GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I promised the House the other day that I would state to-day the remaining programme for the session. I expected at that time that we should have an opportunity for conference on Saturday evening, when I should be able to arrange with my colleagues as to the programme. But the House was in the humour to work on Saturday evening, so there was not the opportunity for that conference. I will make a statement on the subject this afternoon.



COST OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I desire to submit certain information respecting the Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific Railways.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton).: As this information is in response to no motion made in the House, I would suggest to the Minister of Railways and Canals, that he might move for leave to lay it on the table so that it can be formally before us and be made part of the records of this House.


George Perry Graham: I move for leave accordingly, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: May I ask if there is any probability of our getting a later report of the commission. The minister has laid on the table the printed report of the commission which covers down to March 31, 1907. It seems to me the commission has not harmed itself by over-exertion in getting out its reports, considering that it is one year and several months behind time. Cannot it make up by getting out last year's report before par-383
liament rises ? Is it nearly ready now, or wholly ready ?


George Perry Graham: I have not heard anything about the report being made. Of course, conditions this year are peculiar. The House is in session away beyond the ordinary time of closing, and the report we were supposed to discuss this session is the one already before the House. I am trying to get information down to date as nearly as possible. I have not heard as to the position in relation to the report, but I will make inquiries.


Robert Laird Borden: When the report does come down, it might be so framed as to give a good deal more information than does the report which has been laid on the table. There is a remarkable lack of information on many points in the commission's report; and I should think the leisure at their command would enable them to make a report much more satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What, if any, steps have been taken to have an investigation into an audit of the account involved in the estates and trusts that came into the hands of F. T. Congdon, as public administrator in the Yukon?
2.	Will the government lay on the table of the House a list of these estates and trusts with the disposition made of the same?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The matter of the audit of the account involved in the settlement of estates and trusts by the Public Administrator is one which under the law comes within the jurisdiction of the Yukon Territorial Court. There is no information here as to any steps having been taken by the commissioner to have such an audit made.
2.	Yes. To the courts of the Yukon territory, where they are of record, will furnish them.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CLASSIFICATION, DISTRICTS ' B ' AND ' F/


Mr. LENNOX asked :: Referring to letters of October 7, 1907, and April 28, 1908, from Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to Mr. Lumsden, chief engineer of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, in the latter of which Mr. Woods says:
' Dear Sir,-This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 24, in regard to classifications given on districts " B " and " F," wherein you say you could confer with me, either in Ottawa or Montreal, so as to arrange dates for arbitrating the points in dispute and for the appointment of a third arbitrator, &c.
' In reply thereto, will say that the action you propose cannot be taken until after you have complied with my request of October 7, which, as you will recall, has been several times repeated, that you and I personally make an inspection of those portions of the work on districts " B " and " F " where it is claimed improper classifiation has been made.
' Kindly let me know when it will be convenient for you to make this inspection, and I will place myself at your disposal/
Have Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Woods personally inspected the portions of the railway referred to since April 28 last? If so, when and with what result? If not, why not?
Mr. LENNOX asked
1.	Have the matters and questions respecting alleged over-classification on portions of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway complained of in a letter of October 7, 1907, and subsequent letters, from Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to Mr. H. D. Lumsden, chief engineer of the eastern division, been referred to arbitration under the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 4 of the agreement, a copy of which forms the schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act If so, who are the three arbitrators?
2.	When and how was the third arbitrator chosen or appointed?
3.	When did the arbitrators enter upon their duties, and what progress have they made?
4.	Where are the proceedings being carried on?


George Perry Graham: The answer will cover both these questions : Mr. Lumsden, chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission and Mr. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have made an Inspection of disputed cuttings in district ' F,' and are now engaged in inspecting similar disputed classification in district * B,' as provided by paragraph 7 of the agreement, being the schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act. Their inspection not being yet completed they have made no report and matters have not yet reached the stage Mr. OLIVER.
where the appointment of a third arbitrator is necessary.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-TIES.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	Have new orders been issued respecting the delivery of ties upon the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	What time limit has been set for delivery of ties fox this year?
3.	Has any change been made in inspection making two classes of ties as to quality?
4.	What prices are being paid for the several classes of ties?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	The time named in specification for delivery of ties was June 30, 1908, and notice was issued on June 16, 1908, that hemlock ties would not be accepted after that date.
2.	The time limit set for the delivery of ties this year is June 30, 1908, as per classification.
3.	No.
4.	Prices paid for ties for the government railways are as follows :	30 cents
each for hemlock, 36 cents each for cedar, Princess pine, tamarack and juniper. The railway also paid 30 cents each for hardwood ties in Cape Breton and 30 cents each for some white pine and black spruce ties in the northern part of New Brunswick.



CANADIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to continue for a further period the granting of aid towards the maintenance of an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press, and that for such purpose it is expedient to provide for the payment of a sum not exceeding $9,000 for the period from July 1, 1908, to March 31, 1909, both days inclusive; for the payment of a sum not exceeding $12,000 for the fiscal year terminating March 31, 1910; and for the payment of a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars for the period from April 1, 1910, to June 30, 1910, both days inclusive.
He said : His Excellency the Governor General, having been acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hou.  G. P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the authority of the Governor in Council, construct a branch line railway from Harmony, on the Souris branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway, to Elmira, in Kings county.
He said :	His Excellency the Governor
General having been appraised of the subject matter of this resolution gives his assent thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: While perhaps I may be out of order, the House will allow me, pending the completion of the Georgian bay canal report, now to report a complete detailed estimate of the cost of the proposed undertaking, accompanied by the plans illustrative of the project in its main features, prepared by Mr. A. St. Laurent, who has had direction of the survey ; also of certain additional plans of the proposed work.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 120) to authorize the issue of government annuities for old age.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions to insert the following as new section 6, and to renumber the later sections accordingly:
6. Any such person who has moneys sufficient for the purpose deposited in any post office savings hank, may, upon making demand in such form as is prescribed in that behalf by the Postmaster General, authorize the Postmaster General to transfer to the minister any sum which such person may desire to apply to the purchase of an annuity under this Act'.
2. Any society or association of persons, being a body corporate for fraternal, benevolent, religious or other lawful purposes, may contract with His Majesty, on behalf of such of its members as are domiciled in Canada, for the sale to such members of annuities, otherwise purchaseable by them as individuals under this Act; and any sums of money necessary to the carrying out of the aforesaid object may be paid by such society or association direct to the minister, or may be deposited in any post office savings bank, to be transferred by the Postmaster General to the minister.
2. Employers of labour may, pursuant to agreement entered into with their employees in that behalf, such agreement to be of a form approved by the minister, contract with His Majesty for the sale to such of their said employees as are domiciled in Canada, of annuities otherwise purchasable by such employees as individuals under this Act; and 383J
any sum of money necessary to the carrying out of the aforesaid object, whether such sums be derived from the wages of the employees solely, or partly from the wages of the employees and partly from contributions of the employers or from contributions of the employers solely, may be paid by such employers direct to the minister, or may be deposited in any post office savings bank to be transferred by the Postmaster General to the minister: provided that any sums so paid shall in any event be held for the exclusive account of the persons in whose names they were deposited, respectively.
I may say in explanation, that the object of this amendment is, first, to make it possible for depositors in the post office savings bank to transfer their accounts, or any amount of their accounts, to the minister for the purchase of annuities. The second provision is to make a provision whereby friendly and fraternal associations and religious organizations may make arrangements for the purchase of annuities for the benefit of any of their members. The third provision is to make it possible for employers of labour and their employees to enter into a contract for the purchase of annuities for the employees, such annuities of course to be taken out in favour of the working men themselves. I think the House will agree, when we get into committee, to the insertion of these provisions in the Act, which I think will be of great benefit to the classes of people mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill considered in committee and reported with amendment.
Mr. FIELDING.: The law clerk may be relied upon to make the necessary changes in the renumbering of the sections. I move that the Bill be now read a third time.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would ask whether the provision allowing fraternal societies to take advantage of the Bill, means incorporated or unincorporated bodies. There are certain societies under letters patent of corporation. and others are not. Would it apply equally to both?


William Stevens Fielding: The section says ' any society or association of persons being a body corporate.' They require to be incorporated bodies.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the third reading of Bill (No. 191) respecting the payment of bounties on lead contained in lead-carrying ores mined in Canada.
George Eulas Foster: Before the Bill is read the third time I desire to make a short statement. When the Bill was in committee I asked the minister for certain information.

What I wanted to get' at was briefly this : A large sum of money has been paid out in the shape of bounties for the production of lead, almost entirely in the province of British Columbia pursuant to a policy adopted some years ago and still adhered to. I wanted to get the amount of lead production by the several producers in British Columbia for each year during which the bounty has been effective and also the amount of lead on which they have been paid the bounty, and the amount of the bounty paid to each of these producers each year. The information which has been brought down does not give the amount of lead produced by these producers each year, it simply gives the amount upon which they were paid bounty, but of course the House sees in a moment that this is very different from the amount they produced. My object in asking for the amount paid each year by each of these producers was that we might see whether the policy had had the effect of stimulating the industry, whether it had grown under the application of the bounty. Inasmuch as these figures are not given, the lesson cannot be deduced. All that the House knows is simply that these producers in British Columbia, and to a small extent in Ontario, were paid so much each year but as there were years during which they were paid no bounty and may have been parts of each year for several years in which they were paid no bounty, the information as I said is not given which would enable us to make any inference as to the effect on the production of ore of the payment of the bounty.
I should have thought that the government when they started on a policy of stimulating the production of lead in British Columbia would have been anxious to have had all the elements of information necessary to prove to them whether their policy had resulted in doing what it was aimed to do and had really helped the industry to a further development. I would suggest to the minister now that from this time on he should require from every lead producer in British Columbia a return as to the total amount of lead produced by him during each year. Then at the end of the period which is set by this Act we may have the elements which are lacking now.
However, we glean something from the statement which has been brought down. We find that there were 147 producers who received a greater or less payment. But 112 of these received a very small amount indeed, an amount so small that one can scarcely believe that it had any effect whatever in helping the industry. When you also take into account that these payments, small as they were were in a great majority of cases for only one year and commonly the first year, 1903-4, it will be seen still more plainly how slight an effect the bounty must have had with reference to Mr. FOSTER.
production so far as these producers were concerned. For instance the Sandon Sovereign was paid a bounty in the whole five years of only $260.57 and that entirely in the first year, 1903-4. The * Province ' received only $539 during those five years and that also in the first year. The Echo received only $129 ; the Netty L. $391 ; the Florida $137; the Mohican $36.70 ; the Gold Bug $1.71 ; the Horseshoe $34.44 ; the Bosun $528.66. All of these received this wlroie payment in the first year 1903-4 and received nothing thereafter, indicating I should think, inasmuch as other producers are paid bounty during the other- years, that these had ceased producing after the year 1903-4. Then we have the Wilcox which received about $500 in the five years, the first year receiving $584, the second year $19.88 and none thereafter, indicating that it had ceased producing after 1904-5. The Bonnie Bell received $27.38 in 1904-5, and none in any other year. The Bounty received $5.46 in 1904-5 and none in any other year ; the Baltimore received $22 in all during the two years 1904-5, 1905-6 ; the Helen received only $45 in all; the Evening Star received only $21.74 in all ; the California received $367.41 ; the Rambler received $11.82; the Revenue received $37.06 ; the Highlander $93.62 ; the Montezuma $84.14 ; the Queen $22.48; the E. P. U. $72.58 ; the Arlington $163.27 ; the British Columbia and Tilbury $50.30 ; the Ivrao $348.69, and that in one single year ; the Neepawa received very small amounts, about $100 in all ; the Pontiac received about $180 in all ; the No. 1 Mine received $29 in all ; the Daniel received $28.82 in all ; the Silver Bell received $39.88 in all ; the Wonderful Group received $86 and $79 in two different years and none thereafter ; the Blue Bell received $95.52, all in 1905-6 ; the Coronado received $14.36 ; the I. X. E. received about $78 ; the Delphine received about $350; the. Noble Five received $6.93 In five years ; the Lorna Doon received about $200 in the five years ; the Whitewater Deep received $95.44 in the first year and none thereafter, until in the last year it received $1,022.54 ; the Waverley received $11.74 in all; the Eva, $7.96; the Elkhorn No. 2, $26.84 and so on with a large number of others, making in all a total of 112 of these producers which received these very small amounts, and commonly in the first and second years that the bounty was in effect.	.
Then we come to twenty-nine producers which received sums of money for bounty irregularly through the different years to a larger amount, producing 100,000 pounds and upwards of ore. Then we come to the six large producers, the Highland Kootenay which produced in the first year 4,941,075 pounds and received a subsidy or bounty of $37,058.05 and in the second year produced 720,561 pounds, receiving a bounty of $5,-

404.21 and thereafter in 1905-6,1906-7 and 1907-8 seems to have produced nothing, at least nothing is down here in these years whilst other mines producing have received bounties.
Then there is the Ivanhoe and Elgin which produced 1,240,834 pounds in 1903-4, and received $9,306.23 bounty ; 1,081,677 pounds in 1904-5 and received $7,630.01 in bounty, but thereafter seems to have produced nothing for bounty purposes, and by inference not to have produced, as other mines in the succeeding three years received bounties on ore produced.
' The North (Star produced 2,349,647 pounds in 1903-4, and received a bounty of $17,622.35 ; 2,394,432 pounds in 1904-5 and received a bounty of $17,363.21. The production then went down to 471,691 pounds in 1905 with a bounty of $368.36, none in 1906-7 and 523,102 pounds in 1907-8 on which a bounty of $1,927.29 was received.
The Payne produced in 1903-4 1,430,819 pounds on which it received a bounty of $10,731.14 ; in 1904-5 764,448 pounds, on which $5,559.52 bounty was received ; in
1905-	6 176,472 pounds on which a bounty of $G34.G6 was received, thereafter showing no return for bounties.
Another large producer was the Slocan Star which produced in 1903-4 1,407,269 pounds, receiving n bounty of $10,629.52 ; in 1904-5 1,722,581 pounds, receiving a bounty of $12,352.29 ; in 1905-6 553,825 pounds, receiving a bounty of $2,399.63 ; in
1906-	7 no production and no bounty and in
1907-	8 73,546 pounds on which a bounty of $59.40 was received.
The last and greatest producer was the St. Eugene which produced in 1903-4 3,429,608 pounds, on which it received a bounty of $25,722.06 ; in 1904-5 16,449,431 on which it received a bounty of $117,039.70; in 1905-6 16,038,487 pounds on which it received a bounty of $48,450.37; in 1906-7 there was no production for bounty, and in 1907-8 8,927,864, on which a bounty of $29,425.41 was received. The St. Eugene exported in 1903-4 2,267,614 pounds of lead on which it received a bounty of $11,328.07 ; in 1904-5 it exported 21,972,998 pounds of lead on which it received a bounty of $96,800.59. There have been no exports of lead from that mine since on which bounty was paid. That lead seems to have gone from the mine at first hand instead of going to the smelters. What method the government had of testing that I do not know.
Therefore it will be seen as a short resume of the information we have in this return, that it is altogether Illusory to say that 147 producers were in the field during that time and benefited by the bounty, illusory I mean as far as showing any permanent or general results of the bounty. Twenty-nine mines did fairly well being small producers, but, according to the figures here, showing no distinct increase in production whilst six of the largest producers and notably amongst them the St. Eugene, appear to have absorbed nearly all of the bounty and to have produced, of course, nearly all of the lead. It is unfortunate that we have not had before us the actual production of these different producers for each year because there is a flaw in the argument and in the contention since that information is not given. However it does not seem to me that the peddling out of little sums from $6 to $500 for a period of five years to small producers does very much towards developing the lead industry or goes very far towards proving that this policy has been or is to-day advantageous. It would seem that such little dribbling payments have only the effect of taking the money out of the treasury but very little effect indeed in stimulating a great industry.
As to the imports and exports, I nna that in 1904 there were imported into this country 9,512,400 pounds of lead, pig, scrap and block, of a value of $122,790, against 'a production of lead in that year of 26,'748,000 pounds. In that year there was [DOT]exported of lead, pig, scrap and block, [DOT]42,410 pounds according to these figures, at [DOT]a value of $997. If that be correct, it [DOT]would seem that our production was 'twenty-seven million pounds, that our imports were nine and- a half million pounds, and that the total exports were only 42,000 pounds. I have not here the information [DOT]which I asked for of the importation of [DOT]products of lead. In 1905 the imports of lead were 5,691,000 pounds, valued at $133,-[DOT]340; the exports were 1,090,462 pounds, [DOT]valued at $28,523 ; whilst the production [DOT]of lead was 56,489,523 pounds, valued at $331,274. In 1906 the total imports were 8 272,900 pounds, valued at $271,105 ; the [DOT]exports were 3,477,898 pounds, valued at $118,972 ; and the total production of mad [DOT]upon which bounty was paid was 28,708,-[DOT]428 pounds, valued at $90,196. In 1907, in [DOT]the nine months, the imports were 8,404,600 [DOT]pounds, valued at $293,453; the exports Were 153,580 pounds, valued at $5,886 ; whilst the total production upon which bounty was paid was 21,479 pounds. In 1908 the quantity imported was 6,400,700 pounds, valued at $284,642, and the amount exported was 9,089,752 pounds, valued at $362,428. These figures are very unsatisfactory. because, in the first place, they give the amount of lead only, not the ore, upon which the bounty was paid. They do not give the total production of lead, whilst in the imports and the exports we have the amount of lead in pig, scrap and block. I thought it was well to put these [DOT]figures where they would become ready for reference, in ' Hansard,' and to call the attention of the Finance Minister to the gap in the information, which I think he will admit the desirability of having filled during

the succeeding years, so that we may have the statistics of the whole production as well as those of that part of the production which applied for bounty and on which the bounty was paid. After reading these 'figures, I desire to emphasize the opinion which I expressed before, that the proper way to develop lead production in this 'country is to develop the lead industry ; and I do not think that can be developed unless we give it an adequate and thorough protection, as we have tried to do in the case of the iron of the country ; and that can be done, I think, only by the imposition of a proper and adequate customs duty on the products of lead. Then an impetus will be given which will be longer than simply for the year in which the bounty is given. It will secure a market for the lead producers of the country -and in a permanent and, therefore, satisfactory form. The minister has come to the rescue of this industry, because he believes that it is proper to do so-that the industry requires it. The woollen industry has been before the Finance Minister, and is to-day 'before the Finance Minister, practically a ruined industry in this country-certainly an industry which will be ruined if some adequate help is not given to it. But neither the Finance Minister nor the government has raised a finger to enable the woollen industry to resuscitate itself and bring itself back to its former position of larger development-an industry which is of vital importance to this country, and in which, not only the manufacturers but the consumers, including the farmers, are interested.


Mr. GALLIHBR.: Mr. Speaker, the hon member for North Toronto lias just said that the figures of the amount of lead produced in each of the years in which bounty has been paid have not been given. If my recollection serves me rightly, I quoted those figures in discussing this question iu committee, and I think they are in ' Hansard,' starting with a production of some 6,000 tons in 1903 and increasing to 261)00 or 27,000 tons in 1905, 1906 and leK) <.


George Eulas Foster: That was the number of tons in gross-not from each producer.


Mr. GAL LI  HER@: Of course, I have not the number of tons produced by each producer. Considerable stress has been laid by the hon. gentleman on the fact that some of these 147 producing mines spoken of have drawn very little bounty. That is quite true and to a person unacquainted with the vagaries, if I may say so, of mining, it would appear that the hon. gentleman might very well make the remark he did. I am not an expert in mining, but from some years residence in the mining country, I have acquired some knowledge of the nature of mining there; and so far as my knowledge Mr. FOSTER.
extends, many of these properties which have received small sums of money were mere prospects. A prospect, as we all know, is an undeveloped mine-a mine that has not yet been proved; and a number of these, after ia certain amount of work, proved not to contain mineral in sufficient value to warrant the owners in working them and were consequently dropped. I have no doubt that among these 147 mines some were of that nature. If we had 147 producing mines of the calibre of the Slocan, Star or the St. Eugene or the Highland, our little $o00,000 a year would not last very long. Everything that tends to bring about better knowledge of the existing conditions of properties taken up as mining properties, helps to develop that particular mining industry. When 1 prove beyond question that it is useless to go on spending money on what we term a prospect, we cast that to one side and no longer depend on it. As regards the mines which are large producers, such as some of the older ones mentioned by my hon. friend, they maintain a considerable community of people. Take one instance which my hon. friend has given, the Blue Bell mine. That is a very old mine, it was worked a number of years, and a smelter was built in connection with it at Pilot bay. But for many years it was not worked at all, one reason being that there was a great deal of zinc in its contents. That Blue Bell mine has only drawn $95 bounty in the five years, but let me point out that since this bounty was brought into force and since we have had the assurance that it will be continued, something like a quarter of a million dollars has been expended by the company in the erection of reduction works and machinery for development. Although the mine has only received a very small grant because it was not producing, the fact that the owners knew they could depend on the bounty when they did produce was sufficient to induce them to spend a quarter of a million dollars in developing it. I did not wish to go into this matter at any length further than to point out that while probably a comparatively small number of mines, when we take them all into consideration, are shown as having received bounties to any considerable extent, yet the industry itself, and the people who are operating it, the boards of trade throughout the country and the community in general, are unanimous in the belief that the bounty has been a great advantage to that industry and that its continuance will prove further advantage to the development of lead mining in British Columbia.
Bill read the third time and passed.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY HOTEL SITE, OTTAWA..

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to authorize the sale to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada of a por-

tion of Major's Hill Park in the city of Ottawa as a hotel site-Mr. Pugsley-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Pugsley: It was understood that when the Bill came up for consideration in committee, I would produce the plans of the proposed hotel, and I now lay them on the table. The Bill ratifies the order in council which was passed containing the agreement between the government and the company. It provides also that the price of the land, which is $100,000, shall be paid over by the government to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, to be expended upon improvements under the direction of the Governor in Council. Before the Bill passes, I beg to propose the following amendment:
That the following section be added: Provided, however, that if the Grand Trunk Railway Company so requests, the conveyance of the said land may be made to the Ottawa Terminals Railway Company.
The Grand Trunk Railway proposes to place the property, consisting of railway station and hotel, in the name of a subordinate company, which was incorporated by Act of this House for the purpose of holding these properties. The matter was fully discussed on the first reading, and I do not know that I need explain the plans further than to say it is intended to erect a six story building.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total height?


William Pugsley: Apart from the towers, the height Will be about 100 feet. There are to be five floors above ground, in addition to the attic floor, and also a basement and sub-basement.


George Eulas Foster: What are the dimensions?


William Pugsley: I presume it is pretty nearly the size of the lot of land that has been'arranged for. The land extends 285 feet on the canal basin and 135 feet on Rideau street. The basement plan which is here shows the shape of the building. Extending from the side of the canal, at the rear, the land is 66 feet in width. Then it extends parallel to the canal basin 205 feet 3 inches, and then running parallel to Rideau street 86 feet 6 inches. My information is that there is to be a subway running from the station into the basement of the hotel, and of course, elevators to the higher floors.


George Eulas Foster: And an entrance to the hotel from Rideau street on the ground floor?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is that entrance on their own ground?


William Pugsley: Yes. There is also an entrance on the side facing the canal basin.
On the side facing Mackenzie avenue, there is a terrace and entrance direct from the terrace.


Mr. HAGGART.: There is no entrance on the side next Mackenzie avenue?


William Pugsley: No entrance from the avenue itself.


Haughton Lennox: Is there no entrance from the park to the hotel?


William Pugsley: This being a public park,
I presume there will be an opportunity for guests of the hotel to reach the park and for the people from the park to enter the hotel.


Mr. BENNETT.: That is only a question of not having a fence.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Can the minister tell us the total amount the Grand Trunk will spend upon the hotel?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell, except from statements I have seen in the newspapers. I have seen, as, no doubt, members generally have seen, that lengthy negotiations have been going on between the City Council of Ottawa and the Grand Trunk Railway Company over the plans of the hotel and station. Plans have been approved by the City Council, and a few days ago I was informed by his worship the mayor that an agreement had been entered into in accordance with the resolutions of the city council. I have seen it stated that the hotel is to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the government no definite knowledge before entering into this arrangement with the Grand Trunk ?


William Pugsley: This Bill ratifies the order in council, and the plans and specifications are to be approved by the Governor in Council. So that, passing this Bill will not conclude the matter, but the plans will then come formally before the government for approval.


Haughton Lennox: What clause of the order in council is that?


