of supplying water from the Grand river a canal is abandoned, and there is no further use for this dam as a feeder of the canal.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This dam was built as a public work, and a condition of things has arisen under which it benefits the whole community. We are asked to let the work go out of repair altogether.


John Graham Haggart: I do not go that far.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not proposing to spend anything more than is necessary to put this
dam into proper shape. We cannot expect the lessee to do this, but once it is in proper repair I am led to believe, by conversation with them, that they would willingly agree to keep it in repair. No reasonable person however would assume the burden of repairing it in its present condition. It has been allowed to fall into such decay that a large sum will be required to put it into proper shape.


Mr. COCHRANE.: The hon. minister is then willing to spend $43,000 in repairing a dam which is of no benefit to the public at large but simply to accommodate two or three mills. The owners of these mills have been the lessees of the government and have not been paying any rent, and we are now told that it would be too onerous an imposition on them to ask them to keep that dam in repair, which furnishes them with their water power. When the hon. minister tells us that the late representative (Mr. Montague) urged the government last session the advisability of improving that work, he resorted to a very flimsy argument. I do not think he is so sensible to importunities on this side as he has shown himself to be to the appeal of the late hon. member for Haildimand. I think that there is a nigger on the fence and that the money is spent for another object than the benefit of the Canadian public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has asked if we will take the responsibility of letting that dam go to the dogs. I frankly confess that I would. If it is no longer needed to supplement the water in the Welland canal, there is no reason why we should be saddled with the expense of keeping it up. The proper thing will be to sell out that power.


Robert Laird Borden: What rental do you get now ?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The deputy minister tells me that he cannot recollect what the rental is.


John Graham Haggart: It is about $300 a year for the whole thing.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. We get something from the electric people.


John Graham Haggart: They pay only a nominal rent.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. They are supposed to pay $6 per horse power and they are using some 200 horse power.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Do they pay it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Have they ever paid ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I do not think so.


Mr. INGRAM.: What portion of the $43,000 to be spent on the dam and what on the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $25,000 for the dam, the bridge $8,000, and the temporary structure $7,000.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What is the temporary structure ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: According to the engineers, you must have a temporary structure before you can reconstruct the present dam.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That dam was nearly all built with stone with the exception of a small piece in the centre.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My deputy says it is built with wood.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. Three-fourths of it is stone embankment built up and faced with stone.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a stone fence with a crib backing.


John Graham Haggart: If so, it is weir hidden. The centre portion, where the opening is, is of wood, but the embankment is of stone, and there is a stone waste weir on the tar side. I saw them, months and months before the election bringing up stones in scows and dumping them in.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Do I understand that this work is not required for the purposes of the canal, but is only to benefit the mills? If so, there surely can be no excuse for spending public money in that way. Why should the government, in the same way, undertake to benefit the mills all over the country ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are four leases, and probably there will be more when we get the dam in proper shape. There is no reason why we should not do it for the purposes of the business in the locality.


Bennett Rosamond: But these mills do not pay anything for the use of the water there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the item stand for the present, at all events.


Mr. YROOMAN.: I would draw the attention of the minister to the dam at Bobcay-geon. This is a long wooden structure. The Minister of Public Works is spending money in dredging at the town of Lindsay ; but the money will be wasted unless this dam is put in repair.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The whole thing will be destroyed, I know that.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Yes, the wood is rotting, and the structure is much in need of repair.
Welland Canal-To renew docking below lock 1 (revote), $11,800.


John Graham Haggart: What is this ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The timber is decaying, and we have to put in concrete.


John Graham Haggart: Where is this lock 1 ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The locks	number from the
lower end. This one is at Port Dalhousie.


John Graham Haggart: This is an extension of the concrete on the pier ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: That is all right.
Chambly Canal-Drainage works at St. Johns, P.Q., $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: How much is that drainage work going to cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It will cost us $10,000 more, I apprehend. We have to continue the drainage until we find an outlet for it.


John Graham Haggart: How much has been expended on it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With this $10,000, there will have been a total expenditure of $45,000 or $46,000.


John Graham Haggart: The only justification alleged for this is, that on account of the destruction of the locks, you must continue the drainage of the town under the locks into the river. The expenditure should be confined solely to that, but I am afraid it has not been.
St. Peter's Canal-To pay claim of S. O'Donohue, if accepted to be in full settlement, $9,222.27.


John Graham Haggart: Will this cover the amount ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is all we are willing to give. We do not know whether Mr. O'Donohue will accept or not. We hope he will.


John Graham Haggart: I remember the claim perfectly well. This man did what he thought, and the engineers thought, to be necessary to unwater the canal ; but, unfortunately, the water burst in and nearly ruined the poor fellow. It was a hard case. I do not know that there is any justification for the payment, but I will not object to it.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Income-Miscellaneous-Governor General's car-Repairs and alterations, $2,000.


Mr. BLAIR.: 


John Graham Haggart: Do you pay for changes, &e., in the Governor General's car ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, we always have done so.


John Graham Haggart: The late Governor Governor, if I remember well, insisted on paying this himself. He paid the interest on the expenditure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is another thing. He did not pay for such expenditure as this.
Miscellaneous-To defray expenses in gathering information and otherwise in reference to a railway commission, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the general discussion on this item takes place, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a matter with respect to which I have had some correspondence. In 1896, one John B. McLellan, of Kingsville, Cape Breton, owned about 6,000 railway ties at West Bay road, River Dennis, and intermediate stations on the Cape Breton Railway. During the summer of 1896, the employees of the government on that railway came and loaded these ties on cars and carried them away to some place unknown to the owner. The owner alleged that he never parted with the title of these ties, or authorized any person to take possession of them. He is led to believe that some other person has been paid for them. He has had some correspondence with respect to the matter, but he is unable to get any satisfaction. If that is the case. T think the matter deserves immediate investigation on the part of the department. Of course. Mr. McLellan is entitled to be paid for his ties, the government has taken possession of them, and if the price has been paid to some one else, evidently an injustice has been done.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When did this occur ?


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently in the summer of 1896, after the election. The number of ties, as stated to me by a reliable person, is 8,000. The facts, of which of course I have no personal knowledge, have been detailed to me by a solicitor in whose hands Mr. McLellan has placed the matter for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain some redress. Of course, yon may say that he might file a petition of right. But if the circumstances are as I have mentioned, I think it is a matter the government should immediately investigate, and endeavour to do justice to this man whose property appears to have been taken, either through mistake or otherwise, and paid for by the government to some other person. I have no doubt the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. McLennan) knows something of the matter, and I would be glad if he would make a fuller statement.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I have not heard an explanation from the minister about the Bob-caygeon dam.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will endeavour to get a statement of the facts concerning these ties from my deputy minister. The matter has not been brought to my notice.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not expect the hon. gentleman would be able to give much information about it without notice. But I would be glad if he will take the matter into consideration and do what seems to be right.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will.


Angus McLennan: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) has asked me what I know of this matter. The gentleman in question did apply to me to see what could be done re this matter, and I wrote to the department in his behalf. This gentleman sold these ties to the Boston and Nova Scotia Company, who in turn sold them to the Department of Railways. In answer to my letter the department replied that they had bought a certain number of ties from the Boston and Nova Scotia Company, at West Bay Road station, on the Intercolonial Railway, but the department could not say who originally owned the ties. Mr. McLellan sold these ties to the Boston and Nova Scotia Company, who forgot to pay him for them. When Mr. McLellan applied to me, I remember distinctly that I wrote to him advising him to forbid the government employees at West Bay station taking away the ties. He did so. He tells me he went to the station and forbade the government employees taking the ties away, warning them that he was going to apply to the Department of Railways for payment for these ties, having not been paid for them. The trackmen took the ties away, declaring that they knew nothing about the transaction between him and the Boston and Nova Scotia Company. From what I can gather from the department, the department certainly paid the Boston and Nova Scotia Company for the ties, but the company never paid Mr. McLellan for them. McLellan now. appeals through his solicitor to the department for redress. I must say that while the Department of Railways and Canals is innocent in the matter, it is a very hard case for Mr. McLellan, who honestly paid for the ties to the people who furnished them. There is an item, I believe, that the money was paid to Messrs. Fraser & Ross of the Boston and Nova Scotia Company.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister answer the hon. member for South Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Vrooman) with regard to the Bobcaygeon dam ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. It is pretty well understood that



the responsibility of maintaining the Bob-caygeon dam devolves upon the Department of Public Works or upon this department, it would probably be my department, so far as the dredging is concerned. I think it might be done without an express appropriation for the purpose. If the expenditure was not a very heavy one, and if the department decided that something should be done in the way of restoring that dam, it could be done without asking for an appropriation.


Samuel Hughes: The dam belongs to the Department of Railways and Canals, there is no doubt about that. But the custom Is, as the minister says, to maintain it, not by a special vote, but from the general vote for the Trent canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are asking for this vote in order to avail ourselves of the services of a. competent person to secure information of the way railways are operated in the different parts of Canada, and also, perhaps, to get similar information from the United States, so that when we come to frame a law for the establishment of a Railway Commission we may be equipped with full information for that purpose. It will be necessary, I think, to employ some gentleman of special competency and legal experience to prepare the Bill.
Cornwall Canal-In full settlement of Gilbert Dredging Company's claim (revote, $10,500), $16,480.


Mr. CLANCY.: The committee will be glad to have some explanation from the hon. gentleman as to this $10,480, which it is proposed to pay as a settlement of the Gilbert Dredging Company's claim.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may explain to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that this is a revote. It will be found in the appropriations that we voted last year, but, notwithstanding the very full discussion which took place when this matter was under consideration, and in which all the various items constituting the total sum were fully explained, the Auditor General has, in the interim, since the vote was passed by parliament, hesitated, and not only hesitated, but refused, to make this payment. The vote has lapsed, and we are obliged now to obtain a revote in order that the claim may be paid. I need not go into the technical details, or make a new statement of the question which was the subject of controversy. We had it, I think, pretty well threshed out a year ago, and we have had more or less information, argument and correspondence directed to the subject by the Auditor General. The result has been that the Auditor General, who appears to me to imagine that he ought to know a great deal better than parliament as to whether this sum is a proper sum to be voted or not, has refused to make the payment. We have asked parliament to


Andrew George Blair: revote the sum. We have carefully and fully considered the whole question, and we have had the opinion of the Department of Justice upon it. We have considered all the arguments which have been urged why it should not be paid, and we have gone into the whole question just as fully as if parliament had not voted the amount last year and as if it were a new question, and the result is that we have concluded that we are justified in asking for this sum to be revoted.


James Clancy: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, after the very full discussion of. last year and after it being shown beyond all doubt that there was no justification for the course the hon. gentleman took, to have called it a job, would have been to have paid it a compliment. I suppose it would now be unprofitable to renew the discussion upon the whole thing, but it is not without profit to consider whether the hon. gentleman is going to utterly disregard an officer of parliament, fortunately not under the control of the hon. gentleman, but whom he overrules time and again, and when he cannot overrule him by any decent mode of procedure he comes to parliament and asks for a justification on a ground of that kind. It it hardly worth discussing for a moment the importance of sustaining the financial officer of this parliament. If the government are going to overrule this officer on every conceivable ground, we may just as well dispense with the Auditor General altogether. So far as it weakens his influence for the useful purpose that he was intended to serve at the outset when parliament gave him great scope, it is a most serious thing for the hon. gentleman to make the proposal that he now makes. The Auditor General does not stand alone in this contention. He took very proper ground. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman now that he is proposing to force this vote through parliament-if he thinks it a proper thing to do, and X hope he will not go so far as to force it through when the Auditor General has behind him the opinion of Mr. Lash. The Auditor General has sought legal advice to fortify him in addition to his own long experience, and he is sustained in the position he takes. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is going to permit such an outrage as to propose now to ask parliament to revote this sum to be paid to the Gilbert Dredging Company ? We cannot have a more serious question really than the payment of this sum of money standing alone. We have come to the point when a minister, rightly or wrongly, undertakes to force his own will against that of the Auditor General. I am not going to lay down the general principle that the Auditor General is always right, but the Auditor General has taken every means to set himself right so far as obtaining legal advice upon the question is concerned, and yet, in the face of the contention of the Auditor

General, backed by legal opinion sustaining his position, the kon. Minister of Railways and Canals still persists in asking parliament to assent to a revote of this sum of money to be paid under such circumstances. I say that this is a matter even more serious than the unsavoury case which the hon. gentleman put through in the dying hours of a session and of a parliament, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not add another outrage to the one he committed last year by asking us to vote this sum.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is very choice or very apt in the language he employs.


James Clancy: It is not a very choice case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I can form as good a judgment as to what is a fair and honest transaction as he can, and I decline to allow that hon. gentleman to characterize this appropriation in the manner in which he has done. I have to apply my judgment upon this question, and I say that the hon. gentleman has no right to say that this is not a just and honest claim. I say that he has no business to express an opinion such as he has expressed when he does not know what the facts are. I venture the opinion that this $10,000 item that we are asking parliament to revote is as honest and as square a claim as was ever paid by any government of this country- When the hon. gentleman talks about my decency, what does he mean ? Is it a part of the duty of a minister of the Crown, who is at the head of a department, to apply his judgment to a question of this kind, and to give every claim that is presented to him the benefit of the best judgment he can form, or is it not ? Because some hon. gentleman who has some political or party end to serve denounces it in strong terms without knowing what he is talking about, must the minister withdraw such a claim ? No, Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if, when I had a claim presented to me of $10,000, which is a proper and just claim, I hesitated about paying it. The hon. gentleman says that the Auditor General thinks that this claim should not be paid. The Auditor General expresses that -opinion in regard to almost every item that comes before him. The Auditor General feels that it is part of his duty to obstruct the payment of claims upon every possible, conceivable, technical or frivolous ground. If the Auditor General had his way he would make the government of this country absolutely impossible.
That is what I say with regard to that. I have no doubt that the Auditor General thinks he is discharging his duty, but. in my opinion, he has a most exaggerated idea of his duty when he undertakes to set up his opinion against the opinion of engineers and competent men-as competent as he is- 177}
and consider that his judgment is superior to them all, and superior to parliament on the top of all. Parliament voted this money. If I mistake not, we had three days' debate on this and the collateral claims of the Gilbert Dredging Company. Parliament, with a knowledge of all the facts, voted that money. I want to know what authority the Auditor General had to say that he should judge whether parliament should have voted that money or not. It is true that he had Mr. Lash to agree with him. The opinion of Mr. Lash is, no doubt, usually very good. Mr. Lash's opinion upon practical questions, as well as upon legal questions, is, I dare say, as good as anybody else's, but it is no better. Mr Lash'-s opinion was submitted to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice went into it very carefully, and the Department of Justice came to the conclusion that Mr. Lash's opinion was of no weight ; ought not to govern, and that Mr. Lash was wrong upon the questions which he undertook to pass upon. I do not pretend to have any professional knowledge of the rank, character or standing that Mr. Lash has, but, such as I have, and applying it to the question, I had no hesitation in saying, not a particle of hesitation in saying, that Mr. Lash was wrong. I believe that nine out of ten men in this parliament, who view with a open mind all the particulars of this claim, will say that Mr. Lash was wrong, and that the Auditor General was wrong. 1 have no doubt about it myself. My hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt), who represented these gentlemen, presented the case to the Auditor General, but the Auditor General refused to pay. He put obstacles in the way. He positively declined to pay four or five of the items included in this estimate, did he not ?


Mr. BELCOURT.: All of them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He was forced to acknowledge that he was wrong in his opinion in regard to most of them, but he adhered to his opinion as regards this. He paid the others, and he did not pay this. I say that when parliament has passed an appropriation, parliament is supreme, and a vote by parliament ought to be sufficient to satisfy even the Auditor General of this Dominion, and the gentlemen that he has associated with him. Unless the committee desires, I shall not go into the particulars which make up this claim. It is sufficient, I think, to state that the matter was gone into most fully and minutely last year. Gentlemen opposite presented the strongest arguments against this claim, but parliament voted the appropriation, and it was the business and the duty of the Auditor General to issue the cheques for that amount, when parliament declared itself satisfied upon the question. I think it would be beneath the dignity of parliament for us now to make any explanations to the Auditor General as to

why we voted last year an amount which we had a perfect right to vote, in the exercise of our discretion as a parliament.


James Clancy: I am not going into a history of this claim, hut, it is fresh in the minds of the gentlemen who sat here last year, that an agreement was come to, that a full settlement was made with the Gilbert Bros., and that afterwards the Gilbert Bros, and their solicitor resurrected an old claim, and got the minister to sanction it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The claim was brought in the very moment it was settled what damages should be allowed for the cutting short in respect of the work which was to be done, and which was not done, leaving open the question of past claims. This claim was brought in instantly.


James Clancy: The solicitor for Mr. Gilbert very adroitly drew up a receipt to the department, and it was understood to be for a settlement in full, without any reservation whatever. I am not reflecting on the legal profession in the least, but, this was a lawyer's receipt, and the gentleman who drew up that receipt, with a skill that only belongs to the legal profession, came back afterwards and said that the receipt might be read in two ways, and that the Gilbert Bros, might have a further claim. I challenge the minister to say that this was not included in the other items.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, Sir, it was not. I say unhesitatingly that it was not.


James Clancy: The minister will find many, if not the whole, of the items of the same kind and character included.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all.


James Clancy: Let the minister consult the records of the past, and he will find that what I am saying is correct. The Minister of Railways has told us, in so many words, that the Auditor General is a menace to him, and that government in this country is intolerable with the Auditor General. According to the minister we should dispense with the Auditor General, because he avails of every pretext to stand in the way of the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Blocked the payment of moneys that were justly due.


James Clancy: Whether there is a Liberal or Conservative government in power, it is the duty of the Auditor General to look after the expenditures. That is what the Auditor General is there for. I venture to say that the Conservative party had the same trouble with the Auditor General, and I believe it was in the interest of the coun-


Andrew George Blair: try that the Conservative government had the same trouble with him that the Liberal government has to-day. It is no excuse to say that parliament voted this money. Parliament voted that money very improperly, and it voted it when only a fraction of the representatives of the people were present in the House, and the minister left over the vote for an occasion of that kind. I am not going to say that he has done the isame thing to-day, but I want to tell the minister that the people of the country will attach considerable importance to the contentions of the Auditor General and of Mr. Lash. The minister says he does not know what the standing of Mr. Lash is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that.


