QUESTIONS.


Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What is the area of concrete sidewalk, &c., laid at the Intercolonial Railway station, Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was the work done under contract? If so, what was the price agreed upon under contract, and who was the 'Contractor?
3.	What d'S the total cost of the work ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	12,024 square feet.
2.	The work was done under an agreement as per government specification. The price was 20 cents per square foot, including curb and draining tile. The contractor to take over materials delivered at Pictou and pay for them. R. S. Lowe, contractor, was paid $2,404.80.
3.	$3,175.05.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-STEEL RAILS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	From what manufacturers has the National Transcontinental Railway Commission purchased steel rails for use in the construction of .the .railway?
2.	What were the prices per ton, respectively, paid under such contracts?
3.	What contracts for rails are still ineom-pleted ?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	From the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., of Sydney, N.S., and the Algoma Steel Company, Ltd., of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
2.	The Algoma Steel Co., 32,000 gross tons delivered at Port Arthur, $54 per ton; the Algoma Steel Co., 21,371 tons delivered at T.
& N. O. Ry., $40 per ton ; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., 23,000 tons delivered at Quebec, $34 per ton; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., 10,000 tons delivered at Port Arthur, $34.50 per ton ; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., 7,794-4 tons delivered at Moncton, $35.85 per ton ; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., 8,548-4 tons delivered at Edmundston, $37.60 per ton ; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co.. 8,171-7 tons delivered at Quebec, $35 per ton ; the Dominion Iron and Steel Co., 19,485-7 tons delivered at L6vis, $35 per ton.
Note.-All freight and other charges to be paid by companies. No. 2 rails to he 5 per cent less than No. 1.
3.	Algoma Steel Company contracts, 10,864 ; Dominion Iron and Steel Company contracts, 13,839.


MILITIA DEPARTMENT-WORK HOURS OF MASONS AT QUEBEC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBITAILLE-by Mr. Bennett-asked :
1.	Has the Department of Militia authoriz- _ ed a nine-hour day work to masons doing work for the department in Quebec city? If so, when?
2.	Will this be permanent for any future work?
[Stage Direction]
3.	Is that work done by contract or by day work?
4.	If by contract, who is the contractor?
5.	If by day work, how much is paid for a ten-hour day, and how much for a nine-hour day, as now scheduled?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	The authorized scale of wages, submitted to the Militia Department by the Department of Labour, fixed the rate of pay for masons in Quebec at $3 per diem for 9 hour days, consequently the department accepted this scale of wages from June 1, instant.
2.	Yes.
3 and 4. Day labour.
5. $3 per diem for 9 hours as per new schedule submitted by the Department of Labour.
MEDICINE HAT PUBLIC BUILDING. Mr. J. D. REID-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Were tenders called for the heating system of public building at Medicine Hat?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, what are the names of the parties tendering, and the amount of each tender?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works.
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Eight.
(b) Regina Plumbing and Heating Co	$1,475
The Jas. Ballantyne Co.,
Ltd	2,313
Jas. Rae	2,475
The Bennett and Wright Co.,
Ltd	2,592
William Barrie	2,700
The Marshall Hardware Co.,
Ltd	2,888
William Head Co., Ltd... 2907


Robert E.: Walton	2,925
The lowest tender, it will be seen, was $1,475.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Was that accepted ?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Yes.


CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	What amount of revenue has been received from customs from June 1 up to and including, June 15, 1908?
2.	What was the amount received from same source during same time in 1907?
3.	What was the amount received from excise during same dates in 1907 and 1908?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1 and 2. Customs revenue as reported to the department:
For the fifteen days ending June
15, 1908		$1,963,770 10
lor the fifteen days ending June
15, 1907	$2,851,016 48
Mr ROBITAJLLE


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 3.	The amount received from excise :
From June 1 to 15, 1907	$718,032 88
From June 1 to 15, 1908	 778,821 29



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. FOSTER.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: 

PRIVILEGE-MANITOBA VOTERS' LISTS.

Mr. S. J. JACKSON (Selkirk).: I rise to a question of privilege. I have in my hand a campaign document issued by the opposition, and which is now going broadcast throughout this country. It is entitled ' Facts for the people,' and is franked by the whip of the opposition. It bears on the back of it the picture of the leader of the opposition. I wish to read a short extract from it in which I am interested. It is entitled ' Rewards for all.'
In this year also the thin red line conspiracy of Manitoba disfranchised some 9,000 Conservative voters, and captured for the government the seats of Provencher, Portage la Prairie, Lisgar and Selkirk.
I may say that a few weeks ago the hon. member for North Toronto got up in this House and stated that the member for Selkirk was sitting in this House by the aid
of the returning officer. He discovered his mistake afterwards, and he took that back to the extent of saying that I was not sitting here by the aid of the returning officer, but that my majority was a little larger than it would have been had it not been for the aid of that gentleman. Now as this statement has been proved to be false, and recognized to be so by the hon. member for North Toronto, I think that hon. gentlemen on the opposition side who are sending out this document, ought to rise in their places and say that they agree with the statement of the member for North Toronto, and that the document ought to be withdrawn so far as it concerns Selkirk.
I think the statement was also made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) that the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) was sitting regularly in his seat, and he did not claim that any one except the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Cyr) was sitting here by the aid of the returning officer.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: I did not say anything of the kind.



ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AT SOREL.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has made inquiry since yesterday as to the correctness of his statement that the final report was brought down in reference to the Roy investigation iat Sorel. This morning I went to the office of the proper officer and found there had been no second report brought down, as stated by the minister. There was a semi-report brought down on the 17th of March, 1908, in which Mr. Gaudet, the gentleman appointed to investigate, said :
It is very evident that I cannot make a report before the inquisition on both sides has been brought to a close either by a statement of the parties or by decision given by myself that the inquisition is closed.
So it is clear there has been no final report. May I ask the minister when the report will be laid on the table?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There must be some mistake with regard to this report, because I am very sure I brought down the report some time ago. In fact, there was at first an interim report brought down, to which my hon. friend has made allusion, and later on the final report was handed to the department. I brought a copy here, and also the original evidence, and that is proved by the fact that my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergleron) asked whether the evidence could be translated. I do not know what has become of that report.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister then have a second copy of the report laid on the table, also the evidence?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, 1 will have a copy irnade. The evidence is not lost. I am very sure the report and the evidence have been brought down.


George Taylor: Is it recorded on the books as having been laid on the table?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend is not satisfied, I will look up the debate and find the reference made by the hon. member for Beauharnois when I brought down this report and the evidence, when he said that he would like to see the evidence translated, or something of that kind.
Mr. TAY'LOR. Does the clerk's record show that it has been tabled ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The clerk says it may have been brought down informally.


George Taylor: It may have been put on the minister's desk and not tabled.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it has been handed over publicly.


William Humphrey Bennett: It has certainly never reached Mr. Polkinghorne's office.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I find now that on the 11th of May, by leave of the House :
Mr. Brodeur moved an order for the issue of a copy of the report made by Mr. Victor Gaudet as a result of the investigation held by him into charges preferred against E. Roy, foreman of works under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and of the evidence in connection therewith; which was agreed to.


Mr. BENNET.: What is me date ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The 11th May.
Mr. Brodeur presented,-Return to the foregoing order.


William Humphrey Bennett: If we have a copy that will suffice.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The return is before the House now. It was brought down on the 11th May.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely, if it has been lost we are not going to forbear from having a copy of it. It is the duty of the minister to get a copy of it if it has been lost.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I will get a copy.



DOMINION NOTES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 159) respecting a certain issue of Dominion notes-Mr. Fielding. Read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The purpose of this Bill was fully explained at an earlier stage of the session, but I may add one or two points to bring the matter up to date. The object of the
Mr. BRODEUR,
Bill is to legalize and confirm the proceedings of the government taken last autumn when they issued a certain amount of Dominion notes and made advances to the banks for the purpose of assisting the western grain trade at a time of exceptionally severe monetary stringency. The circumstances leading up to that were fully discussed in the budget speech, but I wish to add one or two points of information, to, as I have said, bring the matter up to date. 1 lie total amount of notes issued in advance to the banks for that purpose was $5,315,000. The advances were made in a period beginning the 21st November and ending on the 2nd January. The condition of the advance was that the money should be repaid on or before the 1st day of May. When I last mentioned the matter to the House the time for repayment had not expired, but tiie greater part of the money had already been repaid. There was then outstanding something between $900,000 and $1,000,000. Since that date the entire sum has been repaid and was repaid within the time specified in the arrangement made. So the whole transaction has now been completed. The government have received by way of interest from the banks for the accommodation given to them the sum of $48,090.70. The only expense involved in the transaction to the government was the charge for the services of the bank of Montreal which not only handled the business but assumed tile responsibility of guaranteeing the government against all loss. Of course, it was a transaction with the chartered banks and their own credit was given, but under the peculiar circumstances we thought it well to guard against the possibility of any loss and we arranged with the Bank of Montreal to guarantee the government against any loss.


Mr. SPROULE.: What did they charge for it ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure my hon. friend will be agreeably surprised, as I was myself, when I tell him that for the very valuable services which they rendered the Bank of Montreal made the nominal charge of $1,500, which shows that that Bank of Montreal, as well as the other banks, went into the matter not as a soux-ce of profit but to help the country at a time of great difficulty. I think these are all the material facts which are necessary to state in order that the House may understand the matter.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the Minister of Finance think he has some further statement to make to the House as to the necessity for at ? He partly took that up on a previous occasion, but he might make a statement as to what ha considers to have been the results of the action. It seems to me that he has not touched at all, or, if he has, he has touched very lightly upon the

rather grave matter of deliberately breaking the law of the land In order to carry out his purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought, Sir, that I had discussed that matter with sufficient fullness at an earlier stage and anything I can say now will necessarily be mere repetition. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) that it is a very grave matter, but, if I may, on so serious a subject, interpose a story, it is this : A young lady who was warned by her grandmother that it was a very serious matter to be married replied :	Yes, granny, but it is a more
serious matter not to be. I must apologize to the House for interjecting this story, but it illustrates the point very well. It was a grave matter to take the steps which the government did take at that time, but it would have been a much graver matter if the government had uot taken those steps. My hon. friend asked my opinion as 'to the result. My opinion is that the mere announcement of the intention of the government to provide a certain measure of aid at that time had a very valuable effect. Banking men have told me that immediately after that announcement was made there was a restoration of confidence in the west. The people knew that the difficulty was going to be met. Even if not a dollar had ever been advanced, the announcement that the government were willing to make that advance had a very steadying effect on the business of the country and especially in that section of the country more directly interested. It was stated at that time that the banks had some hesitation in seeking this money. It is only fair to say, as I said before, that the banks themselves were not the moving spirits in the matter. They did not come to us seeking aid. Indeed, their first thought was that they would try and get along without it and that they would not need it. However, I think that most of them revised their judgment on that point at a later stage. At all events, we have the fact that of the funds that -were made available, not less than $5,315,000 were taken up by the banks and applied to the business of the country. I have no doubt that the steps that were then taken, first, the mere fact of the announcement of the intention of the government to meet the difficulty, and, second, the issue of this very considerable sum of money, had a most valuable effect in meeting the very difficult conditions that faced western business men at that particular time, and I think I am correct in stating that there can be no doubt as to the wisdom or propriety of the action which we took under the circumstances.


George Eulas Foster: What particular interests does the minister think were most advantaged by his action ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think interest of the grain trade generally and when I say the grain trade 1 mean the producers who had grain to sell as well as the grain dealers, and, in a certain degree, the banks. Of course, the banks made a little profit out of it as they had a right to do. The grain producers, the bankers, the transportation interests and every interest directly or indirectly associated with the grain business in that western country received material and substantial advantage by the arrangement which was then made.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister make some statement as to what extent the reserve which is held according to law was trenched upon and just the exact method under which that came about ?


William Stevens Fielding: Practically speaking, although not exactly, the whole amount advanced would represent an excessive issue. My hon. friend knows, however, from his own experience that the gold reserve in proportion varies from time to time according to the issue, and there is usually a margin above what is required. Tt was required that the banks should put up securities and in addition to that we had the security of the Bank of Montreal ; so that, as a practial question, although we did not have the gold in the treasury, there never was a moment in the transaction when the treasury of Canada was not absolutely guarded against loss. We did not have the gold, but we had the credit of the banks themselves, the securities, and the credit of the Bank of Montreal all rolled together. Still there was the technical departure from the Act inasmuch as we did not have actually the gold in our possession.


George Eulas Foster: YoUr reserve of gold on the 1st of October became depreciated by about $5,000,000 between that date and the 1st of January.


William Stevens Fielding: The gold never diminished but inasmuch as there was a larger issue of notes the percentage of reserve was diminished and substantially my hon. friend's question is correct.


George Eulas Foster: What troubles me about this is the light hearted manner in which the government marched up to the depreciation of the legal reserves which are fixed by law and which are just as binding upon the government as upon any individual ; and the extraordinary carelessness- if you might not call it contempt-with which parliament is treated. This loaning came up about the latter part of November and proceeded very slowly at first and a. large proportion of it did not take place until December or January. Parliament met on the 29tli of November but there might just as well have been no parliament

at all. After having violated the law and depleted the legal reserve which is small enough in all conscience at any time, the Minister of Finance did not think it was necessary for him to inform parliament or to ask parliament for a Bill of indemnity. Months passed and it was only by persistent questions in the House that we got at even a measure of the facts. One would have thought that if the thing was done at all under circumstances of great financial pressure, the first thing the minister and the government should have done was to inform parliament of the action they had taken, and to have asked immediately for a Bill of indemnity. Instead of that we really have got to the seventh month of the session before a Bill of indemnity is asked for, and we were well in to January and February before we got even a modicum of information as to the action of the government. Two things are plain : That the government should not have violated the law of the land and particularly a law which establishes the legal reserve and the only reserve that the country has as the basis upon which all its banking business rests-that legal reserve is a sacred reserve ; it is a trust and it requires the very strongest reasons for the government at any time to violate the law by depleting the security upon which our banking system is based. Few instances are found, possibly not more than one, in the history of Great Britain when such a step was taken by the government, but there was no comparison at all between the circumstances in the two cases. Now, was the condition sufficiently grave to justify the action of the government ? There ought to have been a very grave situation without doubt to justify the government at all in thinking of breaking the law and depleting the reserve. From the papers brought down which is all that we have to guide us it does not seem to me that a case was made out for the interference of government. It does not seem to me that the banks themselves were favourable to the idea or were not abundantly able to look after this difficulty in so far as it could be legitimately looked after. Although the measure which was adopted later contemplated $10,000,000 of an advance only about half of that was called for. Again, whereas the Minister of Finance started out with the idea that this was a period of such great stress, that the government should come to the rescue, and that the stress was so great that the banks and the people would be willing to pay G per cent interest for the accommodation, the Minister of Finance speedily found that no bank would touch it at that rate and he was obliged to reduce the interest to 4 per cent. And now he comes before the House and gives as proof positive of ur-Mr. FOSTER.
gency the fact that the banks availed themselves to the extent of some $5,000,000 in loans. In the months of November and December and January a great many of the banks would have been quite willing to have paid 4 per cent for their deposits, and when you reduced the interest from 6 to 4 per cent you lost entirely the argument that your case was made out when $5,000,000 was called for. The case was not made out by that at all. You offered money at 4 per cent and the banks were able to make a neat profit at that rate and therefore they took the loans. The papers as we have them are extremely unsatisfactory so far as making out a case for this extraordinary action of the government. In the first place we have very little of the opinion of the banks themselves ; the negotiations seem to have passed between the banks and the Minister of Finance in the way of conferences and conversation and it is impossible from any information which has been given us to form any correct judgment as to the opinions of the banks of the country w7ith reference to the necessity. What is here is directly opposed to the assumption that the situation was sufficiently grave to make it necessary for the government to interfere. The first order in council which was passed by the government on the 12th of November is given in these papers. On November 11, the Minister of Finance makes his report and gives his reasons for his recomnlendation. He says :
The Minister of Finance has given careful consideration to representations which have reached him through commercial bodies and government officials in the west, and has had communication with leading bankers who agree that the situation is a serious one, which calls for some relief.
In the opinion of the minister the only way in which relief can properly be granted by the government is by placing the banks handling this class of business in a position to provide the necessary credits to reasonable parties. For this purpose the minister recommends that he be authorized to advance, upon the security hereinafter mentioned, to chartered banks to be designated by him, being banks which are engaged in the business of financing the moving of the grain crop of the Northwest to the seaboard, such sums of money as he may deem reasonable and proper, not to exceed in the aggregate ten million dollars, such advances to be accepted by the said banks upon the condition that the moneys are to be employed in the creation or enlargement of credits to parties in the grain trade, either as producers or dealers, to the purpose of assisting in the transportation of the crop from the west to the seaboard during the present season.
The minister further recommends that such advances be made upon the deposit by the said banks of such high class securities as they may be able to offer and of which the Minister of Finance may approve.
10)801

The minister then recommends the appointment of an advisory comittee to assist him in carrying out the arrangements, to consist of Messrs. Clouston, Fyshe and J. M. Courtney and that
No securities offered by the said banks for the advances herein referred to be approved by the minister unless they have first been approved of by the said advisory committee.
The minister further recommends that any bank which may avail itself of the assistance herein recommended shall be required to pay to the government interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on such advances for a period of three months, and that for any period after the said three months the rate of interest to be paid shall be at the rate of seven per centum per annum, that all sums so advanced shall he payable by the banks to the government on or before the first day of May, 1908; that the securities deposited by the banks be returned to them from time to time in proportion as the advances are repaid and that upon the repayment of such advances to the government the authority to issue the additional notes herein referred to be cancelled and the note circulation be thereafter governed by the provisions of the existing law.
As to the manner in which the moneys for the proposed advances are to be provided, the minister observes that the funds in hand are not more than sufficient to meet the ordinary requirements of the government's business and that in the present condition of the money market, when the Bank of England rate of discount has been advanced to the high figure of seven per cent, the borrowing of this money by an issue of treasury hills would be unusually difficult and a rate of interest would undoubtedly have to be paid which might have an injurious effect on the general credit of the Dominion.
For these reasons the minister recommends that he he authorized to issue such additional amount of Dominion notes as may he necessary, not exceeding in all the said amount of ten million dollars.
Then there follows this :
A strict compliance with the terms of the Dominion Notes Act would require that such an issue be made against the deposit of an equal amount of gold in the treasury.
A strict compliance ! Why there is no other compliance, it is absolute. There was no loophole by which the Finance Minister or the government had any right to issue a single dollar of notes without placing one dollar in gold in the reserve as a basis upon which that was to be issued. The minister represents that while to conform strictly to the letter of the law that should be done, certain powers or options are granted to him under which he can use a discretion. The statute is absolute and there was no clause or phrase in it which authorized the minister in any way to issue a single note without having an equivalent of gold in the reserve.
For the reasons already stated, it would be exceedingly difficult to comply with the letter
of the provisions of the law in this respect. The Minister of Finance is of opinion that under such circumstances the government must properly issue such notes against the deposit by the banks of high class securities to be approved, as hereinbefore stated, by the advisory committee and the Minister of Finance.
It then goes on with the remainder of his recommendation ending in this way :
In the opinion of the minister, therefore, although the arrangement proposed would be a technical departure from the terms of the Dominion Notes Act, such departure is justified by the exceptional circumstances above mentioned.
What I find fault with is the statement in the minister's report to council that he is making only a technical departure from the law. The law is absolute, it is not a mere technicality to deplete the reserves and break the plain letter of the law, and I do not think the minister was justified in minimizing it as he did in his report to council. There is the conclusion that he and the government came to after looking thoroughly into the matter. It was not long until they hear from the bankers interested that the banks will not avail themselves of this proposal in any degree. There is a communication from Mr. George Burn, general manager of the Bank of Ottawa, representing the banks to this effect. His communication reads :
Banks anxious to oo-operate with government in western grain situation; and if government desires to deposit with them, banks walling to give assurances that money will be used only to buy grain, but not willing to give security for such deposit.
(Sgd.) GEORGE BURN.
Finding that did not work the minister has to resort to another expedient and change his plan of operations, which he does by an order in council passed on a report of his dated November 20, 1907. In that, instead of advancing to the different banks on security to be recommended and approved of by the advisory committee, he recommends that the whole thing be placed in the hands of the Bank of Montreal, and that the Bank of Montreal will make advances to such hanks as apply to it on the delivery by them of proper security. These are to be taken by the Bank of Montreal as collateral, and the Bank of Montreal Is to give security to the government for repayment of the total advanced and be paid a reasonable commission for the work they do. I do not know whether it is a mistake or not, hut in the report of the minister to council he sets the minimum rate of interest at 5 per cent whereas the order in council passed on that date November 26,>
now places the minimum rate at 4 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: Four was the rate. The other must be a typographical error.