William Pugsley: On page 2 of the order in council, the hon. gentleman will find this-.
The minister also recommends one condition of the grant to the railway, that the hotel shall be constructed within two years from the date of said grant, such construction to be in accordance with plans approved by the government of Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is not a minimum expenditure guaranteed?
' Mr. PUGSLEY. I am not aware as to that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, so long as it suits the city and the government the contract

will go, even though the cost is only $100,-
000.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may rely upon it that the government will not approve these plans unless they provide for a first-class hotel.


William Humphrey Bennett: At what expenditure?


William Pugsley: The plans show a splendid structure, one which will be an ornament and a credit to the city.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister any knowledge of what the government intend to exact from the Grand Trunk in the wav of an expenditure on this hotel?


William Pugsley: I cannot say further tnan this: I believe that the plans which have been approved by the city will also be approved by the Governor in Council although I am not able to speak definitely on that point. If, on examination,. it was thought by the government that there were any changes necessary, those changes would be insisted upon. But I have looked the plans over, and, speaking only for myself I believe that if these plans are carried out the hotel as I have said will be such as will be a credit and an ornament to the city.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the government guarantee to carry out the plans?


William Pugsley: These are the plans.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They guarantee to carry them out?


William Pugsley: Of course. That is the agreement with the city; and, when it comes to council, we would make that a stipulation-that the building should be in accordance with these plans.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And that will necessitate the expenditure of a million and a half?


William Pugsley: That is what I have understood.


George Eulas Foster: Before the Bill is passed, does not the minister think that he ought to tell the committee what is the view of the government as to the expenditure that will be necessary? Surely he does not think that he will get his Bill through unless he pledges the government in some way to a minimum expenditure, that it should not be below a minimum expenditure. As it is, the minister has nothing but hearsay, what he saw in the newspapers, and what he believes will be the case. But his order in council gives absolute power to the government to say whether it shall be a hundred thousand building or a million building. We must have some statement of the policy of the government with reference to it.


William Pugsley: I think it would be extremely foolish on our part to insist that Mr BENNETT.
there shall be an expenditure of a million and a half, or a million, or four hundred thousand. If we get a building of this design, upon these plans which have been approved by the city council of Ottawa, which has devoted a great deal of consideration to the subject, would it not toe an absurd thing for us to say to them: Although the building is erected upon these designs, although these plans are fully carried out, yet unless it actually costs $1,500,000 the grant shall lapse. What we will stipulate is that the Grand Trunk Railway shall erect a building according to these plans and according to the specifications, and as at present advised, I would assume tliat the government is likely to approve of the plans and specifications which have been agreed upon by the city. My information is that this building will cost in the vicinity of $1,500,000. If any member of the committee will look at these plans he will see that they provide for a very expensive and a very handsome building, which will give a large hotel accommodation. That being so, it seems to me it would be absurd for us to put in a provision that the building must cost exactly a certain sum of money, and that if it costs one dollar less, or $5,000 less, the grant shall become void. It is our duty to stipulate for a handsome building, for a first-class hotel which will give first-class accommodation to the travelling public and will be an ornament to Canada and to the capital. When they do that, I think we will have done our full duty.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might have a first-class hotel and built in first-class style that might cost $250,000 or $150,000.


William Pugsley: My information is that a building erected according to these plans will cost in the vicinity of $1,500,000. We must remember that two parties have to be consulted in regard to this matter. There is the city of Ottawa, which is vitally interested in this matter, because it has been making certain arrangements with the company I believe with regard to taxation, and after very lengthy deliberations and submission of plans from time to time, the present plans have been agreed upon as those which the city are satisfied will give a first-class hotel. Unless there is some very good reason, I assume that the government would not insist upon departing from those plans.


Haughton Lennox: The minister is not meeting the point raised as regards the amount to be expended. It is customary in transactions of this kind to have a stated amount of expenditure. When the minister says that if a dollar less is expended we would be disposed to claim the forfeiture of the right granted to the company, that is not meeting the point at all. The company represent that they are going to put up a

building costing a certain amount, say a million and a half. What the government should insist upon is that the company shall substantially expend that amount; therefore, there should be a limit below which they shall not fall, say a million, or a million and a quarter, but at all events, the government should insist that substantially they shall fulfil the representations they make. When the minister talks about a difference of a dollar, or two dollars, or five dollars, or a thousand dollars, that does not meet the point at all. I would expect that before the government passed an order in council they would ascertain from the company exactly what the company proposes to do. They should say :	We want
to know something of the character of the building you are going to put up.


William Pugsley: And nothing can show more clearly than the plans which are submitted.


Haughton Lennox: We want to know something about the cost of the building. What the minister has done is this :	He has
passed this order in council without knowing anything at all, without having the first tittle of information as regards the cost. He lets these negotiations all go on with the city ; he says the city is vitally interested, but it is not nearly so much interested as the people of Canada, as we who represent the people of Canada. I can think of no greater outrage perpetrated upon a people than this very transaction- going right into the centre of the property of the people, the beauty spot of the city of Ottawa, the place of which we are so proud, Major's Hill park, to plant in the centre of that park a commercial edifice, a money-making institution-that is surely an absolute outrage upon the rights of the people. Therefore, the least we should insist upon-because the government seem to be determined to carry the thing through -is that they should proceed upon some business basis. Now, I asked the minister if there were outlets from this hotel direct to the park. The minister does not know. So little attention has been paid to this matter, so little interest has the minister taken in the preservation of the public rights, that he does not know to-day whether there are one or a dozen outlets from that hotel to the public park. He does not know whether that is to be the backyard of a hotel where baby carriages shall be trundled at will


William Pugsley: They do not trundle baby carriages in backyards, usually.


Haughton Lennox: It will virtually become the backyard, because it is at the back of the hotel. My hon. friend may know a good deal more about baby carriages than I do, but what I say will prove substantially to be the case, that this will be the sporting ground for that hotel, and that the hotel might just as well own the whole park. That is the position of the ease, and for a paltry $100,000 we are invading this park belonging to the people. There could be no greater outrage perpetrated upon the people of Canada-unless it were the erection of the Boss rifle factory upon the Plains of Abraham at Quebec, and I doubt even whether that is a greater outrage. Now, I want to ask the minister a few questions. We are devoting this $100,000 to this Improvement Commission in Ottawa. I understand from looking at the statute that ordinarily it would go to consolidated fund. Why is it that the minister proposes to give this over to the Ottawa Improvement Commission?


William Pugsley: I can very well understand the reasons which influenced the government at the time. These negotiations were entered upon before I became minister, and therefore I am not able to give in detail the actual reasons which influenced the government. But I would assume that these are the reasons, and I have understood that the reasons which I am about to give are those which did influence the government. Hon. gentlemen are aware that Major's Hill Park is a large park, it extends down to Nepean Point. There is a considerable part of that which is unimproved. The situation is very beautiful and with the expenditure of a reasonable amount of money it could be made an ideal park. The building of a first-class hotel there, magnificent in proportion and beautiful in design, if the improvements are continued to Nepean Point, so far from being any detriment will be a distinct improvement to the city. 1 assume it is intended, and this has been my information, that either the whole or a large part of this money shall be expended by the Ottawa Improvement Commission in the beautifying and improving of the remainder of Major's Hill Park right down to Nepean Point.


George Eulas Foster: Where do you find that authorization?
(Mr. PUGSLEY. It is authorized by the order in council.


Mr.   POSTER@: I do not think so.


William Pugsley: It does not say so in express words, but it says the money shall be paid to the Ottawa Improvement Commission to be used by them under the direction of the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: It does not say for what.


William Pugsley: That is true, but that is one reason why the money is to be given to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. The Prime Minister will be able to state

1206S
this more positively than I am. But I think I am safe in saying that it is intended that the Ottawa Improvement Commission shall devote this money to the further improvement of Major's Hill Park right down to Nepean Point. The reason it is given to the Ottawa Improvement Commission is that that commission, composed of pu'blic-spirited citizens of Ottawa, have been devoting a great deal of their time and attention to the beautifying of the city, and this is just the kind of work that ought to be done by the proceeds of this sale. I do not think it would be proper that we should let this money go into the consolidated revenue. As we are selling, for the purposes of this hotel, a portion of a park to which the public have resorted for a great many years, I think it is only right that the money should be used for the purpose of beautifying that park, and I know of nobody under whose direction it can be better expended than the Ottawa Improvement Commission. ,


Haughton Lennox: These are ordnance lands.


Mr. PUGS LEY.: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: We have a statute which provides that ordnance lands shall be divided into two classes and shall be dealt with in a special way. These particular lands would come under class 2 and the statute says that unless they are handed over for provincial purposes these lands shall be sold by auction. I admit it would be practically impossible to sell them by auction because it could never have been sold at all, but I venture to say that if this land had been put up at auction it would have realized a far larger sum than has been obtained for it from the Grand Trunk Railway.
iMr. PUGSLEY. Surely my hon. friend must be mistaken. This land has only a frontage of 135 feet on Rideau street. My hon. friend must know that $100,000 is a good price for that quantity of land, and if it were put up to auction I doubt if it would realize that much.


Haughton Lennox: I fully believe that with the easements and advantages that will be given, it is worth far more money as an hotel site by reason of its unlimited connection with the park.


William Pugsley: It is $800 a foot frontage.


Haughton Lennox: I do not care if it is $800,000, that is not the point I am dealing with. I venture to say that for an hotel site that property is worth five times as much as you are getting for it.


William Pugsley: What do you base that on ?


Haughton Lennox: On the fact that you are not only selling that little natch of land, Mr. PUGSLEY.
but that you are practically giving the company the use of a large park which is the most beautiful in the city of Ottawa. It is idle to talk of $100,000 for so many feet of land under the circumstances. I get angry when I talk about this ; I get so indignant at this proposal that I find it hard to keep my temper. But if we are going to dispose of this property I would point out that there are special provisions which have to be met before we sell ordnance land and not only that but there are special provisions in the statute as to the disposal of the money. The statute now says that moneys arising from the sale of ordnance land shall form part of the consolidated revenue of Canada and a separate account shall be kept thereof.


William Pugsley: That is why the legislation is necessary.


Haughton Lennox: I know that. When the statute says it is to be kept in a separate fund and as a separate account there is good reason why we should preserve that money in a separate account. But the question of what price we get for this land is comparatively trifling as compared with the disastrous scheme of selling the land at all. I presume this means that the conveyance shall be signed concurrently and that the minister will see that is done.


William Pugsley: The plans are to be approved.


Haughton Lennox: I do hope that when this outrage is consumated it shall be nullified as far as possible by making some provision to protect the people's rights in the balance of the park.


William Pugsley: The people's rights can be in no way interfered with.


Haughton Lennox: The people's rights could be interfered with if there is not a fence placed between the hotel property and the park. I have enough experience of this government to believe that there may be easements granted to that company which would be inconsistent with the rights and interests of the public, and I want to warn the minister now that we will expect that the people's rights in that respect shall be safeguarded. The minister does not appear to have gone very deeply into this question, but I would like to know from him what about the rights we have secured as regards exemption from taxation for Major's Hill park and the free supply of water and tilings of that kind. Will the company stand in the same position as the government in that regard ? Will they get free water from the city for that hotel ?


William Pugsley: There is nothing in the agreement which will give any exemption to the Ottawa Terminal Company in respect to the hotel. They will have to pay

the ordinary charges for water and the taxes to the city under an agreement they have made with the city. That is a matter between the company and the city with which the government has nothing to do. We do not profess to give-we do not give any right of exemption so far as the company is concerned.


Haughton Lennox: That is all right if it is all right, but there is nothing in this order in council which defines the matter one way or the other.


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. gentleman know that the moment we part with the land it becomes private property and is subject to ordinary civic liabilities ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not know that and I am not sure the minister knows it, and I would like him to explain the contract between the government and the city with reference to Major's Hill park.


William Pugsley: In what way?


Haughton Lennox: The government undertook to pay certain moneys to the city for improvements and they got certain water and other rights in return. Is the minister prepared to say that the condition with regard to the hotel site on Major's Hill park being watered free by the city will go out of force as soon as this property is passed to the railway company.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt whatever about it. The moment this piece of property is sold it ceases to be Major's Hill park and the title passes to the railway company who have to put up an hotel upon it, and that property would be subject to the ordinary civic liabilities and any water they use must be paid for. The city is not bound to supply water to private individuals and the company must make arrangements with the city in regard to that matter. The company will become liable for the civic taxation the same as ordinary individuals and ordinary companies.
Mr. LENiNOX. I have great respect for the opinion of the minister as an able counsel but I am not quite prepared to agree-


William Pugsley: You would not like to deny that proposition.


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to admit or deny but I am not prepared to agree that the moment that property passes over to the company it ceases to be a portion of Major's Hill park any more than I am prepared to admit that if the city undertook to supply water free for No. 12 on Bank street when it belonged to the government, if sold by the government it would cease to be No. 12 Bank street. I call the attention of the minister to section 15, chapter 10 of the Act of 1899, which deals with this matter of supplying water free by the city among other
things, and I think it would be very desirable to have some understanding as to that.


Mr. STEWART.: I may say that the rights of the corporation of the city of Ottawa to exact taxation and water rates have already been recognized as between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the city. After some considerable discussion an agreement has been drawn up under which the city agrees to give 'the Grand Trunk Company exemption from taxation for a certain number of years in consideration of the company expending a certain amount of money on the erection of the hotel and central station. The first arrangement made was for an expenditure of $3,000,000 by the Grand Trunk on the two buildings. There were suggestions made regarding the construction of the building which might have reduced the cost below $3,000,000, and there was some discussion as to that, but there is now a distinct agreement signed between the city and the Grand Trunk Railway Company as to the amount of money that shall be expended on the hotel. Among the conditions ceded to the company by the city were exemption from taxation for a certain number of years and the purchase of certain property on Nicholas street so as to widen the street leading to the station and make easier access. The recognition of the rights of the city to exact taxes is all settled in the agreement that has been signed by both parties.


Haughton Lennox: That probably changes the situation, but the minister did not seem to know anything about it.


Robert Laird Borden: The order in council in connection with this matter was passed on the 26tli of September ; parliament opened on the 28th of November, and some time afterwards this proposal was submitted to it. It has stood on the Order Paper for five and a half months without any attempt on the part of the government to advance this legislation, which demonstrates in the most unmistakable manner the absence of necessity for the haste with which the government rushed into this proposal without consulting parliament. Judging from the long delay which has elapsed between the introduction of this measure and its present stage I was in hopes 'that the government had receded from their position and that they had made up their minds not to perpetrate this' most outrageous piece of vandalism that was ever peipetrated against public property. This proposal to thrust an hotel into the grounds of parliament is so incongruous and unnecessary that I cannot understand how the government ever came to accede to it. I have already said, and I repeat it, that it would be just as well for the government to have authorized the building of that hotel on one of the lawns in front of this building. There are to be large

departmental buildings erected on Mackenzie avenue and when they are erected this hotel will be thrust Into the midst of the government buildings and parliament grounds. The government that would approve a scheme of that kind may be expected to do almost anything. Next session we may find that the new departmental block has been leased for a dance hall or that the library of parliament has been devoted to the purposes of a permanent circus. Either proposal would be little less shocking than the proposal which the government now submits to this parliament. This is national property. In 1898 the Minister of Public Works of the day justified the expenditure of a very large sum to erect a fence around this park on the grounds that this was a national property.
We take this national property immediately contiguous to and indeed forming part of the grounds of this parliament, and we propose to build an hotel upon it. If there were no other place in Ottawa suitable for the purpose, I would not protest so strongly; but there are places without number which would be just as suitable as this for an hotel. I admit that the city of Ottawa ought to have a good hotel; but it may be a question how far parliament should intervene for the purpose of supplying the deficiency. If the Grand Trunk (Railway Company build an hotel there, 1 have no doubt that it will be a good one, and will be operated in an efficient and creditable manner. But when you say ail that, you afford no justification for placing that hotel on one of the lawns of parliament or appropriating Major's Hill Park for the purpose. I regret very much that the government has seen fit to adopt this course. I had hoped, from their long delay in proceeding, that they had receded from the proposal. They might at least have come to parliament in the first instance-because it is now plain that there was no need of any haste-and have obtained the views of the representatives of the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific before undertaking to appropriate a portion of the national domain for the purpose of building an hotel at the very doors of parliament, and on grounds which have been regarded with pride by ail the people of the country as forming part of the beautiful lawns on which these parliament buildings are erected, and on which they ought to be extended in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are two sides to this question, as to every other. But before I proceed any further, I must say that for my part I cannot find fault with the fastidious aestheticism of my hon. friends on the other side of the House. It is very creditable to them in one sense. The people of Ottawa want the hotel, and they are not likely to suffer because a por-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
tion of the park is to be taken for the purpose, especially in view of the fact that the money which is to come from the transaction is to be devoted to extending Major's Hill Park to Nepean Point.


George Eulas Foster: What is the authority for that?


Wilfrid Laurier: The authority will be given by parliament.


George Eulas Foster: What is the authority for saying that the park is to be extended to Nepean Point?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a part of the exchange.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: At all events, the money is to go to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and if that is not provided for, it may be yet provided for. Everybody will agree with me that that is a most laudable provision. Now that we have public buildings erected in that direction, the time has come when we should make that extension, and I think we could not do a better thing with the proceeds of this transaction than to use the money for such a purpose. While a good deal of o^ection has been taken to the action of the government, everybody realizes that we must have an hotel, but people have not been very ready to come forward with offers to build an hotel. The Grand Trunk Railway Company selected the proposed site, and the government, after considering the matter, came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to agree to it. Does anybody believe that an hotel placed there will not be an ornament to the city? On the one hand you have the post office, on the other the station, and opposite the hotel. The two bridges, the Dufferin and the Wellington, should in my opinion be united and extended to the hotel, and this I understand is in contemplation. When all this is done,
I believe that many gentlemen who now criticise the action of the government will change their minds, and will say that after all the city of Ottawa has not been disgraced but rather improved by the construction of these buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman seems to be looking at this matter purely from the standpoint of the city of Ottawa. I am looking at it from the standpoint of this park as a portion of the national domain, and a portion of the grounds of parliament.


Mr. FOWLER.: Which way is this hotel going to front ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It will front
on Wellington street.


George William Fowler: I might point out that there will be a fine view from the parlia-

ment grounds of the back premises of the hotel.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, nature unadorned has its own beauty; hut I do not know that fine buildings are an offence to the eye, but quite the contrary.


George William Fowler: I am speaking of the rear of the hotel.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Where will the hotel offices be?	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: The plan provides for a terrace extending over the canal. The offices are to be below that.


Samuel Hughes: How are the people to get into the park-through the bar of the hotel?


Wilfrid Laurier: There will be a space of 120 feet from the hotel to the other side of Mackenzie avenue.


Mr. PERLEY.: The right hon. gentleman said that the people of Ottawa had decided that they wanted the hotel there. I do not understand that the people of Ottawa had anything to say about the situation at all. The' people of Ottawa want a good hotel in the city; but if a vote of the people of Ottawa were taken to-morrow as to whether they would prefer to have the hotel in Major's Hill Park or in another place, they would vote to have it in another place. The great majority of the people of Ottawa vrant an hotel, and when the government offered this land to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the purpose, the people of Ottawa were willing to have it there, but would have preferred to have it somewhere else. This hotel is going to get the benefit of the whole of Major's Hill Park. Even if there is a space left as an entrance, the park really will become a back garden for the hotel. The hotel may be built in such a way that its front will really be on Major's Hill Park; so that the guests of the hotel will practically have the use of the whole park, while the people of the city of Ottawa will not make very much use of it at all. If the government have made up their mind to put this Bill through, I suppose they will put it through. At the same time, I think it was a very wrong and improper thing for the government, without consulting parliament, to have made an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which they ask their followers to put through, whether they think it right or not, in order to put in this place an hotel which will entirely cut off the view of the new buildings which it is proposed to erect on Mackenzie avenue, and which this hotel will certainly make it very hard for any one to see.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


George Halsey Perley: I would ask the minister whether it is possible for a person standing on Dufferin or Sappers' bridge to see the new buildings on Mackenzie avenue when the hotel is between the two.


William Pugsley: If he goes and plants himself in one spot where he cannot see the new building, of course his view will be blocked.


George Halsey Perley: Well, he might go to Sussex street and see them, I suppose.


Robert Laird Borden: Or he could take a balloon.


George Halsey Perley: This hotel will cut the government property in two, and there are plenty of places just as good for the purpose as that particular spot.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where ?


George Halsey Perley: I would think just above the Supreme court is as good a site as can be found in the world for a hotel, and there are other places. I do not see that the hon. gentleman is warranted in putting a hotel there on the plea that the city of Ottawa wants it. The people of Ottawa need a hotel but they do not -want it in that particular place.


William Humphrey Bennett: Have these plans been ear-marked and before the Bill passes, will there be an agreement between the government and the company to put up a hotel according to them ?


William Pugsley: They are ear-marked in this sense. They are in the custody of the city. The mayor allowed me to have them for the purpose of showing them here. They will be returned to him and we will see that these identical plans are submitted to the Governor in Council for approval.


William Humphrey Bennett: As far as the city of Ottawa is concerned, they have practically nothing to do with the giving of the land or the construction of the hotel beyond their arrangement with the company regarding taxes. On the passage of this Bill, this land will rest in the company.


William Pugsley: Before giving a conveyance, we must have the plans submitted to us and approved by the government.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is there to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway coming back in a couple of months and saying : We will not build on these plans. They will then be free to exact new plans.


William Pugsley: Clearly not because the city has acted in good faith and entered into a written agreement with the company by which the company have bound themselves to build according to these plans. The Governor in Council will not allow any departure from these plans unless, on the advice of our chief architect, we think they should be altered. But we will allow no

plan which will provide for a less expensive or less commodious building, though we might require a larger building.


William Humphrey Bennett: The city of Ottawa is no party at all to the agreement between the company and the government, and both the railway company and the govermtient can ignore the city altogether.


William Pugsley: But we shall not.
Mr. BENNETT Where is the proof ? Supposing that in three months the Grand Trunk Railway come to Ottawa and say : We will build such a hotel as provided for in the plans but will construct one costing only half a million dollars, under this arrangement, the government could agree to that.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman not see the absurdity of his contention ? The city was anxious to have a first-class hotel and the Grand Trunk Railway expressed its willingness to build if it could secure a certain site. This is the site it selected, and it said : if we cannot build there, we will not build at all. The city negotiated with the company regarding what concessions it Should give the company in the matter of taxation and came to an agreement with the company.


William Humphrey Bennett: Simply for the purpose of assessment.


William Pugsley: Even so, the city and the company have come to an agreement, under which the hotel and the station are to be built according to these plans and specifications. As at present advised, I am prepared to recommend to the Governor in Council the acceptance of these plans and I do not propose recommending the acceptance of any other. Surely the committee can trust the government to insist upon these plans being carried out.


William Humphrey Bennett: And no other plans ?


William Pugsley: No other.


George Eulas Foster: Section 2 ought to be left out entirely. It applies to something apart altogether from the object of this measure. It provides that :
2. The proceeds of the sale of the said parcel of land shall he placed to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, to be applied by them for the purposes of the commission under the instructions and directions of the Governor in Council.
That has nothing at all to do with the sale of this property to the Grand Trunk Railway for the purpose of erecting a hotel. If we want to give the money to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, we should do so by voting an appropriation for that purpose, and in the meantime let this money go into the consolidated fund and become part of the revenue of Canada.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: This has been agreed to by a resolution of the House.


George Eulas Foster: I know that, but you are not obliged to go to the full extent of the resolution.


William Pugsley: Where is the objection ?