James Clancy: I can say to the minister that Mr. Lash is considered to be a good lawyer, and was once Deputy Minister of Justice. The minister told us that he did not know what the status of Mr. Lash is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


James Clancy: The minister told us that Mr. Lash was wrong. I am not going to say whether Mr. Lash was right or wrong, because I do not know anything about it. But, we have the fact that this was understood by the department to be a full settlement. I feel it my duty to protest against the government of the day taking the course they have taken with regard to this claim. It is a grave matter, not so much measured by the sum being asked, but when we open the doors to that sort of thing, both sides of the House can see how easily unsavoury claims of this kind can be put through, notwithstanding the opposition of the Auditor General, backed up by one of the best legal authorities in the province of Ontario.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have a personal knowledge of the matter for which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has been attacked-a knowledge which, I think, justifies me in laying before the House the facts as I understand them. The hon. member for Bothwell has not made a strong case ; and if it were not for the very strong language he has used, talking about jobs and indecency, it would not be necessary for me to refer to the matter at any length. I cannot understand what he means by indecency.


James Clancy: Was not the hon. gentleman himself the solicitor of the company in this matter ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Then that would probably enable me to speak of the case with a good deal more knowledge than the hon. member for Bothwell. I am going to speak of something I know about, whereas the hon. gentleman has been speaking of something he knows nothing at all about. If

the hon. member wishes to say beforehand that anything I may say is not worthy of being listened to simply because I am a member of the firm who acted as solicitors for these gentlemen, I would like to understand if that is the position he takes. The hon. gentleman speaks of indecency. I do not know that it is indecent for the hon. Minister of Railways to submit something to parliament simply because the Auditor General has objected to it.


James Clancy: I did not make use of the word ' indecency,' though it was repeated time and again by the hon. Minister of Railways.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I heard the word ' indecent ' ; if the hon. gentleman takes it back, that settles it. The hon. gentleman also spoke of a job. Is it to he called a job because parliament is asked to vote this item after the Auditor General has pronounced against it ? Is not parliament the proper authority ? Is it not superior to the Auditor General ? If the Auditor General, by his numerous and interminable objections, has prevented this claim being paid, what is the Minister of Railways to do but bjri'ng it down to the House and have it revoted ? If the hon. gentleman will only take up the papers and give fifteen minutes to the case, he will be constrained to take back everything he has said as to this being a job. These contractors, as far back as 1893, not under the Liberal government, but under the Conservative government, filed claims in the department under three different heads : first, extras ; second, work done ; and third, a percentage for loss of profits on works which had been abandoned. The hon. gentleman has confounded the claim for work done with the claim on account of loss of profits on abandoned works. The late government dealt exclusively with the claim for loss of profits on abandoned works, and paid $29,500, or 15 per cent on $195,000, on that account; and the receipt wlas prepared, not by the lawyers of the Gilbert Company, but by the Department of Justice ; and the receipt which the member for Bothwell referred to specially reserved from that settlement the very item which is now being revoted. The letter to which my hon. friend has referred is the letter of the solicitor, Mr. Ferguson, accepting the payment of the $29,500 in the same terms as were contained in the receipt prepared in the Department of Justice. These two claims are entirely different. The claim for loss of profits on abandoned work was settled in the manner stated in 1893. At that time this claim among others was before the minister, but was not settled. In 1896 or 1897 the Gilbert Company urged these claims. There were thirteen items, of which five or six were refused. Nine items were tvotied by this parliament, and every one of these items was objected to in the Auditor General's office, and the Auditor General
sent his officers to Cornwall, where they examined every officer on the canai, and the solicitors for the Gilbert Company had to appear before the Auditor General on as many as twenty-five or thirty occasions. Every item was fought, and the Auditor General yielded every one of those items except this one ; and he gives the opinion of Mr. Lash. Now, Mr. Lash gave an opinion entirely different to the position taken by the Auditor General. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Lash, but the opinion he gave was based on an ex parte statement prepared by the Auditor General, a very one-sided statement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was prepared by Mr. Hayter.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Probably it was Mr. Hayter. I do not think the Auditor General himself knew anything about it. What does Mr. Lash find ? That the contractors are not entitled to be paid $10,500 for the old stone in the culvert, because it formed part of the 15 per cent allowed to them for the loss of profits on abandoned works. That is absolutely untrue ; it is against all the facts. What were the facts with reference to this old stone ? I think it is the clearest case of all the items in these claims. By the contract and the specifications the contractors bound themselves to remove an old culvert which was in the channel, and which would be too high because of the increased depth of the channel. They were to be paid for removing it, and, as part of the price, they were to be given the stone in the old culvert. There were 3,000 yards of that stone. The government did not allow them to take the culvert away, and gave it to somebody else ; and these contractors, in order to carry on their work, had to go and buy 3,000 yards of stone from other people. That is the claim before the House, which the hon. member for Bothwell calls a job. If the hon. member 'will only read the report of the resident engineer, Mr. Rubidge, which he will find at page A-37 of the Auditor General's report, he will find that this claim is for payment to these people for stone which became their property on the day they signed the contract, and of which it is shown by the clearest possible evidence they were deprived. The stone was valued at one time at $4 per yard, but the resident engineer refused to allow more than $3.50. This item, after being investigated in the department by the chief engineer, and after the House had passed on it and ordered it to be paid, was again investigated in the office of the Auditor General from time to time and payment refused. The hon. member for Bothwell is speaking altogether of something which he is totally ignorant of.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman himself does not seem to understand the question, although I believe he was the

party who got the claim and pressed it before the Department of Railways and Canals. What are the facts ? In the settlement of 1894, Gilbert Bros, were to get 15 per cent allowance for the abandoned work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On what ?


John Graham Haggart: On the total amount. But if the contention of the hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) is right, namely, that this stone taken from the culvert could be used for the purposes of construction in the new work to be finished, why were the contractors made an allowance of 15 per cent on the whole work ? They are allowed a profit, as if the stone were put into the work. Are you going to pay them over again? The hon. gentleman is not right when he says that this stone which was taken out of the culvert could be used for the purposes of the new work. The contractor was allowed for the abandonment of that work altogether 15 per cent on the whole of it. Are those not the facts ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No.


John Graham Haggart: Well, I am glad to see that both Mr. Lash and the Auditor General agree with me. Here is what Mr. Lash Bays :
It appears from the papers that included in the works not proceeded with there was a quantity of masonry for which the stone in the culvert, had it been removed, might have been used. Assuming that this stone would have been so used had the work been proceeded with, it is clear that the use of this stone would have entered into the question of [DOT] the amount of profits which the contractor would have made in the execution of this work. These profits, by agreement of 'die parties, were fixed at 15 per cent of the estimated cost, and in this way it seems clear to me that the payment made in 1894 covered any claim of the contractors for not being allowed to use this stone.
So that the opinion of Mr. Lash agrees thoroughly with that of the Auditor General, and is in accord with common sense. There is not the slightest doubt that in the allowance made by the government in the settlement of 1894, these parties receivd 15 per cent of the contract which was abandoned, to cover all this work. They have been paid in full. The only question remaining is the payment of this stone. That stone was in the culvert belonging to the government, which the contractors had to take down, and which they said they could utilize in the new work. They never would have been allowed to so utilize it. They would have been obliged to use it for backing and throwing over the bank of the canal altogether. Independent of the technicality of the claim, the statement that the contractors intended to use the stone for the construction of the new work, is a false statement, I have no hesitation in saying. No stone in any culvert was used for any of the purposes of the new work. It is a trumped up claim, but independently of that here is the Mr. HAGGART.
opinion of Mr. Lash that, under the bargain of 1894, the contractors were paid in full.
The Auditor General submitted the question to Mr. Lash, and Mr. Lash agreed with him, that the contractors had no claim whatever, legally or otherwise, and we are now asked to look into this trumped up claim and vote a sum which the Auditor General refused to pay.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I would be much obliged to my hon. friend if he could point out where the Auditor General took the ground that this claim was settled in the arrangement of 1894.


John Graham Haggart: I take Mr. Lash's statement in reply to Mr. McDougall. The Auditor General took two grounds, one of which was that the claim was included in the settlement of 1S94.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: He never took that ground.


John Graham Haggart: 
Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is what Mr. Lash says, but I affirm that up to the time Mr. McDougall wrote that letter, he never took that ground. The ground which he took was that it was not shown in evidence that these contractors could have used this stone in other parts of the work. He did not take the ground that it was included in the settlement of 1894.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the Minister of Railways and Canals used rather strong language about the Auditor General in connection with this matter, when he described the objection raised by the Auditor General as a frivolous one, and used a great many more adjectives of a similar character. I do not suppose it possible for any one to thoroughly understand the question in a few minutes, but I have read Mr. Lash's opinion, and it seems to me not only logical, but according to common sense. The hon. member for Ottawa says that the stone became the property of the contractors. I do not see how that pretension can be sustained.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? I -would like to point out to him the exact wording of the clause of the specification which treats of this stone as the property of the contractor. It will be found on page A-36 of the Auditor General's Report, iu Mr. Rubidge's letter. Mr. Rubidge says :
By the terms of the contract the stone and these culverts became the property of the contractors.

That is referred to t>y Air. Rubidge in his letter, on page A-36.	The stone in the culvert is said, by the terms of the specifications, to become the property of the contractor.
By the terms of the contract the stone in these culverts became the property of the contractors, as clearly indicated by the special provision that they (the contractors) should provide at their own expanse piling ground for the stone. If the stone was intended to remain the property of the government, ' spoil ground ' or ' piling ground ' would have been provided at the government's expense. The provisions of the contract made all the stone in these culverts the property of the contractors. The approximate quantities furnished by the government placed the amount at 3,000 yards, and in consequence contractors' claim was limited to this amount. A condition in the contract provided that the canal would be unwatered to allow the stone in culverts to be removed. The government's failure to conform to this provision deprived the contractors of obtaining possession and use of the stone.
These are the exact facts.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman been reading the contract ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, I am quoting from the resident engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 am not much concerned about what Air. Rubidge said. AVhat I want is the terms of the contract. I find that the contract is referred to by Air. Lash, and I suppose he had it before him at the time, provided that the contractor had the right to use stone, the property of the government, in building a certain work for the government. How the hon. gentleman can say that, under these circumstances, the stone became the property of the contractor, I do not understand. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can venture to make such an assertion. The stone was always the property of the government. Aly hon. friend wants the House to believe that this stone became the property of the contractor.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Why, it is not arguable. Mr. Lash is perfectly correct in the view he took of it. But, whether Mr. Lash is right or wrong is one question, and whether the Auditor General should be referred to as he has been referred to by the Minister of Railways and Canals is another question. I venture to think that when an Auditor General refers any matter of this kind to a counsel of the standing of Mr. Lash and is supported in his view by that counsel, it does not become the Alinister of Railways and Canals or any other member of the government to rise in this House and make such accusations against the Auditor General as the hon. gentleman has made today.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What accusation ? I say that
the Auditor General undertook to override the action of the parliament and to assume control over this parliament-and I must repeat it. Parliament voted this money with full and satisfactory knowledge of the case, and that ought to be enough to satisfy ten thousand auditor generals.


Robert Laird Borden: We will deal with one Auditor General at a time. What I venture to suggest to the hon. gentleman is that, dealing with one Auditor General and one counsel, we find that that Auditor General is supported in his contention by a counsel of the highest possible standing in Canada. Under these circumstances, it does not become the hon. gentleman or any member of the government to speak of the Auditor General's action as frivolous. I do not see any opinion of the Department of Justice, but I do see an opinion presented by the law clerk of the Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. BRITTON.: Alay I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Is it his opinion that the Auditor General ought to sit in judgment on the doings of this House ? That, I think, is a fair question ?


Robert Laird Borden: The suggestion that I was making was that the action of the Auditor General did not deserve the terms applied to it by the Minister of Railways and Canals. The Auditor General found a difficulty in authorizing the payment of this money and sought the opinion of an eminent counsel of the same bar as that of which the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) is a member, and that counsel supported him in' his view. Under the circumstances, his conduct ought not to be characterized as it has been characterized by the Minister of Railways and Canals. As I say, I do not find an opinion from the Department of Justice, but I do find an opinion of the law clerk of the Department of Railways and Canals which says :
I find it difficult to follow Mr. Lash's reasoning.
I do not find much difficulty of that kind myself.
It seems to me that dealing with the question reasonably and practically, without legal refinements, no such conclusion can be arrived at.
I do not know what this gentleman means by 'legal refinements.' I suppose that Air. Lash was dealing with the question from a legal standpoint, and, dealing with it from a legal standpoint, he dealt with it in a way in which it seems to be impossible to arrive at a different conclusion.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What is the hon. gentleman reading from ?


Robert Laird Borden: From a memorandum from the law clerk of the Department of Railways and Canals at page A-51. Further than that, he says :

It is true, that speaking with legal technicality the actual property in or ownership of the stone would not pass to the contractors-
So my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Bel-court) does not agree with

x


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If the hon. gentleman will read on, he will find that the law clerk agrees with me.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read on :
-but the clear intention of the parties was that the contractors could use this stone in the work; in other words, that the government would provide a certain quantity of stone.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, and he says :
The true measure of the contractor's claim, in my view, is the cost of the stone, which the contractors had to supply to replace the stone which the government failed, contrary to the provision in the specification, to allow them to use. In an action for damages at law for breach of a similar contract between two individuals, the test I have mentioned would be the measure of damages for the breach and the burden of proof would be on the party making default.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what my hon. friend's opinion is. He is speaking, I suppose, from the standpoint of the contractor. ' I am speaking from the standpoint of the interest of the country, and I say that, so far as the property in this stone is concerned, it is perfectly clear that the law clerk of the Department of Railways agrees with Mr. Lash. As to the question whether or not that is covered by the terms of the receipt which was given, they do not agree. Mr. Lash thought the terms of the receipt precluded any payment being made on this account. For my part, with the little attention I have been able to give to the matter, I would be disposed to agree with Mr. Lash. I see nothing 5" the memorandum of the law clerk to lead me to a different conclusion. But, as I say, that is not the particular matter I rose to discuss. I thought it my duty to say a word on behalf of the Auditor General, in view of the language the hon. minister had used.


James Clancy: Is the Gilbert Dredging Company still employed at $425 a day ? I notice that in 1898 they received $72,6-4G; in 1899, $103,734 ; and in 1900, $123,772, or a total of $300,152. Are they still engaged in this profitable job ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have done nothing this year. That was the tail end of an old arrangement that had been made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and those associated with him.


Mr. BENNETT.: One of the astounding things is the connection of the hon. member for Ottawa with the case. Are the House and the country to understand that when claims are being brought before the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
different departments, claimants must necessarily appeal to a member of parliament to steer their claims through ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: This claim was made by Mr. Ferguson, who was at one time member of the Conservative Association in Ottawa..


William Humphrey Bennett: So long as Mr. Ferguson was engaged in the matter, there was no fault to be found, because he was not a member of parliament


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Nor was I at this time. I was associated with Mr. Ferguson in this case as far back as in 1893, long before I entered parliament.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I submit the hon. gentleman should have seen the propriety of withdrawing from this case, or from presenting any claim against the government since he became a member of parliament. Now, what position is the Auditor General placed in ? He is between two fires. On one side he has the minister, on the other side he has the member for Ottawa. Listen to this report.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: But what about parliament to which this matter must be submitted and voted on ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Here is the part of the correspondence which shows the extremity to which the Auditor General is driven. He says :
I notice in the correspondence a letter from Mr. Belcourt in which he speak3 of my ' interminable objections.' I wonder whether it is possible to find any person in my position, with some conscience, who is so amiable that he would throw away over $10,000 of public money for fear of wounding the feeling of claimants or their solicitors, by raising an objection to such a proposal as Mr. Belcourt supported in the interests of the Gilbert Blasting Company.
Now, Sir, the House might as well understand that this is the position of matters to-day. Where a claitn of a dubious nature has to be fathered, the assistance has to be sought of a member of this House as solicitor. It is a notorious fact that in the last parliament correspondence was lying on this side of the House which implicated six members of parliament, for a consideration of $1,500, in supporting a certain railway Bill in this House. It is a notorious fact that such was the case. I myself saw copies of the correspondence, and it was only when the parties refunded the money that the actual receipts were handed back to them. Now, Sir, I submit that if a member of parliament, a member of this House, is to be licensed, and members of the government are to condone such grievous faults


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Where is the fault ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Why, the hon. gentleman seems lost to a sense of what is the duty of members of parliament.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question ? Does1 he mean to say that because I became a member of this House I must cease practising my profession ? Is that what he means ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, but I submit that the hon. member, or any other gentleman who is a member of this House, has no right to take claims before ministers of the Crown when he is a supporter of the government. If the hon. gentleman was an opponent of the government, then so much could not be said against it. But even under those circumstances, it would not be In the best taste. But when the hon. gentleman is a supporter of the government, then I say it is grossly wrong, and the hon. ' gentleman has no more right to appear in that capacity before the department than he has a right to go up to the Railway Committee and openly advocate a Bill that he has before that committee. If the hon. gentleman has a right to go there and carry with him his vote and his voice, then I submit that twenty members of this House have a right to go into that committee and vote for the consideration that is given to them, just in the same way that counsel may be paid a consideration for appearing before the committee.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ? Is the hon. gentleman aware


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Is the hon. gentleman aware that a solicitor cannot appear for the Crown, cannot act for the Crown, that the statute prohibits his doing so ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I am not.
At six o'clock, committee book recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Department of Railways and Canals-To provide for the appointment of S. L. T. McKnight to a junior second-class clerkship, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $700.


John Graham Haggart: What is the necessity of taking a person outside of those who have passed the Civil Service Act V Who is this Mr. McKnight ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He is in the department.