George Eulas Foster: So that the whole scheme was revised and the interest reduced from six and seven to a minimum of four per cent, or as much more as the bank can give. That put a sum of money, in a time of great stringency, at the disposal of the Bank of Montreal, on which other banks might make calls, on the deposit of proper securities, and get their money at four per cent. At that time money was hard to get and a good profit could be made on getting it at four per cent. Then and not until then were any advances possible in this matter. After that advances began to go out gradually, but very gradully, and up to the 31st December only about $1,800,000, during all this period of stress, had been availed of under the expedient as arranged by the second order in council.
I wish to say just a few words with reference to the other point as to who got the benefit, and the reading of these papers has convinced me that the farmer got little or absolutely no benefit from the arrangement at all. Those who were benefited were the exporters, the buyers of grain. They practically bought the great mass of their grain from the farmers at comparatively low rates, and the margin of profit was never so great in the history of the Northwest, to the exporter as it was on the grain bought last year from the farmers. The buyers and exporters pressed upon the farmers an exceedingly low price which they *were obliged, under the financial circumstances, to take, and the margin of profit to the exporters ran from five and six cents per bushel up to fifteen and twenty cents, so that the whole lightening of the financial burden by this arrangement inured almost solely to the speculators and buyers and exporters of grain rather than to "the farmers themselves.
To give one instance out of these papers in favour of that view, X want to read a communication from the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, which was sent to the Finance Minister. This is dated November 27, 1907, after a very large proportion of the grain had been marketed by the farmers-that portion which they did not propose to hold-and marketed at extremely low prices. The company says :
It has been announced generally through the newspapers, and particularly by Mr. C. G. Castle, warehouse commissioner, that the Dominion government had through the Department of Finance agreed ito assist the banks in financing the present crops of western Canada. In inquiring of the manager of the bank through which we do our business- the Home Bank of Canada-he has informed me that he has received no notice of such assistance being available.
IJp to November 27, no arrangement by the government had reached that part of the country or had any appreciable influence on the purchase of grain:


William Stevens Fielding: This matter is of very serious consequence to our company; serious for the following reasons : The. Grain Growers' Grain Company, as the name signifies is a company composed at present of about 2,800 farmers, whose chief aim is to place their own products on the markets where they are consumed, and by doing this retain for themselves profits, often very large, made by middlemen. As you can readily understand, our company, with the par value of their shares placed purposely low to enable farmers to join it, would not have much available capital of their own to carry on the business. You can also readily understand that having been designed for this purpose, and acting not as dealers but only as commission brokers, it would attract a very large amount of grain, not only from shareholders hut also from farmers who are not shareholders. This is borne out by the fact that we have received from farmers in the past four weeks nearly 1,000,000 bushels of grain, 300,000 bushels of which have come to us the last week. This we believe is a larger volume of business than is being done by any other individual firm in the business here.
As you no doubt know a large portion of our western grain would only grade feed, owing to the damage from frost. The keeping qualities of this damaged wheat is doubtful, and in order to ensure the disposal of it by farmers, a market must be available during the next few months. Realizing this, our company, co-operating with the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, took aotion to discover if a demand existed for feed in Ontario and the eastern provinces. Although this action was only taken about ten days ago, we have already bad over 400 inquiries from eastern feeders and dealers, many of them wanting from five to ten carloads. The *situation revealed to us is this; The farmers of our company and of the Grain Growers' Association have a large amount of this stuff to dispose of. In order to realize upon it, it must go into consumption almost immediately. The feeders and dealers in the east want it, hut we are extremely handicapped in taking care of it by the limited amount of money we have to work with. As a matter of fact we were able to make arrangements for only a limited line of credit and are only guaranteed that so long as our bank is able to accommodate us.
A statement of the methods by which we do business will make this clearer to you, and *also make it clear to you the loss farmers are suffering. A farmer loads a oar on track at his point and forwards it to us to sell for him to best advantage, we charging him for doing so "the one cent a bushel provided to be charged for all such work by the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange.
An advance of not more than 50 per cent of the estimated value is then given onr bank through the shipper on the security of the bill of lading. This advance enables the farmer to meet his more pressing obligations, placing so much more money in active operation and use. When his car goes forward and reaches the terminal point-often taking from four to seven weeks to do so-and final documents are to hand, the sale is completed if sale can be made.

Under that contract the farmers get the best price going. Fifty per cent may be available at once and the return of the rest is made him just as soon as the transaction is completed.
So far the assistance given to the banks has not resulted in the slightest increase to the producer -in the sale of his grain.
That is a weighty statement made by the representative of an association of 2,800 farmers who should know what they are talking about. And they say :	*
As a farmers' company, composed entirely of influential farmers, we wish to participate in any assistance that is being given. We believe that we are in a position to give more direct benefit to the producer, from an arrangement of this nature, than any other company. What we want is money to give the shipper, who is the producer in this ease, an advantage of 50 per cent on his Bill of lading to tide him over until his car is finally disposed of and realized upon; and also money to assist us in placing this stuff where the urgent demand exists for it.
As you are well aware, the Home Bank of Canada, our bankers, does not rank among the strongest financially in the Dominion. The strong banks are identified with the interests of the ' organized grain trade,' and consequently do not care to have our business.
And so he puts in a plea for help for the company which would directly and immediately benefit the farmers themselves by enabling them to dispose of their products. To this he gets no reply, except to be referred to Mr. (Houston, who has the whole matter in charge, and, in the end, it turns out they do not get any advantage at all. Later they w7rite again.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. Duncan Ross) uses an expression which, I think, he has used before.


Duncan Ross: There never was greater necessity for it than now.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading) :
In the statement presented to you by the directors of the M. O. G. A., November 8th, they drew your attention to the fact that the newer districts were the greater (sufferers from frost, and that the market situation bore more heavily on them also.
And this further statement is made :
A farmer in northwestern Manitoba, within the last few days writes:	' I have over 3,000
bushels of frozen wheat. Buyers here say it is 1 and 2 feed and offer me 20 to 25 cents a bushel for it. At that price, I cannot pay my bills, but if you can tell me how I can get 10 cents a bushel more for it, I can pay all my bills and be a free man.'
He goes on to say :
The value of feed wheat on track at this station, basis Fort William prices in store that day was 35 cents and 43 cents respectively.
And all he was offered was 20 cents per bushel. This is dated the last of November.
All who can are getting cars, and shipping, but railway companies cannot be expected to furnish cars to move all the wheat in a month or two, and frozen wheat sold on the street at country points is passing out of the farmers' hands at two-thirds its value.
In this instance, the owner of storage facilities at initial points, absorb about one-third of the value of the crop. Were they satisfied with their fair profit, that man would have at least $300 to pay his liabilities, and what is true of him, is true of thousands of other farmers.
The Grain Growers' Grain Company, an organization of farmers' organized expressly to dispose of farmers' products, is working to place some of the frozen wheat with dealers m Ontario, and was making arrangements to send a cargo to Georgian bay ports at once, but find that their hanker cannot advance money to pay freight and some advances that have been made to farmers on their hills of lading.
It has been announced through the press that the government has come to the relief of the banks that are helping to forward the grain crop of the west. Cannot the Home Bank, which gave a line of credit to the farmers' organization, participate in the assistance given by the government?
They reiterate again the demand. But the same answer is given-they are referred to Mr. Clouston, the Finance Minister regretting that the matter has passed out of his bands. There is one other extract and one only which I wish to read if I can find it. There is a rather instructive report made to the Minister of the Interior by Mr. T. R. E. Maclnnes. It does not show here, but I should judge he was an official of the Department of the Minister of the Interior. Can the minister inform me ?


Mr. OLIVER.: There was a good deal of conflict in the representations being made as to- the facts, and Mr. Maclnnes was specially employed to examine the conditions personally and make a report as to the actual facts, he being an outsider not interested on one side or the other.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Maclnnes sends in a report dated December 2, 1907, which, I should say, taken as a whole, is a very fair report and throws a great deal of light upon the whole situation. He gives a great many reasons for the trouble that existed, but does not very strongly emphasize the lack of money for legitimate transportation and legitimate enterprise as afforded by the banks. His communication is too long to read to the House, but that is about the purport of it. On December 4 the Grain Growers' Company, writing from Winnipeg, takes up the situation :
At my suggestion, our banker on 27th November, tbe date of my previous letter to you-

But it appears they were not charged more than four or five per cent, whereas this bank was to be charged up to six or seven per cent.
-iand still retain an immense profit; while the farmer sells them his stuff far below its value, pays heavy interest upon his obligations iand wonders how in the world .he is going to get through.
And makes again a plea for some method of helping the Farmers' Association in its good purpose. It however in the end receives no help in any respect. Now I have troubled this House with these extracts tiom the papers, which are the only source of information we have, and the points that seem to me to be noteworthy in this hitherto unexampled transaction ;n the history of this country where the government has broken the law of the country and depleted th' reserve of the country, and done it upon


George Eulas Foster: what they supposed was an urgent condition of affairs, sufficent to warrant it. It appears from these papers that if it were the purpose of the government to assist the farmers themselves in getting a somewhat fair price for their grain by this method, they failed almost wholly, if not wholly, in that purpose. It appears that the. relief given at least to two banks who were to provide security on the basis in the meantime of ten per cent Interest, and that the enormous margin of profit in buying at exceedingly low rates from the farmers and selling at much larger rates, in the ultimate rendered it of course an easy matter to pay four per cent interest, a small rate, and make a large profit themselves, getting the money at a less rate than they could have got it in any other way. That inures entirely to the profit of the buying companies and the exporting companies, and did not go back Into the hands of the farmers themselves. So the machinery which the government adopted does not seem to have been successful in raising the burden upon the farmers, and they themselves had to meet the loss ; and large profits, larger possibly than had been made in any other year by the exporting and buying companies, were as a result made to a greater extent by these companies. Therefore the grave situation which the farmers were In with reference to the sales of their wheat was not alleviated at all by the methods which were taken by the government, the advantage that was given, if it were given anywhere, and to a limited extent only, went into the hands of the middleman and not of the farmers.


William Stevens Fielding: I am surprised at the line of criticism which my hon. friend has chosen to adopt in this matter, and I cannot think that on a full discussion of the question his observations can be justified. In the first place, he says we approached this matter lightly, indifferently, without due regard for the gravity of the situation. What warrant has he for any such statement ? There is nothing in the circumstances that justify it. It was indeed a grave situation, and so far as it has been possible to disclose all the facts of the case, the papers disclosed a situation of great gravity and the government approached it with a due sense of its importance. Now my hon. friend practically says there was no need of doing this at all ; he practically says that the government should not have done it. Apart from the technical question, which is an important one, my hon. friend practically says :	Even if you have the
money in your pocket you have no right whatever to grant this aid, because there was no need for it, there was no situation in the west which called for any intervention by the government. That is substantially my. hon. friend's contention. Now if he will read the papers which are in his hands

he must see that there is no warrant whatever for any such statement. I could quote paper after paper here which shows that there was indeed a grave need for action.


George Eulas Foster: The Finance Minister has just stated my position to be this, that if the government had the money in their pocket there was no necessity for making this advance. Now the government did not have the money in their pocket, the government had no surplus, the government could not come in and borrow the money. What the government had to do was to break the law of the land and deplete the reserve, and X think there was no situation of gravity which would warrant them in doing it.


William Stevens Fielding: came to Ottawa and discussed the matter very fully. He put his views in writing. Speaking of the difficulties of the situation generally he says :
Previous to this, public opinion had been most patient with the hankers' statements, but now a feeling of alarm and distress began in earnest to take hold of the community and it was apparent, if relief was not soon forthcoming, the growing disgust would Increase and eventually lead to a panic with all that that entailed-hence it was that the suggestion was made that the Dominion government be asked to give financial aid in the shape of short date loans to the grain handling banks in the west for the proper handling of the crop.
There was a statement of the gravity of the situation. There was a statement of what the farmers thought should be done ; not that the money should be advanced to the farmer individually but that the government should advance the money to the grain handling banks. By reference to the papers it will be found that the desire of the farmers of the west was that the government should grant aid in this way. My hon. friend has argued that there was no need of any such action. He read a letter from Mr. Crerar, the president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company. Mr. Crerar is quoted for the purpose of my hon. friend in order to show that the farmers were not getting as much consideration as they should get. But, Mr. Crerar's letter urges strongly that there was need of action being taken to meet the situation. Therefore, the letter of Mr. Crerar conclusively proves that my hon. friend is wrong when he contends that there was no need of action. Then he says that Mr. Crerar made representations to the government that his particular bank could not get aid and that he was referred to Mr. Clouston. Mr. Clouston had been instructed to act on behalf of the government to make these advances to the banks which handled the grain trade, so the reply that I gave to Mr. Crerar that he should apply to the Bank of Montreal was the only reply that I could give him. My hon. friend has tried to make it appear that we treated Mr. Crerar cavalierly. He said that he could not get any reply except to be referred to Mr. Clouston. To whom else could he be referred? Then my hon. friend takes the responsibility of saying that Mr. Crerar's bank, being the farmer's bank, could not get any aid. What warrant has he for that statement? Has Mr. Crerar authorized him to say that his bank received no aid? My hon. friend made that statement without due consideration.


George Eulas Foster: It does not appear in these papers that he received any aid.


William Stevens Fielding: Then my hon. friend went beyond the information in the papers because the papers do not purport to show Mr. FIELDING.
the names of the banks which received aid. One of the difficulties in the way was that the banks were unduly sensitive about receiving government aid and one of the conditions of the arrangement was that their names should not be made public. I have no right to tell him whether Mr. Crerar's bank received aid or not. but unless Mr. Crerar's bank complains I think my hon. friend should not make that statement. At all events, there is nothing in the papers which goes to show what particular bank did or did not receive aid.
Now, with regard to one or two other points that my hon. friend has mentioned. He dealt with the rate of interest. He argued in the first place that the government had made the rate of interest too high and had prevented the banks getting the money out, and in the second place he said that we had made the rate of interest too low and had allowed the banks to make a nice profit out of it. Both of these views cannot be correct. If, in the first stage of the matter, we tried to get a high rate from the banks it was because the money market of the world demanded a high rate. Seven per cent was the Bank of England rate. The government desired to assist the hanks in the ordinary way of an advance. We tried to get a high rate for the reason that I have given, but we found that the banks were slow to take it up. The scheme could only be successful by the banks coming in and taking up the advance. We could not deal directly with the grain dealer or the farmer. Unless we could utilize the banks the whole thing must be a failure. [DOT] Therefore, when we found that tile rate of interest was an obstacle, we reduced the rate of interest and my bon. friend complains that we reduced it so low as to enable the banks to make a profit. He also suggested that it was only the banker and the middleman who got any advantage out of this transaction. He spoke again and again of the rate of interest being four per cent. He mentioned a minimum of four per cent, but I can say to my hon. friend that while four per cent was the minimum it was not the actual rate that was paid. The arrangement ultimately made was that four per cent should be paid for the first sixty days, five per cent for the second sixty days and for the next sixty days six per cent, so that the banks did not have an opportunity of making very much profit out of the transaction. Unless we had put the rate of interest at a point which would induce the banks to take the money the whole arrangement must have failed, so that my hon. friend will see that the reduction in the rate of interest was, under the circumstances, a very proper step to he taken.
Let me now come to the question of the technical departure from the law. My hon. friend said that we should not call it a

technical departure. As my hon. friend knows the reserve is not made up entirely of gold. We have the right to hold a portion of our reserve in Canadian debentures bearing the guarantee of the imperial government; so that our gold reserve that we commonly speak of as a gold reserve is not all gold. If we could have got in imperial government guaranteed debentures that would have complied, up to a certain percentage, with the law. We had to consider that question. We had not the gold we had not the imperial government guaranteed debentures.
But, the notes themselves were covered by these three considerations ; First, the credit of the banks which applied for the money which in itself is a strong guarantee; second, the banks had to put up securities of an approved character, and, third the leading bank of Canada gave a guarantee of all its resources that there would be no loss to the government in the matter. I think in equity and in fairness therefore we might say that these various securities, the credit of the banks, the securities which they put up and the guarantee of the Bank of Montreal, were as good as the security of Imperial government guaranteed debentures which, if we could have obtained them, might have, to a certain limit, been used. It was a technical departure, it was not within the four corners of the law, but there never was a moment in the transaction from beginning to end when the government was not absolutely secured against loss as far as any human ingenuity could have secured the government. I am glad to know that this matter has been reviewed in the English financial press by severe critics of political economy who look with suspicion upon any departure from the old established rules and, in so far as this matter has been the subject of discussion at all, the fact has been recognized that we had a very exceptional condition of affairs, and the manner in which the government met that condition has not, in so far as I have observed, found any adverse comment whatever. So, we may fairly say that this transaction lias benefited everybody. It unquestionably benefited the farmer. It was the farmer who sought It. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has pointed out that the banks did not seek it; it was the farmers who sought it. it was the farmers' organizations that made representations to us, and the grain dealers made representations. The banks at the beginning were unwilling to recognize the need, but in the end those very banks admitted there was necessity. The result of the whole matter was that by a technical departure from the law-for which we believe we have received the approval of those best capable of judging-we have given a great advantage to the trade of the country, we have benefited 343
the farmer, we have helped the grain dealer, we have enabled the banks to do the business of the country, we have been secured at every moment from the beginning to the end; we gave a great help to the western trade and it has not cost the Dominion of Canada one penny.