George Eulas Foster: The objection is this that you are proposing a new expenditure which is alien altogether to the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway and the government. We have an Ottawa Improvement Commission to which the government has given certain money and may decide to give more, but that is a matter which ought to be dealt with separately. If it be made part of this Bill, we shall have to inquire into the necessity for the application of this additional $100,000 to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission. That commission has been already provided with a considerable sum from the Dominion treasury and It has gone into a wide and ambitious system of improvement. I believe it has gone to the limit of its means, and you are now proposing to give it another $100,000. Before we give that money, we must have information as to the policy of the government as to how this money is to be expended and so on. The government here are taking up two different matters. There is the public appropriation and the power to sell lands for entirely different purposes from those to which they are now devoted.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This matter was carefully considered before. After consultation with the minister this Bill was decided upon. We thought it better that the Bill to provide for the sale of the property should also provide that the money should not go for ordinary purposes but should he used for further improvements to be made in the park. And, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister says, this is regarded by the government as a sacred trust and the money is to be used for the further improvement and development of the park down to Nepean Point.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 1,


William Pugsley: Provided, however, that if the Grand Trunk Railway Company so requests, the conveyance of the said land may be made to the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company, incorporated by Act 67, Edward VII., chaper 117.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In regard to this matter I wish to reiterate what I said earlier in the session, that I think the whole thing is wrong in principle, and I have heard nothing since to change my opinion about it. I am more than ever of the opinion that this is a bad bargain, and one that should not have

been made with this railway or with any other railway company, under all the circumstances. ' It is a wrong principle to take the land of the country for this purpose. I am not going to elaborate that now, as I have done so on a previous occasion. But in regard to what the Prime Minister said this morning, I wish to say a word. He said that we must have a hotel in Ottawa, and this was the only way to get it. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful to the Prime Minister, but I must say that it seems to me his first duty is to protect the public interest of Canada and not bother his head so much about what the city of Ottawa wants. I ask myself whether any other city in Canada, looking at it from a municipal standpoint, if it felt the need of a hotel, could come to this government and get the government to allot a portion of the public lands of the Dominion for a hotel site. I am satisfied it would never be done for any other city; and I do not see on what principle Ottawa has a right to come to the Dominion parliament and ask us to make a bargain like this, and hand over to a railway company lands that belong to the Canadian public. ' I do not know upon what principle we are to make an exception in favour of the city of Ottawa and assist it to build a hotel. I think the Minister of Public Works let the eat out of the bag in answer to my hon. friend from East Simcoe, when he said that it was this way, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company wanted this site and would not agree to take any other, and so this site had to be given them. The whole matter is wrong. If the Grand Trunk Pacific would not be satisfied with any other site in Ottawa, that is a question for the Grand Trunk and the city to settle between them. But why should this Dominion government step in and sell or barter away to the company a portion of the public lands for a hotel building, simply because the Grand Trunk Pacific demand it? I think the principle is entirely wrong, and I cannot accede to it. I do not know whether a vote is going to be taken on the matter, but if there is, I am prepared to vote against the whole proposition.


Mr. BOYCE.: It sems to me that this proposition is an extraordinary one, especially as it has been put' before us by the Minister of Public Works. I understand that in 1884 or 1887 this park was created by the government of Canada and became ordnance land.


William Pugsley: It became ordnance land long before that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It was ordnance land, and by virtue of an Act of parliament it was created a park for public purposes, and has remained so down to this day. I do not know whether the minister is able to inform the committee at this time of the amount of money that has been expended upon it, first, by turning the waste land into a park,
and next, for annual maintenance since that time. But the minister at any rate will concede that a very large amount of money has been expended on that park for public purposes, and it does seem to me an extraordinary proposition, and possibly something more than extraordinary, that the government should, under these circumstances, expropriate or give away to a hotel company, or for the purpose of a hotel, a part of the public domain situated just where this land is situated, especially in view of the fact that immediately adjoining it are lands of very great value which this government has expropriated, and for which it will have to pay a tremendous amount of money. If the government was so much in need of land that it had to expropriate at the cost of a million dollars


William Pugsley: What !


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If the government was so much in need of land for the purposes of public buildings that it had to expropriate lands between Mackenzie avenue and Sussex street


William Pugsley: At a cost of a million dollars you say?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, when you buy the Lindsay block out.


Samuel Hughes: The Lindsay block alone will cost $750,000.


William Pugsley: The government have no intention of buying the Lindsay block.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I may be beyond the mark, but I will let it go at a million dollars that it will cost the government to expropriate lands in the immediate vicinity for public buildings.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me?-because it might go out to the country as if there were some shadow of truth in the remarks of my hon. friend, although I take it for granted he does not intend to make a misstatement. The total expenditure for this land is very far from being a million dollars. The land alone will not amount to very much more than half a milion dollars, I think about $600,000.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does that include the Lindsay block?


William Pugsley: Not at all. We do not propose to buy the Lindsay block.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman will admit that if it does include the Lindsay block, it will exceed a million dollars by the time the expropriation is completed.


William Pugsley: It does not include the Lindsay block.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then we will say at a cost of about a million dollars for expropriating land on which to erect public buildings in the immediate vicinity of this park; and the government is giving away for far less than

its value a portion of that park, defeating the purposes for which that park was originally intended, and for which it has been maintained for a great many years at a great cost to the country, and allowing an hotel to be erected there, with a bar for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating liquors right amongst the government buildings, as they will exist on Mackenzie avenue and Sussex street. Does not that seem to the Minister of Public Works somewhat of a shocking proposition? Would it not be more economical, if that park has to be taken away from the use of the public, that the government should use it for the erection of its own buildings, and thereby get them much nearer to the main parliament buildings on parliament hill? I am astonished that the government should be so lost to all sense of decency so far as the recog-nit'on of public rights is concerned, that it should consent to a proposition at once so monstrous and so wanting in economic features. Now I have made some inquiries, and I understand that $100,000 for that site is a very small percentage of the value of the land for the purposes for which it was intended.


William Pugsley: Has the person who informed the hon. gentleman the slightest idea of the value of the real estate in that vicinity or does he know the frontage on Rideau street ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, I think he does.


William Pugsley: Does he not think ?S00 per foot frontage is a good price ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It might be for lands across the street but having regard to the purpose for which the land is to be generously given by this government it is not. The planting of a hotel right in the middle of the parliament buildings on land from the public domain of Canada is not I think a proposition that will appeal to the people of Canada who have such an interest in the maintenance of that park.


William Pugsley: We do not propose planting it in the middle of the parliament buildings.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am looking forward to the time when the new buildings shall have been erected, this hotel shall have bee^ -completed and the park which has been for the benefit of the people of Canada will be the back garden of the hotel for its benefit and improvement.
On section 2,
2. The proceeds of the sale of the said parcel of land shall be placed to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, to be applied by them for the purposes of the commission, under the instructions and directions of the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister mean that the money which is paid by the Grand Mr. BOYCE.
Trunk shall not be paid into the Receiver General and become a part of the consolidated revenue fund ?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is intended that this should be placed specially to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission to be draw'n from time to time and expended under the direction of the Governor General.


George Eulas Foster: But all moneys that may come in for any purpose whatever must go to the consolidated revenue. It must first be paid into the fund and then you can vote it from the fund or appropriate from it. But in what way will you keep accounts if you are to sell off portions of the public lands of the country and instead of placing the proceeds in the consolidated revenue, pass the money over to the credit of some appropriations?


William Pugsley: This section was brought to the notice of the Minister of Finance. It was drawn by the Minister of Justice. I do not myself see any reason why if it is intended to keep this as a special fund for the purposes of the work of the Ottawa Improvement Commission it should not be placed by the Minister of Finance to the credit of that commission.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the government could do anything it chose if parliament authorized it, but is that the proper way ?


William Pugsley: I do not see any objection.


George Eulas Foster: I do not suppose the bon. gentleman sees objection to anything.


William Pugsley: It is to be a special fund to be applied for a special purpose under the direction of the Ottawa Improvement Commission and with the approval of the Governor in Council. It is intended, as the Prime Minister informed the House, that the whole of this money shall be devoted by the Ottawa Improvement Commission to the improvement and extension of the Major's Hill park so as to carry the improvements right down to Nepean point.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend bad better not increase that system in this country. That seemed to be a principle introduced into provincial finance in New Brunswick but I do not think we should do it here, that you can take money out of the country's resources in any way other than by cheque from the consolidated fund. Surely you are not going to commence that game now with the funds o'f this country.


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: What possibility would there be of this government obtaining any record ? If it is turned over to the commission the government have no record or means of enforcing the payment of it in any sense.


Haughton Lennox: It does not matter at all I think ; this matter has developed in this way. Nominally the Grand Trunk Railway pay $100,000 ; actually they do not pay anything of the kind. This money is not to go to the benefit of Canada generally but to a specific purpose, the improvement of the land adjoining this hotel property, the hotel garden ; it is an extension of the benefits they will get. Virtually the money remains in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway for the improvement and enhancement of their property. There is a great measure of consistency in the hon. gentleman's action in not passing it over to the credit of the consolidated fund but letting it go gradually as a reversion to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


William Pugsley: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: I protest against that kind of finance. I am certain the Minister of Finance has never looked that through or he would not allow it. How are you to credit that to the commission account, is it a donation from the Grand Trunk Railway Company ? It will not get into the public revenues of this country, neither will it be checked out from the public revenues. Here is a transaction where public lands are sold, $100,000 received, and neither put into nor checked from the consolidated revenue.


William Pugsley: I presume it will be placed pursuant to the authority of the statute by the Finance Minister to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, to be expended by them under direction of the Governor in Council. When the hon. gentleman says it has not come to the attention of the Finance Minister, he is entirely in error. The Finance Minister thought it would be the better way because if it went into the consolidated revenue in the ordinary course it might be devoted to other purposes. It is intended to keep this as a sacred trust to be handled only by the Ottawa Improvement Commission.


Mr. DANIEL.: The minister states it will be paid over from time to time to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. I presume it will be paid in bulk by the Grand Trunk people but to whom ? To the Department of Public Works ?


William Pugsley: To the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But it does not go into the funds of the country. Does the Minister of Finance propose to keep it in his own private safe, and hand it out from time to time to the Ottawa Improvement Commission ? This is very loosely drawn up, nobody can tell what becomes of the money. The funds of the country apparently will get no credit from this amount,-there is nothing to say when it will be paid over, nothing is said as to what will become of the money in the meanwhile and | 384
I certainly think the matter ought to be dealt with in a more definite manner than it is going to be, because it allows this $100,000 to be placed nobody knows where for an indefinite length of time.


George Eulas Foster: I must again protest against that. When that money is paid, to whom will it be handed over?


William Pugsley: I presume to the Minister of Finance.


George Eulas Foster: To his private account?


William Pugsley: No. It would be his duty, I presume, to put it to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and that commission would cheque it out from time to time under the direction of the Governor in Council, without whose approval they cannot spend one dollar of the amount.


George Eulas Foster: How will the debit and credit account of the country show that as being done? Will the Improvement Commission be chequeing against Dominion funds or against what?


William Pugsley: They will be chequeing against this money, which is a special fund placed to their credit under authority of statute.


George Eulas Foster: The more the minister looks into it the more he will see it is absolutely irregular. I do not think you can find in the history of Canada an example of money being used in that way.


William Pugsley: The government thought that when it was proposed to sell a part of Major's Hill park the money should be devoted specially to the purposes of the Ottawa Improvement Commission and not credited to the consolidated revenue fund, where it might be used for other public purposes. The object the government had in mind is the extension and beautifying of the remainder of Major's Hill park right down to Nepean Point. I think it would be a proper exercise of the power of this parliament to require that the money should be placed to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, who will receive it clothed with the trust that it is to be devoted to the purposes of the commission and subject at all times to the control of the Governor in Council.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does not the government give an annual grant to the Ottawa Improvement Commission?


William Pugsley: Yes. I think it is $60,-
000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then what is the objection to placing this money to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund and handing it over to the commission in annual instalments in addition to the $60,000?



I


William Pugsley: If it went to the consolidated fund it might be devoted to such purposes as parliament should decide from time to time, but this being money received for a part of this park which has been dedicated, if not by deed, by user, to the people of Ottawa, we felt that this money should be devoted to the one purpose and the one purpose only. If it went into the consolidated fund it would have to be voted out from year to year as parliament might determine.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not?


William Pugsley: The country has every confidence in the Ottawa Improvement Commission, which is composed of certain members nominated by the city and certain members nominated by the government. It does seem to me that parliament can safely allow this money to be at once placed to their credit and drawn out by them, subject always to the direction of the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: A company may be organized to build a railway and the government may make a loan for the purposes of the construction of that railway, but' the loan goes into the consolidated fund, and is not placed to the credit of the railway company. Why should $100,000 be placed at the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission when it may not use that money for several years?
Mr. PUGSLEY, It would draw interest in the meantime. There is a broad distinction between a railway company and a public body like the Ottawa Improvement Commission. It does seem to me that this money might be placed to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission clothed with the trust to which it is to be devoted. It cannot be expended without the approval of the Governor in Council, and I can see no objection to it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it intended that this $100,000 shall be paid out in addition to the $00,000 a year?


William Pugsley: Yes. I would assume that the regular course would be that the proceeds of the sale of this property are to be handed over to the commission, and it may be that the identical cheque that comes from the Grand Trunk Railway Company may be placed to their credit.


George Eulas Foster: How will that appear in the Public Accounts?


William Pugsley: The Governor in Council will make a record of it, and the Ottawa Improvement Commission will make a return of it in their report.	i


George Eulas Foster: Then it will not appear in the Public Accounts?


William Pugsley: There will be a record of it.	t


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


George Eulas Foster: That money will not come into the possession of Canada, and therefore it will not appear in the Public Accounts of the country. The fact remains that we have disposed of the property of the country for $100,000 and that there is no entry in our books with reference to it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I suppose the minister anticipates that a large portion of this money will be the nucleus of a campaign fund in the elections which will take place next fall, and it is to be supposed that some of it will be devoted to the city of Ottawa in that way?
Bill reported ; read the third time (on
division), and passed.



SUPPLY-CANAUIAN NATURALIZATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['It will be of interest to the House to know that in all probability the Cornwall canal will be open for navigation on Saturday next.']
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the following clipping from an American newspaper :
Since our republic set up for itself there never has been until very recently an emigration of Americans from the United States that was worth noticing, says a recent r Harper's Weekly.' Some of our women have married Europeans and become subjects of kings, but until lately exceedingly few United States voters have ever given up their citizenship. Within ten years, however, a good many thousands of our North westerners have gone over the border into the Saskatchewan country, and taken up wheat lands, and these emigrants from Uncle Sam's domain have usually, as part of the process of getting their land, taken out papers to be Canadian voters.
This involves finally swearing allegiance to King Edward, so that these adventurers give up their citizenship in the United States. And what do they get in return? Almost all of them expect that they become British citizens, with all the rights as well as the obligation of that condition. But it seems not. We learn from the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' that they become merely citizens of Canada, with the right to vote and hold office in the Dominion governed from Ottawa, but that as soon as they go outside they become citizens of no country. By British law it seems a naturalized Canadian is not a British citizen. He cannot take out naturalization papers in England until he has lived there five years.
' Not a single British colony,' says the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' has, as the law stands to-day, the slightest power to grant to an alien rights of British citizenship that can be enforced outside its own boundaries. . . . There is not the slightest doubt about the law.'
This, Sir, brings up for consideration the whole question of Canadian citizenship- the question of what classes should be admitted into the Dominion of Canada. .During the war between Japan and Russia thousands of Japanese who had lived for years in the Hawaiian islands returned to

their native land to do service for it. One officer, who had married a lady of the Caucasian race in the city of Honolulu and had raised a family, parted from his family and went back to serve the land of his nativity-it was understood at the time by an order from the Japanese government. Men of Japanese extraction in Canada who had taken out their naturalization papers in order that they might become citizens of the Dominion, also obeyed the mandate of the Japanese government and returned to do service for their native country. More recently, when the governments of the United States and Japan were disturbed over the question of Japanese colonization on the western coast of North America, It was charged by newspapers and officials in the United States that numbers of Japanese were returning to their native land in order to serve it in the event of trouble between the two countries. This suggests what is to my mind a point worthy of the consideration of the Dominion government. At the very time that question was agitating the world, the American people found that every transcontinental railway in the United States, every pass, every tunnel, every strategic point, if I may use the term, was mapped out and was in the possession of Japan. Had war broken out between Japan and the United States, ten Japanese soldiers, properly placed, with dynamite cartridges in their hands, could have prevented the transfer of any United States soldiers from the east to the west for six months. The people of the United States were aware of this. In the United States there is a tableland varying in width from 500 miles to 1.000 miles, separating the eastern part of the continent from the Pacific slope. That tableland is difficult of access for railway puiposes, and unless the railways were kept open it would be impossible to transport troops from the east to the west. Should war break out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese would immediately control the whole of the western coast of North America, and by blowing up a few railway bridges and tunnels they could prevent for months the transfer of one solitary soldier over the mountains. In Canada we have but one railway across the Rocky mountains. Any one who has traversed that region knows that there are a hundred places where a charge of dynamite would prevent the passage of trains for weeks, aye, for months, and that being accomplished it would be impossible to transfer soldiers from the eastern parts of this country to the western coast. Should Great Britain chance to be engaged in a war with any power on the Pacific ocean and wish to utilize the great transcontinental Canadian route for the transportation of troops or munitions of war from the home land to the Orient, a few men could very readily render such transport nugatory by destroying these passes. The United 384i
States people have taken into very serious consideration what class of citizens they shall naturalize on the western coast. A very few thousand people planted properly on .this western coast could readily control the situation there. The Japanese have been coming into the western part of Canada in large numbers. The Chinese have also been coming in, but their coming has been more or less checked by the poll tax. Our field of settlement on the western coast is limited, and I have no hesitation in saying that the government should be very careful indeed what class of citizens are given naturalization papers and allowed to settle within our borders. The first requirement on which they should insist is that the incoming settler should be absolutely loyal to the empire, should be in every sense a British citizen, and above all be ready to defend the British empire against every enemy and in every circumstance. Do the Japanese and the Chinese fulfill the latter condition ? Would they be ready at all times, at the drop of the hat, to fulfill that obligation and do active service for the British empire even against their own country ? It has been pointed out by our American friends that at the time, when the little agitation was going on between the United States and Japan some years ago, colonies of Japanese were found convenient to every mountain pass. We know that application was made to Canada to plant a large Japanese colony convenient to the posts traversed by our railways in our own Rocky mountains. It may possibly be that) they desired to become British subjects and accommodate themselves to our institutions and laws. If so, other things being equal, I have no hesitation in saying that they would make a very eligible lot of people. But if their intention was to live in colonies, as they always do, if they had no desire to subject themselves to our laws, or oc-commodate themselves to out language and institutions, if their design was to grow up in this land but not of it, the settlement of such people in our midst is not one that should be encouraged or even permitted. There are other classes of immigrants which require to be carefully looked after. There is the transient labour class, whose admission we should carefully control and supervise. At present in almost every county in the eastern part of Ontario, especially in the lumber counties, you will find hundreds and thousands of men out of employment, and whoever lives to see next winter will see that number more than doubled. You can go around to any part of this community, and you will see imported farm labourers, by the hundreds and the thousands, driving our own men out of employment. I happened to be in the post office one day last winter when scores of Italians were taking out post office money orders, many of them for large sums, and send-

ing them home to their native country. That certainly is something which is not to our advantage. It is something which ought to be checked. In every municipality in Canada, before even a pedlar of any description can ply his trade, he has to pay a license. In like manner every transient labourer coming into Canada should be required to pay a certain tax so as to indemnify slightly our own people for the loss of employment that they have to suffer through this foreign competition ; and certainly it is our own people, who are trying to bring up their families in this country and build up our institutions, whose interests we should specially safeguard. Those alien labourers who come here without any intention of becoming British subjects, who have not the slightest intention of living and growing up amongst us, should be made to pay a-tax on coming in. There is another class which should not be permitted to come in unrestricted. I refer to the ticket-of-leave men, the hooligans and the hoodlums who have been taken hold of by charitable societies and sent to this country in large numbers, and who make the people of the old land, the honest British born people residing in this country, blush at the thought of having to recognize these degenerates as hailing from the same land. These people should not be allowed to come into this country. We should insist on every man we admit having a clean bill of health and character. There is another class to which I wish to refer, and in doing so I shall quote an advertisement which has been given me and which is eing largely circulated in eastern Assiniboia. This 'circular was sent me by one of the constituents of the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and I am told that thousands of them have been scattered throughout that constituency. I understand also they are soon to be published generally throughout the Northwest. Many years ago, when I was still in my teens, I heard Barnum say that he would rather be condemned by his opponents than praised by them ; and throughout my life I have heard numerous evidences of the truth of that saying. I take therefore this circular as .a complimentary advertisement. It gives a quotation from some remarks I made during the present session. It is headed : ' Col. Sam. Hughes, the Conservative member for Victoria and Haliburton, occupies one of the front benches in the House of Commons,' and then goes on as follows :
Speaking in the House of Commons on April 8, 1908 (see ' Hansard,' page 6438), on a Bill to amend the Immigration Act, Col. Hugnes said:


Samuel Hughes: Take the case of a Hindu who comes here from Hong Kong, you may send him back on the steamer and he may not be allowed to land at Hong Kong. I do not think this will help the matter. Why does the hon. minister not bring in a law Mr. SAM. HUGHES
covering that aspect of the case? This will exclude any man coming from any country other than that of his birth or adoption. Personally I would much prefer a Hindu who has served the empire in the armies of Great Britain to a galvanized Yankee who has been an anarchist in his own land and has come to the United States where he has done his best to disrupt that republic, and who, if he crosses oyer to Canada, seeks in many instances to disrupt the established laws of the Dominion I must say that a Hindu who has served in the British army and has had the discipline of a soldier is much more likely to make a good citizen of Canada, much more likely to upbuild the welfare, morality and dignity of this country than many of the class of animals who are imported


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Samuel Hughes: No f order ' about it. Many of these are not worthy the name of human beings. But these people are admitted, while soldiers who have served in the British army are excluded, not allowed to land and turned adrift.
I was about to say that I am surprised, but on reflection I am not surprised at anything some of these gentlemen would do. In one sense, however, I am surprised that even the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) would have the hardihood to stand up, even in the remote parts of his own constituency, and there cast the stigma on the honest intelligent American settler of suggesting that there could be possibly, or that any one could dream there could possibly, be any relationship or connection between him and the class of American anarchists or galvanized Yankees, as they are termed in their own country. But after the prominence which these gentlemen of the Liberal party have given the Jacksons and the Wagners and others of that class-criminals and fugitives from justice-who were proven guilty of all sorts of offences in the calendar-after the prominence these men have received at the hands of certain members of the Liberal party, I am not surprised at anything our hon. friends opposite might do. But these gentlemen will find that they have shot wide of the mark in endeavouring .to show the honest sturdy American citizen of our west that he is a galvanized Yankee and an anarchist. The attempt of these gentlemen to convince the enterprising American citizen that he is an anarchist or that any one in his senses could suspect of him of being one, will only recoil on themselves. The class I had reference to is that class of men who invaded the Dominion and never contributed to the revenue except in the way of excise on whisky and tobacco, who never turned a hand for the benefit of one honest law in the Dominion -men who were driven out of the United States largely for the benefit of that country. These were the men of whom I was speaking, men whose hand is against everybody. and who recognize no law. These are the class we do not want.

But these gentlemen, forsooth, will admit the ' galvanized Yankee ' freely-and let me tell these hon. gentlemen that that term * galvanized Yankee ' is well understood on the other side of the line ; it is used to describe the man who would disrupt the republic and destroy law and order. We had a wing of them come into Medicine Hat only a few months ago, and they indulged in all kinds of performances, even to committing murder. These are the men we object to ; these are the men that the honest American citizen objects to. And I want to tell the hon. member for East Assiniboia that he will fall far short of his object in seeking to impress the honest American citizen by suggesting that he is a ' galvanized Yankee '. The honest American repudiates this class, for the honest American citizen upholds law and order when he comes to our side of the line as he has been accustomed to uphold it where he lived before. On moi'e than one occasion f have pointed out that the Americans are the most law-abiding people in the world-I speak of the genuine American. I can take you to counties in the United States-towns of 2,000 inhabitants in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois and elsewhere where, for over thirty years, they have not had a single arrest, where hotels cannot be maintained- not merely because they cannot be licensed, but because the people will not drink the liquor. I can show you whole counties where they have not had a criminal case in twenty-five years.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you whether the hon. gentleman can continue a discussion that arose in connection with another matter that was before this House some months ago.


Mr. SPEAKER.: At the moment I cannot recall anything the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) said that was out of order.


Samuel Hughes: I know this is not congenial to the distinguished statesman and constitutional lawyer from Yale-Cariboo, the gentleman, who I suppose has been associating with and possibly ewes his election to, the very class of men that I am condemning.


Duncan Ross: You will be making more apologies in a short time.


Samuel Hughes: No. I never made an apology in my life. What I stand to is the word I utter. And I want to tell my hon. friend and his friends that when the time comes, they will find themselves in a very serious position for attempting to fasten upon the honest people of the Northwest or of British Columbia who have come to us from the United States the term ' galvanized Yankee '.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
["No. I never made an apology in my life. What I stand to is the word I utter. And I want to tell my hon. friend and his friends that when the time comes, they will find themselves in a very serious position for attempting to fasten upon the honest people of the Northwest or of British Columbia who have come to us from the United States the term ' galvanized Yankee '."]
Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works. I would ask the committee to take up harbours and rivers, Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister please place on the table the tenders of which he spoke when the House was last in Committee of Supply ?