John Graham Haggart: How long has he been in the department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For three or four years.


John Graham Haggart: Has he any special qualifications that would require him to be appointed notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He is not in the regular civil service, but he is in the extra service. He has passed his examination, but he cannot get his salary and come in as a junior second-class clerk under the legislation passed last year without having this provision added.


John Graham Haggart: He can come in at the minimum salary.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: He has been three years in the department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: And you think he is entitled to $700 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Intercolonial Railway, $4,100,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you going to do with this-build a new railway ? Could the hon. minister give us some information as to what this is wanted for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been delaying with the expectation that my hon. friend (Mr. Hag-gart), who has been more particularly giving attention to this subject, would implement the statement that he made the other iday in the House. I do no say that he actually alarmed me, but he made the declaration that he intended to attack the general policy, administration and management of the Intercolonial Railway by moving, when Mr. Speaker would leave the Chair, a motion on the subject.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And that he Intended to precipitate a full dress debate in respect to it. Under these alarming circumstances, I have thought that my hon. friend would naturally expect that he would be looked to to take the initiative in the matter, and would precipitate this full dress debate which he declared he would bring on. I have been waiting to hear what he had to say in reference to the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and to hear what it might be well, perhaps, that I should remark upon when we came to discuss this item. Do I understand my hon. friend does not desire to avail himself of the opportunity of doing that ? If he does not, I wall proceed to make any statement that I have to make upon this subject.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has, perhaps, misunderstood what I intended to say. I intend to move a motion. I think, the day after to-morrow, on going into supply, upon this question ; so, that he may proceed with his estimate.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, the hon. gentleman, I

presume, would contemplate a general debate upon the question of the management of the Intercolonial Railway ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If so, I suppose it will hardly be worth while haying two debates on the subject ?


John Graham Haggart: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And in that case it may be better to go on ?


John Graham Haggart: There are just a few remarks to be made on the item which is going through. It was my intention, and I think it is my intention, to propose an amendment, and the day after to-morrow I will be prepared, on the motion to go into supply, to move an amendment, and we can debate the motion.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Railways will remember that early in the session a question was asked by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) relative to the purchase of certain lands for the purpose of enlarging the grounds of the Intercolonial Railway at Lfivis, and that an answer was given. Will the hon. minister state the position of those expropriated lands whether the same have been paid for, and if so, the rates that have been paid.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There has been no change whatever in the situation from that which existed the other day when the subject was up. No progress has been made. The matter remains in statuo quo. The same lands which were unsettled and unpaid for then are unsettled and unpaid for now. The same intention, which I declared was in my mind in regard to the expropriation of these lands, continues and exists down to the present moment, so that there is actually no alteration in the situation.


William Humphrey Bennett: In connection with the matter of increased accommodation at L6vis for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway, I wish to refer to certain correspondence which has been laid on the Table of the House. From this correspondence it would appear that as far back as 1S9S, the Department of Railways and Canals contemplated the purchase of some additional land in that town. In that connection, I understand from the correspondence that Mr. Jones, a trusted and well-known employee of the Department of Railways and Canals, was commissioned by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to proceed to Levis to make inquiries. After going there, and after his return to Ottawa, Mr. Jones made a report to the minister, and perhaps I had better read portions of that report. The officer to whom was entrusted this work says :


Andrew George Blair: Memo, for the Hon. A. G. Blair :
By your instructions I visited LSvis on the 28th November, 1898, in connection with the expropriation of land for the increased accommodation at LSvis station; but before doing so,
I had an interview that morning with the Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick in Quebec. Dr. Howlin accompanied me to Ldvis. I called upon each of the land-owners and saw them personally with the following results :

Then, he has given a statement as to the parties that he called on. and as to the value they put upon their land ;


Estate D.   D.@: Young, 95 cents per square foot.
Gilbert Carriere, $1.22 per square foot.
Edouard Couture, $1.36 per square foot.
The estate of Rhodes, $1 per square foot.
Unfilled land. 50 cents per square foot.
Furthermore, to the report, Mr. Jones adds the following clause ;
I saw Mr. Fitzpatrick on my return, who thought all these prices too high; but they are the very lowest that the owners would consent to name to me. (Sgd.) L. K. Jones, Secretary.
It is apparent from that letter, that on the 1st of December, 1898, these parties placed values upon their property, ranging from 95 cents to $1.36 per foot. It will be noticed that Mr. Fitzpatrick, the Solicitor General, stated to Mr. Jones that he considered this price too high. I have no doubt that the Minister of Railways, in view of the statement made by Mr. Jones, saw Mr. Fitzpatrick in regard to the matter, because it was rather important, involving as it did an expenditure of over $100,000. I assume that there were interviews between the Minister of Railways and the Solicitor General, because the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) was convinced that these prices were altogether too high, and he subsequently endorsed on the statement a memo, to this effect :
Offer 80 cents per foot for the filled land and 40 cents for the unfilled. (Sgd.) A. G'. Blair.
There cannot be a doubt that the minister arrived at that conclusion after hearing the representations not only of Mr. Fitzpatrick, but of his officer, Mr. Jones. Nothing seems to have been done for some little time, and we find from the correspondence that in the month of May following, the minister without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Dobell) was asked by the Minister of Railways to look after the purchasing of these lands. On the 17th of May, 1900, Mr. Dobell wrote from the city of Quebec ;
I only want to call your attention to the fact that there are one or two things not definitely settled about Levis. You have closed with Young, and you have given me authority to offer Couture $1 a foot for two lots; about 20,000 feet north and south of the depot, as marked on your plan. I have done this, and have added further that he gives us the option until the 1st of July next of taking the remainder of the property by buying the additional 20,000, and I do not hesitate to strongly advise you to do this. >
It will be noticed that on the date of this letter the lands that were acquired by the Department of Railways had received different valuations. Mr. Jones had reported that he thought the prices of from 90 cents to $1.36 per foot were too high, and Mr. Fitzpatrick endorsed that opinion. So firmly convinced was the minister that this price was too high, that he endorsed on the memo, that in his opinion SO cents a foot was a fair price. According to the letter of Mr. Dobell, one of the largest vendors of the property, namely, Mr. Couture, was prepared to sell his land for $1 per foot. It is well that the House should bear the two dates in mind, namely, December, '98, and the 17th of May, 1899. The matter seems to have hung fire for a considerable time despite the fact that there was a standing offer up to July, 1900, to sell at $1 per foot. The correspondence goes on and nothing seems to have been done by the minister during the year 1900 ; the minister not seeing fit to avail of the standing offer of Mr. Couture to buy at $1 per foot-and I will deal only with the offer of Mr. Couture for the present. We find that on the 15th of March, 1901, other gentlemen intervened on behalf of Mr. Couture. At first Mr. Couture appears to have been working personally in the matter, or through Mr. Lemieux, a notary, and Mr. Lemieux had impressed upon the government the necessity of closing the sale, as appears by the correspondence. Mr. Couture not being taken at his offer, of $1 per foot, we find that about March 15, 1901, Mr. Couture had secured the services of Mr. Prefontaine, the member for Maisonneuve, or the law firm with which he is connected. It is rather peculiar that this gentleman in the city of Quebec who offered land to the department at $1 a foot, secures the services, six months after, of a member of this House, and through the law firm of which he is a partner, makes a demand of the government in regard to the price of these lands. And, Sir, the lands that the department refused to1 pay $1 a foot for, they afterwards purchased at $1.50 a foot. As the purchase amounted to upwards of $100,060, it will be seen what difference that will make. When Mr. Couture acquired these new legal advisers, he withdrew his offer of $1 per foot, and lo and behold you, not only has he secured the assistance of a member of parliament to press his claim, but a gentleman from a very far distance away is brought into the transaction also. On the 15th of March application is made through the firm of Prefontaine, Archer & Co., of Montreal, to sell the lands at the enhanced price of $2.50 per foot, although these same lands were offered at $1 a foot a few months before. This afternoon I complained about a solicitor being a member of this House and taking upon himself the duty of furthering claims before any department of the government. As it
was in the case of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), so it is with the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Prefontaine), and in my opinion he should be blamed for coming before the department and endeavouring to press a claim of this kind before the minister. It does not look well for the Department of Railways and Canals that that department should have taken the action it did after this gentleman at Quebec had secured the services of a Montreal member of this parliament, who is a power behind this government, and whose name is always put prominently forward as being about to enter the cabinet. But Mr. Couture was not satisfied at retaining the services of a firm in Montreal, and he appears to have gone to the city of St. John, N.B., to enlist the sympathy and assistance of a gentleman who is very near and very dear, politically and personally, to the Minister of Railways and Canals. I find on file the following letter, dated the 15th of March, 1901 :
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 1st inst., relative to the property of Mr. L. E. Couture, situated at Levis, P.Q., on the line of the Intercolonial Railway, by which you state, if the matter could he settled immediately, you are of opinion that you could induce Mr. G. Archer, solicitor, Montreal, to get his client to accept the sum of $2.25 per foot for the property in question. In reply, I am, by direction, to inform you that the department cannot entertain the settlement of this matter on any such terms.
The letter to which this is a reply is a letter addressed by Mr. Pugsley to the department, as follows :
Fredericton, N.B., March 1, 1901. Hon. A. G. Blair,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
Re Couture Property, Levis..
My dear Blair,-Mr. Charles Archer, of Montreal, has sent me copies of solemn declaration of L. M. CarriSre, M.P., &c.
After carefully reading the declarations, it seems to me that a very strong case is made for a valuation of at least $2.50 a foot. If the matter could he settled immediately, I can, I feel sure, induce Mr. Archer to get his clients to accept $2.25. I will esteem it a great favour if you will kindly take the matter up, and settle upon this basis.
Yours sincerely,


WM. PUGSLEY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pugsley, not being a member of this House or connected in any way with the legislation of this parliament, has a perfect right to act as solicitor for any party who applies for his services in the furtherance of a claim against the department; hut the hon. member for Maisonneuve and his firm are estoped by all the rules of propriety from acting in such a matter. Now, what are the facts in this case ? Here was a man coming to the department and offering his land at $1 a foot. Here was a member of the cabinet saying that he believed $1 a
[Stage Direction]
foot was a fair price. Here was the minister himself, prior to that time, on the evidence adduced before him. and on the advice of the Solicitor General, refusing to give $1 a foot-why ? Because he had heard Mr. Fitzpatrick's opinion and he had the evidence of his own official to the contrary. And afterwards Mr. Couture through his solicitor makes the claim of $2.50 a foot. My sympathy goes with the Minister of Railways and Canals, for I believe he was desirous of acquiring this land at $1 a foot, and if he had had his own way he would have acquired it at that price, and the deal would have been closed and the country no doubt saved a large amount of money. But when the minister has formulated his policy, the lion, member for Maisonneuve comes forward with his high proposition, and Mr. Pugsley supports it. Mr. Pugsley has a perfect right to do so ; but at the same time it is a reflection on the head of the Department of Railways and Canals that, by reason of the great intimacy political and personal that exists between the minister and Mr. Pugsley, parties in the city of Quebec feel that if they wish to prosecute a claim in that department to the best possible advantage, they must go to the city of St. John and secure the services of Mr. Pugsley. A little while ago the minister gave an answer to a question to the effect that Mr. Couture had withdrawn his offer of $1 a foot, and that he was now demanding $2.50 a foot. So that the minister is in this dilemma, that he cannot close on the original offer of $1 a foot, and now the matter is going or has gone in the Exchequer Court. While the minister was endeavouring to hew to the line and to make the best possible deal for the country, the Solicitor General was interfering and advising the department against the acceptance of the offer of $1 a foot as being too high. But later on, when the price demanded is $2.50 a foot, the Solicitor General writes to Mr. Schreiber, the deputy of the department, the following letter :
Ottawa, 29th March, 1901.
Dear Mr. Schreiber,-X beg to inclose herewith a copy of a letter received from Mr. Lemieux, the agent at Levis, with reference to the expropriation of land required there for station ground. The prices fixed for the property of Couture and Turgeon are, X think, under the circumstances, reasonable, and our agent at LSvis, Mr. Lemieux, writes another letter yesterday to say that if the matter is not concluded within eight days from yesterday Couture may withdraw his offer- I send you copies of both letters.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
I was ill error when X stated that Mr. Fitzpatrick was recommending the payment of $2.50, the fact being that he- was at that time recommending the payment of $1.50, although only two months before he had stated openly to an official of the department that he believed $1 a foot was too high. But
William Humphrey Bennett: while the minister was being pressed by gentlemen who had seats in this House, and by his personal and political friend Mr. Pugsley, and also by the Solicitor General, to pay this enhanced price, there was another gentleman pressing the same thing upon him, and that was no less a person than the Prime Minister himself; because I find that on the 19th of March, 1901, the following letter is addressed to Mr. Schreiber, the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals :
Quebec, 19th March, 1900. Collingwood Schreiber, Esq.,
Deputy Minister Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
My dear Sir,-On receipt of your message here to-day, I immediately wired you as follows: -
' Please advise me as to nature of report you require re Ldvis.'
I am prepared to make such a report as you may require in order to facilitate this matter, but in the meantime I can say that the titles have been examined and found in order, and the Prime Minister is convinced that the remuneration asked is reasonable.
So far as regards the necessity of making any purchases is concerned, this is a matter of which I know absolutely nothing.
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, what is the position ? First, the minister was having forced on him land at $1 a foot. Whether he was endeavouring to carry out the deal on that basis or not X know not; but I know this, that the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General were both endeavouring to force him to pay $1.50 a foot for land which had been offered to the department for $1. Whether the Prime Minister was responsible for this recommendation or not, I know not; but it can hardly be believed that Mr. Fitzpatrick would use his name in this matter unless he had full leave and license to do so. It would be bad enough if the department were forced to pay $1.50 a foot for this land. Mr. Couture has done what any man under reasonable circumstances would do: he has refused to accept even the $1.50, and today there is hanging up in the Department of Railways and Canals a claim for this land at $2.50 a foot. Everybody has heard the statement made by, the Prime Minister throughout the province of Ontario as to the Intercolonial Railway. He said : ' What did we find when we got into power ? We found the Intercolonial commencing nowhere and ending nowhere-ending in a field near the city of Quebec.' And yet these gentlemen are demanding to-day the price of $120,000 per acre for these very lands. The whole matter bears on its face evidence that there is a political deal and a job, and the Minister of Railways is to be blamed for this, that he did not close at $1 a foot when the lands were offered to him at that figure. The minister is to be sympathized with for having yielded to the appeal of the First Minister and the Solicitor

Genera] to pay enhanced prices. Everybody knows what a trial in the Exchequer Court means. The strongest evidence possible will be forthcoming on behalf of the claimants, and in view of the valution made by the Solicitor General, it is easily seen what the outcome will be; and when next session comes round, no doubt a large appropriation will be asked for to pay for these lands, and the country will be forced to pay, not $1 per foot, but $2.50 per foot.
So much for the one case. Let us turn now to another one, known as the Rhodes case. There seem to have been several different properties in that estate, and a gentleman named Dr. Howlin, representative of the Rhodes estate, made an offer of soqie of them. In his report Mr. Jones says that Dr. Howlin offered the filled land at $1 a foot and the unfilled at 50 cents a foot. Afterwards Mr. Campbell, who, I presume, is *a real estate agent in Quebec, said the estate was anxious to close out the sale at $1 a foot. In the meantime the minister reported that the land was not worth $1 a foot, but 80 cents, but in that case, as in the last, there appeared on the scene a very powerful friend of the government, and a gentleman who had a perfect right to go before the department inasmuch as he was not a member of this House. But I will be bound to say that the services of that gentleman were sought by reason of the fact that he was supposed to have, as no doubt he has, a very vast influence on this government-I will not say particularly on the Department of Railways and Canals, but on all the departments. That gentleman is the Hon. Charles Langelier. Hon. gentlemen opposite smile as if Mr. Langelier had no influence with the government. True, the Toronto Globe said some years ago that he ought to be in jail, but he has a vast amount of influence with this government, and no doubt that is the reason why he intervened on behalf of this estate. What is the position of the Rhodes estate ? That property which was offered at $1 a foot, and for which the minister was willing to pay 80 cents, is being hung up at the price of $2.50 per foot, and in a very pathetic letter Mi-. Langelier said :
3rd May, 1900.
My dear Blair,-I have the honour to forward you the resolution which.the town of LSvis is ready to pass if the government accept the condition therein contained. I need not tell you how I would like to have this bargain carried through.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What land is the hon. gentleman speaking of ? The land that was originally offered by Dr. Howlin at $1 a foot and for which I offered 80 cents a foot, was sold by Dr. Howlin on behalf of the Rhodes estate and purchased by the government at 80 cents a foot.


William Humphrey Bennett: Of course I stand corrected as to the Rhodes property.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We bought from the Rhodes estate at 80 cents.


William Humphrey Bennett: That does not take away from the fact that it is thoroughly appreciated in the city of Quebec that when a claim is to be pressed in any department of the public service, it is very advisable to secure the services of Mr. Pugsley and Mr. Langelier. Let me read from a very pathetic letter written by Mr. Langelier on the 31st of May, 1900. In this letter he says :
I do not suspect Dr. Howlin of intending to defraud, but security is the best policy in such matters. Once again, I ask the favour of protecting me for my fees. The moment the amount is paid, the doctor is going to return to England, and it is better for me to have the whole thing settled before he leaves.
A fair construction to place on that letter is this. That Dr. Howlin had secured the services of this very powerful gentleman, and Mr. Langelier had a grave suspicion that the amount he might be paid would not be at all commensurate with his idea of the value of his service, and so he preferred to j have the cheque first and pay himself and I igijve the balance to Dr. Howlin, if any balance there was. There is the position, so far as Mr. Langelier is concerned.
It is due to the House and the country that the Minister of Railways and Canals should explain why he did not accept the price set by Couture of $1 a foot, or why he did not act on his own opinion that 80 cents fwas a fair price, and why, within a few months afterwards, he allowed his own opinion to be overborne and offered $1.50 per foot for the same land.
It is due to the House and the country that the Solicitor General should explain why I lie intervened and changed his opinion. It is due to the House and the First Minister that the Solicitor General should explain by what right he assured the Minister of Railways that the First Minister had declared that $1.50 was a fair price for this land. If the Minister of Railways is to be allowed his own judgment we may expect matters to go on properly. I believe that at $1 a foot the purchase would have been a judicious one. But what we are entitled to know is why the Minister of Railways should have given such an exhibition of weakness as to go back on his own opinion at the dictation of other members of the cabinet and other people with influence over the government,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: While I 'do not pretenid to have any more will power ior resisting power than the average man, I cannot imagine what the hon. gentleman has in his mind when he talks of my going back upon some stand I had taken. He says that I was not willing to pay $1 a foot for a certain property but insisted that the price should be cut down to 80 cents per foot, and that then I went back on that decision. When ? Where is

the evidence that I have expressed an opinion in favour of paying a higher price ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will allow me to answer now, I will say that he will find in the correspondence, within a few months after, that the cheques were remitted to Quebec at the price of $1.50 a foot.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If that appears, that will be some justification for the hon. gentleman's statement. But I think he will find on reference to the papers that this was in connection with a larger purchase and not limited to this piece of land.