Mr. TUKRIFF.: As a representative of the west I am surprised at the attitude taken by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Even supposing the view advanced by him to be absolutely correct what is there to be gained by it ? In one respect I am very glad he has taken this attitude because it shows the farmers of the west that anything this government may do to benefit them and to cope with such conditions as existed at the time, does not meet with the approval of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). Suppose there has been a technical departure from the strict letter of the law in making these advances, who has suffered ? The money has all been paid back with interest and the farmers of the west have got the benefit. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) stated that it was not the farmers but the middlemen and the banks who received any particular benefit. Now, at the time this question came up I was travelling in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and I knew the conditions. A great deal of the grain had been marketed, the credit of the banks was practically exhausted, grain dealers were unable to get any further credit from the banks, farmers were unable to get any credit whatever. In former years as soon as a farmer had a car of wheat loaded and got his bill of lading he could go to practically any bank in the prairie provinces and get a large advance. But, last year when this demand was made on the government for relief farmers were carrying round bills of lading for carloads of wheat, and the banks stated they had no money and could not advance any. The farmer could not get a dollar. The government was notified of the condition of affairs and they immediately set to work to remedy it. Nobody expected that the government was going to advance money directly to the farmer or to the grain dealer but the government made a satisfactory arrangement which enabled the banks which were doing a grain business to advance further sums of money for the carrying on of the grain trade. At this very time when the close of navigation was in sight the wheat that had suffered by frost began rapidly to fall in price simply because the grain dealer was not absolutely certain of being able to get it afloat, and certain grades of wheat which a month before were worth 60 cents a bushel dropped down to 30 cents and 37 cents. But just as soon as it was announced that the government was



coming to the aid of the grain trade through the banks the price of that low grade wheat In many cases went up as much as 10 cents a bushel simply because the banks were able to get the money to advance to the grain dealers to enable them to handle that grain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This amended order is dated the 26th of November which is about the time the information would be given to these banks that this money was available. If it caused the price of this wheat to increase as the hon. gentleman says, how is it that you could at that time get Quotation after quotation at from 25 cents to 30 cents and 35 cents a bushel as I know to be the fact?


John Gillanders Turriff: My statement is absolutely correct that at the time the information was given that the government was coming forward with money to help the banks to handle the trade, the price of low grade wheat advanced rapidly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where and when ?


Mr. STAPLES.: What date does the hon. gentleman say this jump in price took place ?


John Gillanders Turriff: Towards the latter part of November. Not only was there an increase of price but previous to that the farmers were drawing in hundreds of bushels of this low grade wheat,, and they could not sell it for anything at all because the grain dealers had not the money to buy it. But when the government came forward with this assistance through the banks to the grain dealers and the farmers, it enabled the grain trade of the country to be carried on. This government never did anything more directly in the interest of the farmers and of the grain dealers of the west than they did on that occasion.


George Eulas Foster: What does the hon. member say to this statement of the grain growers company representing 2,800 farmers and dated the 27th of November: So far the assistance given to the banks has not resulted in the slightest increase to the purchaser in the sale of his grain.


John Gillanders Turriff: Probably the money did not get out on the 27th of November.


George Eulas Foster: But the announcement was made.


John Gillanders Turriff: The order in council was only through then.


George Eulas Foster: The order in council was passed on the 12th of November. The announcement went out directly and the statement of the hon. gentleman was that the moment the announcement was made that the government was coming to the aid, then the price jumped up. Here are 2,800 far-Mr. TURRIFF.
mers, or their representative, who say it had not then raised the price a cent.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman is confusing two things ; he is quoting from a letter from the president of a grain company.


George Eulas Foster: He calls it the Grain Growers Grain Company and he says that as the name signifies it is a company composed at present of about 2,800 farmers.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is a buying and selling company, not the growers. The hon. gentleman is quoting from a grain growers company. Whether that grain company was able through their bank to get part of this money I do not know ; it would depend on the credit of the bank.


George Eulas Foster: It appears from these papers they did not get the money.


William Stevens Fielding: I dissent from that.


George Eulas Foster: The whole statement of these papers is that they made their demand and did not get it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. That does not appear from the papers.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman will not say they did get it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not at liberty to say without committing a breach of confidence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it another North Atlantic Trading Company ?


William Stevens Fielding: Is it right to arrange with banks that if they get the money and put up securities and pay back the money their names will not be made public?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is the right of parliament to know this because the security of the currency is at stake.


Mr. LAKE.: On January 17 the Grain Growers' Association at their meeting in Brandon declared that the banks were refusing to advance money to farmers on bills of lading.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is exactly what I was stating, that the banks had refused and were refusing to advance money on bills of lading, and if the government had not come forward and this $5,000,000 been secured by the action of the government, there would have been a great many more cases of hardship.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman does not understand. This was on January 17, long after the government had made the advance.


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friends opposite say that the action of the govern-

ment was not in the interest of the farmers of the west, I am perfectly satisfied to take that statement of their position because every word that has been said on the other side during this debate will be very good campaign literature among the farmers of the west. It is ail very well for the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to take up fine technical points in the able manner he can, tout the farmers of the west know exactly what they got. what the government tried to do and did to carry out the wishes of the people of the west; they know that the government came forward at a time when the whole trade was being paralysed and when, if they had not come forward, as Mr. Castle, one of the best posted men in the whole country, pointed out, there would have been a panic. The farmers at that time were being crowded on ail sides, those who had any wheat to sell were being crowded by their creditors to sell it, and if the government had not come forward and made this money available at the banks, the price of grain would have gone down lower, the farmers would have been forced to sell and would have made serious losses that they were saved from making by the action of this government. I say without fear of contradiction that the farmers are well satisfied with what the government did and with the manner in which this matter was carried out. My hon. friends opposite may carp as much as they like about it, but that will not affect the satisfaction which the farmers of the west feel over the action of the government.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am very much surprised at the opinions expressed tov the hon. gentleman. It appears to me he cannot be entirely in touch with the sentiment of the farmers of the west or he would not have given expression to such opinions. As I pointed out during his remarks, the farmers of the west did meet probably two months after this arrangement had been made by the government. The Grain Growers' Association, representative of all parts of the grain growing districts of the Northwest, met at Brandon on January 17 and passed this resolution :
That we consider the action of the banks in refusing to advance money this season to farmers on bills of lading is causing considerable loss and hardship among the farmers of this country, inasmuch as they are compelled to sell on street to the elevator companies at prices which, in case of low grade stuff, are equal only to 40 to 60 per cent of the actual value of the same grade on the track, which makes a straight loss to the producer of 30 per cent in some cases of his whole aggregate receipts from the sale of wheat, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Finance at Ottawa.
I called that resolution to the attention of the minister on January 27 of this rear and asked :
343$
What steps does the government propose to take to remedy the conditions complained of in view of their statement that they had made arrangements with such banks as wished to assist in moving the grain?
The answer to my question was :


William Stevens Fielding: As the banks became liable for the moneys advanced by the government, they had to be the judges of the persons to whom loans should be made.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is just what I complain of, that the government should have made such an arrangement with the banks as would enable the farmers to get advances, as they were always accustomed to do, on their bills of lading, and that is where my criticism of the action of the government comes in, that they did not make such arrangements as would have been to the direct advantage of the farmers, the actual grain growers of the west.
In respect of what the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said as to the extraordinary jump in prices which took place immediately it was known the government were to make advances to the banks, I take direct issue. I have not the figures with me at the moment, tout I think I could show that for a very long time after notice was given of those advances the prices were down at the very depth.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Of what grade of wheat is my friend speaking, or is it wheat generally?


Richard Stuart Lake: I am speaking from a more intimate knowledge of frozen wheat. If I had my papers here I could show that the price continued low after this advance had been made by the government, and I consider the government should have taken into their consideration the making of some arrangement which would have been to the direct benefit of the farmers of the country. Yet on January 17, turn months later, the farmers at Brandon were prepared to say that at that time the actual grain growers had to take prices from 40 per cent to GO per cent less than the prices which they should have been receiving for their wheat.
As to the remarks made by the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that the Grain Growers' Grain Company *was simply one of the grain dealing companies, as I understood him, I would like him to bear in mind that that company was really a child of the Grain Growers' Association of the province of Saskatchewan, and that all the shareholders in the company have to be farmers and producers tliejn-selves, and that each shareholder is limited to (four shares. That grain company, as was pointed out by the hon. member for North Toronto, is "really and truly representative of the interests of 2,400 farmers, all of whom are shareholders in it.


John Gillanders Turriff: How does the hon. gentleman reconcile his statement that the gov. eminent should have made some arrangement by which the farmers would get relief with the statement of his leader the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who states that there was no condition demanding relief ?,


Samuel Jacob Jackson: As one of the delegates who came to Ottawa last fall to wait ou the government for the purpose of obtaining financial relief for the farmers of Manitoba, the reason that induced me to take a 2,500 mile journey just at that time when three weeks later I would again have to go to Ottawa for the meeting of parliament-was this. On 6th November last I had a Wire asking me to come in and meet the grain men of Winnipeg. At that time the Oglivie Company had quit buying at country points. They had ceased buying about the 1st November, whether because they were short of money or did not want more grain, I cannot say. I came to Winnipeg on the morning of 6th November and with two other delegates, who came in answer to a wire, had a meeting with the leading grain men of Winnipeg. I have known these gentlemen of Winnipeg, some twenty-five or thirty years and I know that they are all men of most reputable character. What did they tell us? They said :	In
one week from to-day not one dollar will we have to buy grain in the west; it is absolutely necessary that something should be done by the government so as to arrange to have a certain amount ot money placed at our disposal. They said that their lines of credit were cut down one-half this year, and when you consider that grain was 50 per cent higher than the year before, you can easily imagine how much they could buy as compared with the previous year.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What was the date?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: November 6. In one week not one dollar would they have to buy grain. I knew that the Ogilvies had quit 'buying at Stonewall, and that others would quit and no grain be bought, and I thought it my duty to go down with the delegation and wait on the government. The result we all know. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has not considered what would have been the result if the grain men in Manitoba and the Northwest had quit buying. We were informed that there was danger of a run on the banks because the depositors would say: If the banks are short of money, the best thing we can do is get ours out before it is all gone. That was the feeling at the time, and so careful were we not to intensify it by letting the public know the errand on which we were going east, that we even got out of Winnipeg like thieves in the night. Not a man in Manitoba knew that we were coming down to Ottawa outside of the gen-Mr. LAKE.
tlemen we had met and their associates who knew the situation. If the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will just look a little on the other side of the question and consider what would have been the result if the government had not advanced this money, he would not be quite so ready with his criticism. When I was down here I heard that one of the results of the efforts of the government with the Bank of Montreal was that the Ogilvie Company, who were up to their line, obtained an advance of $1,000,000 more to buy grain. I was back at Stonewall in five days and when 1 got back the Ogilvies were buying. I was in Winnipeg on November 11, and went to see the acting general manager of the Northern Bank, and he told me that he had a wire advising him that he might have all the money required to buy grain. Previous to that I know of farmers who hauled then-grain to market and had to take it back home because they could not sell it. There was absolute need of money, and I consider that the government, in acting as it did, saved the situation.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that the facts warrant the statements made by the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that there was a sudden rise in the value of grain of 10 cents a bushel, because the Finance Minister had come to the support of the banks in lending more money. Several times during the fall and early part of the winter, I received quotations of grain from the west because of purchases contemplated or made from time to time, and I did not find any considerable difference in the prices from the middle of November to the end of January. The security was advanced by the Minister of Finance on November 26. If as the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) says, a sudden rise took place in the price of grain of ten cents a bushel, you would naturally expect it to show in the market. I have not taken the trouble to look up the market quotations, because of the knowledge I have from the quotations sent to me from several places in the west during the months of November, January and February. I recollect that the prices remained very much the same. For instance, I got quotations from Hamiota of from 25 cents to 30 cents for different qualities of feed grain of which samples were sent. I received quotations from two or three other places-I cannot recollect ou the spur of the moment exactly where-and the prices ranged from 20 cents to 30 and 32 cents. The difficulty about marketing the grain was not scarcity of money ; the main difficulty was that you could not get the grain shipped. The railway company would not handle it. We

gave orders for a carload of grain in November about the 10th, and it was not delivered on February 10, so we had to cancel it. Order after order was given, and, so far as my memory serves me, . not a single carload was delivered in less than six weeks from the time it was ordered. Another point is that you could not get the railway to quote freight rates from Winnipeg, Brandon. Regina, Ham iota or any of the places. I tried several times and could not get a quotation. 1 reached the conclusion that there was some understanding between the railway company and the grain men under which the railway company would not give to private buyers a freight rate from that country. We were buying from private parties, and no difficulty about financing was involved. But you could not sell the grain in our country because you could not undertake to deliver it. I am sure that twenty carloads could have been sold for every carload that was delivered. The hon. member for East Assiniboia said that the members of the opposition were opposed to affording any relief to the farmers in the situation in which they were. No observation has been made on this side to justify any such conclusion ; it is a merely gratuitous assumption not based upon any reliable foundation ; there was no excuse for making it. Hon. members on this side are just as anxious as those on the other side to assist the farmer. The observations of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Fos-terl do not justify any other conclusion.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says that this was a technical violation of the law, but he reached the conclusion that it did not amount to anything. The law says that there shall be either gold or certain bonds as security for the note issue, but neither security was there for the issue of the notes in this case. Now, this was not a compliance with the law. It must, certainly, be more than a technical violation. Suppose it had turned out that, in a general financial crash such as might overtake any country, the security provided by the Bank of Montreal or other banks for this money had proved of no value, and if there had been a substantial loss, would the country say it was only a technical violation ? Would the Minister of Finance be excused for what he did ?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes.
Mr. SPR'OULE. Who said, ' Yes ?'


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is about as wise as any of the observations we hear from that side. Before the sentence 'is hallf spoken, the hon. gentleman says ' Yes.' It is like what you often hear in the Railway Committee-as soon as the first sentence of a clause is read, there is a cry of ' Carried.'


Sir. TALBOT.: What application was that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to ask if the Minister of Finance would have been justified in the judgment of this House and tlie country had a bank crash come on and that security been rendered worthless ? Not at all. That being so, and its having been a clear violation of the law, it was more than a technical violation and carried with it a greater significance. We are holding the banks and insurance companies strictly to account in relation to the classes of securities, which, * under the law, they must keep, and the- reserve they must maintain, and, when they violate the law they are brought to account for it. But here they have the glaring example of a violation of the law by the Minister of Finance himself. This instance, I imagine, will some time in the future be quoted against The Minister of Finance. Even though some future violation of the law should cause great loss, it will be pleaded that it was only a technical violation, just as the minister pleads to-day. The Minister of Finance, of all others, should be expected to set a good example to our financial institutions. Therefore, I say, it was more than a technical violation of the law, and, in my judgment, was inexcusable.


Mr. BURROWS.: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Minister of Finance should have sat still and refused to grant relief to the people of the west who wanted money and wanted to get their crops moved ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that. I said that the people on this side were just as anxious to come to the relief of the people of the west as hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not object to coming to the relief of the people, but I object to the way it was done, believing that it was wrong.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: What, then, should the Minister of Finance have done ?
Mr. 'SPROULE. It is not for me to devise a system on the spur of the moment to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member (Mr. Burrows). It is my duty and my right to criticise what has been done without pointing out what might have been done. It is not always the duty of the opposition to lay down a plan for the government to work by. It is our duty and our right to criticise the weak places in the policy of the government. And that is what I am doing. Then the next question was raised: Who got a share of this money? The Minister olf Finance says there was a private agreement between the banks, but who they were he did not tell. I made the observation : Is this another case like the North Atlantic Trading Company, where the government were afraid to tell the people who the members of that company

were for fear somebody would commit suicide ? Are the banks so sensitive, in so delicate a position, that they are afraid to let the country know that they got a portion of this money ? If they are, I do not see any reason why we should not know it. Is not the country interested in knowing it? because the country is the security that stands behind this loan, and it has a right to know where that money went, and what classes of security were held for that money during the time it was in the possession of the banks. We, the representatives of the people, have a right to know whether security was provided by the Bank of Montreal and the other banks, and what that security was. It is not for the Minister of Finance to exercise his judgment as to whether that security was good or bad. He had a right to scrutinize it, to bring his judgment to bear on it; but it was not his judgment that should prevail, it was the strict interpretation of the law that should prevail as to what that security should be. I say then that he is not justified in withholding from the House the information as to what the security was that he held, or which the banks held, for the issuing of this $5,000,000. I think that is something this House ought to know, and it is treating parliament with scant courtesy to refuse that information. The representatives of the people are entitled to know, and there could be no substantial injury done to the banks or any other financial institutions if they were obliged to disclose this information before the world, the same as any other financial institution, whether banks or Insurance companes, that have to make their returns from year to year. We are not opposed to helping the farmers of the west, we are just as desirous of helping them as the Minister of Finance; but it is because we do not exactly agree with the means he took to give them that assistance that we are criticising his action.