William Pugsley: The tenders for dredging are on their way over, and will be here in a few moments.
Public Works, chargeable to income-harbours and rivers, Ontario-Belle river dredging, close piling, &c., $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote of $1,000. It represents the cost of carrying on works at the mouth of the Belle river in the county of Essex.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: What is the nature of the work ?


William Pugsley: There is forty feet lineal of sheet piling on the west side of the harbour, dredging and driving of some piles 24 feet long.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the depth of
the water ?


William Pugsley: Nine feet at low water.


Samuel Hughes: What has been expended on this work previously ?


William Pugsley: About $14,000. This is supposed to complete what is now In view.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is it under contract ?


William Pugsley: No, it is done by days' labour. There is such a variety of work that it cannot be done under contract.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Who is the foreman ?


William Pugsley: We have not yet appointed a foreman.
Beaverton-harbour improvement, $3,500.


Samuel Hughes: I want this to go through, but I want the minister to explain what is the total cost of the work, who is doing it, on what terms and when it will be completed.


William Pugsley: This work represents sheet piling and dredging. The total expenditure is estimated at $2,000 for the dredging and $1,500 for the other work.


Samuel Hughes: Is this all in connection with it ?


William Pugsley: There was an expenditure last year of the same amount. Blanche river-improvement, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is in Nipissing. The work is the removal of snags and other obstructions to navigation.


Samuel Hughes: What is the policy of the government in relation to these in-

land lakes that are not taken under the control of the federal government ?


William Pugsley: By the terms of the British North America Act the federal government has control of navigation. It is quite within the power of the federal government to exercise control over matters relating to navigation in any lake. There is no such a thing as taking over control of navigable waters.


Samuel Hughes: What towns are on this river ?


William Pugsley: It is a newly developing country. The country along the shores of Lake Nipissing is rapidly developing, principally owing to the rich mineral discoveries being made.


Samuel Hughes: What minerals have been discovered along the Blanche river?


William Pugsley: Quite a number. The people are coming in there, and require this improvement.
Blanche river-improvements of navigation on south branch, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This also is for the purpose of removing obstructions to navigation caused by trees, roots and snags.


Samuel Hughes: In what riding is it?


William Pugsley: In the county of Nipissing. I may say that Nipissing is improving very rapidly. The population of Nipissing county to-day, I believe, is about 70,-
000.	Hon. gentlemen will see how rapidly that northern country is developing.


Richard Blain: This work was commenced in 1904, and why does it take so long?


William Pugsley: This work is being done from year to year with the plant which is provided by the government for work in all those rivers. Last year the total expenditure was about $4,000.
Blind river wharf-dredging, &c., $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Algoma. It is to complete the extension of an L to the present wharf, 100 x 30 feet, at a cost of $1,250. It will cost $1,050 to clean up the slip around the pier at the mouth of the river. It is also for the purpose of enlarging the channel at the mouth of Blind river. We propose to expend this year $3,700.
Bronte harbour-repairs to piers, &c., $1,000.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Would the minister say what damage has been done to the pier at Bronte which requires $1,000 for repair?
I would like at the same time that the minister should tell the committee how much money has been spent on the pier and approach at Bronte?


Samuel Hughes: '
'Mr. PUGSLEY. From 1900 up to the 31st of March, 1907, the total expenditure in Bronte harbour has been $30,923. This vote of $1,000 is not required entirely for repairs, but it is to complete a new crib to connect the same with the northern pier, and also some repairs to the old crib work.
'Mr. HENDERSON. Is any portion of this to be applied to further dredging?


William Pugsley: No.


David Henderson: Is it the intention of the minister to do any more dredging in Bronte harbour?


William Pugsley: I have not considered that.


David Henderson: We will see when the supplementary estimates come down. From the wording of the motion ' repairs to piers, &c.,' I was wondering how much was for repairs, and how much for the &c., and I thought perhaps the minister intended to do some more dredging. I would say to him that I think it would be a mistake to extend the dredging. I do not think at the present time any more dredging is required.


William Pugsley: It is for the repair of the pier, and connecting the pier with the northern pier.


Mr. ALCORN.: Will there be an item in the supplementary estimates for dredging Picton harbour?


William Pugsley: I am unable to inform the hon. gentleman what will be in the supplementary estimates.
Burlington channel piers-head block at east end of south pier, $6,000.
iur. PUGSLEY. This is a revote. The work is under contract. The total probable cost is $10,500.
Chute a Blondeau (county of Prescott)- wharf, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of constructing a public wharf on the south side. The work is under contract. The object of the wharf is to afford proper landing and shipping facilities for the river traffic in the locality.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is there any recommendation by the engineers that the government should undertake this work?
'Mr. PUGSLEY. There was a numerously signed petition presented by forwarders on the river, by merchants and others doing business along the Ottawa river, which was transmitted to me by my hon. friend representing that county (Mr. Proulx).


Samuel Hughes: How far is this from L'Orignal?


William Pugsley: I do not know; it is in the same county. It is sufficiently far

away to have warranted the construction of a wharf at this place twenty years ago. That was a private wharf, and it has become dilapidated. A public wharf is very much required.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a sample of what I object to, and that is, the points where the government build public wharfs. The policy which the government are carrying out is hardly in accordance with the public interest. I could mention one case where a wharf was built at an expenditure of thousands of dollars, and there was no reason for it except that a petition was sent in from the residents of that locality. The government never sent an engineer to look into it, made no inquiries at all, but as soon as the petition came in the government said: All right, here is a petition, go ahead and build this wharf. I am afraid this is a similar case. From what the minister has just said, there was only a petition sent in to the member for the county, and forwarded by him, I suppose, to the government. On that petition the government decided to expend, when it started, I suppose, $5,000 or $6,000, and by the time they get through with it they will have expended $60,000 or $70,000. When a petition is sent in by residents of any locality, the first thing the government should do is to send an engineer to the spot and see what is really required, and also get a report from the chief engineer of the department as to what is actually needed.


William Pugsley: The hon.. gentleman will be gratified to know that that is exactly what the government does. When a petition comes in for the construction of a wharf it is referred to the engineer, and he is instructed to make a report as to the necessity of the work and as to the probable cost. This course has been followed in every case since I have been minister, and I am informed it was the previous custom. I can give my hon. friend a little more information with regard to this wharf. It is five miles west of Point Fortune and seven miles east of Hawkesbury; that will give him an idea of where it is located. The old wharf to which I referred was built by James McAllister some years ago. It has been vested in the Crown so the Crown now owns the property, and this is for rebuilding it and making an extension to it to give very much needed accommodation.


John Dowsley Reid: I am bound to accept the minister's statement that this is the policy of the department, but we have had evidence under oath to the contrary in the Public Accounts Committee in the case of the Pointe aux Trembles wharf. No engineer went there, the chief engineer knew nothing, there was no recommendation by him, the wharf was simply put there because a petition was put in. I have no doubt we could get other cases.


William Pugsley: Since I became minister my directions have been when petitions are presented to have reports made as to the necessity and cost of the proposed works.
Mi*. J. D. REID. I referred to the general policy of the department.


Mr. PROULX.: The private owner of this wharf did not want to repair it; it is in very had condition and the transportation companies made strong representations to the Department of Public Works for a new wharf. The private owner asked $2,500 for the wharf, but received only $800.


John Dowsley Reid: What did the government want to buy it for ?


Edmond Proulx: Because they wanted a site; this wharf serves as an approach and there is a good shed on it which can be used. The contract for the extension and rebuilding is $6,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Along the St. Lawrence the transportation companies build these wharfs, and I do not see why the same rule cannot be applied on the Ottawa.


Edmond Proulx: I do not see why the transportation company should build it. There is no railway communication and there is heavy traffic from this point especially in butter, cheese and other agricultural produce.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the population ?


Edmond Proulx: The population is about 300 or 400, but there is a large farming section around it who use the Wharf. It serves the whole township of East Hawkesbury, which has a population of 5,000 or 6,000. .


Samuel Hughes: Is the private owner to continue to manage the wharf?


Edmond Proulx: I am not decided as to that; after it is built that must be arranged.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to* correct my hon. friend Mr. Reid for saying that the wharfs on the St. Lawrence are built by the transportation companies. The late member for Prince Albert, now a senator, said only a few sessions ago that the government had piled wharfs along the St. Lawrence so thick they had not room for them on the banks and had to hang them in the trees to get the money expended.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the forwarding companies and those interested in the wharfs should keep them up. Are there to be dues charged and will they allow a man to collect and retain the dues?


William Pugsley: The "wharf apparently was built some 20 years ago and was owned by Mr. McAllister. Evidently it was affording a great deal of accommodation to the people of this district, and as I understand there was not sufficient profit in its operation to justify Mr. McAllister in putting It into thorough repair. The forwarders, the merchants and the farmers were all anxious for this accommodation, and finally it was determined that the Crown should purchase from Mr. McAllister for $800; it had cost him $2,500. In addition to the wharf the purchase includes a two-story shed in good condition, and the government is building a wharf of a substantial character at a reasonable cost. As to the revenue I do not know what it would be, but in the ordinary course I presume it would be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The practice is not uniform in that respect, as many wharfs remain under the control of my department while a large number are transferred to the Marine Department. That has been the practice since confederation. The revenue will not be large, but I presume that whatever it is it will be devoted to keeping the wharf in repair.


Mr. PRINGLE.: The upper wharf in the town of Cornwall is used, I believe, only by the Cornwall and Montreal Navigation Company, and was built for their accommodation. The wharf was constructed at considerable expense and is a great convenience to the community. I would like to know if that wharf is free or whether the steamers using it pay dues?


William Pugsley: I will get the information to-morrow.
Cobourg-extension of breakwater, dredging, &c., $45,000.


William Pugsley: This work includes the extension of a breakwater.


Samuel Hughes: That is in connection with the Grand Trunk?


William Pugsley: The Grand Trunk is establishing a car ferry there. This is an important work, and will be done by contract.
Colborne-wharf, $15,700.


Samuel Hughes: Is this the work that was promised during the election?


William Pugsley: I have no knowledge of any such promise. How many years ago would that be?


John Dowsley Reid: There was a by-election m the county not long ago, and one of the ministers went up there and promised this work to the people.


William Pugsley: It cannot be the same ; this vote was in the estimates last year.


John Dowsley Reid: They purchased the timber when the election w going on Mr. J. D. REID.
and [DOT] promised to build the wharf if the Liberal candidate was returned.


William Pugsley: The money was voted last session of parliament, so that the hon. gentleman must be wrong.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the work was not done.


William Pugsley: Yes. The contract was entered into on the 5th of July, 1907.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Just previous to the election.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then all I have to say is that this minister pretended to the electors that the vote had not been acted on, and that if the people elected a Liberal it would be.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman should not believe all he hears.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is true I should not believe all that a minister of this cabinet says.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Cochrane, who represented the county, died last year, and in the by-election the Liberals promised this wharf would be built if the people returned a Liberal. The dock is a necessary work and should be built at once. The good people of East Northumberland proved to the government that they would not sell their votes, and they turned down the Grit candidate and elected Mr. Owen. Independent electors of that sort deserve to be encouraged, and I am glad this wharf is going to be built
Collingwood harbour improvements, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete this very important work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How long has this work been going on?


Samuel Hughes: From time immemorial.


William Pugsley: It is under contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When will this work be completed? This item is a very old friend in the estimates, and I would like to know when we are to see the end of it. Collingwood seems to be getting a great -deal of attention lately.


William Pugsley: There is a very large shipping business done at Collingwood.


Samuel Hughes: This is a very necessary work if the money is properly expended, but it has not been properly expended always.


William Pugsley: I have no information of that kind. The harbour is of rock foundation, and I should think it would be at least two or three years before the work necessary in Collingwood harbour would be completed. If the work in contempla-

tion is done it would take perhaps upwards of $100,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the depth of the channel?


William Pugsley: The ideal depth would be 22 feet, but we are dredging to 19 feet at low water.


Mr. BARR.: Were tenders called for this year?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Barr: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: The C. S. Boone Dredging and Construction Company.


Samuel Hughes: How much a yard?


William Pugsley: X have not the figures here, but last year the prices were : For rock, $2.30; hard pan, $1.40; other materials, 35 cents. I think there is a slight increase at Collingwood this year.


John Barr: How many tenders were put in?


William Pugsley: I think two.


John Barr: Did the lowest get the contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. (LAN1CASTTR. Is the work done under government inspectors, and who is the government inspector at Collingwood?


Mr. PUGSLEY W. A.@: Clarke was the inspector last year and we are continuing him this year.


Mr. MONK.: I was not here on Saturday night late when most of the estimates for wharfs in the province of Quebec were passed. I would like to call the attention of the minister and of the government to the necessity-if it is their policy to go on building wharfs in so many places-to the necessity of establishing a wharf at the town of Lachine. On many occasions since I have been a member of the House I have called the attention of the government to the importance of having a public wharf there. Lachine has a population of 12,000 ; it is situated at the head of the Lachine canal, and many important industries are located in the town, amongst others, the Dominion Bridge Company and the Dominion Wire Company ; and just at the place where a wharf should be erected they are now building great locomotive works wnich will employ some 5,000 men. If the government is to adopt the policy of building wharfs at different places rather than give effect to the report of the Transportation Commission, provision should be made for Lachine. There are several sites which may be obtained. There is the old wharf which belongs, I think, to the St. Stephen's Church Boating Club, and which can be had for a mere bagatelle. That old wharf might be improved in such a way as
to serve the purposes of trade. There is also a private wharf which could be purchased at a moderate cost, and which could be repaired so as to be useful. If neither of these sites is available, then the government could easily secure another site. At the present moment the most vital question is the question of carrying out the suggestions of the Transportation Commission. If you do that, speaking of the province of Quebec alone, you will render a far greater service to my province than you will by building small wharfs here and there throughout the province; and if you will build the Georgian Bay canal and make Montreal and Quebec free ports, you will benefit the whole province in a way that these isolated works cannot possibly do.


William Pugsley: Some time ago I was urged very strongly to construct a wharf at Lachine and I may say that the matter is under my very favourable consideration, and I think that very likely I may be able to make provision for it in the supplementary estimates this session. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has referred to a very important matter, namely, the recommendation of the Transportation 'Commission. I am quite sure that the government as a whole are thoroughly impressed with the very great importance of those recommendations ; but I am not prepared to admit that if those recommendations are fully carried out, and the great ports of Montreal and Quebec, and the ports of St. John and Halifax, and other ports of the St. Lawrence and the maritime provinces, and the great ports on the western coast and on the great lakes, are made free, that is going to meet all the requirements of the people of this country. The people of the smaller localities along the St. Lawrence and other rivers, on the seacoasts of the maritime provinces, on the great lakes, and on the coast of British Columbia, are entitled to a reasonable measure of accommodation, and they will not be satisfied to see these great cities having large sums of money expended upon them and the requirements of the smaller localities in the matter of transportation neglected. As far as the larger question of transportation is concerned, the government are alive to it. We are to-day spending large amounts of money in improving the port of Halifax in connection with the Intercolonial Railway ; we are spending large amounts on the port of St. John ; and these ports are rapidly drawing away from Portland the Canadian business that has hitherto been done there during the winter season. We are spending large sums of -money in Montreal in addition the money spent by Harbour Commissioners. We have just erected a magnificent wharf at Maison-neuve. This could not have been better done if Montreal had been made a

free port. We are building a magnificent pier at Quebec to afford accommodation for large ocean steamers. On the great lakes also, in conjunction with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, we are developing the harbours of Victoria and Tiffin, so as to afford accommodation for large steamers ; and I am happy to say that we are dredging those harbours so rapidly that we expect by the 1st of October to make it possible for large steamers to come right up to the elevators which those two railway companies are building. I believe the result of this will be to build up a new Buffalo at each of these places, and thus to draw away from Buffalo, New York, Baltimore and Portland millions of bushels of grain that now find their outlet by these American ports. At Port Arthur and Port William we are carrying out the same large national idea, deepening the harbours in order to give ample accommodation for the large lake vessels that go there. This is our policy from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and if we have not in words carried out the policy enunciated by the Transportation Commission, we are in fact carrying it out as rapidly as we can, consistently with the resources of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not like to allow the statement of my hon. friend to go entirely unchallenged. I for my part am impressed with the idea that he has not recently read the report of the Transportation Commission, for its suggestions are not being carried out in the spirit any more than in the letter. We were advised by the Transportation Commission to do something without delay to establish national ports on the Pacific coast, at Victoria, Vancouver and even Prince Rupert, if I remember rightly.


William Pugsley: Do national ports necessarily mean free ports ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Unquestionably. If there was any doubt about that, that doubt was set at rest by the Transportation Commission stating in so many words that they should be free ports. What have we done at Port William and Port Arthur ? We were advised to set aside without a moment's delay a certain space along the waterfront and construct shipping facilities in that space ; but we have not done so. We have instead instituted a Harbour Commission there, which was exactly what the Transportation Commission did not suggest. What we have done at this end 'of the great lakes I will not take time to dilate upon. But take the port of Montreal. At present we have arriving there large steamers laden with grain. It is the beginning of an immense grain trade at Montreal, which we have not had so far because of the lack of facilities. A steamer carrying 90,000 bushels of grain arriving in Montreal takes nine hours to discharge its cargo, while other vessels are waiting, be-Mr. PUGSLEY.
cause our grain elevator there has only one leg. It ought to have at least eight or ten additional legs, which could be built at a cost of from $30,000 to $60,000 each. Go to Duluth and Superior, and see how the discharging of vessels is done there. Although this matter has been referred to time and again, the government has continued deaf to this necessity in the port of Montreal, While .they squander money oin wharfs which in many cases are not asked for, or are asked for by members simply for some private reason. What are the government doing in regard to constructing the Georgian Bay canal ? Mr. Reford deemed that work to be of such importance that he supplemented the report of the Transportation 'Commission with another report in which 'he said that the deveJopments) recently taking place in the United States rendered it absolutely imperative that we should without any further delay proceed with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.
My hon. friend speaks of obliging certain localities. Well, there is a public work twice recommended by that commission which will benefit many localities. It will benefit not only Montreal but the whole country ; and if the money we are spending uselessly on works, with the sole object of gaining political advantage, were not spent, there would be enough to pay the annual interest on the cost of the Georgian Bay canal. It is high time that we should leave out politics in the selection of public works to be done and master this transportation problem, instead of squandering money on works that may be of some use here and there but that are by no means urgent.


William Pugsley: With regard to the port of Montreal, my hon. friend does not do justice to the Harbour Commissioners who are carrying on so successfully the great work of developing that port.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are doing it very well.


William Pugsley: They are doing it so well that not long ago, quite a note of alarm was sounded from New York at the way the port of Montreal is drawing trade from that city. I believe the commission will continue to do good work, and the government can be reasonably generous in furnishing the necessary funds. It is all very well to accuse this government of squandering money on wharfs ; but instead of making a general statement, it would be better to point out on what particular wharfs the money is being squandered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know that is a very disagreeable task and exposes one to very unfair attack. But I have no hesitation to point them out if forced into that position. Take my own province, there are very extensive works going on at St. Johns. I believe that the government are there doing works which largely, if not entirely, should

be done by private interest, which are the cause of the flooding of the country. Why should we come to the assistance of parties who, by developing water-powers, are flooding the country.


William Pugsley: Was the Chambly canal not built by the government ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is not familiar with the locality or he would know that the dam works which are the cause of the flooding were put up by electric companies in Montreal, and it is these companies which should repair the damage, and not the government.


Duncan Ross: The hon. gentleman is out of order. We are discussing Ontario items.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have been asked to give details ; and when I do so, I am called to order.
Goderich harbour-improvements, $75,000.


William Pugsley: This is for building a breakwater, some 500 feet long, for the protection of the harbour and the safety of vessels. I need not speak of the importance of this harbour. It is one of the 'most important on the eastern shores of Lake Huron.
Gore's landing-wharf, $1,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would call attention to the wharf at Grand Bend in my riding. Will the government not have some dredging done at the mouth of the river ? It has become so choked up with sand that even small boats cannot go up. I would like to ask the minister if he intends to take this matter into consideration. I understood that it was estimated that $1,125 would do the work. Will he do it this summer ?


William Pugsley: One of my hon. friends from Huron county (Mr. McLean) has urged very strongly these improvements. The matter is under consideration. I think that there is very little doubt that this session provision will be made for the work.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman intend to put it in the supplementary estimates ?


William Pugsley: Until His Excellency submits the estimates my mouth is closed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) wants is that the 'minister might take it into his ' most favourable ' consideration. I think the minister did not put in the adverb.
Ontario-harbours, rivers and bridges- general repairs and improvements, $25,000.


Richard Blain: I would ask the attention of the minister to Port Credit harbour in the county of Peel. For several years the occupant of the position of Minister of Public Works has promised to have some dredging done at the entrance of that harbour. As far back as 1903, I made this statement:
Port Credit is very close to Toronto where the hon. gentleman has a dredge working all the time; and perhaps the minister could allow that dredge to go to Port Credit and dredge out some of the sand that is continually drifting in there.
To which the Minister of Public Works answered :
I think no one would object to that, and I will see that it is attended to if there is a dredge in that locality.
. Since that time, petition after petition lias been sent to the government, and we have had promises from the department from time to time that something would be done. But. up to this moment, the government has failed to fulfil its promises. I believe the minister has before him a further petition from the residents of Port Credit asking that smoothing be done. Port Credit is a rather important point between Toronto and Hamilton, which accommodates a great deal of shipping. It is looked upon also as a harbour of refuge. I believe it deserves the attention of the minister, and I do not see why it has not received that attention. I hope he will see that something is done. If we are not making requests strong enough, I would'ask the hon. gentleman what he requires. Petitions have been sent in, resolutions carried, and I have directed the attention of the government, in my own humble way, to the condition of affairs there. Now, since the new minister has come in, with large amounts of money at his disposal, now that we are voting estimates freely, I hope he will see that Port Credit is not forgotten.


William Pugsley: My sympathies are strongly with the people of Port Credit. But the difficulty is that the harbour is a private harbour. A great many years ago the Ontario legislature did what Strikes us 'from the lower provinces as a very peculiar thing-it vested the whole Port Credit harbour in a private company. That company owns the wharfs, the water and the bed of the harbour. I suppose that has been one difficulty in the way of getting federal money expended in the harbour. Some time ago a petition was sent to me asking if I would not buy out the Port Credit harbour company at a cost of $20,000 or $25,-
000.	I did not think I could do that; for it seemed to me that, if it were a private harbour before confederation, it had not in any way passed under the control of the federal government. I suggested that it might be a matter for the provincial authorities to attend to. I would suggest now to my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) that, as his influence would be very powerful with the provincial government of Ontario, if he could get that government to agree to buy out this private company and to contribute half the cost,

I think I would recommend to my colleagues the contributing of the other half. I do that because it is a private harbour, and might very well be taken hold of in that way and made a public harbour. I may say further that I have requested my chief engineer to see if he could send a dredge there and do a reasonable amount of dredging to give further facilities to vessels to reach the wharfs.
McGregor's creek-renewal of bank protection works at Chatham, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Is that intended for the piling alone ?


William Pugsley: This is to renew a section of the bank protection, 88 feet long on the south side of the creek and another section 65 feet long about 400 feet above the bridge. There is also a second contract for sheet piling. On the south side of the creek in the city of Chatham. There is other work the details of which I need not give.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the total estimated cost ?


William Pugsley: 

Meaford harbour-improvements, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who are the contractors ?


William Pugsley: Joseph Battle, of Thor-old.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the nature of the work ?	.