William Humphrey Bennett: For fear there should be a mistake, I would like to ask if there are two different properties of Couture ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are two or three properties of Couture. The whole question is in a most confused and tangled condition.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has any property been purchased from Couture, and if so what price has been paid ? Because, reading the letters and examining the plan, I have found only one Couture property.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On the south side of the track, I understand, there was a piece of land purchased from Couture. I wish the hon. gentleman had intimated to me that he had intended to bring this matter up.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Couture in the correspondence says that he will not now accept $1.50 a foot, and that was the identical land that he had before offered for $1 a foot.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that is correct. I would not speak with confidence. My deputy does not remember the price paid for the Couture lot on the south side. When Mr. Jones, the secretary of the department, returned to Lfivis after looking the ground over and inquiring in the locality as to what ought to be a fair value of the lot, I offered, as the report shows, SO cents per foot for the lots then being tendered to the government. Some of the persons, the Rhodes and the Youngs, accepted the offer of 80 cents for the filled and 40 cents for the unfilled.


William Humphrey Bennett: On February 25th the hon. gentleman from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) asked a question concerning these purchases, and the hon minister in his answer included the following
Edouard Couture-22,356 3'100 square feet made grpund ; expropriation papers filed April 11, September 20 and October 19, 1900. Not yet settled.
So. from the information furnished! by the minister, no lands had been purchased from Couture, but they were the subject of expropriation.


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That may possibly be so. But my officers were under the impression, as I am, that we did get a portion of land from Couture on the south side of the line. But I was going on to say that the Young estate and the Rhodes estate accepted the offer we made of 80 cents for filled land and 40 cents for unfilled. Mr. Couture, at that time was offering us land-not all he afterwards offered-and we concluded that we would take it if we could get it at a fair price. He would not accept an offer of 80 cents per foot, and insisted on being paid a very much higher price than even $1 a foot. He affirmed that my colleague the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell) was not warranted in saying that he had expressed willingness to accept even $1 a foot.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will allow me-he will find that the difference between the hon. member for Quebec West and Mr. Couture was that the hon. member for Quebec West stated that the price ought to be $1.40, and Mr. Couture insisted on $1.50. That was subsequent to the offer made by the hon. member for Quebec West at the rate of $1, and while this expansion process was going on aided by these gentlemen who were putting in the claims.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not the details of the correspondence in my mind. If the hon. gentleman intended, as no doubt he did, to bring this up, he might have intimated that such was his purpose, and in that case I could have procured all the papers and made a full statement of the facts. But I come back to this point : What does the hon. gentleman complain of ? Does he say that it is a reflection upon the government that some member of parliament may be taking up the case on behalf of either his clients or his elector and supporter? Can he say that it is a reflection on the department that a claim is made, unless he can show that it is an improper claim, and that it was allowed at an improper figure. Nothing of that kind was shown. I have been unable to satisfy myself that the price at which this land was offered for sale by any of the owners from whom we have not made a purchase was at price that we should be justified in paying. As a consequence, I have found it necessary to take legal proceedings by expropriation, and since we cannot agree upon the price to leave the price to be determined by the court. I do not know anything else that a minister can do under the circumstance. And, if the hon. gentleman now makes complaint, it must be because we did not pay over to Mr. Couture and to some of these other people the money that we were asked to pay without referring the matter to the court for adjudication. I think that is hardly sufficient ground for complaint. If we had paid the price, the

bon. gentleman would have been among the first to criticise us and to declare that we should have forced the people to prove their claim before the court.


William Humphrey Bennett: I regret that the minister does not see the matter as I think all fair-minded men must see it, having regard to the facts of the case as they are. I will be bound to say that the evidence will not bear out the statement that we were dealing with more than one parcel of land. The minister in his answer speaks of only one parcel to be bought from Couture. We can only depend on the information that the minister gives us. If he wishes now to say that his answer was wrong, let him set it right, but let him not blame us because we were misled. And what is the evidence relating to the Couture property as it appears. The evidence shows that Mr. Jones, the minister's trusted official, went down and secured an offer of $1 a foot. The Solicitor General told Mr. Jones that the price was too high. This was in the fall of 1898. In face of the fact that Mr. Jones had stated that the lands were offered for sale for $1, and the Solicitor General has stated that that was too high a price, the minister did what might reasonably be expected, he said: I will not pay you $1, but I will pay 80 cents, if you will accept it. But what next ? It hangs fire for a few months. The hon. -member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell) is empowered by the minister to have an interview with Couture, and he comes back with the assurance that the land is still offered for sale at the price of $1 a foot. Now, what is the next thing ? Couture at once drops out of the negotiations on his own be-~half, and he enlists the sympathy and political assistance, in addition to the assistance of the Solicitor General, of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Prefontaine). What is the next move ? The price of the land goes up from $1 to $1.50 per foot. In view of the fact that the Solicitor General had stated that $1 was too high a price to be paid for the land, within a few months the Solicitor General is recommending-whether he had fuller knowledge of the land in question or not, I know not -but he says that the lands he believed were not worth $1 are now worth $1.50. He goes further than that, as appears by the correspondence ; he states [DOT]that the premier assures him the lands are worth that. I know not whether he had authority from the premier to say so. If he had not, then he was doing that which was wrong ; and if he had authority from the premier to say so, then I say it was rather an out-of-the-way course for the premier and the Solicitor General to be pursuing to advise the minister to pay $1.50 for land that those parties had been offering at $1. What might be expected as a consequence ? Nothing could be more plain. Mr. Pugsley's services had been called into
requisition, although why in the name of all that is good, when a man has an honest claim to prosecute, he is not satisfied with the help of the most prominent members in the government, but he goes down to St. John, and. enlists the services of a strong political friend of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Now, how much progress has he made in that business ?


William Humphrey Bennett: He has made the progress, I presume, that he wants to make, he has got the matter into the Exchequer Court now ; and, fortified as the claim will be, with the opinion of the Solicitor General that the land is cheap at $1.50, fortified with the assistance of the opinion of the premier that the land is worth $1.50, and fortified with the assistance that lie will get from the witnesses who will no doubt be friendly to him, I won't say much as to the fight that will be put up against this contention, seeing the strong allies the claimant has. I believe that when the reports are brought down next year, and a grant of money is asked for the lands, it will be seen that Mr. Couture will receive $2, and probably more. Yet the minister sees nothing in this reprehensible. I reiterate that the minister should not have listened to the advice of his colleagues as to the value of the land. Notwithstanding the man's own offer of the land at $1.50 a foot, the minister goes outside of it, and as a result, the country has jplaced against it a claim for this land of $2.50 a foot.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What did the minister go outside of ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I regret I cannot impress upon the minister that if he had a standing offer of this land at $1-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say to my hon. friend that the offer of $1 was not adhered to, he withdrew it, and made a further demand, a higher demand ; and as he observed a desire on our part to approach him, he raised his price still higher, and has taken steps to secure what I think is an exorbitant price for his land, which I was not willing to pay.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, the evidence discloses this fact, that there was at one time an offer at $1 a foot, which the minister did not embrace.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Instantly, but he fell away from it.


William Humphrey Bennett: The evidence, unfortunately for the minister's contention, does not bear that out. Some three or four months elapsed and then he comes forward with his second claim for $1.50 a foot. The minister does not accept that offer. I reiterate again

tliat the minister should not have listened to the advice of the premier and to the advice of the Solicitor General as to the value of the land, when he had a standing offer of the land at $1.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: His offer did not stand, it ran, and ran in a contrary direction.


William Humphrey Bennett: No wonder it didn't stand, when he had a wink from the other eye that he was foolish to sell it at that price. Here was the minister paying $1.75 for land belonging to another friend, for the Murphy property, at least, so it is disclosed in the evidence. If the minister sees nothing wrong in the transaction, if he sees there is no exhibition of weakness on his part, if he sees there is nothing reprehensible on the part of a member of parliament coming before him and presenting a claim, if he sees nothing wrong in the whole transaction, there is one thing that he will see next session, and that the country will see, namely, that this land will have to be paid for by the Dominion of Canada at the rate of $120,000 an acre.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When I came into the House a moment ago, the hon. gentleman was saying I had made a statement that the land in question was worth $1.50 a foot. Does the hon. gentleman contend there is anything in the records to that effect 1


William Humphrey Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman will read the correspondence, he will see a letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick, in which he said that the premier considered the price was fair. That is what I quoted.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What price ?


William Humphrey Bennett: One dollar and fifty cents.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is nothing of the kind in the record.


William Humphrey Bennett: The right hon. gentleman must construe the letters together, written about that time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is only one letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick in the whole record here, and that reads as follows : Ottawa, 29th March, 1900.
Dear Mr. Sehreiber-I beg to inclose herewith a copy of letter received from Mr. Lemieux, the agent at Levis, with reference to the expropriation of land required there for station ground. The prices fixed for the property of Couture and Turgeon are, I think, under the circumstances, reasonable, and our agent at LSvis, Mr. Lemieux, writes another letter yesterday to say that if the matter is not concluded within eight days from yesterday, Couture may withdraw his offer. I send you copies of both letters.
Then, here is another letter dated previous to that, on the 19th of March :
On receipt of your message here to-day I immediately wired you as follows :-


William Humphrey Bennett: ' Please advise me as to nature of report you require re Levis.'
I am prepared to make such a report as you may require in order to facilitate this matter, but in the meantime I can say that the titles have been examined and found in order, and the Prime Minister is convinced that the remuneration asked is reasonable.
So far as regards the necessity of making any purchases is concerned, this is a matter of which I know absolutely nothing.
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all the correspondence I had, that is in this record, with Mr. Fitzpatrick. There is no mention of these letters of either $1, $1.50, or any price at all. I do not know what Mr. Fitzpatrick had in his mind when he wrote that way. He might have talked of the matter with me, but I knew nothing of the value of the land. Whatever may be my merits, I am no expert in the value of real estate. I know nothing at all of this property, except having passed over it in the cars. I do not know exactly where it is. Certainly, the hon. gentleman is not justified, from anything there is in this letter of iMr. Fitzpatrick, in saying that I had given my opinion that this land was worth $1 or $1.50 or any price at all. The hon. gentleman cannot show from these letters what was the value which Mr. Fitzpatrick had in his mind, or what was the value I had in my own mind-if I discussed the matter with him at all. If the Solicitor General were here himself, he could speak as to what he meant in his letter. But so far as I can see from this record, the hon. gentleman has no justification at all for the statement he has made.
William Humphrey Bennett: The right hon. gentleman must peruse the whole record and see all the letters that were written about that date, and it is quite clear that the amount referable about that time was $1.50. At first blush I thought it was $2.50, but on looking more closely I find it is $1.50. However, perhaps the Prime Minister can state what the value was that he placed upon it, which Mr. Fitzpatrick attributes to the right hon. gentleman. I did not attribute it to him, I only attribute it to him through Mr. Fitzpatrick, as appears from the correspondence.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In so far as I am concerned, I cannot say, at the present moment, what was the tenor of the conversation that I had with Mr. Fitzpatrick, or whether we discussed the value of the land-and of course we did as appears from his letter-or whether I thought it worth $1.50, or $1, or 80 cents. So far as I may have expressed any opinion upon the matter, it could not be my own individual opinion, because I do not pretend to know what the value of the land is, and I would not give my opinion as a land expert. I do not think I ever saw the land in question. I know, perhaps, the locality in which it is,

but I could not describe absolutely the locality in which it is situated. If the Solicitor General has made use of my opinion in this matter, I would expect the Solicitor General himself to declare what we discussed, because I have no recollection of what we did discuss.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely the right hon. Prime Minister cannot find any fault with me. I have simply taken the correspondence. If Mr. Fitzpatrick has made an unwarranted use of the Prime Minister's name, the fault lies with him and not with myself. As the correspondence will show, the price that Mr. Fitzpatrick was speaking of was $1.50 per square foot. The file goes ou to show that the cheques had been sent with the knowledge of Mr. Fitzpatrick to Quebec, and that then Mr. Couture had secured the services of Mr. Pugsley as solicitor. After dispensing with the services of Mr. Prefontaine, the price was increased from $1.50 to $2.50 a foot, and that is the contention that was made in the court.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two. I dislike very much to obtrude personal matters upon the House, but the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has on two occasions to-day charged me with impropriety in connection with the part I have taken in reference to one of the items under discussion this afternoon. I understand the hon. member to lay it down as a principle that no member of parliament should be concerned as solicitor or counsel in any claim against the Crown. If it is improper to do that, then I am in the company of very distinguished members of the profession who, for many years, sat on the same side of the House as that on which the hon. gentleman sits. I could name half a dozen members of the bar in Ontario and Quebec who were at the very top of their profession, where the hon. gentleman will take a very long time to get, and who did not consider it inconsistent with the dignity of the profession, or with the honour of parliament, to appear in a case in the Exchequer Court or the Supreme Court, or in a claim against a department. There is this further to be 'said in the matter of the Gilbert case, which the hon. gentleman took as an occasion for reading a lecture to myself, that it stands on a very different footing from other cases. If the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to look into the position of this case, he would have seen that this claim arose out of a contract with the Department of Railways and Canals. One of the clauses of this contract provides that the chief engineer and deputy minister of the department shall be the sole judge to settle all claims arising under that contract. The chief engineer is constituted a judicial officer for the purpose of deciding all claims, such as the Gilbert claim, and his decision in the matter is final and conclusive, and when this matter was brought 178
up in the department in 1893, when I had not the honour of a seat in this House, * the matter was referred to the chief engineer, who is the present engineer, for investigation and report. At that time the political friends of the hon. gentleman were in power, and the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was the Minister of Railways and Canals. My clients, for whom I had done business for many years, intimated to me that I was non persona grata to the then hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and that it would be well to have some one else act in the matter who was more acceptable to the powers that were, and Mr. Ferguson, a prominent lawyer of Ottawa, for whom I entertained great respect, a strong political friend of the then hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was handed over my brief, and the work which I had done for many years for my clients. He prosecuted the claim for these people and secured a settlement of 15 per cent. It was an outrage if the hon. member for East Simcoe is right in his present view. But, when there was a change of government, and when I was no longer non persona grata, I think it was quite consistent with my duties, having acted for these people for years and years, not to go before the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and urge this claim as stated by the member for east Simcoe, but to go before his deputy, the chief engineer of the department, the poli-_ tical officer, sitting as a judge just as much as any judge in any of the courts in Canada, and to press for a decision by this officer in the manner and as provided in the said contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) laughs. What does he laugh at ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am laughing at the gratuitous insult you are tendering to the minister, that he is not in charge of his own department, but that the deputy runs it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman is too smart. If he knew anything about the contracts that are made with the Department of Railways and Canals, he would know that it is not the minister who has charge of the investigation of these claims, but he would know that contractors making contracts with that department agree that the chief engineer shall be the sole and only judge as to all claims arising out of their contracts. It was not the minister, but it was the deputy minister of the department, the chief engineer, who gave his certificate. It was upon his certificate that the minister came to the House and included this item in the estimates. The minister has no more to do with the matter than any other minister of the Crown who pronounced upon it in council, and he had no more to do with it in so far as this House is concerned



than the hon. gentleman has who stands up in this House and discusses it. The chief engineer was the sole and only judge. It was upon his certificate that it was decided to pay the amount, and the House subsequently voted the money with which to pay it. 1 would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would apply the same rule he tried to have applied to me, to every member of this House ? If he does he will have to strike at an hon. member considerably higher than himself, because one of the very items was voted on this afternoon- I mean the claim of S. O'Donohue for $0,-222.27-was a claim in which his leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has been acting as counsel for the parties. I have the highest possible respect for the hon. leader of the opposition, and I know there is no man in this House, or In the profession, who entertains a higher opinion as to what is consistent with the dignity of the profession and the honour of parliament than that hon. gentleman does. Would the hon. member for East Simcoe assume to say that his leader was guilty of indecency and impropriety in allowing a claim of that kind to be pressed by the firm to which he belongs ? I would like to have an answer upon that.