Mr. FOWLER.: This government seems to delight in mystery, in doing things in a mysterious way, and in concealing the names of the parties with whom they do things. They have not always been successful in maintaining this tremendous secrecy. But it seems to me this is not a case where there should be any secrecy. Why should the representatives of the people, whose money this is, not know what banks are getting the benefit of these moneys ? We are not objecting, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. iSproule) has said, to the principle of a loan under the circumstances; but we are objecting most strenuously to the manner in which this was done. What right has this government to take the money of the people and give it in secret to any person, to any corporation ? Why should a mystery be made of it ? Because it will do some harm to some bank ? Well, If a bank is in such a condition that a Mr. SPROULB
knowledge of its circumstances is going to do harm to the bank, is it not right to let the public know it, and thus preserve the public from making the serious losses that we have heard about in connection with some other banks that have failed in this country ? Here was a case the other day where a bank failed, and not only the men who put their money into it, the shareholders, have lost all the money they put in, with the double liability as well, but the men who have made deposits in that bank will probably not get 5 cents or 10 cents on the dollar of their money. Why then should secrecy be maintained unless it is for the sake of bolstering up some bank which is in a shaky condition ? I canot understand why the government should refuse this information. I could understand to some extent why they should refuse to disclose the names in the case of the North Atlantic Trading Company, because they knew, and we all knew, that those were the names of persons who were closely connected with the departments. That was the reason, not the flimsy reason the government gave, that the booking agents would get into trouble with their governments where they lived. That was not the reason, the real reason was because these persons who were getting this money were closely connected with the government. Therefore there was some reason for maintaining secrecy, but it was not a reason that the representatives of the people could accept as a justification for concealing the names. But here is a case where I cannot conceive why the government should refuse the information which we have a right to. I cannot understand for the life of me why we should not know what banks were getting the Benefit of this assistance, what banks were having this money advanced to them. I think it is the right of this committee to know, and the government are not doing their duty when they refuse that information.
iMr. FIELDING. I will deal again with that particular question. There was a condition of affairs in the west in which help was needed, and that help could only be given through the banks. An arrangement which would set the banks in motion, and provide the money and grant relief, was the arrangement that was required. Any arrangement which the banks would not avail themselves of would do no good. In the first arrangement contemplated, the rate of interest was one which the banks would not avail themselves of, consequently, if we adhered to that nothing could be done. Thereupon we amended the arrangement and allowed a lower rate of interest, and induced the banks to take the money. Then we were told that the banks hesitated about taking the money lest it should convey an impressjon disadvantageous to them. If we had stood out

oa that point and said:	Well, if you will
not take the money on those terms you shall not have it, then the people in the west would not have got the aid they wanted. That would have defeated the object we had in view. Therefore, we said: If that is the difficulty, we will arrange to conduct this business through the Bank of Montreal. Let the manager of the Bank of Montreal deal with the whole 'transaction, and if we get complete, and satisfactory. and adequate security from the Bank of Montreal, why should we insist upon the point of publishing a list of the names of the banks? That is the whole story.


George William Fowler: That is a very strange reason.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the real reason.


George William Fowler: I cannot believe that business men, the class of men who are at the head of the banks, would put forward a reason like that. They are merely acting as the channel through which this largess of the government reached the people, and why should they object to being known as the channel?


William Stevens Fielding: The question is not why they should object. I want the hon. member to deal with the fact that they did object.


George William Fowler: I am asking why they should object. I say it was an absurd position for the banks to take, and I cannot believe it possible. I think they fooled the Minister of Finance. I cannot believe that they would refuse to handle this money when there was a profit in it. They are not doing it out of philanthropy. They are making a profit, they are getting the money at a certain rate of interest from the minis-ster, and letting it out at an increased rate of interest to the people. Therefore, why should they want to conceal their names? As I say, I believe they are really fooling the minister. I think there was a great deal more made of this thing than was necessary. It is a good deal like giving seed grain to the people of .the west. I think you will find that it is not necessary, and that it was done in such a way as not to be of great advantage to the people of the west.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I wish to say a word or two about the outstanding features of this agreement we have before us. We do not for a moment deny that there was a financial stringency in the west and that it might have been necessary to grant some assistance for the movement of the western crops. But what I wish to point out is the position the government took in the matter. In the first place, they committed what is admitted by this Bill to be an illegal act; in other words, in order
that they might give that aid they were ready to do a wrong. They did a wrong, according to the confession of the Finance Minister, because they put their hands into the strong box of the country and took out some $5,000,000 odd which, according to the law, they had no right to place a finger upon. That is the first outstanding thing that was done. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that the men who joined in the cry for assistance probably thought they were calling on some one who was able to render assistance, tout it appears that they cried in the wrong quarter. Although the Minister of Finance boasted of a surplus of $19,000,000 he had not one dollar in the treasury to enable him to advance this very small sum. - When the hon. gentleman boasted of the tremendous impetus that they had given to the trade of Canada and the revenues that were derived from the people, was it not natural to suppose that there were a few dollars in the treasury at the time that this call was sent out? A great many business men thought that the government might assist in the movement of crops in the west, but they did not know the lamentable financial weakness of this government at this crucial time and the very feeble assistance they were able to render the country that was calling for assistance. What did it amount to? The advance of $5,000,000 would only move five or ten per cent of the crop of the west. There were probably 100,000,000 bushels of grain raised in the western country last year, and the advance of $5,000,000 would not move more than 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 bushels of that grain. We heard this session that one of the private corporations of Canada had four times this amount at their credit in the banks, and that, more than the assistance that the hon. Minister of Finance gave, was what tided the country over this difficult point. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), a few weeks ago, said in this House that during that financial crisis there were $20,000 000 deposited by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the banks of Canada. This government, with all their revenue coming in under the immense taxation that has been going on, apparently had not one dollar with which to come to the rescue of the people. When they made the appeal to them it was a natural enough supposition that this government had some money in their coffers, but according to the admission of the Minister of Finance they did not have a spare dollar in their coffers. The Minister of Finance confessed to-day that he was obliged to break into the strong box of the government and take out every dollar that the government advanced to the people of the west.


William Erskine Knowles: Is it not better that the citizens and private corporations should

have $20,000,000 in the banks l'ather than that Canada should hold the money here when the country is in need of it ?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is not a great financier; at least he has not stated his question in such a way that I can see any point in it. I made the statement that a private corporation had in the banks of Canada $20,000,000 at the time of the crisis. This government, with any reasonable foresight, with the most infinitesimal amount of foresight, should have had some money at its credit at the time of the panic. The bon. gentleman cannot plead that he did not have warning that the crash was coming. There had been rumblings for six months, the crash was coming and he had ample time to prepare for it, but when the coffers of the government should have been strong in funds not a dollar was found to assist the people of the west, and therefore the Minister of Finance put his hands into the strong box, contrary to the law and took out $5,000,000. That is the outstanding feature. Do not cover it up, as the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) endeavoured to do, by saying that we do not want to help the farmers of the west. I question very much if the valued assistance of the hon. member for East Assiui-boia would help the government in answering the moral question whether right or wrong was done in connection with that transaction. X do not think that help comes particularly well from that hon. gentleman or from our hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) who a moment ago interrupted and asked how I would have it done. I do not say that there should have been other means employed than the means that were employed. There was not the money in the treasury that there should have been, and if there was not that assistance available perhaps if the government had put some of the coal areas and timber limits to auction there might have been that assistance available. But the government having handed out these coal areas and timber limits for a mere song, there was nothing available to aid the farmers of the west, and therefore they put. their hands into the strong box and took out $5,000,000 of the money of this country. They revealed the weak financial position of the minister and of the government at a very crucial time. Every business organization with its eyes open knew what was coming. They had ample warning, but still, when the crash came and when assistance was required, this government had nothing available to enable it to come to the aid of the banks or anybody else. Therefore, they committed a very serious wrong and that is what the House and the country will take notice of because no apology has been given by the Minister of Finance for his action in so far as I have been able to gather from his words. He has not said that he was sorry Mr. KNOWLES.
that he was obliged to break the lawr; he has not promised that he will not do it again, and that is what we would like to hear from the Minister of Finance. He must have done wrong or he would not come here and ask us to legalize what was done. We are asked to legalize what is admitted to be wrong. The Minister of Finance did not say that he would not do it again.


William Stevens Fielding: No, but I will state that under similar circumstances I will do it again.


William Foster Cockshutt: The minister may be bold, but I do not think he is very wise in making that statement. The hon. gentleman to-day has bankers behind the bars, has he not, for an infraction of the laws of his own department? Any banker, when he breaks into his reserves, or misleads the country by false returns, is put behind the bars, but here is the Finance Minister, the head financial man in Canada, setting up a standard and further saying :	I will repeat it next time if it is necessary and saying to the banking and financial institutions of the country that no law of commercial morality will for a single - moment be countenanced. I do not think that the minister makes a serious statement when he says he will do it again.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, yes.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not think so. We were not aware what the minister was doing. It was months after this was done before we realized what had been done. Nobody for one moment dreamed that it was necessary for this government to take $5,000,000 out of the public chest to lend this money to the bank. Here is a government doing $610,000,000 worth of business in a year and there is not a single dollar of working capital at the time it is needed.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend should not say that. They had working capital for the ordinary purposes and when the hon. gentleman states again and again that there was not a dollar of working capital he is going too far. They had working capital for all ordinary purposes.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not want to misinterpret the words of the hon. gentleman. There was not a dollar available to help the west.


William Stevens Fielding: They had working capital for all ordinary purposes. This was not an ordinary purpose.


William Foster Cockshutt: That amounts to the same thing ; there was not a dollar apparently to help the west, and apparently the credit of the country was such that they were unable to borrow a dollar in the ordinary way. The financial position of the hon. gentleman is not so good that he can afford to throw down the gauntlet to us to-

day and say : I am going to repeat this. Our credit is suffering in the old country to-day from just such transactions as this, and it will more seriously suffer if statements are allowed to go broadcast that the minister is going to disregard the law of the country whenever it becomes necessary to tide over a financial difficulty. It revealed the weak spot that the government had no money available. Suppose I were the custodian of trust funds and a friend asked me for a thousand dollars to help him in his business in a time of financial stress, and I gave him that money out of the trust funds which were in my charge, and I gave it to him without any authority what would be thought of me, would I not be liable to criminal prosecution ? And yet the Minister of Finance stretches out his hand and takes this trust money which is the guarantee of our financial standing and he hands it to the banks, without authority, in order, he says, that they might move the crops of the west. And the Minister of Finance is not repentant, and he says he will do it again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I say that the Minister of Finance has set a bad example to the country and to our financial institutions, and I fear the precedent may be looked to and that it will lead to serious trouble in the future. The Minister of Finance practically undertook to break the law for six months and to rely upon a brute majority in this House to sanction his wrong-doing. The member from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) absolutely failed to prove his assertion that wheat jumped 10 cents a bushel when the government took this action. I was travelling in Alberta and Saskatchewan at the time and I know that wheat fell in price considerable even after the government made this miserable little grant of $5,000,000 which was a bagatelle and which would only run two or three concerns for four or five weeks at most. If it were necessary for this government to have come to the aid of the country, $50,000,000 would be a moderate estimate of what would have been required and even that sum would have been gobbled up very quickly at the time. But the fact is that the Minister of Finance seeing that the United States government had taken action, decided that he could follow their example, oblivious of the fact that their whole financial fabric is different from ours. The whole history of the case shows that the action of the government was a failure, not so much because there was no need of assistance as that the assistance did not go to the farmers who profited by it to little or no extent. I trust the Minister of Finance will never have occasion again to repeat his action ; I trust that in our time it will never become necessary for any minister to break
the law and rely on parliament to afterwards sanction his illegal act. .


Frank Oliver: This has been a very illuminating debate not only with regard to the immediate question of indemnifying the government for their action, but as giving a concrete illustration of the effect of the policy and administration of the government upon the well being of the country. The statement has been made by gentlemen opposite that the prosperity and progress of Canada during the last few years was due to natural causes and was not in any degree due to the policy or administration of the government. So long as there was a general wave of prosperity throughout the world-and that must be admitted-the effect of the policy or administration of the government upon the affairs of Canada was not so easily capable of demonstration, although of course we always believe that wise administration of wise measures must necessarily have some beneficial effect upon the people of Canada. However, there arose an occasion which threw into strong comparison the policy of the government on the one hand and its results, and the policy of the opposition on the other. There was an ebb in the tide of prosperity ; there came a sudden and unexpected period of financial stringency. It came without warning and it came not only to Canada but to the United States where it was more strongly marked than in our own country. My hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) has said that the warning was sufficient and that the government should have provided for what was about to take place. Well, the government of Canada is an able government ; it has managed the business of Canada during the past twelve years satisfactorily to the people, but there are heights to which it has not yet attained and it is not gifted with the spirit of prophecy. That the government of Canada should have no foreknowledge of events in the financial wmrld, of which the great financial magnets of Wall Street were oblivious, is not seriously to the discredit of the government of Canada. The wreck of banking institutions in New York, the money stringency that prevailed in America and in Europe, all came without there being a possibility of guarding against such conditions by those most interested. Canada was affected not so much because of conditions within herself as from the reflex of conditions elsewhere, and the depression occurred at a most critical time in the year's business when the western crops required to be moved.
It is not desirable that we should argue or enlarge unduly upon the conditions that existed, but it is a fact that is on record that to the south of the line, in the prairie states of the west, for a time the movement of the crop actually ceased, not because there was no crop to move, not be-

cause there was no market for that crop, but because, owing to what we may call a panic, the finances were not available to move the crop. That condition which existed south of the line was approximated north of the line, and whereas the wheat market had opened in the Canadian west with the close of the harvest at a fair price, or rather over the ordinary price because of the extraordinary demand across the Atlantic, yet, owing to the financial conditions, as stated by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson), the banks had seen fit to restrict the credits they had ordinarily given to the buyers of the west. While the value of grain had gradually increased, a point was reached late in October or early in November when the grain buyers at Winnipeg called a meeting and asked that representations should be made to the government that unless there was some immediate relief from the financial conditions then threatened, grain buying throughout the west would have to cease. It was not a question of price, the price of grain at the ultimate market, I suppose, had not been as high for years as they were last fall ; but had the fear of the grain buying interests in Winnipeg been realized, had the supply of money necessary to handle the crop been cut off, it mattered not whether the value of wheat was $1, or $1.50 in Liverpool, it was not immediately worth anything to the farmer in the Canadian west unless he could sell it. He could not pay his debts with it, he could not buy his supplies ; winter was coming on, his notes were due, his supplies had to be purchased and the condition facing the western country at that time was a condition that on the evidence of responsible men that has been placed before the House, was an absolute shutting down of trade at the most critical time in the year's business. It is not necessary to go into the details of how trade was affected. It is, however, a fact, and this will perhaps bring the matter very strongly to the attention of the House, that at a certain time there were millions of bushels of wheat in the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, that vessels came to Fort William and Port Arthur light to load with wheat for eastern lake ports and had to go away light because the men who owned the wheat were unable to release it and provide for its transportation across the lake. We need not go into the conditions more deeply than that. When I make that statement I state conditions that any one acquainted with the facts will realize to have been very serious. With a grain blockade at Fort William and Port Arthur, with the lines of credit to the grain buyers restricted, there could be only one result, a stoppage of trade throughout the west, and hon. gentlemen interested in the industry and enterprise and commerce of eastern Canada will realize what effect Mr. OLIVER.
that must necessarily have had upon the business of eastern Canada.
I need not enlarge upon the fact brought out by the member for Selkirk (Mr. J. S. Jackson) that if it became generally known that the banks were not prepared to finance the grain trade at a critical moment in the year there must necessarily result some decrease of confidence in the banks-[DOT] and no one can tell what the result might have been. It is all right to-day, six months after the event, to use the arguments that have been used, to compare the action of the Finance Minister and of the government to that of thieves, to say that they have transgressed the law, and should not have done so. It is all right to say :	We
do not complain of what you did, but of the way you did it. The essential point is that, in the judgment of the government, there was a crisis in the business affairs of this country that had to be met and met then and there by such means as were at hand. It would have been of no use to say : We can do this or that or the other, in a month from now-navigation would close within a month or six weeks and it was a question of preventing a stoppage of the flow of grain to the market, preventing the stoppage of trade, preventing the lack of confidence that must necessarily ensue from that stoppage. It was a matter of getting as much of that grain forward as possible before the close of navigation. There was no time to look around for this or that or the other means. My hon. friend says the government should have had money available in the treasury. What does the government levy taxes on the people for ? To keep money in the treasury ? Surely not, but to carry on the business of the country, to pay the honest debts of the country, to fulfill the obligations which are laid on the government by the mandate of parliament.


William Foster Cockshutt: Why did they not use part of the surplus of $19,000,000 ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend should not really advertise himself by such questions.


George Eulas Foster: It is the Finance Minister he is advertising.


Frank Oliver: It is not the business of the government to keep money in the treasury ; it is not the business of the government to levy taxation which is not required, it is the business of the government to pay money as it is earned. The government was carrying on the ordinary business of the country in the ordinary way, as it has been ordered to do by parliament and had to meet this condition, a condition which I need not describe, butia condition in which the Bank of England rate was seven per cent, an almost unheard of rate, and call money in New York was at almost any price. My hon. friend suggests that

this government should have had money-ready in the treasury to move the Northwest crop. The government had to step outside the law to meet the case-and the case was met. That was the essential point. A crisis in the business affairs in this country was averted not by a policy of drift, not by the rising tide of prosperity but because this government dared step outside the Jaw in order to meet the crisis, when satisfied there was one. It is that action we are asking the representatives of the people to endorse. I never suspected that there would be anything but the most unanimous endorsation of the action taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a very, important firm were confronted with a financial difficulty, involving half a million dollars, and suppose they were to say : There is a financial crisis which must be averted, and therefore we are justified in stepping outside the law and robbing a bank.


Frank Oliver: I ask that the hon. member and his friends be judged by the statement he has just made, namely, that the action of this government, in coming to the relief of the farmers of the west, was on a par with the illustration my hon. friend gave. If it was, -then the country will understand that should our hon. friends opposite ever be in power and such a crisis again arise, they would take no steps to meet it, they would allow the wheat to rot in the fields


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: They would allow business to stagnate and banks to break but they would not do anything themselves. The hon. gentleman has just said so.


William Humphrey Bennett: Bring on your elections and let the people have a say. Trust the people as McKay did.


Frank Oliver: When an appeal to the country comes, I hope the electors will not forget the respective positions of the two parties. My hon. friends opposite have suggested the possibility of like action under like circumstances again, and my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance has said that, given like conditions, he would do again as he did before. And I think I am speaking for every member on this side when I say that, given like conditions, like action will be endorsed. This government are here for the purpose of advancing the well being of the country


George Taylor: The well being of your party friends.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend suggests that we only benefit our political friends. Well, the grain buyers of Manitoba have among tligm as many political friends of my hon. friend opposite as of this government.


An hon. MEMBER.: They will not be now.