William Pugsley: It consists of three different classes of work, first, extending the breakwater fifty feet in an easterly direction ; second removal of fifty of the L on the east side ; third, building a revetment wall of 300 feet in length, and dredging twenty feet below low water level. The estimated cost is $43,700. There were four tenders received, and the lowest was accepted. This amount I think will complete the work.
Midland and Tiffin harbours-improvements, $75,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want to make a few remarks about this work at Midland and Tiffin. Generally, dredging operations in the province of Ontario, and particularly as conducted on the Georgian Bay, have been the scene of the greatest swindling operations that have been carried on in Canada for a number of years and I think I shall be able to prove that by the record. For several years prior to 1906 there was a concern known as the Owen Sound Dredging Company, the stock of which is held practically one-half by A. G. Mackay, local member for North Grey in the legislature of Ontario, the other half being held by Mrs. Horsey, widow of a gentleman who at one time occupied a seat in this House as representative for North Grey. Now, Mr. PUGSLEY.
having had a contract at Midland for several years prior to 1907, and having two dredges standing in the harbour at Midland at the time tenders were invited in the year 1907 it is rather odd as will be seen by reference to the documents now before the House, that Mr. A. G. MacKay, as representing i the Owen Sound Dredging Company, did not tender for the work at Midland. I have in my hand a memorandum from the advertisement which appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' on April 27 and other dates, in which will be seen invitations to tender at a number of different points, and among others at Midland. Now I take the tenders that were received for that year at the town of Midland, and I find that no tender was placed before the Department of Public Works in 1907 by the firm known as the Owen Sound Dredging Company. In the foil of 1906 a dredge was brought to Midland harbour owned by a company known as the Canadian Dredging Company -I think the Canadian Dredging Company is the corporate name. Of that company a gentleman named F. W. Grant, of the town of Midland, a barrister, is the secretary and treasurer. This dredge was there in 1906, and I believe was in the employ of Mr. Mackay engaged on a work which he then had under contract. But it goes without saying according to the public documents before the House, that the Owen Sound Dredging Company, or the Mackay Company as I will call it after this placed no tender before the department for the work at Midland in 1907. But there were two different tenders placed before the department for that work to which I will refer, these were the tenders of the Grant company, and what is known as the Spohn company or the Penetanguishene Company. There was also another work to toe performed at Waubaushene and for the work at Waubaushene the Grant company and the Spohn company placed tenders before the department. The figures are these : The Grant company, fifty-three cents for the general material ; and the Spohn company, fifty-seven cents for the general material. As betwen these it will be seen that the Grant company was lower by four cents than the Spohn company for the Midland work. For the Waubaushene work, the tender of the Grant company was eighteen cents for what is known as otner material, while the tender of the Spohn Company, or the Penetanguishene Company, was sixteen cents. So that between these two [DOT] companies, had there been no other tender, the Grant company would have had the work at Midland, and the Spohn company would have had the work at Waubashene. Now I have here in my hands the original tenders brought down by the minister. I may say just here that it is regrettable that year after year we have to witness the same spectacle and I

trust that next year a new minister will oc-cuply the place now held by the Minister of Public Works, but a new minister from this side of the House. There have been several different gentlemen occupying that position recently, and as a result the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position had nothing to do with the matters I am going to deal with. But I do say that when a gentleman occupying the responsible position of Minister of Public Works for Canada has a staff under him such as the Minister of Public Works has in this country, it is regrettable that men who are tendering on public works involving the expenditure of thousands of dollars, can openly and in the most barefaced manner enter into collusion, and, whether by ignorance or design such collusion is not noticed by the minister. I hold in my hand first, the tender of the so-called Grant company on the work at Waubaushene, X also have the tenders of the Grant company on the work at Midland ; I also have the two tenders of the Spohn company on the Midland work and on the Waubaushene work, and I challenge the Minister of Public Works to say that he is not driven to admit that the tenders of the Grant company for these two works and the tenders of the Spohn company for these works, are in the selfsame handwriting. It is indisputable, and no man who looks at the tenders can say otherwise.


William Pugsley: X may say to my hon. friend that after he made his previous statement to the House, I looked at the figures, and although I am not an expert in handwriting, I would say that they bear every appearance of having been written by different hands. I say the figures giving the price of the material have every evidence of being written by a different hand. I examined with great care, and that would be the judgment I would form.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I am glad the minister has practically admitted that the body of the tenders is written by the same hand.


William Pugsley: No, I do not admit that at all, because I am not sufficient of an expert in handwriting to know, but I think I am sufficient of an expert to know that the figures giving the price of the different materials bear not the slightest resemblance o each other, and do not afford the slightest indication that they were written by the same person.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, before the discussion closes I shall show these documents to other hon. gentlemen, and I think they will verify my contention, and will say that it is indisputably correct. Not only are the tenders of the Grant company and, as I allege of the Spohn company, written in the same handwriting but the figures are also the same.
Another proof lies in the fact that the envelopes are distinctly the same and are addressed in the same handwriting. The signatures to the tenders put in by the Pene-tanguishene Company are in the handwriting of a man named Kastner who was connected with the Penetanguishene Company, and any man who looks at the handwriting of Kastner which is irregular and ragged, and compares it with the figures will see that they were never written by the same man. More than that the envelopes which inclose the tenders-for the two tenders of the Grant Company were in one envelope and the two tenders of the Spohn Company were in one envelope-were, according to the postmark, both mailed in Ottawa on the same day proving that the two representatives of this company, admitting that they each mailed his own envelope, were in the city. More than that, there are two marks on these envelopes which denote that they were received at the department consecutively. I shall pass these over to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who can see that what I say is correct.


William Pugsley: I do not think he is a Sherlock Holmes.


William Humphrey Bennett: But he is able to detect a palpable fraud and anybody can detect that this is one.


William Pugsley: Was there not another tender ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am coming to that. Apart from these two tenders of the Grant and the Spohn Company there was a third tender for the Midland work, that was the tender of the Stewart Company, of Ottawa, which was at 30 cents and perhaps when the minister comes to make his explanation he will explain to the House how it was that the Stewart Company did not proceed with the work, their tender on the Midland work being the lowest. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) was at that time acting as Minister of Public Works. For some reason best known to himself, whether it was due the fact that the Mackay Company had done the work there at figures ranging from 15 cents to 18 cents in prior years and that then the lowest tender was 53 cents, or whether it was due to the fact that Stewart refused to go on with the work at 30 cents, I do not know, but the tender of the Stewart Company was not acted upon and although the Grant Company were the next lowest tenderers at 53 cents, the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Aylesworth) did not award the contract to them. I make the charge that Mr. A. G. Mackay was a party to this tendering by the Grant Company and that he was thoroughly conversant with it.	..


Mr. PARDEE.: What have you to prove that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I will read a document of A. G. Mackay. gome correspondence was brought down in the House during this session in reference to the extension of these contracts and among others there is a letter written on the 9th of September by Mr. Grant, representing the company that I have termed the Grant Company, addressed to the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in reference to the extension of the work at Midland and in that letter, among other things, he says :
As you are aware, the Owen Sound Dredge Company and this company have been working under contracts from your department at Midland harbour, Tiffin harbour and Victoria harbour-the contracts for Midland being in our name, and those for Tiffin and Victoria harbour in the name of the Owen Sound Company. Altogether both companies have three dredges-two large steel dredges and one smaller one-and these dredges have been working on all the above contract works as circumstances required.


William Pugsley: Is either of these the Penetanguishene Company ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, this is the Mackay Company and the Grant Company working together, and I have before stated that although Mackay's Company had had the work at Midland for several years prior to that time they did not tender on the work for that year.


William Pugsley: I understood my hon. friend to say he would show that the same man was interested in these two companies that tendered first at Midland, one being the Penetanguishene Company. That is why I asked if there was any evidence that Mackay was interested in that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hardly know the refen-ence the hon. gentleman makes, but I say the two tenders were the result of collusion between the Spohn Company and the Grant Company and the documents bear that out. As to the alleged fraud that was being attempted to be perpetrated on the country by obtaining. 53 cents a yard for work at Midland for which Mackay had before been employed at prices from 15 cents to 17 cents, I say that Mackay was a party to that attempted fraud by not tendering himself and thereby hoping, by the placing of these two fraudulent tenders before the department, to get the benefit of it. I have quoted that clause from Grant's letter which goes without saying


William Pugsley: Did not Mackay tender for the work at Victoria harbour ?


William Humphrey Bennett: That was later on and was altogether apart from Midland. I shall quote one more statement to show that Mackay and the Grant Company' were closely identified, Mackay having the work at a point in Midland harbour which is called Tiffin and where the two dredges of the


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Mackay Company and the Grant Company were working together. In proof that they were united in a business arrangement there is this further clause in the Grant letter :
There is another matter which is disturbing us considerably. At the present time, there is a large balance of money due the Owen Sound Company under the Tiffin contract, and when the December account goes in, it will probably amount to over $60,000. Ordinarily we could wait until next spring for this money, but financial conditions are so strained this year that the pressure is very heavy. It is not a question of security with us, or our bankers, but simply a necessity for ready cash. The work at Tiffin this year, because of its importance had to be rushed ahead whether there was available money to pay or not and we would, appreciate very much if you could have money provided for payments of our accounts by the first of the year.
I submit that so far as this letter of Grant's is concerned, the Mackay and Grant Companies were the one acting concern. But I do not want to rely on the Grant letter alone, I shall have recourse to another letter written by the same Mr. Grant under date of January 14, addressed to the minister. Among other things he says :
I have the honour to further write you along the lines of my letter of December 9 last, and also our conversation on Friday last regarding the contracts for dredging at Midland and Tiffin harbours.
The contract for the latter stands in the name of the Owen Sound Company, with whom we are associated. The former is in our name.
Further on in the same letter Grant says :
With your early approval for the extension of the contracts as they exist, we. will undertake alone with the Owen Sound Company to have the harbour in such condition that the moment the elevator is completed the largest freight boats on the lakes will be able to dock and discharge their cargo. But to do this we would have to know at the earliest possible moment.
The other points which were taken up in my previous letter it is not necessary to repeat. but I might again say that our combined plants, we feel sure would meet the approval of any capable engineer as the most efficient plant on the lakes available for this work, and the only plants which can insure its rapid completion'.
Those are the letters of Grant which demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mackay's Company was associated with Grant's Company in that contract. But here is a letter of Mackay himself which is addressed to the minister, dated January 25, 1903 :
Dear Sir,-As you are doubtless aware, the Owen Sound Dredge and Construction Company, Limited, have the contract for the dredging of Midland harbour at Tiffin.

But the Mackay Company had not the contract at all for dredging. The contract stood in the name of the Grant Company. I am referring to the contract at Tiffin; I am not referring to the contract at Victoria harbour at alh
We think that by using the two dredging plants our company own and by continuing to employ the dredging plant of the Canadian Dredge and Construction Company, of Midland, we can have the harbour ready for the grain trade in the fall.
If these three dredging plants are not sufficient to expedite the work, and if it is absolutely necessary, our company has a new dredging plant in the course of construction.
What are the facts. Here are a set of tenders placed before the department by Mackay through Grant, and Mackay and Grant, and the letters of Grant and iMackay are by really the same person. What was the end sought by Grant and Mackay ? Mackay before had contracts at 15 and 16 cents a yard. There is an arrangement among these dredging concerns by which they collude to place higher figures on work they do not wish to get.


William Pugsley: Among which dredging concerns?


William Humphrey Bennett: Here are two, Mac-kay's and Grant's to commence with, and there are more. Now what was the position? Mackay	expected-having	two
dredges there on the ground and having a third one in course of construction as he said in his letter-by the fraud that was being perpetrated by the Spohn Company and by the Grant Company not to be driven to do the work as he had done it in former years at 15 and 16 cents a yard, but to be able to steal from the people of this country 53 cents a yard. And every man who knows Mackay and who has heard this matter discussed as it was discussed during the local campaign took Mackay at his own estimate when he made statements that were inconsistent with the facts.


William Pugsley: The people of Owen Sound do not seem to agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett),


William Humphrey Bennett: His majority in Owen Souud of 450 was reduced to a miserable 43, and it may be a matter of exposure in the election courts how that was brought about.


Mr. TELFORD.: The hon. member is wrong with respect to the figures.


William Humphrey Bennett: What were the figures?


William Pattison Telford: About 178 in Owen Sound.


William Humphrey Bennett: In "the last election ?


William Pattison Telford: In the one before.
Mr. BENNETT, If the hon, gentleman gets any comfort in Mackay's majority being reduced from 270 to 43 he can have it. But anyway it is more of a majority than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Telford) will have in Owen Sound next election.


William Pattison Telford: Is the hon. member aware that Ow.en Sound is a Conservative town and that the Conservatives generally give a majority?


William Humphrey Bennett: And they will give a majority again, and I hope they will have an opportunity to do so next fall. Here is this man Mackay, according to his own letter associated with this Grant Company; here is the precious Mr. A. G. Mackay of unsavory reputation and memory with the people of Ontario. Here is this same Mr. A. G. Maekay with two dredges lying in tne harbour and a third one coming in as he says, having had the work in Midland harbour at 15 and 16 cents a yard, entering into a scheme or a contract or an agreement with this so called Grant Company that they were to share the work between themselves. Now, Sir, what remained to be done by Grant ? Grant comes down to the city of Ottawa accompanied by a man named Kastner from Wiarton who had a record in one of the North Grey election trials when these blackguards were brought over from Buffalo, and these men together sat down and as the tenders prove Grant writes the two tenders to which Kastner signs his name and the tenders went to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Ayles-worth was acting Minister of Public Works, and in view of the fact that their tender is 53 cents a yard and that a lower one of 30 cents a yard is not acted upon, the acting minister (Mr. Aylesworth) refused to give the work to Mackay at 53 cents. There was fraud perpetrated by Kastner and by Grant, and the parties participating in the prospective fraud were Mackay and Grant as was shown right on the face of the documents, and it cannot be gainsaid. Why aid not Mr. Aylesworth give the contract at 53 cents?


William Pugsley: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but he will remember that under the terms of the advertisement tenderers were allowed to tender for the various works in each province. The. Dominion Dredging Company tendered for otner work. I do not know that they tendered for other work in Ontario, but they certainly tendered for other work in the province of Quebec, and they had no more dredging plant than was absolutely necessary to enable them to perform the work that was awarded to them, and so the Dominion Dredging Company could not undertake this work. Consequently the acting minister was obliged to call for new tenders. My information is that had the Dominion Dredging Company been prepared to do this work the contract would have been given to them as the lowest tenderers.

Dredge Company been prepared to do this work the contract would have been given j to them as the lowest tenderers.


William Humphrey Bennett: What a childlike explanation from the Minister of Public Works. Did Mr. Aylesworth believe that the Grant Company was tendering honestly when they tendered prior to the 6th of May and their tender was 53 cents ? That is why he called for new tenders.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend know there was a lower tender than that, namely for 30 cents, and that the Dominion Dredging Company having declined to do the work at that price, that it was the exercise of the best judgment on the part of the acting minister that he should make a second call for tenders?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am quite willing to give credit to Mr. Aylesworth for dealing honestly with the matter and I believe he acted honestly. I believe that when he looked at these documents he saw fraud on the face of them and said : Although you are the next lowest tenderer at 53 cents I will not award it to you. And so he called for new tenders and Mackay instead of tendering at 53 cents tendered at 26 cents. What has the Minister of Public Works got to say to that, along the line of common honesty?


William Pugsley: As I understand it, Mr. Mackay never tendered at 53 cents.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why, I have read the letters of Mackay and Grant in which they say they are associated together in the work. Is the minister going to have the temerity to say that Mackay had nothing to do with that contract at all?


William Pugsley: Was it not in 1907 that he says they were associated?


William Humphrey Bennett: The tenders were invited in 1907.


William Pugsley: And after the work had been undertaken they might easily make arrangement for the use of each other's plant.


William Humphrey Bennett: Can the minister give any sensible explanation of why with two dredges lying in the harbour and Mackay having the contract for several years before he did not tender?


William Pugsley: I have not all the facts in my memory now, but my impression is that the tender with which Mr. Mackay was connected was for 'the work at Victoria harbour, and it was then understood that the work was going to be a very important work and might very properly require the services of the dredging plant which his company was possessed of.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now, we will take that part of it.


Mr FOGSLEY.: 


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will be able to say whether that is correct or not.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is not correct. The only tender for the work at Midland-


William Pugsley: Take Victoria harbour.


William Humphrey Bennett: There were no tenders invited for Victoria harbour until some time after Mackay, for some reason or other, was awarded the contract at this part of Midland harbour called Tiffin. Why didn't Mackay tender? The reason Mackay did not tender was this :	That the year
before Mackay had sent his manager down here to tender on a prior work and the result was that, as appeared by these tenders, there was collusion and fraud between this Mackay Company, represented by his agent Wilkinson, and the Penetanguishene Company. The tenders of the Penetanguishene Company are in Mackay's own private envelopes. Mackay was attempting to obtain some prominence in the province of Ontario and he did not want to come down here to Ottawa and be engaged in these games. He knew, as any sensible man must have known, that probably this thing would leak out, and for that reason Mackay did not come near the scene of the operations at all, but instead of that in the first place Wilkinson, his foreman, came down, and Wilkinson according to the evidence in the tenders was in palpable collusion and fraud with Spohn of the Penetanguishene Company. It went so far that the envelopes containing Spohn's tenders were in Mackay's own office envelopes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That was fully explained in the committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly it was explained when this fellow Spohn stood up and swore on his solemn oath that he did not know where he got the envelopes and Wilkinson did the same thing, and I think people who know them both in their own localities will have their opinion of the oath of either one of them.


Mr. CARVELL.: Will the hon. gentleman say whether these were the lowest tenderers and whether either of them got the contract?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member (Mr. Oarvell) is always ready where there is anything nasty or dishonest to defend it; all he wants to do is to rely on quibbles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) will not answer I cannot make him, but it is only fair he should answer the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me tell the hon. member who acts as an understudy for the Minister of Public Works, so that when the avalanche overtakes the present minister which he is hoping for, he will be ready to take his place.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have a right to an answer to my question. Were either of these tenders accepted by the government ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) dare not answer ; he is simply attempting to deceive this House.


William Humphrey Bennett: The understudy is getting very violent.


William Pugsley: He would have to answer * no ' to your question and that is what he does not want to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the hon. gentleman should in all decency answer the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let us hear your question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were any of these tenders accepted by the department ? Was there not a lower tender at a very much lower price, and was not that contract given to the lower tender?


William Humphrey Bennett: 1 will come to that. Mr. Aylesworth, by reason of the fraud that had been practised on the department, and not believing in the genuineness of the supposed rival tender


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Answer the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If he does he will show there was no fraud.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee) thinks there is no fraud. As a follower of the muddy Ross administration he was thrown out of the local House. He -would stand up for anything whether it was right or wrong.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. gentleman has not yet answered the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman was defeated for the local House, and very properly so.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am not ashamed of having been defeated, but in the meantime you might tell the facts and answer the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have told the facts as to the dredging. No one can deny that the tenders of the two supposedly rival firms are in the same hand writing.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Was the contract awarded on these tenders? That is the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: When Mr. Aylesworth saw that the tender of the Mackay and Grant Companies was for 53 cents and that Mackay had done the work in prior years for 16 and 17 cents, he would not give the contract at all, though they were the lowest, at 53 cents.


William Pugsley: They were not the lowest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They were not the lowest.


William Humphrey Bennett: They were, outside the tender of the Dominion Dredging Company which the minister says was withdrawn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An old trick.


William Humphrey Bennett: As a sample of the common honesty of Mackay and the Mackay and Grant companies what did they do ? They then came in with a tender for exactly the same work at 26 cents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And they got the contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the country suffer anything ?


John Dowsley Reid: It would have if they succeeded.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will get the true story after a while.


William Humphrey Bennett: The country did not suffer, of course it didn't.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well that is all right then.


William Humphrey Bennett: Had Mackay and Grant been permitted to carry out their game of fraud as they expected, they would have got the contract at 53 cents a yard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Which shows we have a good honest government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Have you just found it out ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I quite agree that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) coming from New Brunswick has a very hazy idea of what public morality and public honesty in this country should be.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the people of New Brunswick made it pretty plain to him the other day and they will make it plainer still when they get a chance at him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must apologize for interrupting my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) but it seemed necessary that some one should interrupt him and try and set him right.


William Humphrey Bennett: And when anything of that kind is required somebody can always be relied on in the person of the understudy from New Brunswick because what other gentlemen would scorn to do that hon. gentleman is willing and anxious to do. Let him play out his part, it suits him admirably.


Duncan Ross: Well, push along.


William Humphrey Bennett: This is a fair sample of the dredging operations as they are conducted in Ontario and the manner in which tenderers approach the foot of the throne When they are tendering. There were some * tenders called for Thunder Bay and Fort



William. There is a company up there called the Great Lakes Dredging Company, one-half of the stock in which is owned by C.
F.	Bowman (a member of the local House) and one C. A. Bowman, and the other half is owned by Mr. James Whalen of Port Arthur. What is the modus operandi of this company in tendering for contracts ? The company puts in a tender at 9 cents a yard and Mr. A. F. Bowman puts in a tender at 16 or 17 cents a yard. The idea that they have is that the gentleman who is a one-fourth holder of the stock of the company puts in a tender at 16 or 17 cents while his own company puts in a tender at 9 cents. What explanation has the minister to give of that ?


William Pugsley: I had no conversation with these gentlemen.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Bowman was examined under oath.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were they public tenders ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, and fortunately for the country a couple of tenders intervened between the 9 cents and the 16 cents. The idea of this company was that there would be no tender lower than the 16 cents except their own of 9 cents and that the department would be so complacent that they would pull out the 9 cents tender and substitute the 16 cent tender.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the government get the work done for 9 cents ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where is the harm then?


William Humphrey Bennett: My honest opinion is that they would never have got the work done for 9 cents were it not that two tenders for 11 cents and 12 cents intervened. Mr. Bowman was examined under oath.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is fortunate we had uiese gentlemen examined because their evidence spoils your argument.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that perpetual parrot please pause for a while ? 1 know the 'lion, gentleman is anxious to make an exexhibition of himself before the Prime Minister in anticipation of his advent to the cabinet. bijt that is very far away. Now what happens next ?


Duncan Ross: You might.tell us the truth about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Listen to my hon. friend from Kootenay ; a gentleman who in cold blood murdered a minister by an interruption which he made in this House. I am surprised that he of all men in the House should open his mouth, he, the murderer of a former minister, he who drove that minister outside the cabinet.


Duncan Ross: Personally I am not concerned very much about what the Mr. BENNETT
'hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) says or does not say, but I fancy that language is out of order and is not such as should be used in 'parliament.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Such language had better not be used.


William Alfred Galliher: I have also to enter an objection to his reference to the member for Kootenay. I happen to be the member for 'Kootenay.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I will withdraw 'the expression political murderer and I will call him the gentleman who precipitated the terrible descent of a minister of the Crown. I think that is in order.


Duncan Ross: You ought to withdraw the other expression.


William Alfred Galliher: You should withdraw
the reference to Kootenay also


William Humphrey Bennett: All right, I meant to refer to the member for Yale (Mr. Duncan Ross). Where the expenditure runs up into hundreds of thousands of dollars, because these dredging operations run into the millions, the tenderers come down and flaunt themselves before the department, confident that they are going to be able to perpetrate their frauds, and the most wonderful thing is that the government go on dealing with the self same men. When these tenders of the Grant Company were not acted upon by the department, for reasons best known to Mr. Aylesworth, what next happened? Tenders were invited and placed before the department on the 20th May, the former ones having been cancelled immediately. These tenders were invited by telegram, and a number of well known contracting firms either telegraphed or sent down their tenders. There was one from the Wilson Company of Toronto, one from Randolph McNally, one from the Sarnia Company and another from the Goderich Company. They were all willing to tender either by telegram or memo. Mr. Mackay, however, thought something better might be done, and he came right down to the field of operations and placed his tender with the department personally. That is proved by the fact that the envelope bears no postmark in which he placed his tender. Neither did the envelope in which the Grant Company placed their tender bear any postmark. And by a strange coincidence, although these two tenders are for different parts of Midland harbour, Mackay's envelope and Grant's envelope were together, showing how close these contractors are to each other. May I ask where the tenders are for the work to be performed at Victoria harbour?


William Pugsley: It must be there.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Owen Sound Company have a tender in and the Windsor Dredging Company. That is another of

these political associations. It has W. J. McKee at its head, a well known politician. There was another tender put in by this so-called Grant Company afterwards, on the 20th May. 1 am not going to deal with the question of the frauds perpetrated by the unloading of the scows. The evidence given in the committee is so clear that the dishonesty cannot be doubted. Wilkinson, the master of the Mackay dredge, when confronted with the statement which shows that his dredge was employed sixteen hours frankly said that he did not believe the inspector was there, and that the inspector did not know how many scow loads were taken out and whether the scows were full. In the locality it is well known the inspector was not there. I am glad the minister is now taking some precaution by compelling the inspectors to sign a form of declaration. The minister and the Liberal press took great credit from the fact that by refusing to renew the contract and inviting new tenders the country had lost money. What has been the result? In the work at Midland the price paid is 2 cents a yard more. But that is np fault of mine. If the minister thought that the former price was fair, why did he pay a higher price? He could have got the work done at the same rate.


William Pugsley: After asking for tenders we let the contract to the lowest.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister knew that they had done the work the previous year at 26 cents, and he has himself to blame if anything more was paid.


William Pugsley: I do not throw the responsibility of accepting the lowest tender on any one.