William Humphrey Bennett: When you are through.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend acquiesces then ?
' Mr. BENNETT. No.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think the attack made upon me was a most unfair and unjust one. After explaining to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that this was an honest claim, after the ground was taken from under the feet of that hon. gentleman, the hon. member for East Simcoe gets up and attempts to lecture me in this House as to what is proper and dignified. I will tell him what I am prepared to do. This matter of members of the bar acting as counsel or as solicitors in one way or the other comes up for discussion occasionally. I will invite the members of the House who are members of the legal profession to a conference to decide once for all, and to arrive at an understanding, as to what is proper for a member of the bar to do before this House, or before committees of the House, or in the departments or in the courts of the country, and I warrant him that I shall be prepared to submit to the decision.
There are a large number of members in this House who belong to the legal profession, as do the hon. member for Simcoe and myself; men for whom I have the greatest respect, and if in their judgment it is inconsistent for a member of the legal profession who is a member of parliament, to act for clients to press their claims in the departments, or the Exchequer Court, or the Supreme Court, or any other court, where the government of Canada is con-Mr. BELCOURT.
cerned, I for one am prepared to submit to their judgment. But until such gentlemen, as the hon. leader of the opposition and other members who are lawyers of eminence in this House, say that I have been guilty of impropriety I am prepared to continue to do as I have done, notwithstanding the opinion of the member for East Simcoe.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me say that I have nothing to retract of what I have said this afternoon. It was not in personal animosity to the member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) that I mentioned his name. He was simply the accident of the conditions that exist, as was the member for Maisonueuve (Mr. Prefontaine) in his case. I have the honour to occupy a seat in this House for twelve sessions, and for the first time I have heard a member of parliament stand up and openly declare that he as a matter of right, should go before a department of government and before a minister and press a claim as solicitor.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Certainly.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member says ' certainly.' Now, I do not east any reflection upon the hon. gentleman's legal ability, nor do I say that he "would not have had this client even if he had not been a member; but I say that there is a strong leverage on those who have claims against the government to employ members of parliament who are in touch with the administration, be it Conservative or Liberal. That is where I say the thing is wrong. The hon. gentleman says that I find fault with him for prosecuting cases in courts against the Crown. Not at all. I find no such fault. There is nothing wrong in his appearing before judges where his political position can have no influence. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) is not so young in politics as not to know of the insults that were heaped by the Liberal opposition on a leader of the Conservative party in Ontario, because he was retained on behalf of the government in a case.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman knows that is prohibited by statute.


William Humphrey Bennett: Whether it is or not,
I am speaking of the moral impropriety of such thing happening as I have described. In the case mentioned, the legal gentleman simply appeared before the courts, but here is a case where a member of parliament who is known to be in political touch with the party in power, goes before a minister and before a department to further a claim. The principle of that is wrong. It is unsound. It will not stand the broad glare of public opinion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) flung the gratuitous insult at me, that I have not a high political standing. So far as that is concerned I am quite satisfied with the political standing I have, and my financial necessities have never been such as to cause me to be a suppliant
]\IAY 20, 1901
or to have my name dangled before any government for any gift to be offered to a party friend. Perhaps the hon. gentleman for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) cannot say so much.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It will be a long time before anything of that kind is dangled before the hon. member (Mr. Bennett).


John Graham Haggart: When the hon. member for Ottawa states that this case was argued before the chief engineer he makes a misstatement.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am speaking of the present administration.


John Graham Haggart: So am I. The hon. member (Mr. Belcourt) forgets the debates last session and the production of the quasi report of the chief engineer in support of his claim. He forgets that Mr. Rubidge the engineer in charge of this particular work was called to the department, and in consultation with the minister made a report to which the chief engineer gave a quasi endorsation. The case must have been argued before the minister and the engineer in charge of this work, particularly if it was argued before the persons who formed the judgment upon it. We all know that the law requires the chief engineer to certify to the validity of such a claim.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I don't think the member for East Simcoe knows that much.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) misstated the facts as regards the argument. The chief engineer defended himself by accepting the report of Mr. Rubidge, and the report shows that it was in consultation between Mr Rubidge and the minister that the report was formed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This discussion has disclosed a state of affairs that is a scandal m this House and in this country. Prom day to day we have disclosures as to the course taken by members on the government benches in regard to public business. Here the member for Ottawa, unable to deny, turns around and glories in the fact that he is using his services as member of parliament to promote the interests of contractors, and those who have business arrangements with the government. It is a scandal and a disgrace which should be put an end to at once. This member for Ottawa (Mr Belcourt) says, that if he has erred, he has erred in good company, and that he has yet to discover that it is wrong for a member of parliament to appear against the Crown. My friend from East Simcoe has pointed out that a lawyer has a right to go with his clients to the Exchequer Court or the Supreme Court or any court in the empire, but he has no right to go lobbving around the departments to try to get "business through in that way, or to go to the Auditor 178*
General to attempt to bulldoze him. It is degrading for a member of this House. It is illegal. We saw this same member of parliament the other day the open advocate of the Bell Telephone Company in this House. Did he get a fee for tliat ? Is he the solicitor of the Bell Telephone Company ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is none of your business.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Ah. It is none of our business. So long as a member conducts his affairs outside of this House it is none of our business, but when he comes to the floor of this House of Commons and advocates such claims it becomes our business. Yes, Sir, there is the open confession again. There is a hon. member who cannot deny that he was the advocate of the Bell Telephone Company. And what was the Bell Telephone Company coming to parliament for ? They were applying for a series of flagrant demands that would be injurious to the whole people of this Dominion. Yet, Sir, we find their advocate in the House of Commons; their solicitor, presumedly with a fee in his pocket to advocate their interests. Sir, men of that kind should be driven out of the House of Commons instead of being allowed to pursue their mercenary objects in this Chamber.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am very sorry to see that this serious state of affairs is taken with so much levity, as if a member of this House could take a fee to advocate anything before the Minister of Railways and Canals or before his deputy, and not be ashamed of it. There is no possible objection to any lawyer appearing before the Supreme Court or before any of the judges ; but I say that a member of this House, be he a member of the legal or any other profession, has no right to take a fee for appearing before any committee of this House or before any deputy of a department. I think it is a very serious state of affairs indeed, and is not 1o be laughed at or taken lightly. There are perh-aps twenty or thirty lawyers on the gov-emment side of this House, and perhaps an equal number on this side ; and if it is to be assumed that one of these gentlemen may take a fee and advocate his client's interest here, subordinating his position as a member of this House to the interest of his client, a very small amount of money would carry a vote of this House for any measure. I do not think it is possible that this matter can be too seriously considered and discussed. It has probably been done thoughtlessly ; but I say it is a serious matter if any legal member of this House, especially a member on the government side, can take a fee from any company or individual to advocate a claim before any department of the government. I do not say that that has been done ; but the tendency of the discussion to-night indicates that that state of affairs does not appear to be seriously thought of
*

by many members, as I think it ought to be.
I should be sorry indeed to suppose that members of the legal profession should think so lightly of their position as members of the parliament of Canada as to take a fee to advocate any measure before any bead of a department.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Might I ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat if he is not a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I am a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I will defy any member of this House to show any occasion on which I have, by word, by deed, by canvassing or by vote, in any shape or way, advocated any measure in which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been interested from the day I came to this House down to this day.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If the hon. gentleman is sincere in the lecture he has attempted to give to the legal members of this House, then he ought to resign either as a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or as a member of this House. I do not mind being lectured by such a high-minded, honourable, fair-minded and unprejudiced man as the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). Such an unprejudiced, fair-minded gentleman has a right to lecture anybody in this House. But when it comes down to being lectured by a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who is also a member of this House, there I draw the line.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am sorry that the opinion I have expressed as to the light manner in which this idea is held by the legal fraternity, as represented by the last speaker, is true. He apparently does not see that there is any evil in it. He has made the charge against me that I am a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I am, and, I am proud of it. At the same time, if my interest as a Canadian Pacific Railway director at any time conflicts with my duty to the country, I will resign one or other of these positions.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: You ought to resign now.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I repeat that my interest as a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway has never conflicted with my duty to the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Hon. gentlemen may laugh just as they like ; but I say that I have never by word or by deed advocated any interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this House. I have never voted on any Bill in which the Canadian Pacific Railway has been interested, and I have never canvassed nor spoken to any member of this House on behalf of anything connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and I defy any member of this House to give


Edmund Boyd Osler: one single instance in which in any shape or way I have not fulfilled my duty as a member of this House.


Mr. DAVIS.: I want to say just one word with reference to the statement made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. It appears to me that only in the last session of this parliament I heard the hon. gentleman denounce the granting of railway subsidies to other railway companies, and that was done in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I have never heard him denounce any subsidy that was proposed to be granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but when any subsidy was proposed to be granted to any other railway corporation in this country, the hon. gentleman denounced it in unmeasured terms, and held up his hands in holy horror at the idea of railway subsidies. The hon. gentleman has forgotten the amount of money the firm of Osier, Hammond and Nanton got out of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway or the Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway. After all that money has gone into their coffers, it is easy for the hon. gentleman to get up and talk about other people advocating interests.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think it is hardly worth while replying to the hon. gentleman ; but I wish to say for years before I came into this House I denounced railway subsidies.


An hon. MEMBER.: Except for the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I denounced them for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I think it was a great mistake for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to accept subsidies other than the subsidies they got for the main line. I have always been against granting railway subsidies and against railway *companies accepting subsidies. I have had no connection, directly or indirectly, with any company receiving railway subsidies since I became a member of this House.
Intercolonial Railway, $400,000.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is an item towards operating expenses in addition to the main vote.
Public building, Dawson, $30,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How much has already been appropriated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend instructing the chief architect to go
\

to the other side and look at the plans for a mint, and also at buildings that are numerous on the other side, so as to devise the best plan for the Victoria Museum. From what I can see, the mint will cost in the neighbourhood of $300,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of Finance said $200,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I said the building would cost $200,000, and the Inclosure and strong rooms, machinery, &c., would bring it up to $300,000.
Parliament Buildings-Addition to building over engine-house, and improvements for main vestibule, including two electric elevators, $35,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ever since I entered parliament I have heard complaints, and legitimate complaints, that we Iliad no proper accommodation. I intend to carry out plans that have been submitted to me by the chief architect by erecting a building right over the engine-house. There will be seven rooms, three on the ground floor, three on the second floor and one at the top, the upper room having a floor area of 60 x 40 fefet. We shall also have two elevators, one from the Senate entrance and one from the House of Commons entrance opening upon the large lobby just where the post office is. The chief architect has asked to be allowed to carry out the work himself. He knows the building well and is conver-isant with the work to be carried out. I think this accommodation will be appreciated by hon. members on both sides. The new building will not interfere with the light or ventilation of the House, and some of the six rooms that will be available, I hope to offer to my hon. friends on the other side who have complained.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was just going to object. The distribution of rooms has not been to any extent to the advantage of the opposition. We have no rooms except the leader's room, the whips' room and one other. I think it is not right to have such an unfair distribution. If the six rooms in this new building-the top one I suppose will be for committee purposes-are to be for the convenience of supporters of the government, I enter my strong protest against it as an unfair use of public money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have given to the opposition the very same accommodation that we have ourselves.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not true.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why does the hon. member (Mr. Wallace) use that language here ? Of course, he is perfectly welcome to it, but he is wrong. I am right in what I say, with this single exception-that the room that was allowed to the Hon. Mr. Foster has been given to the
hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan). Except for that, hon. gentlemen opposite have the same accommodation that we have. But members have not proper accommodation-and that is the reason why we are most anxious to provide other rooms. But there is no use in using strong language.
I do not see why we should have any hard feeling here.


Andrew B. Ingram: We object to the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan), having room that was formerly occupied by Hon. Mr. Foster. I would like to know what rights the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., has in this House over any other government supporter from the province of New Brunswick ? Are rooms so plentiful that one gentleman should be given a room to himself ? If so, then, why are so many of us crowded into No. G ? In saying this, :I do not wish to uphold the way the late government treated their opponents for they were not generous enough in their treatment of them. But, the hon. gentlemen opposite, having had that experience years ago, ought to be generous enough, now, after one term in office, to give us a better distribution of the rooms at their disposal. And. while I am on my feet, I would like to draw attention to the fact that room No. G is a small room, and that the room adjoining it might be devoted to the use of those who occupy No. 6, an archway being cut between.


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


Andrew B. Ingram: The room the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) occupies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no ; I will keep that for myself.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why could the hon. gentleman' not take a room in the new building atijd thus leave his room free to be given over to the use of those who occupy No. 6 ? There is another point-the leader of the opposition and the Conservative whips occupy two rooms which are separated by only one" room from No. G. This intervening room is occupied by an officer of the House. Why not give him a room occupied by the whips and give his room to the whips ? This would suit the Conservative party in this House much better than the present arrangement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When these additional seven rooms are built, I shall have much pleasure in conferring with the leaders of the opposition as to the distribution of them. We are here three or four months of the year and I believe it is our duty to be as comfortable as we cau.


John Graham Haggart: I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works when he was about it did not decide upon a radical change. The rooms for the accommodation of members of parliament are entirely insufficient. We have none of accommodation,

none of the privileges, none of the luxuries, I may say, afforded to the members of nearly every other parliament in the world. We want a far larger building. I was in hopes that the minister would decide to add a wing to the back of this building which would not have interfered with the architectural beauty of the structure, and would have given greater accommodation to the Speaker, besides giving us space, for at least tea-room and for some of the accommodation of a club for hon. members. It is ridiculous, it is wrong, that nothing has been done in that direction. I admit that 'the government of which I was member were to blame for not taking action in the matter. But, with the buoyant revenue that the government now have, this change might be undertaken. I believe that it would be according to the wishes of nearly every member if additional room were provided so that we could have something in the form of a club-house, something after the style of what they have in the British House'of Commons-but not nearly so extravagant- something in the style of what they have at Washington or what they have in nearly every state capitol in the United States. It improves our morals, it has a tendency, anyway, to improve the morale of the whole House. I would like to strengthen the hands [DOT]of the Minister of Public Works on this opportunity. If he can persuade his colleagues to do something in that direction, I am sure it would meet the wishes of nearly the whole House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have felt for a long time, not only since I am a member of this parliament, but when I was a member of the press gallery, that the accommodation is altogether inadequate, that it is not even worthy of this nation. We have a great many foreign visitors,' and we often see people that we would like to entertain, but on account of lack of accommodation in these buildings we cannot do it. I have received a petition signed by influential members of parliament on both sides of the House, asking for more accommodation, and it will be my duty, or the duty of somebody else, to look into that question. I feel that it is a matter that must be taken up immediately. A great many things have been said' about the Jesuits, but they have one motto which is a thoroughly good one : mens sana in cor-pore sano, in other words, a sound mind in a sound body. To work well you must have the body well fed. and you must occupy pleasant premises. If I remain in the position I now occupy, I will make it my duty during the recess to look carefully into the improvements that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has suggested, and which I believe will meet the approbation of both sides of the House, of all those in fact who travel and realize that the world moves.
Mr. HAGGART


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was one of those who objected when our friends were in power because I thought that a proper proportion of the rooms was not given to the opposition. My opinion always has been that the opposition should have a share of the rooms according to their numbers. I hoped when the Liberal party came to power they would be more generous in that respect than their predecessors had been, because they had always preached fair-play in opposition. But I regret to say that instead of being fairer than the Conservatives were, it is just the reverse, for they have not given the present opposition the same proportion of rooms that the supporters of the present government had when they were in opposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You have the rooms I have mentioned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have no rooms at all except the one occupied by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals and one or two of ids friends. The wThip occupies one room, the leader of the opposition occupies one, and there is room No. 6 as the general assembly room of the party.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is room 40 upstairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that outside of those I have mentioned, there is only one room that is accorded to the rank and file of the party. I regard the treatment of the opposition in this respect as a great injustice to the private members on our side of the House. Private members have no place in these premises where they can work. True, they can go down to their rooms in the hotels, but that necessitates a constant messenger service between them and the House. I really expected more generosity from the Minister of Public Works than has been accorded to us. With regard to the room he proposes to make, I understand him to say that it will not interfere with the light or ventilation of this House. I cannot understand how that is possible, because if he is filling up the whole of that space


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only a part of it. It does not interfere with a single window of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister tell us what will be the size of the new premises ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The width will be 26 feet and the length 60. It does not interfere with the light, I have inspected the locality myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot see how we can hdve a building 20 by 60 without affecting the light.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will not affect the ventilation or the light at all. If my hon. friend will go into the

lobby he can see for himself that it will not interfere with a single window. I have inspected the situation myself with the chief architect and the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you put up a building you must necessarily obstruct the passage of the air, at least in some measure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Without measuring, I think the minister proposes to fill up about one-third of the space. It will not affect the light. At first I thought it would, and I had the matter explained to me by the minister, and I became satisfied that it will not affect the light. As to ventilation^ suppose that you fill up even one-third of the space, there will possibly be less air moving, but still you do not obstruct the windows from which you got both light and ventilation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect, who is an able man, can be trusted as to that.


Jabel Robinson: I understand from the Minister of Public Works that he is about to rearrange this building in order to give increased accommodation to those gentlemen who are applying for it. I think it is pretty late in the day for these gentlemen to apply for room. The minister will remember that I made application for a room for the Independent party almost the first day I came to this House, and the Minister of Public Works has not yet told me that he would give me a room. I want to know from him now whether he intends to provide the Independent party with a room or not, because I think the Independent party in this House is just as important as any other party in it. I think, perhaps, the Independent party has contributed as much to the benefit of this country as any party, and I think we ought to be recognized. If we are not recognized it is quite possible you may hear from us. After the next election it is quite possible there may be a very much larger number of Independents here and it is also possible that an effort may be made to get their assistance. It is likely, after what transpired in this House to-day, that there will be a very much larger number of Independents in this House. There is a large number now, but many of them have hesitated to declare themselves to me. Many of them have said: Mr. Robinson, I am with you; but they are hidebound and they say :	I pi'omised my
party that I would vote for that party, but I am with you in many of the things that you have introduced into this House. We expect that the hon. Minister of Public Works will get a room for the Independents.


An hon. MEMBER.: He says he is going to put you in the tower.


Jabel Robinson: He will never put me in the tower, because he knows I do not misbehave myself like some of these
hen. gentlemen around here. I can do all my writing in my seat as I have done it, but sometimes I want to think and when I do I would like to do it alone. Therefore, I think I am entitled and that the Independent party are entitled to a room as much as other hon. gentlemen who have made such a pathetic appeal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be my pleasure to supply a room to the Independent members during the next session. My hon. friend (Mr. Robinson, Elgin), I have no doubt, will prove, as he has already begun to prove, that he is quite capable to be the leader of the Independent party. We cannot have any more genuine leader of an Independent party than he is and I would say again that it will be my pleasure to supply our Independent friends with a room commensurate with their usefulness.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When will this building be ready ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About the 1st of January or December.
Mr. 'WALLACE. Of this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, before the next meeting of parliament.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If it were a little later, still it would not make much difference because we will probably be on the other side of the House and be able to adjust these rooms more fairly than they are apportioned at the present time. I would make another suggestion to the hon. minister. Look here, Mr. Chairman, when a member is addressing the committee you should recognize his rights.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The clerk asked me a question in regard to the number of the item.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, but the Chairman, while I was addressing the committee, was asking if this item should pass.