Frank Oliver: The farmers of Manitoba are not supporters of my hon. friends opposite to the same extent, I am happy to say, as of this government. But there is a large proportion-too large for my taste-in political affiliation with my hon. friend. Was there any distinction made ? Was any line drawn ? Was there any benefit to one man more than another ? No, there has been no suggestion, from the beginning to the end of this matter, which bears out the slur of my hon. friend. Let me say with regard to the slur which has been thrown across the House so frequently, that where the policy and administration of this government differs most radically from that of its predecessors is that this government does not draw a line between its friends and opponents in administering our public affairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: And that is one great reason why this administration has been so successful and that of our hon. friends opposite was such a dismal failure. Do my hon. friends deny that that was the condition ? Out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is the tendency of humanity to measure other people's grain in their own half bushel. These gentlemen are never ceasing in their charges of political favouritism, but these charges have no foundation whatever save in their own sentiments. What they did when in office and what they would do if in office again is what they accuse this government of doing.
With reference to the suggestion that this condition might arise again and have to be met, well, the government is prepared to meet conditions as they arise. The government is prepared to say that desperate diseases require desperate remedies. It is certainly contrary to policy and the will of the people to step outside the law. At the same time this government learns by experience. There was a condition last fall which may arise again. It was exaggerated last fall because of the extreme financial stringency throughout the world generally. But in case such a condition should arise again and to provide in any case for the requirement in the moving of the crops each year, in this country where the crop yield is such an enormous proportion of the national wealth, and where the free movement of that crop is so important in the financial affairs of the country, in order to meet that condition for the future, there is on the Order Paper notice of a Bill to provide for a certain elasticity in the banking circulation. This Bill is to provide, in the light of our experience of last year, with the knowledge and approval of parliament, a means of meeting similar conditions,

when they arise again. I do not know that it is out of place to call attention to the fact that, since this proposal was placed before parliament-and it has been before parliament for a considerable time-this idea of providing a certain expansion of the currency at the most critical period of the year's business has not escaped the notice of our neighbours to the south of the line. The legislative and executive authorities of that great country have seen fit to make very much the same provision for the expansion of the currency of the United States as is proposed here under the policy of the government as presented to parliament in the Bill that is shortly to be considered.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not the other way round ?


Frank Oliver: I think not. I believe then, in the first place that the government is entitled to the vote of indemnity of parliament for having met a grave crisis promptly and effectively, the more so because, learning from the experience of last year, it is preparing to meet such conditions in the future under arrangement backed by due legislative enactment. And, having the endorsation of the authority of the United States for such a proceeding, I think we may claim that we have the fullest warrant, not only for the action that was taken, but for the propriety of the action proposed to be taken to provide for future contingencies.
Mr. FOSTER, Does the hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) say that there is any precedent in the United States for the action taken by the government here in diminishing the reserves held for the circulation of the country in order to help the banks ?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware that there is any precedent, and I do not think there is. What I want to point out to the House is that, instead of this government taking its precedent from the United States, the United States is taking its precedent from this government.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister state in what way ?


Frank Oliver: In the Bill for the expansion of the currency.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).: 
Richard Stuart Lake: Allow me to correct the hon. gentleman. I said they should have made arrangements with the banks whereby the banks would have been bound to lend the money to the farmers on their bills of lading, as they had always been accustomed to do in the past.


Malcolm Smith Schell: It is practically the same thing, it would have been compelling the banks to do something in which the same principle was involved. Hence I say that we have two diametrically opposite positions taken this afternoon. We have the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) saying that the government had not the money in its treasury, and in the next breath saying that they broke the strong box of the treasury and took out the money. He said they should not have done that, but that they should have gone out and used trust funds; if they had not the money, they shoud have taken some action like those who have trust funds to invest. I think that position is worthy of severe criticism. This country is to be congratulated on having a minister who is strong enough, bold enough, and able enough to meet a critical situation, and it shows that he is capable of financing the affairs of the
Dominion in the intei'est of all the people of the Dominion.
. [DOT]


George Eulas Foster: After the fiery speech of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and the violent assumptions that he made, I think it is necessary for me to say a word or two more. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. M. S. Schell) thought there was some insuperable difficulty on political grounds in the government assisting the banks to give tlie same accommodation to farmers last year that they had been accustomed to give, and which last year they affirmed they could not give because of the financial stringency. That accommodation was to finance the bills of lading of farmers. My hon. friend could see where a political difficulty might arise, I cannot. The government made the advance to the bank for the purpose of assisting the farmei's to market their produce at a fair rate, and it would have been perfectly right for them to place this money at the disposal of the bank on condition that the bank should use it in giving accommodation as they had been accustomed to do, and as had been done in previous years. They did not do that. So far as these papers go, we do not know to-day that one dollar of that $5,000,000 went to alleviate the farmers' difficulty in the matter of selling their grain. The Minister of Finance asked for a report from the Bank of Montreal, the report given by the bank was this only, that they had loaned so much money at such a time, and had received so much in terest. There is no agreement found in the papers between the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Montreal that the money so loaned was to go to the relief of the selling farmer, and there is not a shred of a report from the Bank of Montreal to show tliat the money did go, or how far it did go, in those channels. We are left entirely to our own resources to find out, because no information is given in this l'espect.
Now the Minister of the Interior said that this great crisis last year came suddenly and unexpectedly. He is in error. It did not come suddenly and unexpectedly in the months of October and November. Any one who read the financial signs of the times had seen the approach of this period for months, yes, and years before, and the Finance Minister himself in his budget speech of last year had given the note of warning, which unfortunately he himself did not take, that it was probable more stringent times were approaching, and that men should take their measures accoi'dingly. The foremost bankers in the United States, for two years previously, had been warning the people of that country to set their business in order, because the booming period could not continue and there were evident signs of a coming stringency. That lesson was repeated over and over by the best

financial men and in the best financial papers.	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: Did my hon. friend happen to notice that the Knickerbocker Trustbene-fited by any such notice?


George Eulas Foster: That was an example of a company that might have managed its business very differently from the way it did, and it was one of the first to go down under the storm. iBut I say that the people of Canada were not taken by surprise, at least the financial men were not, and the evidence is that for six months before every bank in Canada had been advising its customers that they could not only not get any further additional advances, but that they must make up for the advances they already had, or reduce the accommodation they had at the bank. This gradual tightening of the banks enabled the man on the street to see what was coming, and warned him to make provision for coming disaster. The trouble was increased no doubt by the fact that the marketing of grain took place in the middle of that crisis, and the financial stringency made itself felt as it did in the marketing of cattle and other produce. My hon. friend says there was a blockade in transactions all round. Well, that is an altogether an extravagant statement. There was not a blockade, there was less movement than formerly, but he can take these papers, and take the records of trade, and he will find there was a satisfactory movement of grain from the hand of the producer to the hand of the receiver all along through the three months. But there was a crisis, and $5,000,000 was necessary to tide over it. Now I would ask my hon. friend how many men in Canada, from the 1st of November until the statement came out in the latter part of December or in January, knew that the aid given by the government could only be given by the government breaking into the reserve in gold held for the security of the circulation of this country. When the press were discussing that, we supposed the government was able to advance a few million dollars, or to get it upon its credit, and thus relieve the stringency. There would have been a very different state of feeling in this country if, in November, Mr. Fielding had advertised that he could not possibly give the aid unless he reduced the gold in the treasury by the amount of $5,000,000 or $6,000,000, aDd thus arbitrarily break the law. It was not until after parliament had been in session for nearly two months that we knew that the government had financed the business in that particular way. $5,000,000 would have overcome the crisis, and yet you have this mighty and powerful government so reduced that it could not, on its own motion, raise $5,000,000 to tide over a crisis, nor had it credit which it dare use Mr. FOSTER.
to go into the London market in order to raise $5,000,000. I would, not run a government that way; I do not think the Conservative party would run a government in that way. With an unprecedented revenue, with revenues increasing by tens of millions, almost, every year for the last few years, this government found itself so deficient in money, and so deficient in credit, that it did not dare to go to the_ money markets of the world to raise $5,000,000 and tide over the crisis and had not a red cent of its own with which to do it. The minister asks : Suppose that the same crisis should arise, would a Liberal Conservative meet it? No, he says they would not meet it. I beg leave to observe that we would not meet it in the same way. I beg leave to observe that we would have the government in a condition to tide over a $5,000,000 crisis without breaking into the trust funds of this country held as a guarantee for the circulation. It was pertinently put to the Finance Minister: If he does not obey the law will the men who are under his administration be encouraged to do it? As was pertinently observed you have a man in prison to-day and you are putting the penalties of the law against him because he infringed the provisions of the Bank Act. If any banker exceeds his circulation by $1,000,000, or $500,000, or $100,000, the Finance Minister is the first one to take proceedings against him for having violated the law. The Finance Minister, who should be an example to all banking institutions, when his own credit is not sufficient to raise $5,000,000, breaks into the gold reserve which is held alone for the security of the banking system. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior said that we did no more than the United States did, that the United States came to the rescue of the country.


Frank Oliver: I did not instance the United States at all.


George Eulas Foster: Well, he was very much muddled up. He was trying to prove that the United States copied from us and he got considerably mixed up in the matter. There is a very great difference between the systems in the two countries. The United States does not put its excise and customs collections into the possesion of the banks. It keeps them in the United States treasuries. The Dominion government puts them into the banks and the banks and the country get the use of that currency and it helps business. When the stringency took place under the banking and currency laws of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury came to the relief of the country by taking free money out of the United States treasury and letting it out on the securities of the banks so that it filtered out into the currency of the country. The United States never did take one single dollar of

the gold reserve which stands to its credit in the treasury. That is where the difference is between the two. So, when the Minister of the Interior


Frank Oliver: I object altogether ; I never made any allusion such as the hon. gentleman is suggesting. He is mixing up the question. I did not suggest that there was any precedent whatever for what had been done by this government.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman mixed up the question and he thinks I am doing it too, so that we both are entitled to our opinion.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not heard any criticism yet.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that anybody has read the Bill of the minister. It is not probable that it has had much currency yet. It has been called an Emergency Bill, it lies there and when we get it before the House we will discuss it. The Minister of the Interior says : Yes, I stand by the minister and the government in doing this; they have done it once and I hope they will do it again.


Frank Oliver: No, no.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I want it distinctly understood that I never suggested that this government had any precedent from anywhere for the action it took-none whatever.


George Eulas Foster: I am speaking of the difference between the United States government and this government and, if the point is made that the United States government came to the rescue of the banks of the country in the same way that the minister came to the rescue of the banks here and that therefore they are on a parity, I am saying that there is no parity about it.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree with that.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of the Interior says that the United States is copying after Canada. Wonderful is it not ! The Minister of Finance about a month ago-we will say less than that-introduced a Bill for emergency currency, and now the Minister of the Interior says the United States is copying after the Minister of Finance and after the example he has given to it. The Minister of the Interior knows, if he has read anything about the financial affairs of the United States, as I know he has, that there has been, for the last ten years, a great deal of controversy as to the amendment of the currency and banking-laws, that the question of an emergency currency in all its different forms has been advocated in that country by many bankers and others and that the Aldrich Bill, which has virtually been adopted, has been debated before the country for many and many a long month. Consequently, it is not the Illustrious example set a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance that the United States congress has copied in reference to its banks and currency system. It is quite the reverse and I think the Minister of Finance will find that he is criticised because he is trying to apply United States methods of currency to Canadian methods which heretofore have stood by themselves.


William Stevens Fielding: Criticised by whom ?


George Eulas Foster: I think he will find that he will be criticised-I am not saying by whom.


Frank Oliver: I said that I hoped that preparations were being made that would not require it to be done again, that we were going to ask parliament to agree to an extension of the Currency Act which would provide against the necessity of it being done again under similar circumstances.


George Eulas Foster: The minister did say that, but the Minister of Finance got up excitedly and made the statement-a statement that it would have been well not to have made-that he would be bold enough to do it again under like circumstances, and the Minister of the Interior, on top of that, wanted it to be known throughout the great western country whose interests he especially had at heart just then, that the Minister of Finance was bold enough to make the statement that he would do it again if it were necessary


William Stevens Fielding: Under the same conditions.


George Eulas Foster: I hope the Minister of Finance will not do it again under any circumstances. I hope he will play the part of a prudent Finance Minister and that upon hard times coming he will so regulate his government expenditure and maintain the government credit that he will be able to extend a helping hand without breaking into reserves providing for the currency of this country. He has not raised the esteem for his government in their financial. dealings by making the bald statement that he would break into the treasury again under like circumstances instead of doing what is the perfectly right and proper thing for him to do-make arrangements to do the same thing, without breaking the laws of the country. It is really a strong statement to make that the Finance Minister is ready at his discretion to break the laws of the country. If a bank manager puts his discretion against the statute he is punished for it. He may say that he thought his securities just as good. He may take the risk of it and come to the minister and say the securities were just as good and no loss has been made, but if he did so the minister would put the pen-

alty of the law upon him and it must be so because you cannot carry on the administration of the department if the law is not enforced in that way. It is not allowed to either a minister or a banker to exercise his discretion in opposition to the law or to allow his discretion to supersede the plain letter of the statute. The Minister of the Interior says that it is an illuminating light as between the party on this side of the House and the party on the government side. They have done things and we have refused to do things ! You were in a difficulty with reference to seed grain. The statement came that, there had been frosted wheat, that there was no grain to be got, that it had to be imported into this country, that if it could be done there was not enough ready money in the farmers' hands to buy that grain, and you came down to this House and asked that an emergency appropriation should be made. Was there a man on this side who objected to it ? Every member of the opposition, when he saw that it was a difficulty and saw a way of meeting it said : Yes, it may be exaggerated, it may not be so bad as it seems by the representations which have been made, but we will facilitate your operation in this respect and if one member of the opposition had stood up against you, you could not have got your appropriation, according to the statement of the Finance Minister, in time to be of any use. The Minister of the Interior cannot go into the Northwest and say, with any truth, that every action of the opposition shows they are not favourable to the Northwest.


Frank Oliver: I did not make such a suggestion.


George Eulas Foster: You spoke of the illuminating light that showed the difference in policy.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but I did not suggest there was any difference in policy with regard to the seed grain vote, and I was surprised at the hon. gentleman objecting to this.


George Eulas Foster: In the seed grain case the aid was necessary and parliament was in session to meet the difficulty and the opposition stood by the Northwest as they have always done. Who made it possible for the Northwest to exist as it exists today?


Frank Oliver: The people of the Northwest.


George Eulas Foster: Who was it that put the Canadian Pacific Railway into the Northwest?


Mr. BERGERON.: In spite of the Liberals.
Mr. FOSTER, Who was it that took their political life in their hands in 1882 and 1883 in order to complete that road Mr. FOSTER.
when the Liberal party in its leaders, its rank and file and its newspapers were trying to defeat the Conservative party for its fidelity to the Northwest.


Frank Oliver: To lay the Northwest under a tribute that it staggers under today.


George Eulas Foster: The Northwest is the Northwest of to-day because that railway was built by the Conservative party in spite of the opposition of the Liberal party, and you place the proposition before the Northwest as to whether they would rather pay the bill or be without a railway and you will get your answer short and quick.


Frank Oliver: You got it in 1896.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and we got it under a set of misapprehensions, deceits and the like of that which has not been paralleled in his country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And false promises.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of the Interior knows that it is not always because a man gains an election that a policy or principle is affirmed. Mr. Hyman gained an election in London and the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister in this House called on the country to take notice that the Autonomy Bills had been upheld in the city of London, but it afterwards turned out it was bills of a very different kind that did the business. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) knows that though an election sometimes on a great principle shows the trend of the country, it is not infallible, and he cannot prove that the principles and the policy of the Conservative party have not been' in favour of the truest interests of the Northwest and especially in the time that it cost something to advocate such a policy.


Frank Oliver: If I could not prove that I and others who are behind me from the Northwest would not be here.


George Eulas Foster: Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) would not be here had he been true to his convictions. When he was not a member of the cabinet he was raking this government, but when it came to the point he swallowed his principles, and that is why he is here to-day.


Frank Oliver: I do not know how my hon. friend arrives at the conclusion he has placed before the House.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is quite easy.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what he alludes to, but I want to tell him that while I do not want to throw any discredit on the Canadian Pacific Railway-it is a great railway and a great enterprise and it has been phenomenally successful-yet in all candour I must say to my hon. friend that the Canadian Pacific Railway in its policy never did and never would have developed

10S46
the Northwest so long as it was dependent upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was not until this government introduced a new policy and held out to the people in the Northwest and the people who wanted to go to the Northwest the idea of railway competition and development that the Northwest became the Northwest.


Mr.   POSTER@: I suppose there is no use for my hon. friend and myself to follow up that line of discussion; the country is wise enough to judge between us. My hon. friend is the apologist of the government and he says that the policy of his party is to help the Northwest. The hon. gentleman is apologist for a great many things. He is apologist for the denudation of the public franchises of this country, in land areas, timber areas, coal areas and grazing leases. He stood up for every one of them. He thinks it is right to break into the bank and take away the treasury reserve. He thought it was just as right to break into the great reserves of the franchises of the country and give at slight cost the friend who sits on his right (Mr. Burrows) a very large slice indeed of the reserves of this country, and to give to his friends who sit around him and swear by him-why should they not swear by him- all these splendid franchises out of which they have made fortunes for themselves and their families. He is the apologist for every mother's son of these and for every transaction of that kind. He has done more than that, but I will spare my hon. friend and not give him too much at a time. Let him think over what he is apologist for in this House, and ho%, before he was a member of the government, he used to stand up here raking the policy of the government in many respects. Why doesn't he do it now ?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Poster) has directed so much of his remarks to my humble self that I suppose it will be in order for me to say something. Let me tell him that I have not been the apologist in this House for any of the things he has spoken of. I do not think they are matters that require any apology. So far as my humble ability admitted I have justified the policy of the government where I thought it could be approved, and so far as I have been able, according to my poor judgment, I have advocated the improvement of that policy. The hon. gentleman has said that I am the apologist for giving away a large area of agricultural lands in the Northwest. I say to my hon. friend and to the House and to the country that this government is in power for the purpose as a part of its policy, of giving away as much of the agricultural land in the Northwest as it can get people to take.


George Eulas Foster: It seems so.



REVISED

Frank Oliver: That is our policy. It was in advocacy of that policy that the government came into power; it is because of the administration of that policy that I hold office to-day. I hope my hon. friend does not detect any apologistic tone in my remarks.


Mr.   POSTER@: Not just now ; stand up like a little man.


Frank Oliver: As to the distribution of the timber reserves of the country I have no apology to offer in any shape or manner. The purpose of the policy of the government was to secure the investment of capital in the timber resources of the country and in the development of these reserves to a reasonable and measurable degree. That investment and that development has been secured under that policy. My hon. friend has seen fit to allude to the hon. member who sits at my right hand (Mr. Burrows) and to suggest that he has received favours at the hands of this government. He alluded to the record he had in his hand and said: Because it has not been shown on the record it is not entitled to be contended. The record is that my hon. friend has received no favour of any kind or description from this government, that every foot of timber lands that he owns he has because he bought it in open competition and paid more for it than any other man would pay at that time. I have no apology to offer for that condition of affairs.


Mr.   POSTER@: The only trouble with you is that you have not got rid of all of it.