William Humphrey Bennett: If he has succeeded in making the country pay a couple of hundred thousands of dollars more for dredging this year, that is no fault of mine. Parliament voted a certain amount of money for dredging operations ; yet in the face of the direct appropriation by parliament the Mac-kay-Grant Company did work that amounts to $75,000 more than the appropriation, and the minister had to come down with a vote for that amount. Does he propose to do that this year again? Is he going to ask for an appropriation and then let the contractors exceed it to the extent of $75,000 or $100,000? I quite agree that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway are both doing a large mount of work at Victoria harbour and Clifton and that dredging is required at both these points, but I want to see the country get good value. I do not object to the expenditure ; but when contractors put in tenders which are fraudulent on their face, the department should act with them in a summary manner.
385i


William Pugsley: Last year it was found that the approrpiation was exceeded before the close of the season. There was very important work being done by both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway with a view of getting the harbour ready by the time their railway tracks reached these ports ; and I thought it would be a public misfortune if I were obliged to close down the dredging work before the end of the season. And while, under the contracts, I might have done so, I said they might go on with the work, they taking the risk of the appropriation being made by parliament. I am happy to say that when parliament was asked to make an appropriation in the supplementary estimates of the last fiscal year there was a ready response, no objection being raised. With regard to this year's work, I think that in the supplementary estimates there will be found a sufficient vote to enable the dredges to work during the whole of the present season. It may be that some work will be done beyond the appropriation, but I have reason to believe that the appropriation will be quite sufficient.
Now, with regard to the company with which Mr. Mackay was connected, I do not know why it was that that company did not tender for the work of Tiffin and Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me set the minister right at the outset, for I am sure he does not wish to misstate the case. No tenders were called at the commencement of the year for Tiffin. I have the advertisement and the hon. gentleman will see that the dredging was at Midland.


William Pugsley: At present, we distinguish between Midland and Tiffin, but we did not at that time. The reason why Tiffin was included in Midland last year was that it forms part of Midland Bay, or even Midland harbour, although the new terminals of the railway company are being made in a very different place from the terminals at Midland. Now, my hon. friend, I think, would have achieved great eminence if he had adopted a different profession. His abilities, certainly, would have adorned the profession which was mane famous by the celebrated Sherlock Holmes. Even in the matter of the comparison of handwriting, my hon. friend is able to see with absolute certainty resemblances in the handwriting of different documents which nobody else is able to discover. Take the tenders for Penetanguishene and Owen Sound and my hon. friend can see resemblances in the figures written in these two tenders, which, I am positive, no other hon, member of this House or anybody else will be able to see. I have looked at the two, and while I admit that there is some

resemblance In tbe handwriting in some parts, yet in the figures, which are the essential thing to show collusion, there is not the slightest resemblance. Yet the hon. gentleman is able to say without a moment's hesitation that they were written by the same hand.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any resemblance in the handwriting?


William Pugsley: I said that in some parts there was some resemblance. But I have had a large experience in court and my experience tells me that if a man has a vivid imagination he can see resemblances in handwriting specimens that one less gifted would fail to discover. When experts in handwriting desire to find resemblances, it seems the easiest thing in the world for them to do so. The result of my experience is that I do not place great reliance on the tests of experts in handwriting. With regard to the figures which, as I have said, are the crucial thing, I venture to say that the figures in the two tenders do not bear the slightest resemblance, nor is there anything else to indicate that they were prepared by the same person. Now, when these tenders came to the attention of the minister he found that there were three tenders, one from the Owen Sound Company, one from the Penetanguishene Company, and one from the Dominion Dredging Company, the prices being 57 cents, 53 cents and 30 cents. It was obviously the minister's duty to accept the lowest tender. He accepted the Dominion Dredging Company's tender, and advised the company of that fact. They had tendered for other works on the St. Lawrence and other rivers; and they informed the minister that with the other contracts which they had accepted and the work they had to do, they would not be able to perform this work, not having a sufficient dredging plant. And so they declined to do the work at 30 cents. What better evidence does the hon. gentleman want that there is nothing in his statement-which, if not unparliamentary, I would call a reckless statement-that it is the practice of these companies to combine and secure whatever prices they desire from the government, than the fact that the Dominion Dredging Company which he likes to call the ' Stewart Company,' because Mr. Stewart happens to be the son of a member of this House-what better evidence could he desire of the lack of foundation of his statement than the fact that when the Dominion Dredging Company could not do the work, and, in a perfectly proper manner the minister called for new tenders, the company with which Mr. Mae-kay is connected, which, for some reason that I am not aware of, probably a perfectly good reason had not tendered before, tendered for 27 cents a cubic yard? So the country got the work done at 3 cents Mr. PUGSLEY.
a cubic yard less than the lowest tender, that of the Dominion Dredging Company, which he has so frequently mentioned in this House in terms, certainly, not of the greatest respect. Can any fault be found with the minister?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


William Pugsley: I would suggest that this item be passed-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Pugsley: Then, I shall have some remarks to make after recess.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: Just betore recess I was making some observations in reply to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). I shall not pursue the matter along the same lines beyond saying this, for I want to be as brief as possible. My hon. friend has failed to point out that in any single case the department has accepted any other but the lowest tender; in every case the contract for dredging work has been given to the lowest tenderer. There have been a few cases, very few indeed, in which there has been a failure to perform the contract satisfactorily on the part of certain companies, in these cases the contracts have been given to the next lowest tenderer, provided he has brought his price down to the price of the lowest tenderer. But with those exceptions, which have occurred very rarely the contract has always been awarded by competition to the lowest tenderer. I may also say that in some cases where the work is urgent, exceptions have been made, in cases where it was necessary that work should be done immediately.
Now my hon. friend referred to the fact that something had been said in the newspapers regarding the objection which he made to the extension of the dredging contracts. I do not know what has been said, but il do know that after the matter had been raised in the House by the hon. gentleman, when I decided to extend the dredging contracts, there were in the newspapers supporting hon. gentlemen opposite, strong expressions of triumph at what was supposed to be some great act performed in the jrublic interest and which would redound to the party benefit. Now I want to say a word or two with regard to the extension of the dredging contracts. When the question of how to deal with the various dredging works came before us, I looked into the existing contracts, looked into the prices, and I found they provided that the dredging should be completed during the then current season, or at such other date as might be fixed by the minister. It seemed very

clear that under the terms of the contracts,
I had power, if I thought it in the public interest so to do, to fix a later date for the completion of the work. I asked for a report from the chief engineer of my department with reference to the prices which were being paid for the various dredging work that was being done under the different contracts. His report was that in all cases the prices were fair and reasonable. In many cases they seemed to me very low, and I am free to say to the committee that I thought that it would unquestionably be in the public interest if I could extend those contracts and give until the end of the present year for their completion, where that time was necessary in order to complete them. But the hon. gentleman voicing the sentiments of the opposition raised an objection to that. Well, I felt that the views of the opposition were entitled to respect. They represent a large and important section of the people of this country, although numerically a considerable minority of the people. Still, they represent an important section, and their opinions are entitled to respect. I felt that if there could be any ground of criticism levelled against me and levelled against those with whom I have the honour to be associated, not only my colleagues in the government but our supporters in this House and throughout this country-I felt that I ought not to subject them "to that criticism. So in looking into the matter more closely, I found that the advertisements for tender's which were issued last year called for dredging during the then present season. My hon. friend had not called the attention of the committee, and had not called my attention to that. But in consequence of the matter poming up, and as I felt that if there were any ground of criticism it was my duty to remove it, I looked back to see what were the advertisements which called for tenders on which these contracts had been let, and finding that the advertisements were limited in the way I have mentioned, I came to the conclusion that, even although the contracts upon their face gave me power to fix a later date for the completion of the work, yet upon the whole there might be a question as to whether the contracts were not broader than was warranted by the advertisements. In view, therefore, of the objection which was raised by the opposition, and in view of the criticism which I knew would be levelled against me and against the government if I were to extendi the contracts, I thought it would be better for me to yield to the objection which had been raised, and to issue an advertisement for new tenders I did so, Mr. Chairman, and 1 did so reluctantly, because I felt that the extension of the contracts would be in the public interest. I felt it would be a saving of money to the country to extend the contracts. However, as I say, I yielded to the
objection which had been made, and in view of the circumstances regarding the advertisements for tenders. Well, the result of calling for new tenders has been that in the great majority of cases, although the widest possible publicity was given to the advertisements, and although in many cases a large number of tenders were received, the total result has been that the price at which the lowest tenderer in each case tendered, is, with few exceptions, considerably higher er than the price at which the work was being done last year. I will give some examples. In the case of Owen Sound, the contract was being done last year for materials, outside of rock, at 20 cents per cubic yard; the lowest tender this year was 25 cents per cubic yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the tenderer ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Bowman. And Mr. Boone also tendered. Mr. Boone's tender was 28 cents per cubic yard, 8 cent's higher than the price given last year. The lowest tenderer this year was 5 cents per cubic yard higher than the price last year. In the case of the Hamilton work it was done last year at 12 cents per cubic yard, the lowest tender this year is 15 cents.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the tenderer?


William Pugsley: Mr. Phinn. Mr. Healey, the next tenderer, 23 cents. At Cobourg there were five tenderers: Phinn at 18 cents, Morgan at 22 cents, Healy at 23, Randolph & Macdonald at 23, and Manley at 30. Last year the work was being done at the low price of 11 cents per cubic yard, 7 cents per cubic yard lower than the lowest tender of this year, and 19 cents per cubic yard lower than the highest tender of this year. In that case there were five tenderers for the work. In the case of Goderich there were three tenderers : Horton at 35 cents, Manley & Co. at 35 cents, and J. B. Bertram, of Toronto, at 42 cents. Mr. Bertram is a dredging contractor. He is doing work at Port Burwell at present. The price of_the work last year, 25 cents per cubic yard7 was one cent per cubic yard less than the lowest tender this year and 17 cents lower than the highest of this year. In the case of Midland this year there was only one tender at 28 cents, while last year it was 26 cents, a difference of 2 cents. The Canadian Dredging and Construction Company has the contract. At Little Current the price this year is a little less than last year. Last year it was 30 cents and this year it is 25 cents. The same contractor, Mr. Boone, has the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many tenders were there at Little Current?


William Pugsley: Two.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who was the second ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Bowman. At Wingfield basin, Boone tendered last year and


John Dowsley Reid: Who had it last year?


William Pugsley: Prendergast, of Montreal. He lost a great deal of money on it. In Toronto last year the work was being done at 13J cents, but this year it is 19i cents. The work is being done by Healy who is the only tenderer. At Penetang, Bowman who had it last year at 14 cents was the only tenderer this year at 19 cents.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the minister of his own accord raise the dredging there from 14 cents to 19J cents?


William Pugsley: Not of my own accord. We advertised publicly for tenders and the lowest tender was 19 cents. It was a question of accepting that tender or not proceeding with the work. My hon. friend seems to think it would be a proper thing for the minister when he advertised publicly for tenders for dredging work and did not get any which according to the judgment of the chief engineer were reasonable,
* to refuse to accept tenders and not go on with the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the chief engineer certify when the price was 14 cents that it was reasonable and also when it was 19 cents?


William Pugsley: Yes, and my chief engineer was of opinion and so advised me that in a large number of these contracts last year the work was being done not only at a reasonable price, but at a lower price than we could ever expect to get contractors to tender for the work at.


William Humphrey Bennett: Rot.


William Pugsley: Another remarkable instance was at Port Burweli, where there were four tenders this year. Bertram and Company tendered at 39 cents, Finn at 43


William Pugsley: cents, Horton at 44 cents and Manley at 45 cents, all most reliable contractors, men of large experience and of the highest reputation.


William Humphrey Bennett: Horton included ?


William Pugsley: Horton included.


William Humphrey Bennett: You should read the evidence in the East Elgin trial to a man of that name who took part in marking ballots.


William Pugsley: I feel very sorry that my hon. friend has this unfortunate disposition to find fault.


William Humphrey Bennett: I say truthful things about men of the stamp of Horton whose reputation is known in Ontario.


William Pugsley: I cannot help thinking that when my hon. friend retires from the House and gets home in the silence of his bedroom he must regret the disagreeable things he has said because there is no lasting pleasure in that sort of thing.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister may hear some things of himself if he does not keep a little bridle on his unruly tongue.


William Pugsley: I have heard a great many things about myself and very nasty things in my lifetime, and there is no man living who can say anything against me that I should be ashamed or afraid to hear, no man living.
I was explaining that at Port Burweli there were four tenders, and the lowest tender this year was 39 cents, while last year the work was done at 15J cents. Our information is that the contractor was losing money upon that contract last year. I need not go through all the others, but I will take the case of the Thames. There there were four tenders, the Bertram Company at 24 cents, Horton at 22 cents Healy at 23 cents and Manley at 20 cents. Last year that work was done at 13 cents.
The total result, as near as I am able to figure it out, taking in Ontario and Quebec, of the calling for new tenders-and I regret that this should be the case-has been to cost the Dominion somewhere between $175,000 and $200,000 more than it would have if I had extended the contracts and insisted on the work going on at the same price as that in force last year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why did you not extend it?


William Pugsley: I have already explained the reason. I take, of course, the full responsibility, but I have been obliged to assume that responsibility under the circumstances I have mentioned. I felt as I have said, that the contracts gave me full power to extend them, and I felt in view of the low price at which the work was being done that it would have been the part of wisdom for my hon. friend who has been
JULY 6, ia08
commissioned by our hon. friends opposite to take charge of the criticism of dredging contracts and who speaks for the opposition, to have acquiesced in what I proposed to do, but, as I said, under the circumstances that it was due to myself and to the government and to the friends supporting us to ask for new tenders and then, having called for new tenders, I felt that as the prices were certified to be reasonable by the chief engineer it was my duty to accept the lowest tenders.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister finds fault with the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) for complaining because tenders were not advertised for in the usual way during the present year and he tries to show that the country has lost money by having to pay larger prices than what were paid last year. If these contractors were willing to do this work at the same prices that they were paid last year, it reflects seriously on the hon. minister that he gave them a renewal of the contract at the advanced prices he has stated.


George di Madeiros Loy: I did not renew a single contract. I asked for public tenders, and gave the contract to the lowest tenderer.


John Dowsley Reid: And they are going to 'be paid $175,000 more this year than they were paid last year for the same work. 1 would think that the hon. minister, when he received a tender of 26 cents for work that was done last year for 14 cents per cubic yard, while the contractor was willing to do it this year at the same price, would have hesitated before making a contract at nearly double the price paid before. We learned in the Public Accounts Committee that on all these dredging works the government appointed as inspectors men Who had really never had any experience in dredging work.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: All of them ?


John Dowsley Reid: Nearly all of them. I defy the hon. member to name one who had any previous experience of dredging work.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The man at Penetang sail), he had been doing it for three years.


John Dowsley Reid: What was he before 'he went into the dredging business ? One inspector swore that the engineer in charge, I think Mr. Sing from Toronto, only visited the works once or twice during the whole season. This same inspector had charge of two dredges, and he farmed out one part of the work to another man. Any one can see at a glance that in that way the government must necessarily lose. The contractors have everything in their own hands. The chief engineer of the Public Works'De-partment and all of the staff will swear that the only honest way to pay for this work Is by scow measurement ; and yet these inspectors swear that they cannot come within from ten to thirty yards of the actual
measurement in a scow. On the other hand, the Department of Railways and Canals will tell you that to pay by scow measurement is almost sure to result in a loss to the government, and in their contracts they specify that the work must be measured in situ. The officers of the government swore that the scow measurement made a difference of about one-third.


William Pugsley: It was stated that the price given per cubic yard in situ is always different from the price by scow measurement. It is understood that there is an expansion of from 30 to 40 per cent, which is always figured on.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no doubt there is an expansion. By the scow measurement there is no way of telling whether you get the right quantity or not. The scow may or may not be filled.	.


William Pugsley: The scows are filled.


John Dowsley Reid: How can the minister say that when the inspectors admitted that they did not see all the scows going out ?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In the great majority of cases they did. All the inspectors swore that.


William Pugsley: It is the duty of the inspector to see every scow that goes out, and in the forms that I have prescribed he must swear that he was personally present and saw every scow go out.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that that is his duty, but he has not been doing it. I believe the government has not been getting the actual measurement in a single contract by this scow measurement. That is the reason I find fault with this method of paying the contractors. When any dredging is to be done, a profile of the work is made before it is commenced, so that the government know exactly the quantity of stuff 'to be dredged out when it is in situ ; but With the scow' measurement, there is no check at all, especially with the kind of inspectors the government have been employing on these works. I claim that on every dredging contract work involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, there should be an engineer. But we have an engineer located in Toronto, and perhaps a tailor or a shoe-inaker acting as an inspector of the work, and not even keeping track of the number of scow's that go out.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: Will the hon. member tell me what the inspector's duties are on the scow ?


John Dowsley Reid: According to the minister, his duty is to tell the quantity of material in each scow as it goes away from the dredge.


Duncan Ross: Could not a shoemaker tell w'hether a scow was full or not ?


John Dowsley Reid: He might possibly, but 1 should think he would be better engaged in making shoes. What I claim is that there should be an engineer stationed on 'the work to see that the contract is properly carried out; and he should have an assistant under him capable of estimating the quantity of material in the scow.


William Pugsley: Tile inspector is not to estimate the quantity in the scow. The contents of the scow are given him by the engineer, and it is his duty to see that no scow goes out unless it is filled.


John Dowsley Reid: If that is the case, the hon. minister, if he was at the Public Accounts Committee, knows that hundreds of scows went out only half filled.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And the inspector swore that when they were only half filled he charged them as being only half filled.


John Dowsley Reid: When a scow was only half filled, the inspector, who never had any experience in measuring scows, stated that 'he had simply to guess the quantity in the scow.


William Pugsley: Was not that' an exceptional case, in which, owing to low water, the scow could not go out fully loaded ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I challenge the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) to produce a return in which it was sworn that there was less than the full amount in the scow.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The inspector swore that half sco'ws went out. The hon. member for East Simcoe asked how it was that full scow loads were charged. He said that the two halves were added together, and he made his return accordingly.


John Dowsley Reid: There was a case, as the minister stated, in which a scow went out only partially loaded on account of the low water. But in every contract it is left solely and entirely to the inspector to estimate the quantity the government are paying for. I claim that if the Public Works Department are going to continue this dredging work by contract, they should have an engineer on each work every day. It is not in the interest of the public or in the interest of the Public Works Department or in the interest of the minister, to let a large dredging contract involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to leave it entirely to the kind of men the government have been appointing as inspectors to decide the amount the government has to pay under these contracts.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would the hon. gentleman advocate the policy of having a civil engineer continuously on every dredging job ?


John Dowsley Reid: The amount the government is paying engineers in charge of these


Duncan Ross: works is, I think, not more than $150 a' month, and the inspectors receive something like $3 a day. I would ask the hon. member for Lambton,i if he had a work involving the expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars, whether as a business man he would not pay the difference and have an experienced engineer qualified to measure the work and go into it thoroughly and know exactly the quantity in each scow ?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: AH I can say in answer to my hon. friend's question is that throughout the whole investigation in the Public Accounts Committee this year into the dredging contracts, it has not been shown by any evidence that any inspector made any false return, or that the country was injured in the very least. If it was shown that the returns were honestly made, why add to the expense, when hon. gentlemen opposite are always complaining of the expenses of the government ?


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised at the hon. gentleman making the statement that it has not been shown that the government have lost anything. He knows that one inspector inspected for two dredges.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It was not shown that anything was lost. It was shown that one inspector had been guilty of malfeasance in office by farming out his job, but the moment the government found that out he was dismissed. But it was not shown that the returns were untrue.


John Dowsley Reid: How could we show anything else ?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why draw a conclusion if there is no evidence from which to draw it ?


John Dowsley Reid: We had the evidence of the government engineers that the scows varied to the extent of from ten to twenty yards.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And you have the further evidence that just what was in the scow was returned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the attention of the committee to the point raised by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) at the beginning of the discussion on this question, which the minister has not yet elucidated; that is, the resemblance of the handwriting in two rival tenders for this dredging work at Midland and Waubaushene. The hon. member for East Simcoe asked me to have a look into the handwriting of these two tenders, and I have done so, and there is no doubt that the addresses on the two envelopes are in the same handwriting.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman looked at the figures setting down the prices?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will come to those in a moment. There is no doubt that both ten-

ders are addressed in the same handwriting-


William Pugsley: Neither of which was accepted by the minister.


William Humphrey Bennett: That does not matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not followed the discussion enough to draw conclusions ; I am only pointing out the fact. The minister states that the tenders are in different handwriting ; but, strange to say, if you compare the body of the writing in the Grant company tender for Midland harbour with the body of the writing in the Spohn company tender for the same work, it is exactly the same ; so that although there is something in the contention of the minister that in the two first tenders, which are presumably rival tenders, there is some difference in the body of the tenders though none in the addresses, still if you take another pair of tenders and compare the Grant tender with the Spohn tender, you find them in exactly the same handwriting, -whatever conclusion you may draw from the fact. I would like to say, with reference to the dredging in the province of Quebec, that it is considered the greatest windfall possible to obtain a dredging contract from the government. There has been a regular scramble for them for years, and you find people who have had no experience at all going into the dredging business. Those who have been successful in obtain ing such contracts in the province of Quebec live very well. I know these men. They were in rather penurious circumstances before they went into this business, but now they dazzle us with the luxury of their living. Some are lawyers. My hon. friend mentioned Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan has gone into the dredging business and I remember when Mr. Morgan was practising law.


William Pugsley: Has he made a fortune out of It?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is very difficult to say of any man that he has made a fortune, but the indications are that he found the dredging business more profitable than the ^practice of law.


Mr. UBMIEUX.: It cannot be contended that Mr. Morgan is a political friend of the government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He is a very strong political friend, a friend of the deepest dye. He is like many so called Conservatives, who have cleaved to the present government, ready to support it under any circumstances.
'Mr. UBMIEUX. I know personally that Mr. Morgan was three times the Conservative candidate in the county of .Richelieu.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And I remember a very hotly contested campaign we had in the city of Montreal in which Mr. Prefontaine.
a friend of the Postmaster General, was a candidate, and in that contest the Conservative Mr. Morgan was working for him for all he was worth. At that time Mr. Morgan had gone into the dredging business. I am speaking of facts that are admitted. In the province of Quebec when you find a man suddenly prosperous, you ask: has he got a dredging contract? It is notorious. We have Mr. Prendergast.


William Pugsley: Has he made a fortune?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know, but he lives well-much better than people who work harder.


William Pugsley: Mr. Frendergast will tell you that there is not much money in dredging unless you have considerable experience.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They all say that, but the facts are there. They all seem to prosper. And outside of lawyers, whose occupation and technical knowledge would not lead them to dredging, there are coal merchants. It is extraordinary how coal merchants go in for dredging. In the province of Quebec we have Mr. Cowan and Moore & Company. My hon. friend the Postmaster General knows these people. They are coal merchants and they have found it advantageous to leave their occupation and go in for dredging; and although they always pretend there is nothing in it, they still tender and try to obtain the work, and having obtained it they seem to thrive considerably on the profits. As a rule-and I assert this on my responsibility as a member-the dredging is pooled in the province of Quebec. Tenders are sent in and it looks very regular, but when the work comes to be divided, some find they cannot attend to it here and others that they cannot attend to it there, and as a matter of fact the contract is divided up among them so that each is satisfied. We should abandon that old system of giving out dredging in order to distribute patronage, and have a policy dictated by the urgency of solving our transportation problem.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to have my hon. friend's approval. I expected when he came into office that he would find somewhere, wherever it is to be found-I had a great deal of difficulty in finding it in the Department of Public Works-the valuable report of the transportation commission, and that he would see if it was not possible to put into execution the suggestion so well and so urgently made by that commission, and cast aside this system of doing odd-jobs here and there just to please political friends. Go to the province of Quebec, and you will find dredging done in the most impossible places at the greatest expense. It is a race among the friends of the gov-

ernment as to who will have the most influence and get dredging done in his county. Whether the dredging is really necessary is a matter of very secondary importance. Whether it will enter into the scheme of transportation, is not considered at all. The only thing thought of is who can exert the greatest influence to have it done in his own county. You will find one place in the St. Lawrence where last year the government spent between $28,000 and $30,000 dredging a channel across the river, through the soil under the river, and on account of the current the channel fills up as quickly as it is dredged. Ask the people on either side: What about this channel that is being dredged? They smile and they will tell you it is being dredged, but it fills up just as fast again. Everybody knows that a channel across the St. Lawrence in the vicinity of Lake St. Peter, where the soil is extremely soft, must fill up at once, but the government will go on dredging there as long as people have influence to get it done.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend state where that is?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, but I will tell it privately to my hon. friend. I do not want my criticism to be taken down into that county and be tortured into an opposition by me to public works in the province of Quebec. But I would be glad to inform the minister privately of the circumstances connected with that political piece of waste and extravagance.