Peter Macdonald: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This is not the first time that has happened and it had better not happen again.


Peter Macdonald: The clerk simply asked me what item we were at and I said we were now considering No. 53, and that the next would be No. 54. That is exactly what passed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not what occurred before that. However, I was addressing the Chair and I was going on to suggest to the minister what appears to me to be a better solution of the difficulty of providing more room, if more room is required and more room is required. Walking up towards

the front building it has always strade me that this building was too low, too squatlooking in appearance and that it might be raised one storey with advantage to its architectural appearance, and to the convenience of the members ot the House of Commons and the officers who must necessarily be in this building. X presume the architects and officers of the hon. gentleman's department have considered this matter and that he may have considered it himself. It occurred to me that when putting these elevators in you could make that third storey immediately and conveniently available and that the architectural appearance of the building would be very greatly enhanced.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the west block was destroyed three years ago I had a plan made with another storey added and having consulted with the engineer and a good many friends, my colleagues and others, we came to the conclusion that the addition of a storey would spoil the whole thing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think so in regard to the west block but that is not m regard to this building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I do not believe there is any architect who would venture to adopt the plan that the hon. gentleman is suggesting now. The architecture of this building is so relined that I would not venture to touch it in anyway. I do not believe that the plan would be 'adopted at all. The only thing is to have a new building, and the idea that has been suggested by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals will be carefully studied during the recess. It would give additional accommodation. I think the proposed plan will be sufficient for years to come. We all recognize that another public building should be erected as soon as possible. We have so much money to spend on public buildings here in Ottawa that it is difficult for the Minister of Public Works to ask for more, it would have been difficult this year to have asked for more than has been asked foir. I have the mint and the Victoria Museum buildings and these will cost a large amount of money. Next year if the revenue is buoyant, as I hope it will be, we may perhaps think of another building which would enable us to get rid of these buildings that we rent.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Chairman, while the matter of changes and the study of proposed changes in connection with this building is likely to engage the attention^ of the hon. Minister of Public Works during the recess, as I understand it is, would it not be of tbe highest importance to the members of this House that some careful study of the ventilation of this Chamber should be made by the department ? The standard of health of the members of tills House is really, I think, low. There is a


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: large percentage of members who are more or less ill every session. I am sure this is very largely owing to the fact that this Chamber is not ventilated at all. 1 occasionally go into tlie gallery of the House during the afternoon session and if the House is at all crowded and the galleries are crowded it requires no other evidence than one's nose to tell him that the Chamber is absolutely without ventilation. This is not, to my mind, altogether creditable to the government management in the fact that _ they have consigned some 200 members of parliament, who are selected, I presume, for their mental capacity and placed them in what is practically a pit, in a low Chamber, surrounded by high walls without ventilation. The effect of the atmosphere, which we have to breathe and in which we have to live and work during the months of the session, is paralyzing 1 It is destructive to the health of members and it prevents them from making the highest possible use of their faculties. It causes, to my mind, a very large amount of illness, because 1 am sure every hon. member of the House must have observed that there is an unusually large percentage of members who are ill during the session. It strikes me that tbe most important thing to consider is not the finding of rooms for the convenience of members, or tbe finding of tea rooms to enable them to cultivate the amenities of social life, but to give them wholesome atmosphere in which they may work and breathe.
To my mind, the atmosphere of the House of Commons, when the Chamber and the galleries are at all crowded, is almost poisonous. The Minister of Public W orks should employ some sanitary expert to make a careful study of the conditions of ventilation in this building, and during tbe session samples of tbe air should be collected from different parts of the Chamber and analysed. If that were done it would demonstrate at once that we are living in a poisonous atmosphere. It is exceedingly injurious. It prevents the highest ability of the members being developed, and it is a bar on the activity of parliament. We are living right on the bank of tlie river, with its currents of pure air in abundance, and some rational system should be adopted by which the foul air would be drawn out of this Chamber and the fresh air admitted. Every medical man will agree with me that it is a reform which should receive the attention of the government at once, and that it should not be spoken of in this Chamber, and then dismissed from the thoughts of tbe responsible ministers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have no fresh air from the outside except we open these windows, and then my hon. friends opposite say I want to kill them all with the draught. That is not my intention at all ; it is very far from it, indeed ; I want to see them live long.


Adam Carr Bell: The minister does not say that the ventilation of this Chamber is an impossibility ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am not an expert.


Adam Carr Bell: Then, I am not unreasonable in asking the minister to employ an expert ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect, who is a man of very long experience, tells me that every possible device has been tried.


Adam Carr Bell: If any man in a good condition of health comes out of the open air and goes into that gallery at any time the House is in session, his nose will tell him that he is living in an atmosphere saturated with organic matter that is unfit to breath. There is no other reform of such importance in connection with these buildings as the supplying of fresh air to the Commons of Canada.
To authorize commencement of the construction of the Victoria Memorial Museum, $50,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is expected to be the whole cost of that museum ? Is the minister asking for competitive plans for the construction of that building :


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have here the plans which have been prepared by the chief architect. If we erect only a museum, the chief architect believes it will cost about $500,000 ; but, if with the museum we include a Supreme Court, Exchequer Court, National Art Gallery and Fishery Exhibit, it will cost more. I beg to invite hon. gentlemen to look at these plans.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where is the building to be erected ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Major's Hill park, opposite the corner of Mackenzie avenue and St. Patrick street. We will not be obliged to buy land. That is only a suggestion, of course. I have made up my mind to send the chief architect to Europe to look at plans. Although he has been there already, I think he should go to the other side to see the museums in Paris, London, Dublin, Vienna and elsewhere. I have seen some very fine museums there. You cannot buy property in Ottawa unless you pay a high price indeed. You would be obliged to pay $80,000, or perhaps $100,000, for a site. If the museum would be built in Major's Hill park it would be a fine situation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it be considered any reflection on the architect of the department if the minister were to ask for competitive plans for this building ? If it is intended to expend half a million dollars, I think that would be a good policy, with respect to the whole group of buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not consider it at all a reflection
on my architect to ask for competitive plans. That is a fair suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that some settled plan ought to be submitted to the House, and some information with regard to the location of the museum before we vote very much money for it. Otherwise we may find after the work has been commenced that it should be located somewhere else or that some different plan should have been adopted. I think it would be well to advance slowly with an undertaking of such gigantic magnitude.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not at all object to having competitive plans. We have had competition for the statue of Her Majesty. But I think the House will agree with me that it will be wise to instruct the chief architect to visit some of the best museums on the other side of the ocean, and then I shall be quite prepared to ask for competitive plans. 1 believe I can be trusted to do the right thing on these lines. I do not profess myself to be an expert, although I have visited a good many museums in my life.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understand from the minister that the intention is to have plans drawn for a building which will be like that shown in the plan on the Table, comprising a museum, rooms for the Supreme Court, the fisheries exhibit, and so on-a general art building. If this is the intention, I for one am thoroughly in accord with it, and 1 hope it will be taken up with the purpose of having eventually, when it is finished, a building which will be not only suitable for all these objects, but creditable to the country. I do not think the country will grudge a proper expenditure in order to give us a creditable building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I have no fixed plan. The plan before the House is only a tentative one. Whether we should have a museum by itself or couple some other departments with it is an open question. We shall have to provide further accommodation in the way of public buildings. A suitable site for another public building would be that where the Supreme Court now stands. We could have a fine public building located there. I have gone into that question with the chief architect. I have no hesitation in saying that the idea of competitive plans is most acceptable to me.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is it the intention to expend any part of the money you are now taking before you decide what buildings you will erect ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I will not spend a dollar before we make up our minds altogether.


David Henderson: I confess I am not at all favourably impressed with the site the minister has chosen. It appears to me

tliat it would be a great pity to hide such a beautiful building as has been represented to us in such au out-of-tlie-way place. 1 think the minister should endeavour to find a location commensurate with the character and appearance of the building. Surely he can find a location somewhere on the government grounds; or, if not, I would certainly say, let us pay a reasonable sum of money for a site on which the building will show to decidedly better advantage than would be the case on a back street in Lower Town.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot share the view of my bon. friend.
I believe the site I have suggested is a very acceptable one. If my hon. friend, in taking his early promenade to-morrow morning, will go in that direction, he will find that the site is a very fine one indeed. Major Hill Park is a fine park; we are going to improve it year by year; it is near at hand and approachable; and the intention later on is to erect a bridge across the ravine to connect it with the grounds here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there could not be a more suitable site found about the place. It is roomy and picturesque. All that is required is a bridge.


David Henderson: I understand that the site was opposite the Printing Bureau, on the lower part of Major Hill Park. Would it not be possible to have the building erected on this side of the park so as to be visible and accessible from these grounds ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I quite agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). If you are going to have the building on the low land in front of the Printing Bureau, you will hide the beauty of the building and will have it in an inconvenient and to some extent inaccessible place, whereas, if it is put on the high ground, and there seems to be ample room for it, it will be a very desirable ornament to Major Hill Park.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As I have been for many years a resident of Ottawa, I would venture to make a suggestion in the hope that the hon. minister will consider it before finally deciding on the location. In my opinion, the best place for the museum would be on Nepean Point, immediately behind where the cannons are placed to-day. You have there a very high ground which naturally forms part of the Major Hill Park. It is not to-day included in the park, but I think it ought to be. It is government property, and in choosing that site the govern- i ment would have nothing to pay for the ' lot. A building erected on that point would ' command a view far and wide on all sides, 1 and be perceived at a very great distance 1 from the city, at every approach to it. I 1 have given the matter some consideration : and gone over the ground, and I offer this 1 Mr. HENDERSON.
1 suggestion, in the hope that the minister i will consider it before coming to a final dei cision.
J Mr. EDWARDS. I think that Major Hill j Park and Nepean Point ought to be abso-I lately reserved for park purposes. It was a . mistake to have erected the Printing Bureau f at Nepean Point. My opinion is that the 1 museum should be erected at some point j distant from the parliament buildings-in the southern portion of the city, for instance. A good piece of ground could be got there, and it would be a much more suitable lo-
[DOT]	cality for this edifice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended that the , selection of the site will be made before
[DOT] next session and the building begun ?
1 The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
I think that the site will be chosen and the
*	building begun before the session. But I : do not intend to rely on my own little 1 knowledge for the selection of the site and ' the plans. I know that my architect is an
able man, and is not afraid to consult archi-: tects and other men of experience. As this . building will be a national affair, I am determined not to do anything before my colleagues and myself are convinced that we have made the best selection of site and
*	plans.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before expending so much money, this House should be given the opportunity of passing upon the plans. The hon. gentleman tells us that we may have three buildings in one, or only one building. It may be a building for the museum alone, or it may comprise the Supreme Court and Exchequer Court, and some other buildings. We are committing ourselves to an expenditure without having any idea what will be the full amount we may be called on to spend. I do not think it would be proper to commit the country to this expenditure until this House has had the opportunity of passing upon the plans and coming to a conclusion whether they will have the three buildings in one or make but one building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Parliamentary government implies a certain number of gentlemen who, for the time being, enjoy the confidence of the majority of the House. This is the essence of parliamentary government, and I am very much afraid my hon. friend will have to trust the present government. He may rest assured that we will not enter into a useless expenditure of money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I differ from the hon. gentleman in his view of parliamentary government. I have always understood that when the government propose an expenditure of public money, they are bound to submit to the House the information which would enable it to deal intelligently with the question before authorizing the expenditure. The erection of this building will cost about half

a million dollars, and I would not regard it as the highest act of parliamentary government for any minister to enter into that contract and commit this House to it without first having the sanction of parliament.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we erect only a museum we will not spend more than $500,000. I will send the chief architect to the other side to look at the best museums in the world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the Iron, gentleman and his colleagues settled yet what kind of building they propose to erect ? There is no urgent necessity for going on with this in the next few months, and in the meantime it would be w'-ell to have the plans submitted and executed for submission before beginning the undertaking.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I differ with my hon. friend altogether. There is great urgency. In fact, we have been criminal in delaying the erection of this building so long. We have the finest collection of minerals on the continent exposed every day to be destroyed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister ought to have a definite plan and submit that plan to the House before he goes on with the work. We ought to know whether this *building is to be for the museum alone or for the museum and the Supreme and Exchequer Courts and the fishery building. We have a Supreme and an Exchequer Court now, which practically fill all the requirements, and also a fishery building, which is conveniently located and answers the purpose very well. I do not see what we want of a new Supreme Court, or Exchequer Court, or fishery building. The minister is not prepared to tell the House whether he is going on with them or not. We should not be asked to g-o it blind, but the minister should come here with a definite statement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In matters of this kind in which we are not expert, I do not like to be too positive. As I have decided to send the chief architect to the other side, I thought the House would trust me by allowing me some latitude.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But, the hon. gentleman is sending the chief architect to the other side to see about a museum, and not about a Supreme Court or a fishery building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But, if the chief architect found that, with an addition of, say, $200,000, he could provide for these branches of the public ser-vict also, I should like the House to trust me in that matter. At the same time, my impression is that we shall erect only a museum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the House would trust the hon. gentleman so far as his personal integrity goes, or even his judgment.
But, what I am contending for is a principle of government. In a great undertaking involving the expenditure of a million dollars, the work should not be gone on with before parliament has passed judgment upon it, after definite plans and full information submitted to the House.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I am much surprised at file objection raised by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). If there is one thing above ail others that might be said to be a disgrace to this country, it is the fact that the highest court in the Dominion is housed in the old stables that they have occupied for a number of years. The buildings are not only unsuitable in ,eyery other way, but they are unsanitary. I think the Minister of Public Works is to be highly commended for the efforts he is putting forth to have new rooms for the Supreme Court of Canada. As to the fishery building, it is located in a part of the city that is within the lire zone, as we may call it. very near the centre of the city. The building is not suitable, it is not of sufficient capacity-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is ugly.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: It certainly is. And it will grow more unsuitable, for we hope that this exhibit will be added to from year to year. Then, as to the museum, we all know that the other night, if the wind had been in a different quarter, the chances are that the Dominion of Canada would have been without the contents of a museum. The point suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr, Belcourt) appeals to me very strongly. If this building is to be erected, regard must be had to the public advantage. Such a public building should be as isolated as possible consistent with public convenience, and I do not know any spot that would be more suitable and more compatible with the requirements and surroundings than Nepean Point. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa, that it would be a pity to destroy the park by having this building, or any other building, no matter how artistic, erected in it. I believe xue suggestion of the Minister of Public Works should receive the unanimous support of the House. I trust that the buildings as planed will be erected, and that not a moment will be lost in carrying out the work.
Rainy River-Lock and dam (revote), $25,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has anything been done there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, nothing has been done. I intend toj make a personal inspection of the river, and I will not start the work until I am sure it can be carried out successfully. Before starting, we must arrange with the American authorities, as the river is the boundary line between the United States and us.
*56S7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is rendered necessary by the fact that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are going to have their terminals there. We are enlarging our breakwater to give them more accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will that be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this amount finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it will about finish it, but I am not sure.
Telegraph Lines-British Columbia-Land line, Port Simpson via Port Essington to Hazleton, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a map here which will show the location of these lines, and which I offer to the inspection of my friends. From Port Simpson to Hazelton is 180 miles. Of that distance 150 miles are already built. I received a telegram from Mr. Charleson a day or two ago to the effect that 150 miles are built. Port Essington and Port Simpson are both on Canadian territory. When these lines are built, we will have 2.000 miles of telegraph lines on Canadian soil.
Branch line from a point on the Quesnelle-Atlin line about fifteen miles east of Port Fraser to Manson Creek, $48,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is Mr. Charleson building that line also ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the wire is there, and some other supplies have been bought. The whole thing will ue completed by the loth of July this year.
Public Buildings-Nova Scotia-Arichat-Reconstruction of public building, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been a public building at Arichat for some years, a wooden building, which is in a state of decay, and which it is proposed to reconstruct. It will be used as a post office and customs-ihouse.
Halifax-Drill hall, $6,900.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plans are ready, and we are going to ask for tenders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you expect this building will cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $200,000 inclusive of the site. It is for post office, custom-house and excise building. The site will cost $25,000. The site will be 86 by 107 by 103 feet, and will form three sides of a quadrangle.
Mr. TARTE
Public Buildings-New Brunswick-Marysville -Public building (revote), $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do all these public buildings contain post office and customhouse ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, all of them, and in addition, some of them will supply room for an armoury.
Richibucto-Public building, $4,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population of Richibucto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About 3,000, I think.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that the total expenditure intended for a public building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Some time ago the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and some other members suggested that it would be a good idea to erect a larger number of public buildings and less costly, and I am just beginning to try my hand at it. My hon. friend will find in these estimates several amounts for cheap public buildings, but a large number of them.
Quebec-Immigrant buildings on Louise embankment and Queen's wharf buildings, $4,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that for repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is one of these buildings on Queen's wharf that was destroyed by fire. We are taking a very small amount for repairs. The balance is for rebuilding the structure which was destroyed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you letting the work by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the work is now being done. The amount of the contract is $2,300.
Quebec-Post Office-Renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What renewals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All sorts of renewals, floors, painting, &c. Repairs might be a better word.
Montreal-Post Office-Improvements, $1,500.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Public Works, in connection with this item and the following one whicli have appeared almost every year for alterations and repairs to the Montreal public buildings since I have sat in this House, and which involves an expenditure of from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, has it not occurred to him that it would be better for the government to acquire a building in Montreal V We are paying out a considerable amount for rent there and we are expending a good deal every year for repairs. I remember that three or four years ago I suggested ' to the hon. Minister of Public Works the advisability and necessity, instead of spend-

ing that large sum every year on repairs in addition to the rent we are paying in Montreal, that we should acquire a building there for the use of the government. I believe the government is very much cramped for space in Montreal. There is a considerable amount spent for renewals. Has the point never been examined by the hon. gentleman as to whether it would not be cheaper to own a building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite grant that we are cramped for room, that the post office building does not afford the accommodation that a large city like Montreal expects, but at the same time,
I have always hesitated about trying to buy other property. I fully admit that the hon. gentleman's suggestion is worthy of consideration. We do not pay high rentals in Montreal. Of course, the post office, the examining warehouse, and the custom house are our own property. We pay rent only for the branches, and we do not pay any other rentals. I quite recognize that we will have in the near future to acquire more space; in point of fact, at the present time the postal authorities have asked me if we could not find accommodation in the Canadian Pacific Railway station for the delivery of letters and newspapers. As soon as the session is over I will look carefully into that. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) has made in Toronto an arrangement that is working very well indeed, and perhaps we will be able to make the same arrangement in Montreal. I quite admit that we must do something in the near future in Montreal. We know that the post office does not afford the accommodation we require there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Department of Railways and Canals pays a good deal for rent there. It is obliged to rent a whole flat ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Grosse Isle-Quarantine station, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are putting in at the quarantine station a waterworks system which is very badly needed. They are obliged to take the water from the St. Lawrence and it is salt water, and we require to have a condenser. We are completing this waterworks system now. I am sorry that we have not completed it sooner, because at the present time there is a large number of people located there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is to complete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and to make it, I believe, the best sanitary station on this continent.
Montreal - Public Buildings - Improvements, alterations, repairs, &c., $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is the item I referred to a moment ago as occurring every year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have the details of the work. Every year the chief architect receives from the different branches that are located in Montreal demands for improvements and changes and we are only carrying out the demands made upon us.
St, Hyacinthe-Drill hall, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the site been decided upon for the St. Hyacinthe drill hall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I intend to' go there myself and consult with my colleague from the Militia and Defence Department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be well to consult with somebody else there too, because, as the hon. minister is aware, there is a considerable controversy as to the site.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend also consulting with the citizens.
Levis-Public building, $10,000.