Frank Oliver: No, that is not the trouble, but I am bound to say that if the whole timber of the west had to-day passed into private hands instead of the trifling fraction that has gone, I would not assert that the country would be the loser.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Because it would in that case be deriving a yearly revenue from ground rent and it would have the assistance, by way of taxation, of the owners of that timber in securing its protection from fire and I really do not see that the country loses by the revenue it derives from the ground rent of the timber and by having the assistance of the holders of the timber in the protection of that timber from fire. My hon. friend knows that the loss of timber in the Northwest is not from speculators, it is from fire, that in the last ten years we have lost more timber by fire than has been cut or sold, and that the question of the preservation of timber from fire is a far more important question than its preservation from speculators-even although they may be of the kind and character of my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Burrows').
'edition	.

In regard to the other matter which my hon. friend has mentioned, the disposition of coal lands, I do not know what my hon. friend would propose to do with the coal land of the country. It is not particularly good to look at and it is not of any use to anybody unless it is operated. Unless the government is going to operate it it has to go into somebody's hands in order to be operated. Under the laws, the rules and regulations which are published to the world, the government has offered coal lands for sale to the first comer at a fixed price and under certain conditions and people have come and have bought coal lands, have paid the price and are subject to the conditions as to royalty and taxation. I hope my hon. friend does not find any tone of apology in my statement of these facts for certainly I do not intend to convey any apology. If there is anything wrong in the action of this government in selling so many thousand acres of what are presumably' coal bearing lands at $10 an acre subject to ten cents a ton royalty on being operated, I do not know what my hon. friend has to say of the alienation, by the government of which he had the honour to be a member, of untold millions of acres of coal-bearing lands in the way of railway land grants, amongst other things, without any consideration as to royalty or as to the vaiue of the coal. The great difficulty we have to-day in securing the operation of the coal lands that we have sold is that the land we have sold carries a royalty of 10 cents a ton, while the lands that my hon. friend gave away do not carry any royalty. The consequence is that a portion of the coal land 'which he gave away is being operated while the coal lands lying alongside are lying undeveloped because-of the royalty which we charge. I am not so sure that the policy of my hon. friend in disposing of coal land without royalty was not a better policy.


George Eulas Foster: I thought you would come to that.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I am not so sure but that it is a better policy than our selling of coal lands subject to a royalty.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is not true that the Mackenzie government made an offer of 65,000,000 acres of land-


Frank Oliver: I do not say what the Mackenzie government did or offered. The Mackenzie government has been out of power for quite a long time ; it was only in power for a very short time

but I will say that the Mackenzie government in the short time it was in office, did more to secure the development of the Northwest than the government that succeeded it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. no.


George William Fowler: Oh, what a whopper.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: Y'es, did more to secure the development of the Northwest than the government that succeeded it, in proportion to the time it occupied office.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I suppose that the hon. minister will return to the subject before the committee ?


Frank Oliver: The chairman calls my attention to the fact that I have wandered from the subject. I bow to his decision and only say that I have wandered so far in following my hon. friend on the other side.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) to authorize the issue of government annuities for old age.

Mr. Fielding-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: When this matter was presented to the House at the first reading I made a statement as to its general purpose and some discusion took place then which I am sure enabled the House to understand the aim of the Bill. I did not, however, at that time, give any information as to what might be the expense involved in the adoption of this measure and I think the committee would desire to be informed on that point The Bill provides that the system may be administered from time to time by any minister to whom the business may be assigned, but for the present it shall be assigned to the Minister of Tr^le and Commerce. As hon. gentlemen know, my hon. colleague who holds that office has given great attention to the subject and his name has been particularly identified with its promotion. I have asked him to advise me as to what expenditure would be incurred and he thinks that the total expenses, in the early days at any rate, would not exceed $50,000 a year, and would only reach that amount if the system were availed of to a considerable extent. It would be necessary to appoint an officer who perhaps might be called the superintendent and some three or four others who, under his directions, might be required to travel over the country and make known the object and machinery of the Act. I think we would also need a government actuary. My intention is that that office shall be attached to the Department of Finance, for this reason, that our actuarial work is growing and we have a considerable amount of that work, which has hitherto been performed by the super-tendent of insurance, and which with the additional work involved in this scheme, will warrant the appointment of a special actuary. Further, the superintendent of insurance and his staff are practically not paid by the country at all, but by the insur-

10S50
ance companies. The expenses of the office are a charge on these companies, and it would be hardly fair to load them with expenses not connected with their business but purely with government business. Although that matter is not finally determined, I think we shall require a government actuary who will advise the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the administration of this Act and other Departments on like matters such as the provident fund of the Intercolonial, the pension of militia and Mounted Police and our own superannuation fund. I assume that some proportion of that work will be assigned to the officer I have described, and there will be in the Department of Trade and Commerce the superintendent and some three or four men appointed to travel over the Dominion and explain the system. The Bill has aroused very considerable attention. There was a tendency at first to associate it with old age pensions, but it does not profess to be an old age pension Bill. It is not a Bill in which the country provides old age pensions but a system whereby parties may purchase annuities for their old age. I do not think I can add anything by way of information. We shall have to take a vote in the supplementaries for whatever sum may be deemed necessary in the administration of the Act.


Mr. BLAIN.: Have there been any protests from mutual insurance companies and others against the Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking from memory, I do not think there have been. This does mu come seriously into conflict with the insurance companies for this reason, that although they have the power to issue annuities they have not gone into that line to any extent. In proportion to the amount and number of other policies issued, the number of annuity policies is quite small.


Richard Blain: Is it the intention to have an agent representing the government in each county ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is not contemplated to appoint more than four or five officers at the outside, some of whom would visit the various parts of Canada and endeavour to interest the public in the Act. There would be no special officers appointed at the beginning outside the number I have indicated, but we hope to be able to utilize the existing public officers. For example postmasters, collectors of customs or any important public officers might be interested and be the instruments of making the Act known and some small commission would be allowed them on any business done. It is not intended to appoint any considerable number of officers in the beginning.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT.: Is this to be self-sustaining ? Will the charges come out of the funds of the Dominion or will the fund that accumulates pav for the salaries ?


William Stevens Fielding: The expenses of management will be a charge on the government generally and in that respect it will not be self-sustaining.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: In that respect alone ?


William Stevens Fielding: If we allow a rate of interest as high as four per cent, that might be deemed to be some concession to the annuitant because money might be really worth a little less. Unless in the rate of interest being more than the ordinary, that is the only concession the annuitant gets.


George Eulas Foster: I think I said, when the Bill was up before, that I thought, taking economy and efficiency into account, it is the Postmaster General who ought to administer this Act. He has his offices spread over the whole country. He has in every district some one who represents him. He has offices in which this scheme could be put in operation and be prominently adverr lised so that every man who wanted to purchase an annuity-whether a resident in a far rural district or in a city-would have an equal opportunity to get whatever benefits there are to be derived from it, if there are any. The substitution of four or five men travelling throughout the country in order to make this scheme known seems its own condemnation. If it is a scheme for the general benefit of the country, then it ought to he brought to the minds of the country generally. But how much ground can four travellers cover and in what way will they spread the knowledge of this scheme ? If it is going to be worked out at all and you are going to take that method you will require a good many more than three or four travellers. It would be far better to utilize the post offices. Make out a clear and brief description of your scheme, let the public know its conditions and rates, and that application forms are to be had at the post offices. There you have a complete machinery at a minimum cost. Suppose you add a slight commission to the postmaster on every annuity sold by him, you will have to pay a commission anyway. By this means you would get at-everybody. The post office is always in a central place, the postmaster is seen by every one, and lie has every opportunity to promote this pian.
Now, I quite know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been, as it were, the father of the scheme, and I suppose it is natural that he should want to manage it. But he could use the post office machinery. and then, when he gets tired of fathering the scheme, he can hand it over to the Postmaster General and it would be then in a condition of permanency. But it will cost up to. probably, 850.000' for these other officers and general expenses, whereas. the other way the cost would be only a bagatelle. All that would be required

would be an actuary, if you have not. already an actuary whose advice you could take. I suppose that the business of an actuary in the matter would not go further than the formulating of the scheme, preparing tables of rates and so on. I think it a question worthy of consideration whether you are going to duplicate machinery and be efficient or use the machinery of the Post Office Department and be efficient.


William Stevens Fielding: With most of what the hon. member (Mr. Foster) says I can quite agree, especially with regard to utilizing the machinery of the Post Office Department. But I think that what he suggests will be done in any case. There will be a distribution of literature and forms relating to the plan, and a very considerable proportion of the expense will be this distribution of literature to inform the public. The only difference between what he has suggested, and what I have mentioned is that he questions whether there will be need for these three or four additional officers. But some means must be taken to bring the advantages of the scheme directly to the attention of the public. The insurance companies have the same experience. We all know that life insurance is a most excellent thing, and yet nine out of ten men never take insurance until somebody comes and presses them to do so. That is the experience of mankind. The mere fact that a thing is good in itself does not mean that it will be taken up by the public. Even the best things of life have to be recommended. Though I believe this to be an excellent scheme, founded on sound principles and calculated to do much good, I do not anticipate that the public will rush after it unless somebody takes pains to explain its merits and advantages. But the machinery of the Post Office Department will certainly be used, and, to a certain extent, if possible, the machinery of other departments. The fact that the direction is first assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not inconsistent with its being assigned to some other department in the future if, at a larger stage, it should be deemed advisable. I think the hon. gentleman is right that the Post Office Department, in that case, will be the best. We certainly will employ all the machinery of the post office to do all the hon. gentleman suggests in the way of making the plan known. But, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce appoints three or four men to make known the merits of the scheme and enlist public sympathy, he will be doing in a small way what all the insurance companies do.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Minister of Finance think it wise to enter into an active propaganda in competition with insurance companies ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: And with the fraternal orders ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) said, and seemed to think when he made the statement, he made the whole case for interference with these two kinds of organizations, that the fraternal orders and insurance companies do not sell many annuities. But I do not think he did make the case. In proportion as you persuade any man to buy an annuity you probably cut out a prospective member of a fraternal organization, benefit society or insurance company. It will certainly tend in that way. Now, while it is fair that the government should make provision whereby the citizens of the country can purchase annuities, is it quite right and proper for the government to enter into an active canvassing propaganda in favour of that plan as against the insurance company and the benefit and fraternal societies ? I scarcely think it is. I think the government does its duty when it places the'information before the people through some such means as the machinery of the post office, and allows every man to use his own judgment with reference to it. But I think the government goes too far when it enters into an active propaganda. If there is any argument for the five travellers, there is an argument for five hundred in exactly the same way, and so you go on expanding expense that I do not think we ought to incur. I believe that it will affect very materially the fraternal organizations and insurance companies in that, if yon persuade five thousand people to take annuities, you probably have persuaded a very large proportion who would otherwise become members of the fraternal organizations or seek insurance benefits, to refrain from doing so, or to drop their relations to these companies. I think you affect these organizations more, perhaps, than the minister thinks-certainly more than, from the expressions he has made use of as to the efforts to be put forth in selling annuities, the House would be led to believe.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) I think, on looking at the matter more closely will find that his criticism is hardly supported by the facts. I may remind the hon. gentleman of a fact which must have been called to his attention that, though the insurance companies have always been authorized to carry on annuity business, the annuities carried by these companies in Canada number only 1,321, and the average is only $270. That is practically the insurance companies do not do an annuity business. They do not make an effort to press that business. Therefore, we are not competing with them. As to the benefit and fraternal societies, he will find, if he looks into the matter, that they do not do annuity business-they are forbidden by the Act to do flint business, except in one case which may be considered a partial exception. The

Foresters are allowed to do what is not exactly an annuity business, but is somewhat different from the ordinary plan; they are allowed to distribute the payment of the capital sum over a numoei1 of years. For example, if a policy of $10,000*matured, instead of being obliged to pay the $10,000 at once, it can be arranged that it shall be paid at the rate of $1,000 a year for ten years. But the hon. gentleman will see at once that that is not a system of life annuities. The policy of our insurance legislation has always been that these fraternal organizations should not be encouraged to do annuity business. They fill their place and carry on their special work. They offer fraternal and social advantages and benefits for wThich many men are glad to join them. If there were insurance companies or fraternal societies carrying on this business widely and efficiently, there would be less reason for this measure. In that case, all we would have to offer would be the absolute security which characterizes a government institution, and that alone probably would not be enough to make this measure necessary. But, the fact being that the insurance companies do not do this business and that the fraternal societies do not and must not do it, there is an immense field to be occupied. My only fear in the matter is that, good as the system is it will not be readily taken up by the multitude because their attention has not been drawn to it. Therefore, I think the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in employing three or four men to travel about the country and make known the advantage of the system is meritorious. If it prove that, even then, it cannot be done, the only result will be that we shall have spent a little money in an effort to promote a good movement. An appropriation of $25,000 will be sufficient to cover this at the start and it is believed that the total for some years will not exceed $50,000, including salaries, commissions, printing, distribution of literature and everything else. I think the effort a good one and well worth making.


Richard Blain: There are companies in Canada doing an annuity business to which the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) has not referred. The Great West Company, which is a very strong and popular company, in Western Canada, offers an annuity policy on -which, for instance, on a policy of $3,000, $150 a year is paid for twenty years. I know that, as a matter of fact, the Great West does business along that line. As to the other companies, I am not so well informed.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not a case of life annuity. It only means that the policy is paid in instalments extending over a number of years. The object of this Bill is to provide that a man can purchase au annuity based on his expectation of life.
That is not being done, as I have said, either by insurance companies or fraternal societies. We are not competing with those organizations. As I have said, my only doubt is whether we can succeed in getting the people interested. I come back to the same illustration as before : insurance is a good thing, but none of us take out insurance as a matter of fact until some gentlemanly agent comes and presses us to do so.


George William Fowler: There was a company organized in Winnipeg about two years ago, called the Annuity Company of Canada to carry on this business. But they did not seem to meet with very flattering success. The people who took stock practically lost all the money they put into it, because the company was not able to get the business to do.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe they have gone out of business.


George William Fowler: Because they could not get business to do. There seemed to be an apathy on the part of the public in regard to taking out those annuities. Now so far as the appointment of travelling agents is concerned, it would seem to me that if they are of any use at all, they must go and canvass for persons, and if you only appointed four or five, you could not possibly cover the whole Dominion, they must be confined to comparatively small localities. If it is a good thing to canvas for this business, you want to have a sufficient number to cover the whole country.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not in the Bill, that is a matter of machinery.


George William Fowler: I think that part of the machinery had better be left out, and you had better confine it to the postmasters, who would be in a position to canvass to a certain extent, or at least, let the people know that they can get these annuities. I think it is a good thing that there should be an opportunity for people to take out annuities, so that a man may, when his time of active work is ended, have some assured income from the result of his activity when he is able to earn money. But in regulating the machinery I think you ought to confine the canvassing to postmasters and to collectors of customs.


William Stevens Fielding: The machinery is not regulated by the Bill. I have no doubt the minister will have his attention drawn to all the opinions expressed in the House, and will profit by them. I asked him to give an indication of what he had in his mind and he mentioned the appointment of these three or four officers, and that is why I mention them to the House.
On section 4,


Mr. LANCASTER.: What is meant by ' immediate ' as distinguished from ' deferred ' annuity?


William Stevens Fielding: An immediate annuity is one the benefit of which comes to the party immediately ; a deferred annuity is one which would give him an annuity beginning at a date to be fixed.


Richard Blain: What is the definition of the term ' domiciled in Canada ' for application under the Act?


William Stevens Fielding: That means residence in Canada, one whose home and residence is in Canada. I think the word ' domiciled ' has a legal meaning.
On section 5, payments by purchaser.


George William Fowler: Why do you put that amount at $10?


William Stevens Fielding: The object is that he may make his payment at a stated time, or if he does not wish to be bound to stated times, then whenever he has $10 or more he can deposit it, and have the value placed to his credit.


George William Fowler: But you would not give an annuity on the basis of $10?


William Stevens Fielding: The theory is that a party might put in $10, and the next month another $10, and he would put it in at irregular intervals, then he could get the annuity to the aggregate value of his contributions. Or you can pay it like an insurance premium at a stipulated time, and you get interest from the date of each payment. Under the first plan he need not make any periodical payment at all. If he prefers to put in a periodical payment he is credited with interest from the date of payment, practically the same as in the savings bank.
On section 6, annuity tables.
Mi-. FOWLER. Are these tables prepared ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that will be a work for the government.


George William Fowler: What interest do you pay ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not contemplated paying more than 4 per cent, possibly a little less, but certainly not more. The rate may be changed from time to time according to monetary conditions.
On section 7, limitations as to persons and amounts.


George William Fowler: Why limit it to $600?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not designed to furnish annuities for wealthy people. It is for, I do not say poor people, but those who may be called people of moderate means, to whom a $600 annuity is a considerable sum. We think it is not desirable, inasmuch as the government have to contribute in some way to it, to make the annuity large enough to attract men who can provide for themselves otherwise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I thought the scheme of the Act was that the fund would be self supporting ?


William Stevens Fielding: That would depend upon the rate of interest. For example, if we allowed 4 per cent when the value of money is only 34 per cent, then to the extent of that 4 per cent we are giving a concession, and in that case the expenses of administration would be a charge upon the public treasury, and to that extent it would not be self-supporting.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the explanation of the minister at a former stage of the Bill that the expenses of administration would not be a charge upon the fund.


William Stevens Fielding: It will be a charge on the public, but not on the funds.


Robert Laird Borden: Apart from that, I understand that the scheme was that the fund would be self-supporting, but the minister thinks that may be departed from to the extent of a small amount of interest.


William Stevens Fielding: If we say that 4 per cent is the proper value of money and if we allow 4 per cent, then it is self-supporting. If we allow 4 per cent when money was only worth 34 per cent, we are to that extent giving a little concession to the annuitant. But as that is in the interest of thrift, I do not think anybody will object.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will these annuities be taxable by the municipalities ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think we will have power to exempt them from taxation, that I fancy would be a provincial matter. But we do provide that they shall be exempt from seizure. But they would have to be subject, I presume, to the laws of the province with respect to the income tax.


Robert Laird Borden: If the fund is to be self-supporting, there is no advantage in this Bill beyond what any one would derive from putting his money in the government savings bank.


William Stevens Fielding: No. This simply gives a person the security of the government. It does not profess to be any great concession to the annuitant any more than the savings bank itself is a concession. It gives him a safe investment.


George William Fowler: That all depends upon the tables of mortality. IHe pays in a certain amount of money. Say that he pays in $2,000, he gets an annuity of $400 a year after a certain time, but on his death the principal sum which he has paid in goes into the treasury. Is that not it?


William Stevens Fielding: That is it. But that, of course, as in the insurance business, is dependent upon the tables of mortality. The calculation is based upon the ordinary

expectation of life. If the ordinary expectation of life is realized it just reverses itself. It may be that it will turn one way or the other, but the tables of mortality will be framed on the basis of the fund simply being of self-sustaining subject to the qualification about the rate of interest.