William Pugsley: I am sincerely desirous of finding out whether any work is going on which is not required in the public interest. If I can find any evidence of that, I will stop the work. WThen my hon. friend refers to an important matter like that, done in the channel of the St. Lawrence, he ought not to have the slightest objection to making it known.
(Mr. MONK. No objection whatever, and I will give my hon. friend the information with pleasure. In other parts of the country, you will find dredging done in small rivers, where there is really no call for it. You will find dredging done around some island belonging to an influential proprietor, in order to make his island larger, and fill up the space around it. You will find dredging done at considerable cost to the country in order to facilitate the approach to the private ice house of an ice dealer in a favoured locality.


William Pugsley: Where is that being done ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall give the information with pleasure, and my hon. friend can verify it. You find dredging done in these localities by these contractors who are on the most friendly basis with the sitting Mr. MONK.
member, who have obtained the contracts for them. They make the sitting member presents and treat him well and they are always together. I mention these facts- why? Because if my hon. friend is sincere, if we are to go back to the suggestions of the transportation commission, there is most important dredging to be done which cannot wait, if we are going to compete with our neighbours to the south. It is often alleged that we have a thirty foot channel from Montreal to Quebec. A thirty foot channel is one of the improvements most impressed on the government by the transportation commission. If we are going to solve the problem of transportation from Montreal to the sea, the commissioners consider it very important that we should at once have a thirty-foot channel. I have heard it alleged by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that we have that at present. I doubt that statement. I do not say that it was not made candidly, but from what information I have gained from experienced men, pilots and others interested in shipping, there are several points between Montreal and Quebec where it is by no means certain that we have that depth at low water. Therefore, I say that, with the increasing size of ships, it is most necessary for us to carry out the suggestions, and, if we have dredging to do, it must not be done to advance private interests, it must be done at the points where it is so urgently needed, there are two points between Montreal and Quebec where the channel is very narrow, as is pointed out in the report of the commission. Large ships sailing through these parts of the river, even if a fog supervenes, cannot cast anchor, for, if they do that, the ship will turn and there is no room to allow it to turn in safety. Consequently they must go on and trust to luck and the signals. And accidents have occurred there on-that account. It seems to me that the suggestions of the Transportation Commission ought to be heeded first and foremost. Why? Because the rates of insurance are against us as compared with those of American ports, and this is precisely on account of the difficulties which, I say, we can eliminate promptly if we reserve for these expenditures the money which we spend uselessly elsewhere.
In the same way, if my hon. friend will take the trouble to ascertain, he will find out that we are paying a great deal for dredging in the Ottawa river, which, I think, could be done in a better way if we keep in mind that the Georgian Bay canal has been investigated and recommended as a work of national importance, and dredge where it will be useful for that channel, instead of dredging to suit the convenience of political favourites and members of parliament who do not take the trouble to investigate these large ques-

tions, but are satisfied simply to have the work done in their own counties.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Where is dredging done ot that kind?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I mentioned a moment ago that, to my knowledge, dredging was done in the Ottawa river, last summer or the summer before, to facilitate the approach to a private ice-house. That is somewhere in the county of Vaudreuil. If my hon. friend will take the trouble to investigate he will find that that is absolutely correct.
Peterborough steamboat landing, $$2,500.


William Pugsley: That may be dropped.
Mr. 8AM. HUGHES. Why?


George di Madeiros Loy: Because the work has been completed and paid for.
Petewawa-extension of wharf, $11,500.


William Pugsley: Of that $8,500 is a revote. We have added $3,000 more on further investigation, because of the larger amount of cribwork which must be built.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: No.


Mr.   .T. D .REID@: Is it to be put up by public tender?


William Pugsley: If built, it will be by public tender. I am not absolutely sure as to whether I will go on with that work at the present time or not. I am looking into the question of the public necessity for it.


Mr. OWEN.: While we are on the subject of wharfs, I would ask the minister the nature of the report made by the engineer of his department sent to inspect a wharf at Brighton.


William Pugsley: I am under the impression that I gave the hon. gentleman (Mr. Owen) that information. We have not had a report yet. There was a report some years ago. Owing to my having received information that the owner of the wharf declined to sell, I have taken no further proceedings.


Charles Lewis Owen: The hon. minister will remember that the chief engineer, Mr. Glass, was down there a few weeks before the deputation came to Ottawa.


William Pugsley: There is no Mr. Glass an engineer in my department.


Richard Blain: If an engineer was sent from the Department of Public Works to Brighton, will the minister bring down a report to the committee at some future meeting?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


John Dowsley Reid: Which department would have charge of this wharf-Public Works or Railways?


William Pugsley: This is a private wharf.
(Mr. OWEN. There are two private wharfs there, and both are in a dilapidated condition. Brighton is a thriving town of 1,800 people, yet the wharf there is a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada. Some months ago a deputation came down and the minister was going to do something, for it was clearly suown then that something was needed. I hope he is not going to wait until the general election.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will remember that a delegation waited upon me. and I think he accompanied that delegation. It was stated that there was a private wharf which it was desirable the department should purchase, making the necessary repairs, and make it a public wharf. I said I was not prepared to undertake the expropriation of a private wharf at Brighton at present, but if they could obtain from the owner a statement that he was willing to sell at what was regarded as a reasonable price, I would take the matter into consideration. Some little time afterwards I received word from one of the most prominent members of the delegation-


Charles Lewis Owen: What name?


William Pugsley: I have forgotten the name-that the owner of the wharf refused to put a price on it. So I have done nothing further in the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know 'if the Department of Public Works had an engineer there at all. The member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) says that the government sent an engineer to look over the wharf, and the Minister of Public Works said they did not.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer informs me that he has given no instructions to any engineer of the department to make an examination.


Mr. WHITE.: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Public Works say that he does not know- that there is a necessity for this work in connection with the Petawawa wharf. Last session I brought the matter to the attention of the acting Minister of 'Public Works, and an appropriation was made in the supplementaries. During the summer I took the matter up with the department, and they assured me that the w'ork would be commenced last August, 'but up to the present time nothing has been done. I have here a letter from the manager of the Pembroke Navigation Company which I would like to read to the House :
Dear Sir,-Some time ago I brought to your attention the matter of the extension of the Petewawa wharf. At that time I pointed out the urgent necessity of the carrying out of this work. I understand that there was an amount in the estimates passed last session ' for this purpose. Up to the present nothing

has been done although you informed me that according to a conversation you had with the engineer of the Public Works Department, this work would have been commenced last August. As you are aware during the low water season, we are unable to land our boats there without danger of going on the shoals or reefs which are in close proximity to the dock in its present condition. We have also had trouble with the government booms swinging out beyond the end of the wharf and blocking the channel so that we were prevented from landing. I trust you will bring this matter to the attention of the government and endeavour to have the work completed at the earliest moment possible as this is an iin-portant point for landing supplies and men for the military camp, the settlers and the lumbering interests on the Petewawa river.
Yours truly,
GEORGE SCHMIDT, Manager and Secretary Treasurer.
I would like to impress upon the minister the necessity of undertaking this work as soon as possible. During the season of low water it is almost impossible to get up to this dock with boats. It is a very important point on the Ottawa river at the present time.


William Pugsley: Of course, nothing could be done until parliament voted the money. We are getting along pretty late in the season and not much can be done this year. 'But my attention has been called to the wharf at Petawawa, and it has been intimated to me that the wharf really is not necessary in the public interest. I have directed an inquiry to be made, and I can say to my hon. friend that the matter is still under consideration.


Peter White: The wharf in its present condition is practically useless at low water.


William Pugsley: It is not positively decided that this large amount of money will be expended there. I am not sure it is iu the public interest.
I>ort Burwell-improvement to harbour, $90,000.


William Pugsley: Up to the 31st of December there was $S,769 expended. Then there was an estimate for a further expenditure up the 31st of March. The dredging work is under contract.
Port Hope-repairs to pier and dredging, $15,000.


Mr. WARD.: What has been done at Port Hope this year ?


William Pugsley: We propose to, do some dredging at Port Hope. It was commenced In the fall of 1907, by Mr. Phin of Welland. We hope to do quite a little dredging work this year.


Henry Alfred Ward: Will there be any repairs 'to the piers ?


William Pugsley: Yes, we propose to make repairs to the pier, also to do some dredging.


Peter White: Port Stanley-harbour improvements, $38,-
000.


Mr. WM. JACKSON.: Is this all for the outside breakwater in Port Stanley ?


William Pugsley: This is for the outside breakwater, and for dredging. The work is under contract.


William Jackson: When will that work for the outside breakwater be completed 1


William Pugsley: I think it will take another year.


William Jackson: Who is the inspector ?


William Pugsley: My memorandum does not say, hut I can get the name.


William Jackson: I know the inspector has been changed, and I wanted to know tile reason. I wrote the minister in connection with the inside breakwater six weeks or two months ago. I called his attention to the condition of the inside breakwater on the east side of the east pier. Unless that breakwater is extended 150 feet to the northeast, practically the work that has been done in Port Stanley will be useless. The lake is breaking in on the north side of the breakwater, and is cutting into the harbour.


William Pugsley: I will have the matter looked into at once.
Rainy river-improvements at Long Sault rapids, $501,000.


William Pugsley: In reference to that, we were obliged to get the consent of the United States government, because it might be a matter for the Waterways Commission to settle. At their suggestion wh have referred the matter to the American government.


William Humphrey Bennett: In connection with a similar matter, is any expenditure being incurred by the department in keeping a patrol tug or tugs at a point called the Lime Kilns, near Windsor ?


William Pugsley: My engineer tells nre no.
Roche's point wharf, $3,200.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is that dock costing at Roche's Point ?


William Pugsley: The total cost is $3,212. That has been paid for.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand the people In that vicinity never wanted that wharf, and they are now asking the government to take it away.


William Pugsley: Well, they have not tome to the right source to get it done, because they have not communicated with me bn the subject.

* Mr. J. D. REID. Was there not some 'complaint about this wharf not being re-jquired ?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer says 'there has been some complaint, but it has 'not come to my notice.
' Mr. J. D. REID. The wharf was never 'required, the people petitioned against the 'wharf being built, it was forced on them 'and now they want it taken away.


William Pugsley: I was mistaken. I saw the chief engineer bow his head when you were speaking, but he says there has been no complaint to the department in regard to the work not being necessary.
Rondeau harbour-improvements, $50,000.


William Pugsley: The total probable cost of the works is about $130,000. The works consist of the construction of two breakwaters each 500 feet long, dredging of the site of the breakwaters to a depth of 23 feet, dredging and approach to the depth of 22 feet, dredging the turning basin in the inner harbour, repairs to piers, &c. The dredging is under contract to the Canadian Construction and Dredging Company whose headquarters are at Toronto. I think Mr. Bertram is president or manager.
Rossport-wharf on north shore Lake Superior, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is a coal dock or wharf in connection with the Canadian Pacific. It is in Thunder Bay and Rainy River district.
Sault Ste Marie wharf-dredging approaches, $30,000.


William Pugsley: The dredging contract has been given to the Great Lakes Dredging Company.
Severn river-improvement of waterway at McDonald's chute No. 1, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This may be dropped.


Charles Marcil: Item dropped.
Southampton-repairs to Chantry island breakwater, $3,500.


William Pugsley: This will finish the work. It is by day labour.
Toronto harbour improvements, $90,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Is it under contract?


William Pugsley: The dredging is under contract to the Western Dredging Company and the protection work is also under contract.
Victoria harbour-improvements, $56,200.


William Pugsley: Prior to 31st March, 1908, we expended here $10,331.33. We contemplated much more work this year. This is under contract to the Canadian Dredging and Contracting Company.


Charles Lewis Owen: Reverting to the item of which I spoke I have found the newspaper clipping. It says :


Mr.  J. G.@: Sing, chief engineer, from the Public Works, Toronto, and Frank L. Wood, Liberal candidate for the House of Commons for East Northumberland, were here (Brighton) on Tuesday when the chief engineer made an inspection of the wharf for the purpose of making a report to the government as to the advisability of taking over the same. Our wharf should be repaired and extended, and we sincerely hope the government will grant the prayer of the large petition recently presented to them.
I asked the minister the contents of that report. This is dated May 27. I gave the name of Glass instead of Sing in speaking before.


William Pugsley: Mr. Sing is the resident engineer in Toronto. I have no doubt he has made an inspection of the wharf, pro, bably when visiting at Colborne, but I will take occasion to see if there is a report from him and if not to get the result of his examination.


John Dowsley Reid: Did Mr. Sing go there on instructions from the department or on his own responsibility?


William Pugsley: I will have the files /ooked up to ascertain.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the chief engineer will understand something of the matter?	"


William Pugsley: The chief engineer says he has no recollection of sending Mr. Sing tnere.
Winnipeg river-improvements, $10,000,


Samuel Hughes: What is the nature of these improvements?


William Pugsley: These are at Miller's rapids, north of ICenora, and Throat rapids to improve a stretch of navigation of 16 miles to the crossing of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


Mr. MORIN.: I wish for some information about the wharf which is to cost $13,000 on Lake Frangois in the county of Beauce.


William Pugsley: What does my hon. friend want to know?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will give the minister some information, because he is new in his office and I don't think I should blame everything on him for that reason. There was money voted two years ago for a wharf there and the wharf was built, and like the other public works throughout the country I presume it was left to the member for the county to look after the building of it. I do not know whether the government sent an engineer there or not, but if they did they might as well send an old grandmother. Do you hear that,

Mr. Minister? Your engineers do not amount to a row of pins. Here is an example where the engineer recommended a wharf to be built and the wharf was built, and there was no stone put Into it,, and away went the wharf with the ice last' spring. Now, this is a small lake, about twenty-five miles long by two or three miles wide, and there is no current in it.


John Dowsley Reid: Are there any boats on the lake?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Yes, but they belong to the lumber company and the lumber company uses its own wharf. There was $7,000 wasted on this wharf before, and I would like the minister to explain why he wants to waste $13,000 more now.


George di Madeiros Loy: I think my hon. friend is in error with regard to the importance of the matter, because my information is there was a large petition in favour of this work, and upon investigation it was decided to be in the public interest to build the wharf. It would appear there are several steamboats plying on the lake.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There are, but they belong to the lumber company, and they use their own wharf.


William Pugsley: I am glad to get the information from my hon. friend in regard to the alleged defects in the wharf, and I will have the matter looked into. The work is under contract, and the contractor will have to complete the work properly before he is paid.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who is the contractor?


William Pugsley: John Lowry, of Ottawa.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How long is the wharf to
be?


William Pugsley: The Lambton wharf will have a total length of 350 feet extending out to 6 feet at low water. The Coleraine wharf will have a total length of 300 feet.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The minister says there are boats plying on that lake ; where do they start from and where do they go to?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say I do not know.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I believe you know very well.


John Dowsley Reid: This is another ease where the member for the county apparently got up a petition and the government immediately proceeded to spend thousands of dollars on a wharf without inquiring whether it was necessary or not. The facts stated by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) prove that this money is squandered for political purposes.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I can tell the minister that I will get no thanks for what I have said Mr. MORIN
in the House to-night. Well, I want none. Every time I condemn unnecessary expenditure here, next day the Grits on the other side go for me, and say : Why did you say anything against that work being
uie in the province Quebec ; Ontario gets so much and the other provinces get so much, and we want to get our share. Well, the government is just squandering the money, and it would seem that all the Liberal member for a county needs to do is to ask for an expenditure, whether it is necessary or not, and he gets it. That was the policy of the previous Minister of Public Works ; I don't accuse the present minister, because he is new in the office, and I shall not hang him before giving him a trial. I have here estimates for the last seven years, and what do they show? Every year there is expenditure in the Island of Orleans, at St. Frangois, at St. Laurent and Ste. Famille. At St. Frangois the population is about 500 ; it is situated at the lower end of the island, and they have a wharf there and another one about half a mile distant. At St. Jean de Orleans and St. Laurent it is the same thing. The thing is getting ridiculous. The member for the county asks for the money and he gets it, right or wrong. Is that what Sir Wilfrid Laurier promised before he came to power? In my county, in 1895, he told the people that if he came to power his government would be a government of example. He just omitted that little word ' bad,' for since he has come to power his government has been a government of bad example. He found fault with the Conservatives spending $36,000,000 a year, but immediately on his coming to power in 1896 we voted $52,000,000 at the special session of that year ; the next year the estimates were $58,000,000, the next year $62,000,000, the next year $70,000,000, the next year $78,000,000, the next year $82,000,000, the next year $105,000,000 and this year we have $119,000,000 in the main estimates and $9,000,000 more in supplementaries already brought down, and the minister tells us there are more to come, and God only knows how many supplementary estimates he will have. The man who found fault with the late government for spending $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 is going to spend this year $140,000,000 or $150,000,000. What does that look like?


Mr. JOHNSTON.: It looks good to me.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: But you are a Grit like the rest.
Manitoba-Grand Marais harbour, Lake Winnipeg-improvement of entrance, $1,500.


Mr. STAPLES.: What is the nature of this work ?


William Pugsley: It is to remove the sandbar to improve the entrance to the harbour.


William D. Staples: What navigation is there ?


George di Madeiros Loy: Both sailing vessels and quite a large number of steamers. The navigation on Lake Winnipeg is getting to be quite important.
Lake Dauphin-lowering lake by removing obstructions from bed of Mossy river, $7,000.


William D. Staples: What is the nature of that ?


William Pugsley: This is a revote towards the construction and equipment and installation of the plant required for removing these obstructions. It is expected to carry on the work during the present year.


William D. Staples: How much has been spent there ?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been expended yet.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the government intend building a plant and doing the work itself, or is it to be by contract ?


William Pugsley: The government will do the work itself.


William D. Staples: Who is going to do the work at Grand Marais Harbour ?


William Pugsley: We have not decided yet.
Winnipegosis lake-dredging channel at mouth of Mossy river, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This work will be done by the government dredge.


William D. Staples: Where is that dredge working at the present time ?


William Pugsley: The dredge has been removed two or three times since the spring opened. I am not able to tell my hon. friend where it is working just at the moment.


William D. Staples: I notice once more that there is no appropriation in the main estimates for the completion of the work that was begun on' the harbour of St. Laurent on Lake Manitoba. Previous to the last election a wharf was built there and a dredge was sent up and for a time there was great activity ; but the moment the election was over, the work ceased, the dredge was taken away, and nothing has been done since. The work that has been done is of utterly no value to the district until it is completed. The council of the municipality has sent a petition asking the government to make the necessary appropriation to complete the work. If the minister has not that petition, I have a copy of it. I have brought this matter up at every session of this parliament, and I have always been stood off with the promise that an item would be brought down in the supplementary estimates, but that has never been done. The work, if completed, would be of great value to the people of that district. They could send wood and other products by boat to Winnipeg, but boats cannot get to the wharf until some further dredging is done. There will also have to be a road made to the wharf. At present produce cannot be taken to or away from the wharf. I would ask the minister if it is his intention to make any provision in the supplementary estimates for the completion of that work.


William Pugsley: Is Lake Manitoba in the hon. gentleman's constituency ?


William D. Staples: Yes, in the northern part.


William Pugsley: I had some information that the work was not regarded as very necessary, because there was not a very large population there. I may have been mininformed as to that, and I will look very carefully into the matter.


William D. Staples: It must be of some importance when the reeve and council went to the trouble of drafting a petition and sending it down here. It is of the utmost importance to the people of that district. I think I know the riding and what is required there as well as the people who may have advised the minister. There is another place up there-Delta and Lake Manitoba. Is anything being done there?


William Pugsley: There has been some dredging done at the Delta. If further dredging is required, it will be done, but I cannot say just now what will be done.
Old Man's river-diversion of stream into its original bed at McLeod '(revote) $8,000.


Mr. HERRON.: Has the minister any information with reference to the damage done by the recent flood? I asked him that question the other evening.


William Pugsley: I inquired in my department and find that we have no breakwater there.


John Herron: There was an appropriation of $8,000 for the work


William Pugsley: There was, but nothing is done, and we are now revoting that amount.


John Herron: Do the government propose spending sufficient money to protect the banks at that point?


William Pugsley: The intention of the department is to make the work complete. If it should cost more than $8,000, we shall do what is necessary.


John Herron: It is very important that some protection should be given.
New dredging plant-maritime provinces,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you building new dredges for the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: Not as yet, but new dredging plant is very urgently required. This is to build or acquire one or more dredges and some tugs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have no plan in view ?


William Pugsley: I have discussed the matter with the chief engineer and superintendent of dredging. They think we ought to have at least three additional dredges-one for work in the Bay of Fundy, one for work in the Baie des Chaleurs, and the other on the north shore. Then we want a number of tugs. In the operation of the dredge ' Fielding ' we ought to have four tugs, and have none available. We have to hire tugs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this $100,000 going to build three dredges and four tugs?


William Pugsley: No, that will not begin to do it.
Roads and bridges-Shellmouth bridge over Assiniboine river, $20,000.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Will the minister explain what has been done in connection with the Shellmouth bridge ?


William Pugsley: That is under contract. The piers have been completed, and work on the steel superstructure is being carried or. as rapidly as possible. The material I think is all on the ground. I hope the bridge will be completed during the present year. The contract was let for the steel work on the 23rd of October, 1907, to be completed a year from date.


William James Roche: There has been a vote in the estimates for the last four years.


William Pugsley: Yes, the work was commenced in 1900.


William James Roche: The old bridge has been condemned for the last four years, and the people are much dissatisfied with the slow progress.


William Pugsley: It is impossible to expedite the work any more. Our latest information is that the work is proceeding quite satisfactorily, and we expect it will be completed within the time mentioned.
Land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service and. Marconi wireless telegraph system at Belle Isle, &e., $120,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is the Marconi system working ?


William Pugsley: I think it is giving pretty good satisfaction. But this is a matter coming within the Marine Department.


Richard Blain: Has the minister got a statement of the revenue and expenditure In this connection ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will find that in the Auditor General's Report.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec harbour improvements, $500,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract there ?


William Pugsley: Dussault & Co.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the total estimated amount this work is to cost when completed ?


William Pugsley: The work that is going on there is of very great importance. If my hon. friend will come over here I will show him the plans. It will give altogether about 3,000 feet frontage.
Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour and river improvements, $500,000.
Mil-. BENNETT. What is going to be done there this year ?


William Pugsley: Just the dredging work. We are doing it as rapidly as possible There will be something done probably in the way of building a revetment wall as well. There is also a breakwater being built at Port Arthur. I may say that for several months, ever since I have been at the head of the department, and I think before that, there has been a strong pressure upon the part of business men of Winnipeg and Port Arthur, also of ship owners, and I think of the boards of trades of those cities, to build a new breakwater out further from the wnarf iu order to give more sea room to the large steamers which are now frequenting the port. I have decided to accede to tfie wishes of the people in this respect. The breakwater, when completed, will give more sea room, because further from the existing wharfs. In the meantime we are leaving n portion of the old breakwater and doing some work of a temporary character. The dredging done will give accommodation to the largest steamers on the lake.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the cost of the breakwater come out of this vote?


William Pugsley: Yes, part of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: What portion of this vote will go to the breakwater?


William Pugsley: When the breakwater is finally completed it will cost a great deal more than this vote. For the present year we expect the breakwater expenditure . to be about $100,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much will the revetment wall cost?


William Pugsley: We have not determined upon that yet. I think perhaps we will have to extend that work over a couple or three years as it will be eoo expensive to be all done iu one year. By building Ihe revetment wall as designed by the chief

engineer we shall save large expense tor building the breakwater opposite the entrance to the Mission river.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it intended to spend more in these works ?


William Pugsley: I think we shall have to make further provision before parliament rises.


William Humphrey Bennett: That will be in the supplementary estimates?


William Pugsley: Yes. Dredging is going on night and day in order to hurry the work. The Grand Trunk Pacific are laying out their works on a large scale and so is the 'Canadian Pacific Railway, and both are eager to be able to effectively handle the grain trade this fall. We are rushing our work, believing that what we are doing will be a great national benefit.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the dredging done under contract? And who is the contractor ?	t


William Pugsley: Yes. The Great Lakes Dredging Company.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many dredges
have they employed?


William Pugsley: I think five.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the engineer in charge?	~	<
(Mr. PUGSLEY. Mr. Merrick.
Mr.' BENNETT. Is any other dredging being done besides that by the Great Lakes Dredging Company?


William Pugsley: At Port Arthur, Mr. Weddell. I think he has about completed his work.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much of this is tor Mr. Weddell's work?


William Pugsley: Only about 30,000 yards remains to be done at 9 cents a yard.
Red Deer-improvements at St. Andrews Rapids, $300,000.