Mr. MORIN.: What is the public building for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be for the post office, custom office, excise office-a public building for general use.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population ? The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Between 10,000 and 12,000. It is a large town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this building expected to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not expect to spend much money on this building, or on other public buildings for which I am asking votes from parliament this year. I may as well take advantage of the opportunity of making a statement on this subject. After _ consultation, we have come to the conclusion that perhaps we have spent too much money in the past on public buildings. Both political parties may have erected too c expensive buildings, and I shall try to erect less expensive ones. I believe I can get businesslike buildings erected for a moderate amount of money. The great trouble is that my hon. friend's on the other side of the House-I cannot blame them very much, because I was with them then-have erected buildings that have cost large amounts of money and -when I am asking my friends on this side of the House to practice economy they point to buildings here and there that have cost large amounts of money. All the same, I will resist the pressure and I will try to erect buildings that will not cost too much money. I will try to have an

economical and businesslike plan that will answer the public purposes without costing too much. At Levis I do not Intend to spend more than $12,000 or $15,000, and I believe that with that amount of money I can erect a very suitable building.
Montreal-Custom-house-Alterations, &c., $7,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We appear to spend about $35,000 for repairing public buildings in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have very large buildings there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will all these repairs be done by contract and tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no. They cannot. Painting or the like might be.
London-Drill hall and armoury, $18,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the total cost of that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already stated to the House that I do not intend to spend more than $100,000 at London. Part of the site has been bought, but there are two more little spots I want to buy if I can get them pretty cheap. London is a very important military district and it is only fair that we should give them a good building.


Uriah Wilson: Is it the intention of the minister to go on with the public buildings at Deserouto this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes, we are just calling for tenders.


Uriah Wilson: I would call the attention of the minister to the Napanee public building. It requires some pointing, and some outside painting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect tells me that he will be able to take the money necessary to comply with the wishes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) out of the general vote.
Toronto Junction-Public building, $5,000.
Mr. SPI^OULE. Do you intend to keep that item there for ornament or are you to do the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend to erect a building which will be a credit to myself and to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) who represents the county. I want to show that I have no revengeful spirit at all. I will erect a public building to his memory and to mine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you erect it this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: lAs soon as the session is over I intend to go there myself.


Mr. TARTE.: 


Uriah Wilson: Where can the blank forms 'be obtained for tendering on the public building at Deseronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They can be obtained at Deseronto and here.
Woodstock-Post office, $12,000.


Mr. BROCK.: Have you a site for the Woodstock post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the building will be completed in a few months.


William Rees Brock: Will this $12,000 complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This will simply be a post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will 'be a post office, custom-house and excise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It simply says ' post office ' in this item and in other places you say ' public building.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a mistake in the wording of that item. We hare been trying to adopt the rule to call these public buildings, but I see the change has not been made here.
Sault Ste. Marie-Public building, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: iThis is a new building. I do not intend spending more than $10,000 or $12,000 or $15,000 at the outside. I intend standing by iwhat I have said a moment ago. I will give commodious buildings which are not too expensive, and I will" rely on members on both sides of the House to support me.
Ottawa-Public Buildings-Steel drawers and rollers, shelves, &e., $25,000.
The - MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is to replace the wooden shelves in nearly all the departments.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where are all these steel shelves purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Office Specialty Company at Toronto, and the Eclipse Company here, are the only places were they are made. We are offered American goods, perhaps cheaper, but so far I have made it a point to buy in Canada as much as I can.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will they be bought by contract ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS-There are only two companies, and we have asked prices from both.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is one of them the Char-leson Company ?
V 5693 MAY 20, 1901 5094	
The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS Oh, no, Charleson has nothing to do with that. St. Thomas-Drill hall and armoury, $7,000. Mr. INGRAM. Is there any* change in the design in the St. Thomas armoury ? The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. No ; we have made no change at all. Mr. INGRAM. I am going to occupy the attention of the House for a short time on /this item ; not that I object to the item, but when the item was up in the House before, I took occasion to make certain statements in reference to it. During my absence from the House the Minister for North Oxford without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) read a letter supposed to be signed by the contractor Mr. J. M. Green, making certain statements which were supposed to contradict statements I made in this House. If that practice is to be continued in this House, then no hon. gentleman occupying a seat here will be free from such attacks as this. The hon. member for North Oxford said : A few days ago we had a similar statement made concerning another public work and made by a gentleman also living in the locality. But I have here a statement made by the contractor, Mr. Green, under his signature, giving such statements unqualified denial. I will refer to the statement I made, and see if the letter written by Mr. Green is borne out by the facts or not. He says that I said that ' a London man was given the sub-contract for the brickwork.' What I said was this : But I understand since that a gentleman from the city of nondon has obtained this brickwork and I suppose the reason is that he is a prominent Liberal. y Mr. Green cut the sentence off, and it turns out to be the firm of Page & Co., of Toronto, who have that contract. He also says that I am reported to have stated this : It was current report in St. Thomas that Mr. Green could not get the contract until he gave a pledge that the brickwork would be given to a prominent London Liberal. I made no such statement in this House : therefore, the statement contained in Mr Green's letter is false. The hon. xuember for North Oxford rises in his place and reads a letter denying a statement alleged to have been made by me here vrhen as a matter of fact I made no such statement at all. Then, again. I made the statement that if the person having the patronage of Elgin county would use the same judgment in this matter that he did in the matter of the Port Stanley harbour, no Conservative would be employed on these works in St Thomas. I say now that no Conservative has been employed on Port Stanley Harbour; and at the time I made that statement, I had a right to assume that no Conservative would be emploved on the	armoury works in St. Thomas. What I say now I can prove, that the gentleman having the patronage for Elgin county told this contractor that he was not to employ the Ponsfords to do any work on that building-why ? Because he said it would be humiliating to see those Conservatives performing any work on it. What did Mr. Greeii do ? He knows no more about preparing estimates for the brick and mason work on that building than I do ; and the great bulk of the work on it is brick and mason work. But finding that Dr. Wilson and an assistant of his who has a great deal to do with the exercise of patronage there, warned him that he was not to allow those parties to do any work on the building, Mr. Green went to Geo. Ponsford, a prominent contractor there, of Ponsford Bros., and to a man named Horton, and said to them, '1 want you to prepare the lowest figures you can for this work, and if I get the contract, I will give the lowest tenderer among you the sub-contract.' What did he do afterwards ? He got the figures, and peddled them all around this country. He went to Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London, and tried to get other men to do the work for less than these figures given to him by those people in St. Thomas. When he found that those men could not get any work on the building, he actually went to the man who has the patronage of the county and said to him, ' Be firm, don't allow the Ponsfords to have anything to do with the building.' This shows the kind of a man this contractor is. I made the statement that the carpenter work on the building would cost in the neighbourhood of $5,000. My statement on that occasion was so erroneous that he has denied it; and yet what is the fact ? His own tender for the carpenter work is $5,200, so that I was practically correct in the statement 1 made. I want to say further that the man who has the patronage in St. Thomas has by his conduct deprived good responsible citizens of that city of the opportunity of securing employment on that work. In all the work that is to be done on that building, there are only two business men in St. Thomas who have anything at all to do with it ; and I have to charge the person who lias the patronage with being the deliberate cause of preventing citizens of his own county from getting employment on that building. And I would say that before the hon. member for North Oxford or any other hon. gentleman in this House takes for granted that a letter written by an irresponsible party states facts, or before he reads such stuff in this Houce, he had better peruse the records of this House to see whether such statements have been made or not. Had he laid on the Table the document which he read, perhaps there would not have been so much fault found with it; but having read it and put it into his pocket, he deprived me of the opportunity of seeing that letter or

who signed it. While it purports to have Deen written by Mr. Green, I think it was petticoat government that sent it, and not Mr. Green at all j and I think petticoat government dictated both to Mr. Green and to the hon. member for North Oxford.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I beg leave to have nothing to do with these local difficulties. I have given the contract to the lowest tenderer, it is being carried out, my hon. friend has been elected, he has defeated Dr. Wilson, and it seems to me he should be satisfied with his victory.
If I may be allowed to say so, if I were in his place, I would not say twice what he has said here to-night. I think ladies should not be assailed on the floor of parliament. We are all gentlemen here. I think the hon. gentleman has made a mistake, and I am sure that when he thinks it oyer, he will not do it again.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have refrained on many occasions from using the language which I have used this evening ; but I have been pursued a good many years by these same parties, and I think it is about time that kind of thing was stopped. If there is a gentleman in that county who has the patronage, I think anything done with regard to that should be done through him ; but when other parties interfere who have no right to do so, I think it is time to cry a halt, and I for one do not propose to stand it any longer without repudiating it.
I am willing to fight fair against a man, but not against the whole family.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, when the hon. gentleman tries to fight against the fair sex, he will be defeated every time.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will take my chances every time with my opponent with the fair sex.
Ottawa-Major's Hill Park-Improvements, &c., $1,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What improvements are you going to make there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The improvement of the entrance opposite Sussex street. There is a gate and fence there which are to be removed immediately. They are an eye-sore.
Clinton-Post office, $5,000.


David Henderson: Is that to be the entire cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I do not expect to spend much more than that.	.


David Henderson: I am glad to hear that the hon. minister has adopted a policy which I have advocated some four or five years, namely, the construction in towns like Clinton, which has a population of 2,635, public buildings at moderate cost This is


Andrew B. Ingram: the only plan by wbich tbe smaller towns can secure public buildings. Does the hon. gentleman intend to give effect to another suggestion that I have made, in order to save subsequent expenditure in the maintenance and care of public buildings, that is to have in the same building tbe residence of the postmaster, so that he may be the caretaker ? I think that the hon. member for West Huron approved of that suggestion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are carrying out that very policy. In several buildings we have arranged that the postmaster shall be the caretaker. In these small public buildings, we will be able to give lodgings to the postmaster and thus not have to pay a caretaker.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a public building in Goderich, the county town of Huron ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, built years ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is rather refreshing to see votes of this kind being brought down by the very men who, when in opposition, denounced in unstinted terms the policy of building in small towns of 7,000 or 8,000 population post offices and other public buildings. True, some of these hon. gentlemen have disappeared from public life, aud the places that knew them know them no more. But there are still in parliament men Who were most vigorous in their denunciations of this extravagance, but who are ready, as ministers, to submit similar estimates, and as supporters of the government, to swallow them without a wry face. In the town of Clinton the government are probably renting a building at a rental of $150 a year. They are now going to erect a public building in competition with private property, and which will depreciate private property to that extent. The hon. minister will not pledge himself that the postmaster will he caretaker of the building, and it will probably turn out that a caretaker will be employed at $300 per year. The cost of heating and lighting will be $200 or $300. The country will have to pay altogether, adding the interest on the expenditure, $700 or $800. And for what ? Simply as a bait to that constituency and nothing else. I do not blame the Minister of Public Works. He has thousands begging and praying for some government recognition, and in order to popularize himself and his government he is making these concessions. But this expenditure, just as in the case of the dock in my riding, will recoil against the hon. gentleman, because the public are not slow to form an opinion of public men who eat their own words.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I thank God that I have never made the imprudent speeches to wtiich the hon. gentleman has given utterance. I have always stood up for a fair and progressive policy,

and I believe that I am carrying out to-day the policy of my former days.
Kingston-Military Buildings-Stable accommodation for field battery, $5,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: With the permission of the committee, I would revert to the Kingston vote, for the purpose of asking a question. I have heard that there was a great want in the college of proper accommodation for the cadets in winter. I am told that there is no skating rink and only a very inferior gymnasium. In fact, there is no place where they can amuse themselves unless they go into town.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are now building a gymnasium.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will it be simply a gymnasium, or


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be no skating rink, I am afraid.


Byron Moffatt Britton: We have in Kingston such fine open-air skating that this, together with the ice-boating that the cadets have, makes a covered rink hardly necessary. The cadets can clear off a space for skating at any time, and open-air skating is very much better than that under cover.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before this item is passed, is it any use to ask the Minister of Public Works if there are to be further supplementary estimates to provide for needed accommodation at the Toronto drill shed?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid that our estimates are sufficiently loaded for this year.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I do not see any item here for improvements about the two public buildings-post office and custom-house-in Gananoque. A drain was put down from the post office, and a granolithic pavement over it, but it has dipped so that it now has become dangerous.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect tells me that he has all the information on that subject, and the amount necessary for the improvements will be taken out of the general vote.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Public buildings, Manitoba - Winnipeg - Immigrant building, hospital (revote of $4,600, lapsed), $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this merely for repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, that is for the new building, with a hospital.
Public Buildings Generally-Construction of armouries (revote), $28,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these armouries to be built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Iam only a builder in this case ; I build 179
where the Department of Militia tells me to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it known what amount these buildings will cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will erect them as cheap as we can- $3,000 or $4,000 each.


William Humphrey Bennett: In order that the minister may not overlook it, I would ask him to consider the claim of the town of Orillia, which is the headquarters of two large companies, and which is a town of about 0,500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are these to be armouries for companies or battalions?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They will be erected at the headquarters of battalions.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is the department going to keep .the arms at company headquarters also ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: In some cases it will be necessary to continue armouries at company headquarters, but, as far as possible where the regiment is compact and the companies near together, it is very desirable to have the armouries at regimental headquarters. I am bound to say that my view and that of the general staff has been modified with reference to this question. I may add that the cost of each of these armouries is expected to be about $2,000 or $2,500.


Mr. GOULD.: I am pleased to hear what the Minister of Militia has said. But it seems to me that there are cases, particularly in the province of Ontario, where some of the companies are scattered prettly largely, and where there ought to be a departure from the rule that the armouries should be at the headquarters alone. Our county is about seventy miles long, and the comp'any for the formation of which we are asking the minister for a sum of money, will be perhaps sixty miles from Whitby, the present headquarters of the battalion. The arms being deposited there, they will be of no service to the volunteers except for two or three days' drill during the season. This means that they will be practically of no use whatever. If these- arms are to be of service, they must be put in the hands of the volunteer, and the volunteers must be in a position to use them effectively. I think, so far as the county of Ontario is concerned, the amounts can be. divided up. Each armoury, I think, could have a certain sum given it for housing the arms properly, and a building for that purpose could be available without going to the expense of $20,000 or $30,000, for a building which would not be used more than once or twice during the whole season. I throw out this suggestion. We have seven companies in that county, and there is now a requisition in for an eighth, which will be perhaps fifty or sixty



miles from the headquarters of the battalion. These men will not he encouraged to go into this new company if they are not assured thajt these arms will be readily accessible to them for practice.


Samuel Hughes: Where are these armouries to be built for this $28,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not made any selection yet. The Minister of Militia and Defence will tell me where he wants armouries built.


Mr. BLAIN  .@: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what improvements he is going to make in the Brampton armoury ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand there is a proposal to fit up a room in a public building for the armoury.


Richard Blain: Have tenders been asked for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a small work, aud we shall not ask for tenders. I think it will cost about $1,000.


Richard Blain: Will that be under the charge of the hon. gentleman's department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The request has been made to us.


Richard Blain: I was informed that tenders had been invited and received in the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not correct, at least it is not to my knowledge.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would ask the Minister of Militia and Defence to consider the claims of the town of Orillia for an armoury. In the county of Simcoe there is an armoury at Barrie which serves the purposes of the town companies, and if my memory serves me right, there is also one a few miles out In a neighbouring township. In the town of Orillia there are two companies, and right across the bay, in the county of Ontario, there is a company in the Rama reserve.


Isaac James Gould: It has not been formed so far. A requisition is in, and I think in another year there will be a company in Mara.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is also a company at the village of Coldwater, which is a few miles from Orillia. So, the armoury, if erected at Orillia, would serve the purposes of four different companies.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest that the Minister of Militia and Defence recommend to the Minister of Public Works the erection of small, neat, comfortable buildings for armouries. It would be as cheap, and far more satisfactory than the system of centralizing all the arms In one battalion.