George William Fowler: The government pays interest at the rate of 4 per cent on the principal until the death of the annuitant; four l>er cent is not a high rate of interest.


William Stevens Fielding: He does not get merely 4 per cent ; he gets an annuity based upon a 4 per cent calculation.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the Finance Minister, this result will follow that if a man at the age of 30 agreed that he would make periodical payments and died at the age of 54 he would receive back his money with interest compounded at 3 per cent?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: But if he should live until he was 50 he would simply get his annuity for one year?


William Stevens Fielding: Euless he stipulated a different condition when he took out his policy.


Robert Laird Borden: But that could occur under this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: He might have an annuity which would run for a given number of years. But speaking generally, what my hon. friend says will be correct. Assuming that a man takes an annuity dependent upon his life, that is th? risk that is to be taken. It may be so in some cases, but on the average there will be no gain to the fund. There may be a particular case in which a man would pay a particular sum and get a very small annuity. That would depend what the variation, one way or the other, from the average mortality would be.


George William Fowler: It Is just a question of the expectation of life.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.
On section 7, subsection 2 ;
When annuity becomes payable,-except upon invalidity or disablement no annuity payable unless annuitant has reached age of 55.


George William Fowler: Why do you make a limit of 55 years? Do you think that he has reached the limit of his earning power?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is not desirable to provide annuities for person in middle life ; 55 years may be taken as perhaps as good a figure ns you can mention for the termination of the earning period of a man's life.
Section 2, subsection 3-maximum age,


Robert Laird Borden: Why is that provision necessary?


William Stevens Fielding: This is copied from the British government scheme. The intention is to prevent speculation in annuities for persons of great age.
On section 8-minister may refuse to contract where he is of opinion that there are sufficient grounds,


George William Fowler: How do you regulate that ?


William Stevens Fielding: I confess I do not know what that means except that if under any exceptional circumstances the minister should think that the person should not receive an annuity he is not obliged to give it to him. I do not think it amounts to very much, because I cannot think of any circumstances under which the minister would be justified in refusing.


Mr. BARR.: It seems to me rather a dangerous provision. We ought to know the circumstances under which the minister would refuse to enter into a contract. A party might have enemies and statements derogatory to his character might be made to the minister. It does not seem to me that the minister should have this discretion unless there are some grounds stated. It should be defined.


William Stevens Fielding: I confess there will be great difficulty in defining it, because I could not state any class of circumstances which would justify the refusal of an annuity. There might be a case in which the minister might have reason to believe that there was some fraudulent element in it or it might be a case of insanity or something like that. It seems to me that all it means is that you are not obliged to give an annuity to anybody if some exceptional circumstances shoull arise. I cannot conceive of any circumstancfs which would justify the minister in refusing an annuity.


John Barr: As far as insanity is concerned that might be set out as a cause for refusal in the Bill. I think there is a possibility of hardship under it.


William Stevens Fielding: An insurance company is not bound to issue a policy to a man if it does not want to, and this simply says that if any difficulty should arise you are not obliged' to give a man an annuity.


George William Fowler: The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.


William Stevens Fielding: That fairly illustrates it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the clause should be worded in such a way as to provide some rule for the guidance of the minI ister.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend suggest anything?
Mr, LANCASTER. No, because I do not see any need for this section myself. If there is a reason I think it ought to be, within reasonable limits defined, so as to have some rule for the guidance of the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: Every insurance company has the same condition.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: An ordinary insurance company is in a different position. The public are undertaking to do this.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told that the same clause is in the British Act and I would suggest that the hon. gentleman accept it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As far as 1 am personally concerned that is a good reason.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that hon. gentlemen accept the clause and if any case should arise in which there seemed to be an abuse I am sure that parliament would quickly strike the clause out.


George William Fowler: In clause 10 there does not seem to be any provision as to how the minister shall be notified of the judgment of the court, nor does it seem to provide for an appeal.


William Stevens Fielding: I fancy that while there is an appeal pending the minister would not act until the judgment of the final court was obtained. The parties interested would take care the minister was notified.


George William Fowler: The minister should have something to guide him as to what he would take as notice.


Robert Laird Borden: That could be provided for in the regulations under section 12.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It strikes me that the words in section 10 are not quite full enough. I think that after the word ' creditors ' there should be inserted the words ' and has that effect.' A man might do a thing with intent, but did not accomplish it, and if no one was defrauded the section should not apply.


William Stevens Fielding: If it did not defraud any one we would not be asked to give any one the benefit of the section.
Mr. LANCASTER I am not quarrelling with the meaning of the section, but it would strike me that the language used might not give effect to our meaning. If there were simply an intent and the intent were established, without fraud being committed, I do not think the annuity should be interfered with.


William Stevens Fielding: He would not be in a position to claim under this clause unless there was loss.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Every man at some stage of his life has creditors, and a man


Edward Arthur Lancaster: may do a thing with intent to defraud his creditors at the time he did it, but he may cure it and something may happen which would prevent the creditors being defrauded. This section says that if you establish there was an intent to defraud the section should apply. What I submit is that the intent should result in actual fraud.


William Stevens Fielding: Would the court give judgment of fraud unless a fraud had actually occurred ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, but you say that if the court finds there was intent to defraud only the annuity should be interfered with.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend and I have the same object, but I fear to accept this amendment to a Bill which has been considered carefully by the legal advisers of the government. I will take a note of my hon. friend's observations, and if it is found necessary then in another place which sometimes fixes things, it may be put right.


Robert Laird Borden: No doubt this language has been selected because it is practically the language of the English statute.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The language of the Ontario statute in regard to defaulting creditors is different. I do not say the language is wrong as it is, but we might make plain what we all mean. If a court found there was intent to defraud although there was no actual fraud, a thing which occurs often in mercantile life, the language of this section would then apply. By the exact language of the Act as it is to-day, all that would have to be established wouid be that at some time the man had an intent of committing a fraud, not carried out, and the result, even although there was no actual wrong from it, would be to interfere with the annuity.


William Stevens Fielding: I will allow this to stand for third reading until we can have the opinion of the minister of Justice on the matter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: At the death of the annuitant previous to the age of 55 years the money is distributed among his heirs. If he passes away after receiving his annuity for a year or more, what would be done with the balance of the money to his credit?


William Stevens Fielding: That would depend on the kind of annuity he bought. If it was a given term of years not dependent on his life, the annuity would have to be paid for the term of years, but in the case of a life annuity it would be paid only so long as he lived, then it would terminate. All that would enter into the question of the average mortality in fixing the tables.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then if he had received one payment of the annuity his heirs would receive nothing?


William Stevens Fielding: Not unless he had stipulated in his policy that it should be for a given time.


Robert Laird Borden: In respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) the statute in its present form would be very suitable to the province of Nova Scotia, with the laws of which I am more particularly acquainted, but I can see the possibility of dimculty with regard to the operation in other provinces where the terms of the old English statute, which are practically embodied here, may have been varied by legislation. With respect to clause 12, I think it should embody a provision for placing before parliament these regulations at an early date.


William Stevens Fielding: I think tnat is a very .desirable amendment and shall move it to clause 15.


George William Fowler: I think no business should be done until parliament approves of the regulations.
iMr. FIELDING. People might die in the meantime.


George William Fowler: Supposing after business has been done under these regulations they are laid before parliament and parliament does not pass them, it will make some difficulty with the contracts then in existence.


William Stevens Fielding: The regulations will very largely deal with technical work of an actuarial character on which my hon. friend and I will hardly care to pass an opinion. They would, of course, be In accordance with the provisions of this Act. I agree with the leader of the opposition that they should be submitted to parliament.


George William Fowler: Then why have them come into force before bringing them before parliament ?


William Stevens Fielding: The object in laying them before parliament is that parliament should be fully informed upon the whole matter. Many regulations are authorized by various Acts of parliament, to take effect as soon as they are made.


George William Fowler: I fail to see why the regulations should not have been ready now. There are plenty of actuaries and this is not new ground.
On section 13,-returns of accounts, &c.


George William Fowler: Will that include the expense of carrying on the Act that are to be paid out of the public moneys.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, yes, the returns will have to show how the thing stands.
On section 15,-returns to parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move in accordance with the suggestion of the leader of the opposition to insert the words :
And copies of all regulations made during such fiscal year under the provisions of section 12 of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to say that this shall be done in the first 30 days of the session, otherwise they might be laid on the table on the last day of the session?


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection and would move to insert words to that effect.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot quite understand how it can be fair to a man's family that after he has paid a number of years his annual payments and then dies before the age of fifty-five, this money is not returned to his family with interest at three per cent. If he has received two or three annuities which amount only to a part of the money he paid in, I cannot understand why his family should not get the difference.


William Stevens Fielding: That would strike at the vital condition of a life annuity. The same difficulty occurs under a superannuation system. An officer has paid in for twenty years and shortly before the period when, in the natural order of things, he would have to retire on his allowance, he dies. He has contributed large sums to Jhe superannuation fund and neither he nor his family gets a copper out of it. But all that enters into the computation of rates and risks taken. It is estimated that a man will live a given number of years. He lives less than the number but his neighbour lives longer. The tables are made on the average life. If there were not cases such as my hon. friend refers to. the rates would have to be higher. And the


George William Fowler: And the amount of the annuity would be that much less.


William Stevens Fielding: If he prefers to make a contract for an annuity to be paid during a given period, irrespective of death or life, he may do so. But if he makes purchase of a life annuity, he has to take his chances.


George William Fowler: It is purely a gamble and the man takes his chances.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



COURT OF APPEAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 165) respecting the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.-Mr. Ayles-worth-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-Disfranchising Act amended.
10S63
Mr. AYLESWORTH.: This is to amend the section of the Disfranchising Act, which, as it stands, provides for appeals from the decision of any judge or court disfranchising the voter. Appeal is allowed to courts of the several provinces. I am proposing that this jurisdiction should be conferred upon the Court of Appeal for the province of British Columbia.
On section 2-amending section 102 of the Winding-up Act.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That section of the Winding-up Act has been amended during the present session so far as Manitoba is concerned. By that amendment, jurisdiction under that section of the Winding-up Act was conferred on the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, and, in view of that legislation, the clause should now read a little differently. I have redrawn it in this form, which I propose to substitute:
Section 102 of the Winding-up Aot, chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes. 1906, as said section is amended by an Aot passed in this present session of parliament, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
102. Such appeal shall lie-
(a)	In Ontario to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario;	.
(b)	In Quebec to the Court of King's Bench;
(c)	In Manitoba to the Court of Appeal;
(d)	In British Columbia to the Court of Appeal of the province; and
(e)	In any of the other provinces, and in the Yukon Territory, to a superior court en banc.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that, while it is not possible to give the chapter of the Act of the present session, it would be well to give its title.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think the title was an Act to amend the Winding-up Act. I have not it before me, but it was a short statute to amend the clause of the Winding-up Act as it appears in the Revised Statutes and for nothing else.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the committee would consider it passed, and the clerk could fill in the proper title.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have no objection.


Charles Marcil: The title is 4 An Act to amend the Winding-up Act.'
On section 4-amending paragraph (7) of section 2 of the Criminal Code.


Robert Laird Borden: I assume that in all these cases the paragraphs referred to are the only paragraphs requiring amending. The minister has seen to that?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Yes. This is merely to define the criminal court of appeal for each province.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.


George William Fowler: 



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public buildings in British Columbia-public building at Cranbrook, $7,000.
['We will take up the Bill to amend the Bank Act, the resolution respecting the lead bounty in British Columbia, the Bill to amend the Manitoba Grain Act and then Supply, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works continuing his estimates.\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.', 'Fbiday, June 19, 1908.']
William Pugsley: This amount is for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building. There was an appropriation last year of $7,000, which has not been used. The purchase of the site has not been completed, although an agreement has been come to for the price of $9,000. Three lots have been selected after great care, having a frontage of 80 feet on Baker street by 120 upon Norman street. There was a good deal of negotiation before the department agreed to pay the price that was asked.


Richard Blain: Were there any commissions paid?


William Pugsley: No, the purchase was made directly by the department. The contract for the building has not yet been let, but it is supposed the cost will run from $25,000 to $30,000. Cranbrook is a rapidly growing town, with a population of about 3,500 now. The sum of $30,000 will not include the land. The plans will be prepared by the department. The building will be used for post office and customs purposes. We have been paying for post office accommodation $475, and for customs purposes $180. Cranbrook is in Kootenay.
Cumberland public building, $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote to make provision for the erection of a public building in the town of Cumberland. In this case the site has been paid for, and the contract entered into. The site costs $700, and is 44 x 44. Cumberland is in Comox-Atlin, with a population estimated at 3.500. The total cost of the building is estimated at $37,766, including everything.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There is an extraordinary difference between the cost of this site and the other. I am surprised at the price of land in Cranbrook.


William Pugsley: I was too, and at first I refused to purchase. We had our clerk of works come from Vancouver to examine it, Mr. Henderson, who is a very reliable man, in whom the department has great confidence. I hesitated so much about purchasing that land that I sent for Mr Henderson from Vancouver to go and examine the site, aud the best he could do was to pay $9,000 for these three lots.


David Henderson: I think the minister would have acted wisely if he had delayed a few years and allowed these people to furnish the site themselves. I think it is an outrage to pay $9,000 for a site of the I size the minister has indicated, even in the

growing town of Cranbrook. No minister should have acquiesced in that transaction.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must see that if we are going to erect a public building in a town, we are necessarily obliged to pay what land is fairly worth, having regard to what other lots similarly situated are changing hands for. In the west the population is growing rapidly, and the value of property in the east is not a sure guide as to the value of property in the west, because the people are all looking forward to the future. The town is growing rapidly, and will soon have a large population.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the lumber is cut out, what will become of Cranbrook? I happened to be there a few years ago, and all 1 could see was a lumber mill.


William Pugsley: I understand that it is the distributing point for people engaged in the mining business, that it is the centre of a tine fruit growing district, a lumber manufacturing centre, and I am told that there are large areas of timber land which are tributary to it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I assume that when the timber is cut the mills will move back.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: Cranbrook is a good town.


Richard Blain: From whom was the site purchased ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. King & Beattie.


William Humphrey Bennett: What business are they iu ?


William Pugsley: Mr. King Is a doctor ; I do not know what business Mr. Beattie is in.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Mr. Beattie used to be a lumberman there.


Mr. ALCORN.: What is the annual cost of the accommodation at that point ?


William Pugsley: Post office $475, and customs $180.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the cost of the present accommodation at Cumberland ?


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: 'What other purpose will this building serve ?


William Pugsley: It is intended for customs purposes as well.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a customs port there, and if so what rent is paid for the office 1


William Pugsley: Cumberland is an out-port of Nanaimo at present but it is expected that a customs office will be established.
Apparently there is no rental paid for the outport.


William Humphrey Bennett: We are going to spend upwards of $40,000 at a point where the post office is now kept up at an annual expenditure of $125.


William Pugsley: Cumberland is the centre of one of the most important mining districts of British Columbia.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population?


William Pugsley: 2,500.


Robert George Macpherson: About 3,000.


Mr. LALOR.: I would like to remind the minister that I asked him a question with reference to the Dauphin public building at a recent sitting of the House and he promised to bring down a report on the valuation of the property purchased for a site as well as a report upon former transfers.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend received a promise that I would bring down a report on former transfers because I would not be likely to have that in the department. That could only be obtained by an examination of the record office at Dauphin. My deputy tells me that he lias a report upon the transfer to the government and I will be very glad to produce it this evening.


William Humphrey Bennett: I see that the postal revenue at Cumberland is $1,465.


William Pugsley: That is for nine months. But, just to give an idea of the importance of the town, the money orders issued during the nine months were $58,566.29 and the money orders paid $7,726.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Do you not consider the postal revenue more of a criterion of the size and importance of a town than the volume of money orders ?


William Pugsley: No, I would not necessarily.
Femie public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This vote is to make provision for the erection of a public building in Femie. The site was purchased in 1905 at cost of $5,000. The work is under contract and is nearly completed.


William Humphrey Bennett: cost ?


William Pugsley: 261.96.


William Humphrey Bennett: site ?
What will be the total It is estimated at $66,-Is that inclusive of the


William Pugsley: That includes site, heating. electric wiring, fittings, furniture, lock boxes, &c.
Ladysmith public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is required for the erection of a public building at Ladysmith.

There was paid for the site $1,500. It is under contract also.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let us have the particulars.


William Pugsley: This is in the electoral division of Nanaimo, Vancouved island.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: That is about 15 miles from Nanaimo and it is a large coal mining centre.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the population ?


Ralph Smith: About 4,500. It is an incorporated city and they have nothing but a small building.


David Henderson: The value of land in Nanaimo seems to be very much less than in Kootenay. It is a surprising difference. I would have thought that land would have been of as much value in Ladysmith as in the other important place called Cranbrook, where the astonishing sum of $9,000 was paid for a lot 120x80. It must be a surprise to members of this House how much money can be stowed away in a small piece of land in British Columbia.


William Pugsley: I wonder that the hou. gentleman is not surprised that in Ladysmith we got it so cheaply.


David Henderson: No, that may be nearer the value. What I am surprised at is that the Minister of Public Works should have been induced to put away $9,000 in a small site in Cranbrook. It is an outrage and a waste of public money.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think our friends in Ladysmith must not have become acquainted with the liberality of this government when they sold that lot for $1,500. The minister is to be complimented upon the bargain he made at Ladysmith, while in the other place he paid four or five times the value.


Ralph Smith: I try to get the business of the government done, as far as my influence goes, just the same as I do my own business.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it a corner lot ?


Ralph Smith: Yes, it is a very important iot and they bought it from a gentleman who produced his vouchers showing that he paid $1,500 for the lot. He was leaving and wanted to sell so he sold it to the government for what he paid for it to a dollar.
Quesnel public building, $2,000.


William Pugsley: I move to strike out this item for the reason that there is a telegraph building which was erected recently by the telegraph department. The building has been erected by contract under the supervision of the general superintendent of government telegraph service at a cost of $2,000. It has been paid for and comes out of the telegraph vote.
Mr. PUGSLEY


William Humphrey Bennett: It is interesting to see how the government is spending the money of the people in that country. They have been paying $20 a year for post office accommodation at Quesnel, and the gross revenue is only $326. It does not matter much which department is spending $2,000, it is simply throwing away money.


William Pugsley: This building, which was erected for $2,000, is to be used as a post office and telegraph office and also as a living room for the telegraph agent.


William Humphrey Bennett: I quite admit that all that may be true but why should the country be spending $2,000 for a telegraph office ? What rent did they pay for a roof or office before ?