John Dowsley Reid: When will this work be completed?


William Pugsley: I hope this year. We made arrangements with the contractors to expedite the work. They carried it on all winter. We hope that this season it will be completed.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are the contractors?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Quinlan & Robertson.
Transportation facilities, Georgian bay to Montreal-survey for waterway via French and Ottawa rivers, including payments authorized notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much has been expended on this survey so far?


William Pugsley: According to my notes the total expenditure to 31st March, 1907, was $597,838.48. But the chief engineer tells me that the memo, must be wrong and that the date should be 31st March, 1908. It will require $40,000 more.
It is expected that this vote will entirely complete the work of the survey. The survey is completed and only some verification work is being done.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the intention of the government as to going on with this work ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will understand that it is a matter of great importance and of great interest to the country, one which will involve the expenditure of a very large sum of money. It is one, therefore, which the government will have to consider after having carefully studied the report submitted. In due course and in proper season the Prime Minister will, no doubt, announce the policy of the government.


John Dowsley Reid: Has it been considered by the government?


William Pugsley: Not since the report came in.
Port Colborne-harbour improvements, $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has the elevator there cost to date?


William Pugsley: It is being built by the Department of Railways and Canals, so I cannot give the information. We are building the breakwater.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much has the Department of Public Works spent there?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure of my department is in the vicinity of $850,000, probably pretty close to $900,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister any idea of what the Department of Railways has spent there?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell.


William Humphrey Bennett: I guess you have made it four millions there.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this vote for no other purpose than breakwaters?


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract for the breakwater?


Mr. PUGSLEY M. J.@: Hogan has one contract and Hogan & Macdonald have another.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the minister aware whether the elevator is finished or not?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was stated in the newspapers some time ago that it is all



1214(8
finished. It does not matter much in any case. It will never do anything.
Militia Department-pay and allowances. $1,500,000.


Hon.  W. S.@: I suggest that item 71 he allowed to stand as I wish to make a statement upon it which will take some time and other members will probably wish to speak upon it.


George Taylor: I am quite sure that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will want to discuss several items, but 'he is not present and will wish to be present when the minister makes his statement.	*


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: That is one reason I did not wish to make it to-night. 'It will be understood that any militia item may be discussed on the item we are leaving, No. 71. Item No. 72, pay and allowances, is for the permanent force. The full vote is $1,500,000. The total number of the permanent force at present is about 3,000.


Henry Alfred Ward: What is the increase of


Frederick William Borden: There'has been an increase of about 300 in the force since last year.
Salaries and wages, $85,000.


George Taylor: There Is an increase of $15,000.


Frederick William Borden: Last year $15,000 was included in the supplementary estimates.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would ask the minister if he has seen the following item in the Toronto ' Globe ?'
If there is any part of the provincial expenditure upon which the pruning-knife can properly be used, it is the militia estimates. We are not at war, nor likely to become so. We are threatened with bankruptcy-the only way of averting it is to reduce the expenditure-and there are comparatively few items upon which economy can be used, without injury to the public interests. If the whole militia service was suspended for one, two or three years, the injury done to the country would be so infinitesimal as to be unworthy of notice.


Frederick William Borden: I had not seen it, I will look it up. I did not suppose the Toronto ' Globe ' would publish anything so nonsensical as that. Is it an editorial ?
Mr. BENNETx. It is quoted in the Globe' newspaper of July 2nd. It is a reproduction from the 'Globe' of 1858, 50 years ago, but it is strongly ominous, it is a case of history repeating itself and I think the public will think so.


Peter White: At page Q-52 of the Auditor General's Report I find an item


William Humphrey Bennett: under Petawawa camp, Savage, W. J., painting $900. Was that work done by tender and were there any other tenders received?


Frederick William Borden: By tender called by public advertisement. In all the work at Petawawa tenders were asked by 'public advertisements in the newspapers.
Militarv properties-construction and repairs, $258,750.


George Taylor: There is an increase of $45,000 there.
!Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. This includes repairs and rifle ranges, barracks and ordnance stores, &c., and these requirements are annually increasing. The number of rifle ranges is increasing each year and the outlay is increasing somewhat.


John Dowsley Reid: The permanent force is now about 3,000. How many were there eight or nine years ago ?


Frederick William Borden: About 800 or 900.
%


Mr.  J. D.@: REID It has increased about fourfold.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Between three and fourfold. There is an increase for Halifax and Esquimalt alone of 1.500. That is the principal increase.
Repairs to Quebec cliffs and walls, $40,000.


Frederick William Borden: This is done by day labour. It is the usual, vote.


George Taylor: I trust the minister will put in an appropriation to enable him to repair the military buildings at Kingston. There is a good deal of money spent at Quebec in one way and another, but the Kingston fortifications are allowed to go to ruin. A few years ago a comparatively small expenditure would have put the military property there in good shape.


Frederick William Borden: That is a matter which must be taken up very soon unless we are to allow the whole of that property to go. I found it out of repair and almost abandoned when I came to office. An unsuccessful attempt was made by General Herbert to utilize some of the rooms at Fort Henry. I have had an examination made by engineers within the last year, but I have not yet had an opportunity of looking into the report. I think there will be some small items in the supplementary estimates for some of the works at Kingston to which my hon. friend refers, particularly for the wail bordering the military property,


Peter White: I would like to know whether the lowest tender was accepted for the painting of these buildings to which I have referred. I understand that several firms in the town of Pembroke tendered, but the Kingston firm got the contract.


Frederick William Borden: I am quite sure the lowest tender was accepted, but I will have the matter looked up.
Warlike and other stores, $350,000.


Frederick William Borden: This is the usual vote.


George Taylor: There is an increase of $37,000. What does this include?


Frederick William Borden: Accoutrements, camp equipment, general stores, engineer's stores and medical stores.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is meant by the upkeep of armament?


Frederick William Borden: Ammunition both for practice and reserve supply, field and garrison artillery, ordnance stores, transport vehicles, extra parts of outfit for big guns, &c.; artillery stores of which there is a great variety.


John Dowsley Reid: In these different items for the militia department there is an increase in the total vote of about $342,000.


George Taylor: And then there are the supplementaries.


Frederick William Borden: There will be no supplementaries except for the militia annual drill.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote for clothing and necessaries in stores amounts altogether to $800,000 and that seems a very large amount to expend in one year. One would think that the stores and clothing would not have to go on increasing year after year. Why is there this increase?


Frederick William Borden: The increase in the number of the militia is the principal reason. New corps are being formed in the new provinces of the west to take the place largely of the Northwest Mounted Police. I have a comparative statement here which may be interesting:
1903-4 1908-9.
Total number of militia	
47,423	57,718Total number of horses	
7,892	11,798Number of men trained	
32,000	*46,000
*Estimated.
The very great increase of the growth of the militia between the two periods will account ifor a considerable increased portion of the increased cost. The men must have clothing, arms, and ammunition.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How often is new clothing issued?


Frederick William Borden: Once in three years. There is an attempt being made to be more economical, and I think the overcoats are now issued for nine years.
. Mr. DANIEL. You do not issue boots?


Frederick William Borden: Not except to the permanent force.
386i
'Mr. J. D. REID. $300,000 a year for elothing seems a large amount.


Frederick William Borden: It is only an average of about $6 per year for each man.
Provisions and supplies, $430,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why the increase in this vote?


Frederick William Borden: That is principally for the permanent force.


John Dowsley Reid: I have seen complaints that the goods furnished have not been up to standard in some cases.


Frederick William Borden: These supplies for the permanent force are purchased by tenders called for in the newspapers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Open to everybody?


Frederick William Borden: Open to everybody. As to complaints, there was a complant from Halifax by a man who did not get the contract, as his tender was not low enough. He was very much annoyed because the bacon was brought somewhere from Ontario, and endeavoured to make all the trouble he could. As a matter of fact, the food is inspected every day, and every soldier has an opportunity to make a complaint if he chooses. There is absolutely nothing in that story.


John Dowsley Reid: I have heard of other cases ; but in that particular case I understand that it was rolled bacon that was supplied. I am not in the militia, but I understand that if a militiaman were to make a complaint to the officer in charge, he would be liable to get into trouble. If the officer in charge stands in with these parties in any way, it would be useless to make a charge to him.


Frederick William Borden: I can assure my hon. friend that we are not running the militia in that way. If I knew that an officer refused to take cognizance of a complaint of that kind, I should dismiss him at once. Our object is to get the very best food we can, and we always accept the lowest tender. Sometimes, when there is keen competition, and a man is foolish enough to tender below the value of the goods supplied, there may be an attempt to skimp, and deliver food which is not up to the mark ; but our inspectors will detect and punish such conduct at once.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the supply officer any control over the purchase of goods ?


Frederick William Borden: Not over the purchasing. That is all done by tender, and is determined by the director of contracts here. But the supply officer has absolute control over the quality of the food. That is his business, and he inspects everything that is delivered every morning.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He is not the only one. There is another officer who goes around every morning with the supply officer and the medical officer, so that I do not think there is much chance of inferior food being provided.


Frederick William Borden: If any inferior food should have been delivered, the supply officer has the authority to refuse it and purchase good food and charge it up to the contractor.


Mr. BEATTIE.: If the food is bad, the officer of the day is to blame, because he inspects it at six o'clock in the morning, and has a right to report it to the commanding officer. So that I do not see how improper food could be supplied. I would like to ask the minister, did the report that the bacon was bad come from the men?


Frederick William Borden: No, it came from the disappointed contractor.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not mean to say that the food supplied was bad food ; but the contract called for rolled bacon, which had been supplied for years before, and the man at Halifax who tendered supposed that he would have to supply rolled bacon. The man who got the contract quoted a lower price than rolled bacon could be supplied for. The result was that rolled bacon was not supplied. I have not seen any statement in any newspaper either by the department at Ottawa or by the officer in command at Halifax, denying the statement that was in the Halifax paper. That convinces me that rolled bacon was not supplied by the contractor. There was no investigation by the department to find out whether the statement in the newspaper was true or not. 1'herefore until I have further evidence, I am perfectly satisfied that the contractor did not carry out the contract, and that the men did not get the quality of food which the government intended to supply them. They were deceived and the government was defrauded so far as that contract was concerned.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend reverses the good old rule of holding a man innocent until he is proven guilty. If I were to occupy my time in answering all the false statements that are made in regard to the department and the way it is administered, it would take all my time. I do not propose to do that. We have a regular means, as hon. gentlemen know, by which every complaint from the humblest man in the force can reach me or his superior officer. In this case I did not think that I was called on to make an investigation, ^ because no charge was made except one in an utterly unreliable newspaper, coming from a disappointed contractor.


Henry Alfred Ward: Was there ever anv charge made by (be commander of that regiment as .to the quality of the food ?


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: None whatever.


Samuel Hughes: Did the officer of the day for inspecting the rations make any reports ?
Sir, FREDERICK BORDEN. His reports were ail favourable. There has never been any question or challenge of this particular article. My hon. friend says there has been no contradiction. I have no doubt whatever that the bacon which was tendered for was delivered.
Grants to rifle and artillery associations and bands, $55,000.


William James Roche: What is the basis upon wiiich these grants are made ? Does every rifle company get a grant ?


Frederick William Borden: The basis is $1 per head up to forty and fifty cents for every additional member up to eighty, so that $60 would be the maximum. This is for civilian rifle associations.
Royal Military College, $95,000.


Frederick William Borden: There are slight increases in the professors' salaries and the general expenses are greater.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What salaries are increased ?


Frederick William Borden: The adjutant of the college gets an increase of $500 ; the professor of mathematics $300.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this a special increase for the adjutant ?


Frederick William Borden: It will be paid to his successor. It is for the adjutant of the college.


Samuel Hughes: I see the caterer has resigned. What system is now followed ? The system in vogue should be condemned.


Frederick William Borden: The caterer used to receive 50 cents a head. He wanted GO cents. I thought that was rather a large increase and sent an officer to investigate.
I am satisfied we can do very much better by taking charge of the food ourselves within the college as at the different depots. The officers are anxious for the change.


Samuel Hughes: I have heard various yarns about the officers being surprised at the stuff the boys had to eat.


Frederick William Borden: So I believe.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There are several military officers there, are they entitled to rations ? Are any of these rations turned over to the caterer


Frederick William Borden: That has never been done.


Henry Alfred Ward: Is this vote of $95,000 over and above any fees received ?


Frederick William Borden: We get the
fees back and that reduces the cost very considerably.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to this case at Halifax which the minister said was an impossible one, I have heard other men in charge of different companies out at drill complain about the food served at the camps. They are afraid, however, to kick, because these goods were supplied by f riends of the government and they would get into trouble tnemselves. I have heard those stories and believe them to be true. In a case like that at Halifax, although the minister states that the paper which published it is not reliable,
I think that he or some of his officers would not have been doing any too much if they had at once written to the man. in charge of the regiment and found out what truth there was in the statement, if any. The minister and his deputy did not do their duty when they paid no attention to that. A matter of that kind affecting all those men is a very serious matter. We shall not have time this session to find out the truth in the Fublic Accounts but we will next session. But outside of that case altogether, there are other cases ; and I am perfectly satisfied that the minister would, if he would state what he knows to be true, tell us that he has had complaints of the food furnished the men in the camps at different places.


Samuel Hughes: If any of these complaints are justifiable and if T were in the minister's place, the head would go off every officer in the force who had anything to do with inspecting the rations.. Perhaps the hon. member does not know the routine. I have seen where quartermasters would stand in with the supply oflicers ; but in addition to the quartermasters, there is the field officer of the day, who has the rank of colonel or major, who has to inspect the rations every morning. Then for every regiment there is a regimental officer, and for every company, a company officer, so that the "food has to go through a series of inspections. Besides there is the field medical officer and also the regimental medical officer Unless the officers are absolutely crooked or stupid, it is impossible that stuff not fit to eat could reach the men. If the hon. member had ever been in camp, he would know that the soldiers would kick in a second if they did not get good rations. That is the reason why. when I read this thing about Halifax, I thought the officers and men must be insane to pass such rations. or else they did not know the quality of the goods. The medical officer should detect anything of that kind in a moment. I was going to speak of the Royal Military College. I give the minister notice that at another sitting I intend to discuss the commandant of that college and the system of
discipline pursued there, what they used to term the commission of inquiry into conduct, but what I call the sweat-box system. It is no way to train young men to be manly and straightforward. So far as I am concerned, my vote will go against any man who maintains such a system and against the voting of any money to maintain it.


Henry Alfred Ward: In following what the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has said, I wish to relieve the mind of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid). What this committee has been told is exactly right-the men will not stand bad rations. I have had a great deal of experience in camp in the last forty years, both under this administration and under former administrations. As a rule, the rations were good. I can recall one instance several years ago when sour bread was furnished.


Samuel Hughes: In 1872.


Henry Alfred Ward: Yes, under Conservative administration. The men had no fear of the contractor. They formed a line of three or four hundred feet long, and the bakers' apprentices who brought the bread had to run the gauntlet, the men pelting them with the bread. The next day the bread supplied was sweet. The food goes through a series of inspection, and there is very little danger that the men do not receive what is being paid for and what they are entitled to get.
Dominion Arsenal, $350,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is that?


Frederick William Borden: At Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: Why the increase?


Frederick William Borden: That is not really an increase. In other years there has been a vote in the supplementary estimates, but this year there will be none.


Samuel Hughes: I ought to know, but I fear I do not. Is it the intention to continue the manufacture of the cartridge 303 as made to-day, or to adopt a modern cartridge, the sharp-pointed bullet? The United States have adopted this form, and the British government will probably adopt It, too, before the end of the century. The Canadian government should be in line and adopt the new pointed bullet. It has much greater initial velocity, lower trajectory and less windage. It is capable of much greater accuracy in firing.


Frederick William Borden: I have not lost sight of the subject. We have the report of an officer who has been in England and investigated the matter.


Samuel Hughes: Did he make inquiry as to what has been done in England by private parties? Private companies in England have adopted this bullet.


Frederick William Borden: This officer has seen the manufacturers there.


Samuel Hughes: I would recommend him to look into what the American manufacturers are doing. If he looks into the matter, he will find in the United States a record that will surprise him.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I desire to call attention to a statement that was made in the public press, that at a recent camp at Niagara it was found out, just in time, that a lot of ammunition supposed to be blank was found to be loaded with slugs, and that the discovery was made just in time to prevent serious casualties.


Frederick William Borden: The report in the newspapers was contradicted by General Cotton at once. There is no truth in it. As usual, before going into the sham fight, all the men were searched for cartridges of every kind, and these few were found. They would have been found in any case. They were in possession of the men for target firing. They were improperly kept, no doubt.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But I suppose there are no such cartridges manufactured, those loaded with slugs?


Frederick William Borden: We are bringing in a great deal of stuff from England, large orders of guns, and everything that comes from the outside is charged duty. That comes out of our pockets and goes into the customs.


Henry Alfred Ward: Could not the minister reconsider this regulation and allow officers' uniforms to come in free of duty? Officers purchasing uniforms in England have to pay duty.


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid we cannot treat officers differently from others. The only thing that can be done is to buy our uniforms in Canada. I stated in this House a year ago that I could see no reason why officers should not get their clothing made in Canada. I think that is the proper thing to do, and I do not believe it would cost them as much as it does in England.


Samuel Hughes: I have always maintained for the last forty years that the officers should get an aliowaince, that they should be furnished a certain amount for their uniform. As soon as an officer is qualified he should get a certain amount for the purchase of a proper uniform.


Frederick William Borden: No.


John Dowsley Reid: How much is it estimated will be paid to the Ross Rifle Company for rifles out of the estimates this year?


Frederick William Borden: The item out of which the rifles will be paid for is the one reserved. The price is $25, and the annual number to be delivered under the contract is 10,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That means a maximum payment of $25,000.


Frederick William Borden: You cannot tell exactly. A certain amount is paid as advance and a certain amount of the last instalment on the finished gun.


John Dowsley Reid: When we reach tin item perhaps the minister could have statement showing the estimate of wb; will be paid to the Ross Rifle Compar during the year.
Civil government-Department of Labour-salaries, $21,750; contingencies, $1,450.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Under this item I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to some matters in connection with the importation of foreign labour from the United States and other foreign countries. It is said, and I believe with truth, that the working of our Alien Labour law is by no means satisfactory. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, anil in every other riding where there is a coast line, the same difficulty has been found to exist, namely, that the administration of our present Alien Labour law is very lax indeed: it lacks that rigidity and that honesty of enforcement which will alone carry out the letter as well as the spirit of the Act. With regard to the condition of things in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, I can best illustrate it by reading a copy of a petition which is now, I believe, in the hands of the minister:


Frederick William Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: Yes if they are delivered.
Customs dues. $200,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Why such a great increase in this item?


Samuel Hughes: are on the other side of the border. I feel sure that the minister will approach the consideration of the matter in that sense of fairness which characterizes his treatment of such questions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter up this evening. His remarks as they appear in ' Hansard' will serve me to morrow as a brief for the Minister of Justice. It is true that practically the administration of the labour law is in the hands of the (Minister of Labour, but when these cases are taken to the At-' torney General of Canada, that is the Minister of Justice, he acts jointly with me. My hon. friend says we should have a law similar in its effects to the law in the neighbouring republic. I believe in retaliatory measures, we should favour the doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The Alien Labour law, we must all admit was less workable a few years ago than it appears to be to-day. Some years ago, as my hon. friend knows from his professional experience, the only remedy that the parties had was to address themselves to the Attorney General for Canada, the Minister of Justice, and obtain Ms good pleasure for the fiat. Since then, under the administration of the Department of Labour by Sir William Mulock, and of the Justice Department by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, the present Chief Justice of Canada, the law has been so amended as to give the parties the right to obtain a fiat from the Attorney General of each province or from a judge of the Superior Court or a county court judge. The penalty also has been modified in degree. Some years ago the only penalty which could be imposed was a fine of $1,000, and in the application of the law, as the penalty was so severe and the law by its nature so drastic, the judges were inclined to be conservative in its application and in 99 cases out of 100 would give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. An amendment to the law has been adopted by which the judges are at liberty to impose a penalty ranging from $50 to $1,000.
I admit with my hon. friend that we might go a step farther and make the penalty more severe in this sense, that if the penalty is not paid and if the deportation does not take place we might be more drastic and severe. However, as this is something of an international character, for in fact our law applies only to the United States and such United States possessions as are near our boundary, I will not say what other more drastic penalty we will impose, but my hon. friend can surmise what it Is. I know that from his district the department has been notified on two occasions, first by the Sault Ste. Marie labour element and then by the Port Arthur people, of trouble under the existing law. We received a message in April, I think, from the mayor of Port Arthur complaining that labourers were imported from Duluth whilst there Mr. BOYCE.
were plenty of people in Port Arthur to do the work. We immediately put ourselves into communication with the parties and since then the matter has been dropped. At all events the department will be always disposed to help those who will invoke the law. I may say it has not been a dead letter on the statute-book. If my hon. friend will read the report of the Department of Labour for this year he will find a series of cases reported there. This Alien Labour law, as he stated a moment ago, being retaliatory in its nature, has been subjected to many checks by the courts. For instance we all remember the famous judgment of Mr. Justice Anglin. During the period between the judgment of Mr. Justice Anglin and the final judgment of the Privy Council reversing his decision, nearly all cases were stopped. However, since that time the law has been applied and judgments have been rendered which show the law is not ineffective and has been applied in many instances. I have no doubt the remarks of my hon. friend which have been made in a fair spirit will have weight.
I shall communicate with the Minister of Justice and see what better provision can be made to render the law more pliable and .more effective in protecting our own people against the alien labour.
Charges of management-offices of the Assistant Receivers General-
Toronto	$7,800
Montreal	 5,700
Halifax	 8*800
St. John	 7,700
Winnipeg	 7,000
Victoria	 5,900
Charlottetown	 6,000


William Stevens Fielding: It will be noticed that there are a few decreases which are largely due to readjustments of the offices, as where an old officer passes away and in the 1 earrangement of the office the expense is somewhat less. The only item of increase of any importance is in regard to the expense of printing Dominion notes, -that will probably increase every year with the increased volume of business and with the desire that has been expressed by members on both sides for cleaner currency.
Superintendent of Insurance, to meet expenses in connection with this service, $23,450.


William Stevens Fielding: The salary of the superintendent is fixed by statute and we are proposing a resolution concerning it. This is for the ordinary expense of the department which is enlarging all the time in a small degree.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
John Dowsley Reid: I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to

an article which appeared in the papers to-day, which reads- as follows :
Pierson, Manitoba, July 6.-A horde of religious fanatics struck town on Saturday. They were all armed with Winchester rifles and revolvers, and knives, and declared they would not abide by the laws of sinful man, and would shoot anybody that interfered with them. The leader of the gang, a grizzly-faced looking veteran, claimed he was 'Jesus Christ/ and that he was going to Yorkton to look after the Doukhobors there, who were wandering without fi leader. They were a very tattered looking outfit, as if they had tramped a long distance, and claimed to have come from Missouri, where they were persecuted by the United States authorities.
Constable Macfarlane, of the Manitoba Mounted Police, who happened to be here, had rather a warm time. On his demanding from them where they were going, and advancing towards them, they pointed their rifles at him, and told him if he made another step they would fire.
After a harangue from the leader, to which the rest joined in with loud ' Amen,' they proceeded west. It was not thought wise to interfere with them.
I would like to ask the hon. minister if this matter has been drawn to the attention of the government, and if they are allowing these people to come into our country from the United States without taking any action?


William Stevens Fielding: I have no information on the subject. Possibly some of my colleagues may have received some information, but I think we might trust matters of that kind to the tender mercies of the Attorney General of Manitoba.


Samuel Hughes: I think these men will be found not to be of the better class of American citizens, but what I call galvanized Yankee anarchists, like the men who were cutting each others' throats a short time ago in the neighbourhood of Medicine Hat. The United States immigrants who come into the country will not be found to be of that type at all.


John Dowsley Reid: In a case of that kind does the Dominion government not interfere, but leave it entirely in the hands of the local government?


William Stevens Fielding: I speak on the general principle that the preservation of law and order is in the hands of the local authorities.


ACCIDENT TO THE CORNWALL CANAL.
George Perry Graham: It will be of interest to the House to know that in all probability the Cornwall canal will be open for navigation on Saturday next.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The Prime Minister intimated to me early in the evening that it had been arranged that what is called the Hodgins matter would be taken up in the morning, but I have been informed quite recently that some hon. gentlemen who are anxious to discuss that matter had arranged that it would not come on until the afternoon. We may assume that either that or the Civil Service Bill will be taken up in the morning and both during the day, and, if we reach Supply, we will take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 7, 1908.