Isaac James Gould: Fittings, furniture, &c., for new offices for Surveyor General's branch, Department of the Interior, $15,500.


George Taylor: This $15,500, I understand, is to put in the fittings and furnishings for a new building being erected on Metcalfe street. I understand the government have entered into a lease for that property for ten years, at $3,000 a year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Taylor: If I am any judge of real estate, the government, for the use of that building, is paying 15 per cent interest on the capital. I will undertake to duplicate that building for $12,000. I am informed the site will cost $5,000, and now you are asking for $15,500 to put fittings in this building, $20,000 in all. Why should this government pay 15 per cent for money when they can get it for 3 per cent ? Is that business ? I presume this is something like the Seybold building, and includes a rake-off for somebody, it cannot be otherwise. That building has been started since the House opened this session, the work is being rushed, and it is to be ready for occupation within a few days. The government could have put up that building just as quickly on their own ground, they have any quantity of land. I do not think that is the way to use the money of the people of this country. Because the minister has a friend that he wants to help, he gets him to erect a building and enters into a lease to pay him $3,000 a year for ten years. The minister said this government could not make a contract extending over one year, but here he has made a contract for ten years, and in five years he pays for the whole plant.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken. In the first place, I do not believe that the hon. gentleman, who is a sound business man, I acknowledge, can erect a building like this for $12,000. I am informed that the contractors are receiving $17,000 for the bare building. Messrs. Ahearn & Soper are going to put in the doors themselves, and they are going to wire the building, &c. I believe that the building, when it is completed, will be worth, along with the site, about $25,000. I do not think I am exaggerating in making that statement. Those who live in Ottawa and know what property is worth will agree with me. I do not say that we are not paying too much, I have already admitted that the system that we have followed in the past is a bad one. But, I want to know whether I would be supported by the House if I were to ask for an additional million dollars for another building ? I do not know whether I would be supported, even from this side of the House, which has confidence in me, if I were to ask for one million dollars. I think there would be a pretty big kick.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Before we leave tliese items for public buildings, I would like to say a word. I was not in the House a moment ago when the votes for the Ontario public buildings went through. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) tells me that the vote for the Toronto Junction post office was passed.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very glad to answer any questions that my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) may put.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has the site been selected ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS I intend visiting that part of the country myself and inquiring about a site. I want to erect that building as soon as possible. I do not intend spending a vast amount of money, because we have started upon a new policy, but I will give to my hon. friend and his electors a building that will be a credit to him and them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have not asked for a building myself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman will accept it, I am sure, at my hands as a souvenir of our cordial relations.
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia-Amagadus Pond-Wharf, $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I notice in this list expenditures in Nova Scotia that there are upwards of fifteen wharfs to be built in that province. I would like the hon. minister to tell us what the policy of his department is in regard to the construction of these docks. Is it intended to go into these different towns and villages where private parties have erected docks, or where pri-construct public wharfs ? Is it the inten-selves by reason of the fact that no person thinks that as a commercial enterprise it would be profitable to erect a dock, and to construct public wharfs ? Is it the intention of the minister, starting as he is starting in this province, to go from one province to another, in towns and villages where there are private docks to construct docks to be brought into competition and thus render comparatively valueless those that private parties have constructed, or, on the other hand, if no docks are constructed at these points by reason of the fact that no person considers as a commercial venture that it would be profitable to embark in an enterprise of that kind, does the minister propose to go on with the construction of docks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has called the attention of the committee to a state of affairs that exists in the maritime provinces generally. Nova Scotia is largely inhabited by a fishing population. If the hon. gentleman visits that province he will agree with
179i
me that the policy we are pursuing is the proper one. These fishermen must have wharfs and harbours. Storms are very dangerous on the coasts of the maritime provinces, on the Atlantic ocean, and these fishermen cannot carry on their trade unless they have harbours and wharfs. We are not asking for large amounts of money, but I know how necessary these works are from my own personal knowledge. I paid a visit to the maritime provinces which has been very useful to me as minister. This policy is a policy that should have been adopted long ago. The fishermen require accommodation ; otherwise, their boats would be destroyed. A storm will come on while they are fishing on the banks, or on the open sea, and if they have no little harbour to which they can have access they will lose their boats and not only will they lose their boats but often they will lose their lives. I feel convinced that this policy is one which should be followed both by this government and by governments that will follow us.


William Ross: 1 may say in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) who is objecting to this vote that these grants are not for towns and villages but for places along the coast where steamers may call to land and take in freight. There w-as a breakwater erected at Ingonish in my own county and during the November gale which was so destructive to the shipping in different parts of the maritime provinces the fishermen were as well protected as if they had been on the Ottawa river. That breakwater, I hope, is only one of several other breakwaters that will be built in the interests of the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I may say that the representatives from Nova Scotia in this House have not objected to a single grant that has been given to Ontario, British Columbia, or Quebec, and I think that these small items which are now doled out to the people of Nova Scotia should not be objected to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no better investment of money than this.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now, we have two statements. The one that is made by the hon. Minister of Public Works is that the primary consideration of these docks is for the purpose of accommodating the fishermen


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To a large extent.


William Humphrey Bennett: While the hon. member from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross) gives as an additional reason that the steamboat people wish docks to call at. If that be the case and if there is some business to be done at these points, if the business is large enough to warrant these people in constructing docks themselves they will go into it as a commercial enterprise. If there is not business to justify them in constructing

the docks then, it is not the business of the country to erect docks for the use of these steamboat proprietors any more than, as I once before stated, it is the business of. the country to construct livery stables and hand them over to the people who may wish to engage in that business. The plea is put forward that we are spending public money in the province. If the plea is made for an expenditure of public money well and good.
I do not make my remarks especially as applicable to the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. minister is taking some votes in Ontario that I intend to condemn, and I shall do so when we reach those items. The hon. minister stated the other night that an application had been made in my own town for the purchase of some property there from a party interested in the property. I quite accept the statement of the minister, because I know it is a fact that these people are endeavouring to foist their private property on the Dominion.
Mr. McCarthy. Who are the parties who are doing that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman knows them perhaps he may be able to state.
Mr. McCarthy. No, I would like to know who they are. I doubt that it is so.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman has an idea of them perhaps.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When we come to that we will have the facts.


William Humphrey Bennett: This business of asking the public to intervene and construct these docks is reprehensible. It was tried on in my own riding and it failed. It produced an expenditure of public money, and if the government get as much benefit out of the expenditure of public money for this purpose in other places as they got in East Simcoe, they are welcome to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There Is no money better invested than the money I am asking from parliament to-day. This money is to be applied to help our hardy fishermen in the pursuit of their trade. Let the hon. gentleman give himself the pleasure and privilege of making a visit to the maritime provinces and he will find out that these fishermen are worthy of every assistance. We are not asking a very large amount of money and the benefit to these fishermen will be felt in every little place in the province. When my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) thinks it over he will agree with me that this amount should be voted ungrudgingly.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad to hear the minister make this statement with regard to snaking the harbour sufficiently safe for fishermen so that they can approach them without danger. I understand that the policy of the government is that when fisher-


William Humphrey Bennett: men require assistance for the improvement of their harbours, the Public W orks Department is willing to afford it. In my own county we have a number of fishermen and in one harbour they could not get in or out without great danger, and so they themselves had to make the harbour suitable for their own use. My own party was in power at the time, and I went to the Public Works Department and they said : We cannot do that, because it is a matter entirely in the interests of the fishermen. I went to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time and asked him, in view of the fact that he collected licenses from the fishermen, would he not arrange the harbour so that they could carry on their calling, but the Minister of Marine repudiated all responsibility. I am glad to hear the Minister of Public Works fHon. Mr. Tarte) sitate now that he will accommodate the fishermen of the Dominion, and, when the fishermen of my county make application for necessary improvements in their harbour, I hope it will be granted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) comes to me with a fair application he will find me ready to give him a suitable answer.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is quite right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister apply the same rule to the Ontario lakes as to the Atlantic coast ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a difference between the two, but for that immense extent of coast in Nova 'Scotia, we are only asking $179,000 altogether, while for one breakwater on the lakes we would spend that much money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what I refer to. The minister is committing himself to a principle now. The decision of the Privy Council holds that the inland fisheries belong to the provinces, and therefore the Dominion has not the same interest in them that it has in the Atlantic fisheries. The minister is building harbours for the fishermen on the Atlantic coast and he tells my friend (Mr. Ingram) that he will apply the same principle in Ontario. In view of the decision of file Privy Council, will he apply the same [principle on the inland waters as he does on the Atlantic coast ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Most certainly. The fishermen are one of the most important assets of the Dominion, if I may make that statement. How many millions worth of fish did we export last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: About $17,000,000 worth.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely if there is a trade which requires protection and is worthy of our interest it is that trade.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no objection to it.


David Henderson: Why are there so many revotes here ? Why was not the money spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have to he careful and last year there Iwas a pretty large number of works for which no careful survey had been made. Moreover, parliament prorogued in July.


David Henderson: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government should provide you with a pronouncing dictionary for these hard Nova Scotia names.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is doing wonderfully well.


Mr. FRASER.: For an Ontario man I have seldom seen better.


David Henderson: With regard to New Harbour, this is the place we have heard so much about a couple of sessions ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We found it out all right since then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before concurrence, the minister should place a map upon the Table of the House showing where all these places are.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: iOh, I have that map here in my desk. I will get it. There it iis, and every place for which a vote is asked is marked on it.


William Humphrey Bennett: You .learned a lesson from the other day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know what I am doing.
Harbours and Rivers-Prince Edward Island, $43,450.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this Summer-side breakwater to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount of the contract is $55,000. It will cost a little more.
Harbours and Rivers-New Brunswick, $180,950.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Explain the breakwater at Dorchester.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is under contract. The lowest tender was accepted, the figure being $27,700. The contract was awarded on the 23rd of last March.


Mr. FOWLER.: What is the intention of the department respecting the Campbellton wharf ? Do you intend to buy the Shires' wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe we should buy that wharf of Mr. Shires.


George William Fowler: I understand that the
difficulty is that it is necessary to pay
wharfage dues at both wharfs, and it is desirable that they should be under one management.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is right. My intention is to try and buy it, but I do not want to pay too much.


George William Fowler: You are taking a vote of $1,000 for repairs to Dalhousie wharf. My information is that it is simply wasting money to be dribbling it out in this way- that is instead of making these repairs, the department should make repairs of a permanent character. I do not know anything personally about it ; I am only giving the information I have respecting it. I am told that $2,500 or $3,000 would make permanent repairs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer says that this is to repair the present wharf; but I am glad the hon. gentleman has made his suggestion. We will look more carefully into the place now.


George William Fowler: I would suggest that you instruct Mr. Shewan to report on the smallest amount which would put the wharf into a state of permanent repair.
Wharfs in tidal waters, St. John river and tributaries, $3,000.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. gentleman give the details?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That sum will be applied to pay our share of the work constructed by the provincial government. Whether it is good policy or not, I am not prepared to say.


George William Fowler: It is a most excellent policy. Has the hon. gentleman the details?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have made it a rule not to pay for any work the plans for which are not submitted to me first. I must first see the provincial government plans.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the minister if there is any appropriation for a wharf at Gondola Point, in King's, N.B. ? This is a very necessary work, and I understand, an appropriation has been made by the local government, and I would like to know whether the minister has had any communication from the government of New Brunswick on the subject.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not on the list, but the vote is a lump sum to cover all amounts for the year.
St. John Harbour-Groynes at base of Fort Duflerin, $1,000.


Samuel Hughes: One of the oldest, if mot the oldest, portions of Canada, the site of the old Huguenot French landing, is at the north of the River St. John, and is in a dilapidated condition. Inasmuch as it concerns the race to which the hon. gentle-

man belongs and the early history of the country, I would suggest that the government should expropriate that fort and preserve it as a public work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The idea might be taken up, and I am thankful to the hon. gentleman for having suggested it. There is no question of race in the matter, but one of history.


Mr. WILMOT.: Is there an appropriation for removing the sand bars at the entrance of St. John harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a very large question. I am asking this year money from parliament to build a suction dredge that will be ready for the opening of next season. With that dredge I expect to improve the port of St. John without an expenditure of too much money. It may be found necessary this year to do some work, but the larger work will have to wait until next year. I think we might go through the Quebec list, there is nothing in it of a controversial character.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. minister give us any idea what proportion of these works in Quebec are new, and how many are already in existence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is very little new. I do not think there are ten new works in this list for Quebec. Wherever desired, I will state as we go through them, whether they are new or old.


William Humphrey Bennett: The expenditure on these wharfs in Quebec can hardly be for the benefit of fishermen.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as Gaspe, Bonaventure and Rimouski are concerned, they are largely for the benefit of fishermen. Besides, there are others than fishermen who need accommodation.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are they for steamboat owners who wish to have docks to call at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not steamboat owners. Very few steamers call at these places. There is a large trade carried on by small schooners in the Lower St. Lawrence.
Harbours and Rivers-Quebec-Hull-Landing pier (revote), $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is Hull landing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Just here on the Ottawa river.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are there many fishermen there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, but there is a fine population.


William Humphrey Bennett: Throw it away.
lie aux G'rues, North Shore-Construction of wharf and purchase of land (revote), $7,500.


Samuel Hughes: 


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Why does the government place the wharf on the north side of that island ? The boats do not stop there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the village is there.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who goes there with the boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A great many people. These people have no other means of communication. They are isolated. The least we can do for them is to build them a wharf.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I never knew a steamboat to go there. The island is very small, and the boats that go from Quebec to the Saguenay river never stop there. The only navigation they have there is with little yawls and a few sail-boats.


David Henderson: Are there many people on the island ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Very few.


William Humphrey Bennett: You might as well have some money spent there while it is going.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work has been asked for for a long time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I feel as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) did when speaking of the province of Nova Scotia. We are building an immense number of wharfs all over the country, and I have no hesitation in saying, without picking out any particular place, that some of these wharfs are not as necessary as the hon. minister would lead us to believe. They will cost an immense sum of money, in the end, for we shall have to provide for their maintenance. But there is one thing in Quebec in which all are interested to a far greater extent than in these wharfs-the improvement of the St. Lawrence. I have no hesitation in saying that the province as a whole would benefit more by the expenditure of this quarter of a million dollars in lighting and improving the signal service from below Quebec up to Montreal, and in deepening the channel and providing proper terminal facilities at Montreal. I know that the hon. Minister of Public Works takes a great interest in the improvement of the St. Lawrence route. I can only attribute this very large expenditure on wharfs to the solicitation of members from these localities. But I have no doubt whatever that the province of Quebec would derive more money and more advantage if this money were devoted to the improvement of the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) must not lose sight of the fact that in this long list there are very few new works. Nearly all these works were built ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. My hon. friend will permit me to

differ with him. I hold that these works are useful. It is true that I take a deep interest in the improvement of the St. Lawrence, but take the population of Gaspe, Bonaventure, and the shores of the St. Lawrence. These people have to sell their products, to Montreal, Three Rivers and elsewhere. And how can they sell their products if there are no wharfs ? These wharfs are not only useful, but necessary, most of them.
Harbour of Three Rivers-Additional deep water wharfs, $25,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I think the whole work will cost about between $75,000 and $100,000. This is one of the harbours that are developing very rapidly. My hon. friend knows that there are large industries being located on the St. Maurice, at Shawinigan and Grand Mere. This work is under contract. I may say that the harbour commissioners have carried out so far all the work at their own expense, but they cannot do it any more.
Levis-Graving Dock-Travelling crane, &c.,


William Humphrey Bennett: Are any of these docks or wharfs being purchased from private parties ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not one of them.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is reserved for Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ontario is a progressive province.


William Humphrey Bennett: And it has a progressive lot of speculators.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by a travelling crane ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for working on the dock.
Lake Temiscaming-Dredging, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a large amount of dredging to be done in the small rivers, and in the lake itself, and also at the mouth of the river. There are several wharfs built long ago, and in order to have access to them we have to do some dredging.
Murray Bay-Extension of wharf, $8,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the wharf at Murray Bay belong to the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it was built by us.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is any use made of that dock by a line of steamboats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, Murray Bay has become quite a town, it is a summer resort.


William Humphrey Bennett: What were the receipts last year from that government dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, collects dues at these wharfs.


William Humphrey Bennett: I desire to call attention to a formidable list that appears on P-183 of the Auditor General's Report. There is a list of government docks from which not a cent of revenue is derived, and I find among them Murray Bay. No revenue came to the Crown during the fiscal year 18991900 from Murray Bay, among a long list of others. It may be all very well for hon. gentlemen to go through the province and other parts of the Dominion, and from time to time announce that these millions are voted away without discussion. From this side of the House there can only come what has come to-night, an inquiry for explanation from the minister as to the expenditure, and a chorus of the hon. gentleman's friends ' Carried.' But, that will' not go with the public, and hon. gentlemen will find that throughout the province of Ontario, as they found in the riding of North Bruce a little while ago, when expenditures of millions are going on in this way, the public will ask for a little more than the shout 1 Carried.' The minister stated that there was a revenue from that dock, whereas the returns show that there is no revenue.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not under my department.


William Humphrey Bennett: It may be a little consolation to the hon. gentlemen who are shouting ' Carried ' to an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to know that the government is spending all this vast sum of money on docks that do not return a cent of revenue.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On nearly all these wharfs dues are collected by the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; I know that as a fact.


Samuel Hughes: I would ask the minister if there is anything in the estimates for any public work on the Island of Anticosti ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. We have no public works there except the telegraph system for the use of the trade.


George William Fowler: Do I understand the minister to say that the Island of Anticosti does not belong to us?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It belongs to us as part of our national domain.


George William Fowler: As much as New Brunswick belongs to us ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend buys a house, does the house belong to him or does it belong to this

country ? What I meant to say was that we had no possible interest to build wharfs there.
Some resolutions reported.


DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 154) to remove doubts concerning the continuance in office of judges of Dominion and provincial courts upon the demise of the Crown (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), read the first and the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to confer on the commissioner of patents certain powers for the relief of Eudora Sfbbald.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjumed at 1.10 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 21, 1901.