Ralph Smith: Quesnel is nearly two hundred miles from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and is the distributing centre for the whole Cariboo country and the Fraser lakes. I can quite understand that you would not get much of a building in a community of that kind for $2,000. The telegraph station and house is necessary because this is the point of [DOT]onnection with the telegraph line to the Yukon, 200 miles from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Pugsley: Previously, apparently, the telegraph office was in a log building and I presume the operator lived there. I t certainly does not seem to be giving him very luxurious accommodation to erect a frame building at $2,000 to serve the purpose of a living room for him and also of a telegraph office and post office.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population?


Robert George Macpherson: The population is not large, but the contributory country is important and it is a distributing centre for that country and also for the Yukon.
Vancouver public building, $150,000.


William Pugsley: This vote Is needed for the public building in Vancouver which is now under contract. This is a very fine building but I think no finer or more expensive than is required in a large and growing city like Vancouver. We paid for the site $52,000 and the contract price is $434,500. There was quite a large number of tenders received and the highest for a building of Agassiz granite was $669,000. The lowest, that of Kelly Bros. & Mitchell, of Winnipeg, was $434,500, something like $230,000 less than the highest tender.
(Mr. OWEN. What is the size of the lot?


Robert George Macpherson: 144 by 175 feet.


William Pugsley: The building is 156 feet by 120 feet.


David Henderson: Is the building on a piece of ground entirely separated from



[Stage Direction]
other buildings or is it closely in contact with other buildings ?
William Pugsley: It is a corner lot, and at present there is no building close to it.


David Henderson: I hope the government has secured the land so there will be no danger of other buildings being erected close to it. These are the contractors for the Winnipeg post office, I trust they will not be forced to imitate that building which will cost some $600,000 or $700,000 and is one of the most disgraceful jobs ever perpetrated on a free people. On one side of it is the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' office. At one time this had the appearance of a fairly respectable building but when the post office is erected, the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' office is a comparatively small building. The minister will understand my objection to having other buildings close to xjublic buildings, when I say that in Winnipeg in order to accommodate the Wininpeg ' Free Press ' people they actually cut out a corner of the post office after reaching the first story and thereby reduced the floor space of the post office, simply making a present of light and accommodation to a private individual or to a member of this House.


William Pugsley: You should not say that


David Henderson: I always believe in saying the truth.


William Pugsley: unless you know it.


David Henderson: I think every one admits that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is the owner of the Winnipeg * Free Press ' office.


William Pugsley: I was not aware of that.


David Henderson: That is not the worst feature of it, although it certainly takes away from the appearance of the building: but at the other end there are a couple of jogs for the accommodaton of a hotel stable, which is said to be owned by the second vice-president of the Liberal party In Winnipeg. I was amused and annoyed when looking out of the windows of the post office to see the heaps of manure just outside the window thrown out from the hotel stable close to the post office building. Do they expect the officials to sit Ihrr? and work under such conditions all to oblige the political friends of the government? I once asked the Minister of Public Works how he arrived at an estimate of that building and why it was so unshapely and I was told by the minister that he simply gave the architect carte blanche, allowed him to cut it and carve it as he thought fit. I hope that in the erection <of this building in Vancouver we will have something nicer than that.


William Pugsley: I am told this is a splendid building.


David Henderson: I hope it will be. I hope it will not be cut and carved up to accommodate any newspaper office or hotel.


William Pugsley: It is too late for that now, the building is well along.


David Henderson: I am glad to know that provided there has been no cutting and carving so far. I do hope and trust there is sufficient lands round the building to prevent any other buildings coming in close contact with it It is a pity that in a great commercial city like Winnipeg we should have such a public building. I undertake to say that you cannot find a Liberal, much less a Conservative, in the city of Winnipeg who will say it is a decent building. The people there are ashamed of it. The government should see that those public buildings on which they spend a large amount of money present as fine an appearance on the exterior as well as in the interior and that they will afford the necessary accommodation. I do not grudge the city of Vancouver a reasonable sum for the erection of a public building but I trust the minister will see that the country gets ample value for the money expended and that the public building is not destroyed for the convenience of any neighbouring property.


William Pugsley: My information is that the building at Vancouver is a very handsome structure built of Agazziz granite. Those who have seen the building have nothing but words of praise for it. It is said the contractors are carrying out the work in an efficient manner, and, seeing that the highest tender was over $600,000 and that the lowest tender' accepted was $434,000 it would seem that we are getting full value for our money. I have been told that the Winnipeg building is a very handsome one. It would be much more effective, of course, were it built on a corner, but in the city of Winnipeg the best corner lots costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Vernon public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This vote is for the purchase of a site which will cost $7,500, $5,000 of which has been paid. Vernon is a growing town and this building will accommodate customs and post office.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the population?


William Pugsley: 2,500.	.
Mr. BLAIN How much money will be expended?


William Pugsley: The ordinary amount in a town of that size is about $30,000.


David Henderson: Vernon is in the Okanagan valley and beautifully located but I have never understood that land was so extremely valuable there that you would

pay $7,500 for the site of a public bull-ding. It is another Cranbrook ease, and the minister had better put Cranbrook and Vernon together and hand them down to his successor as a piece of ministerial folly.


William Pugsley: Vernon is situated in the centre of the fruit growing district where I am told land is worth $200 per acre. We tried to get this site cheaper, but we did not succeed.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the size of the lot?


William Pugsley: We first purchased two lots 50 by 100, and the architect represented it was not sufficient, and then we bought 25 feet by 100 feet making in all 75 feet by 100 feet.


David Henderson: And land costs $200 an acre?


William Pugsley: Farm land.


David Henderson: This amounts to about $10,000 an acre. I think I may say to the minister that cultivated land in that valley costs more than $200 an acre, but that does not justify the minister in paying $1 per square foot. The price is altogether out of keeping with the value of the property.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The members from Ontario who live in prosperous growing towns will be surprised to know that in towns in British Columbia, Manitoba, and the west generally, sites for public buildings cost such an enormous sum of money. Here you purchased 7,500 square feet or one-fifth of an acre and you pay $7,500 for it.
Mr. PUGSLEYL This is a corner lot.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: And you buy it at the rate of $10,000 an acre.


William Pugsley: It would not be more than one-half of that by the acre, and you do not buy town lots by the acre.
Mr. LALOR It must occur to the representatives from the older provinces that these prices for sites for public buildings in the west are exhorbitant and extravagant. In this town of 2,500 population the government is erecting a $30,000 building. The member for that district whoever he is, must have strong influence with the government.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend cannot measure growing towns in the west which have sprung up inside of 15 years with some of the Ontario towns which have possibly not increased by 50 people in 10 years. The towns in the west are growing rapidly.


Robert George Macpherson: Mushroom style.


Robert George Macpherson: They may be mushroom, but they are there to stay. I can tell my hon. friend that I was in Vernon when you could buy property for $10 Mr. HENDERSON.
per front foot, but I know that you cannot get a good corner lot there to-day for one cent less than $100 per front foot. I suppose that we discount the future, but we have seen all our towns grow from nothing to a considerable size, whereas the people of Ontario have seen their towns the same size for the last twenty-five years.


William Humphrey Bennett: Nonsense.


Robert George Macpherson: I am not speaking of the big cities, but of the country towns. The big cities have grown at the expense of the smaller towns. I am not trying to make any invidious comparisons, but if my hon. friend wants to buy a corner lot in the town of Vernon he will have to pay well for it. A corner lot bought in Vancouver some years ago for $52,000 is worth to-day $300,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: You have only' one Vancouver in your whole province.


Robert George Macpherson: Of course, and there is only one in all Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much has Kamloops grown in ten years?


Robert George Macpherson: I know that there are to-day 2,500 people there and that not very long ago there were but a few. Let my hon. friend try and buy a bit of property in the business centre and he will have to pay well for it. * My hon. friend should not compare the smaller towns of Ontario with those of British Columbia and the west, because the latter are going to become great cities.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How much rent does the Postmaster General pay now for the post office there?


William Pugsley: The rent allowance is $250 for the post office and $120 for the customs.


John Barr: What is the income of that post office ?


William Pugsley: It is an out-port of Revelstoke. The postal revenue is $4,794.72, the customs duties, $15,009.84 ; the money orders issued. $31,786.26, and the money orders paid, $18,039.14.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This seems an outrageous expenditure. We are going to spend $40,000 in a little town of 2,500 inhabitants when at present the expense of the post office only amounts to $350 or $375 per annum. Why, you will have to pay that for the caretaker of the new building, and in addition be out of the interest on your money and have a lot of extra expense.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: When the minister gives the population as 2,500, is that the present population or the population at the last census ?


Mr. PUGS LEY.: The present population.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What was thet population at the last census ? We might then form an idea as to the growth of the town.


William Pugsley: I have not got that.


William Humphrey Bennett: When does the hon. minister propose to hand pic-k Ontario in order to find places in which to put up post offices ?


William Pugsley: I have been strongly urged to consider the claims of certain towns in Ontario. Some gentlemen have asked me to consider very favourably the town of Aylmer, also Perth and Dundas and quite a number of other nice towns.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister made any promises ?


William Pugsley: No. I limit myself to performances.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think yon promised to take it into consideration.


William Pugsley: And I intend doing so.


John Barr: If we consider the amount spent in Ontario as compared with the amount received for postal and customs revenue, and then contrast the expenditure in the other provinces with that in Ontario, you will find a hundred dollars in other provinces to one in Ontario. Ontario is decidedly getting the worst of it. This year that province is served worse in that respect than it has been in any other year. The hon. gentleman had better get busy and do justice to Ontario instead of endeavouring to put himself right with the other provinces. I can well imagine that he believes Ontario is hopelessly gone politically, but I do not think that Ontario should be punished to the extent it is because it shows its sense of the iniquity of this administration.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend ought not to speak so harshly. He himself urged the claim of a certain town in his constituency, but one might well hesitate to erect a public building there because that would prevent our enjoying my hon. friend's eloquence and criticism. Not long after I became minister certain gentlemen came to me from a town in a constituency represented by a Conservative. They said that years ago the old Conservative government erected a post office building there, but although they put holes in the tower to accommodate a clock, they neglected to put in the clock, and these gentlemen wanted to know if I would not make good that omission of the late government. I cheerfully did so.


John Barr: Is that all you did for Ontario?


William Pugsley: That is what I did for one of the small towns. Wait until you see what we shall do for Ontario.


John Barr: I am glad to hear the minister say that, but so far as Dufferin is concerned, we never got anything. The only thing the minister has done for Ontario is to put a clock in the tower of the post office at Berlin. Possibly it was one of those clocks which the Toronto ' Globe ' has been giving away at $2.50.


Mr. HERRON.: Apparently these post offices are just given to towns according to their political influence. I have been making a request for a post office in a town in my riding, which is in more need of a building than any in the catalogue here tonight.


William Pugsley: What town js that ?


John Herron: Macleod. It is a town of 2,000 people or more, with a greater postal revenue than some of these towns where you are putting up buildings that cost $30,000 or over. The people there who come to receive their mail find an office with a space for the public of only about ten by six. But, as I say, the people are served according to the way they vote.
Victoria immigration building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This building is to be on a corner lot, at the corner of Ontario and Simcoe streets. The building is to be fireproof and two stories high.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the frontage of the lot?


William Pugsley: The frontage is 98 feet on Ontario street.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the whole building cost?


William Pugsley: The building, including site, electric wiring, heating, fittings and furniture complete will cost $91,180.97.'


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a building in Victoria for immigration purposes?


William Pugsley: No. My hon. colleague the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) says that for several years there have been no buildings for immigrant purposes in Victoria.
Mr. BENNETT How has this want been filled? And why do you need this accommodation now? We are told the influx of Japanese is stopped. The Chinese who come in must be wealthy, for they must pay a head tax of $500, and the Hindus are not allowed to come further.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Some years ago, there was an old immigration building, but it was burned down. Some immigrants have been detained in the buildings on what we call the Outer Wharf, and some have been taken into the town and housed in cheap boarding houses under the supervision of the medical superintendent at a great deal of inconvenience and trouble.


William Humphrey Bennett: What immigration is expected that this expenditure should be necessary V


Mr PUGSLEY.: In a large seaport town like Victoria, there is always considerable immigration. The Department of the Interior has urged the erection of this building.


William Humphrey Bennett: WThat nationality of immigrants?
* ilr. PUGSLEY. I presume of different nationalities. There would be people coming from the United States, from San Francisco and other coast cities, and many of them would come in by Victoria and Vancouver.
Mr. ARMSTRONG What representations have been made to the minister in favour of this building? Though he is going to spend $90,000 on it, he seems to have little information as to the need for it?


William Pugsley: I presume the explanation was given last session, when the construction of this building was decided upon. Of the amount now asked, $20,000 is a revote. In the memorandum before me no information is given as to the representations made, and I have no personal knowledge of it, as the matter was decided by parliament before I became minister.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Surely, the deputy minister will be able to advise the hon. gentleman (Mr Pugsley) as to what representations were made to show the necessity for this building?


William Templeman: The request came from the Department of the Interior.
ill1. ARMSTRONG. What is the nature of the request?	-


William Pugsley: The request would be for the erection of the building and urging the necessity for it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: For what reason ?
. Mr. PUGSLEY. It would state the requirements and so on.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is quite evident the minister is merely making that up and has no definite information. We ought to be informed what need exists for the construction of this building.


William Wright: Tbe minister (Mr. Pugsley) speaks of immigrants coming from the United States. He will hardly contend that such immigrants come in by way of Victoria. If we are going to have immigration of Japanese, this building may be necessary. But even the Japanese, I think, will come in by way of Vancouver, and not Victoria. I do not see what purpose this building can serve.


William Templeman: 


David Henderson: Can the minister inform us what number of immigrants have come in by Victoria during the last five years? If we had this or any other definite information, we could judge of the need of this building. I do not object to spending money where it is usefully spent, but I do think that, in view of the present agitation against oriental immigration, there cannot be any possible use of a building to cost $90,000. The hon. member for Muslcoka (Mr. Wright) says this can hardly be intended, as the minister has suggested, to accommodate immigrants from the United States. We know that farmers coming from the middle states into Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are not going to come in by way of Victoria. But let us have some data to go upon.


William Pugsley: I presume that the matter was discussed when this vote was before the committee last session-either that, or hon. gentlemen opposite saw no objection to the vote. Pursuant to that vote of parliament, steps were taken to enter into a contract, and a contract has been entered into. Therefore, it is too late now to refuse to go on.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: To whom has the contract been let?
ilr. PUGSLEY. To Luney Brothers, of Victoria. In order that hon. members may be afforded every opportunity to criticise items, I will obtain from the Minister of the Interior the figures as to the immigration for five years. An opportunity will be given to discuss the matter on another item. But I think it is too late to discuss the question of putting up the building seeing that the contract has been entered into.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That seems a pretty flimsy excuse for spending $90,000 on a new building-no explanation what it is to be used for or what is the need for it. There is no objection on this side, so far as I can learn, to the expenditure of this money if we are told that it is spent for a useful purpose. The minister is unable to give us any information, although he has his deputies with him.


William Pugsley: What information does the hon. gentleman want ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We have been asking the minister to tell where the representations came from. If the minister is spending $90,000, he ought to have some knowledge of the requirements.


William Pugsley: I have explained to the committee that previous to the last session of parliament there was a request from the Minister of the Interior, who has charge of the Department of Immigration, that this building was required in Victoria for the accommodation of immigrants. In pursu-
1QS77


190S
[Stage Direction]
auce of that request at the last session of parliament a vote of $20,000 was asked for. That vote was passed by parliament, and in consequence the necessary steps were taken for the purpose of entering into a contract. The contract has been entered into, and I now ask for a sum of money to pay the contractors on account. This building is being erected in accordance with the requirements of the Department of the Interior.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was the contract entered into ?


William Pugsley: On the 23rd of January, 1908.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where will the building be situated?


William Pugsley: On the southwest corner of Ontario and Simcoe streets.


Mr. TEMPLE  MAN@: It is true that the same number and class jtf immigrants do not arrive in British Columbia as arrive from Europe on the Atlantic coast. But the House must remember that the city of Victoria is the first port of call for all steamers arriving in British Columbia. We have lines of steamers running to Japan and China, and several Japanese lines also making regular trips. We have the blue funnel lines running from British Columbia via the Indian ocean to Liverpool, carrying freight and passengers ; we have a line of steamers running to Australia, a line to New Zealand, a San Francisco boat every five days, and we have a line of steamers running to Mexico. All these steamers call at the city of Victoria, and while the number of passengers cannot compare with the number arriving at the Atlantic ports, nevertheless many do come into Victoria and pass on to other places. All steamers call first at quarantine seven miles away, and then come on to Victoria where most of the passengers disembark. While many of the passengers in years past have been Orientals of various classes, there are nevertheless many whites coming in from Australia, some from San Francisco, and some from New Zealand. During the Klondike excitement a great many came from Australia. Although the necessity for an immigration building is not so great on the Pacific ocean as it is on the Atlantic, nevertheless there is a great necessity for one. Even the limited number of Japanese and Chinese who are coming into the country, may be required to be detained at the immigration building for some days or weeks. This is probably the only building in British Columbia designed for" this purpose. We have in Vancouver a building that is rented from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which is used to a considerable extent for this purpose. This building is conveniently situated, quite 345
near the wharf. The site is a large block of land, on which an old immigration building. a wooden structure, was burnt down some years ago. That land will be utilized for this purpose, along with several additional lots. The building will stand isolated. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there is great necessity for it. The request for the building came altogether from the Interior Department. I was notified by the Interior Department of their intention to erect this building a year or so ago. But I had nothing to do with it myself, nor do I know of any one else who had anything to do with it ; the erection of the building is a purely departmental affair.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do I understand that no petitions came from Victoria asking for this building ? The hou. gentleman said just now that the department were responsible for erecting it.


William Templeman: It is perfectly absurd that petitions should come from any city, in any part of Canada, for the erection of an immigration building. No city anywhere is particularly desirous of seeing an immigration building erected in its midst. In the city of Victoria, were it not for the fact that this government own probably one-half of the plot of ground proposed to be used for this purpose, I do not think this building would be erected on the proposed site. Victoria prides herself on being one of the most beautiful cities in Canada. This particular site is near the Dallas hotel where a great many tourists reside, and some citizens do not want that immigration building there, and it would not lie there were not for the fact that the government own the land. The ' building will be a plain brick structure, but it will not disfigure the beauty of the locality. Since the old wooden building was burnt down some years ago, the government have been doing the best they could in caring for the immigrants.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: What percentage of the immigrants that landed at Victoria were Japanese ?


William Templeman: Last year a very large percentage; 0,000 or 7,000 came into British Columbia last year.


Uriah Wilson: I find by the returns that there were only 2,293 immigrants landed at Victoria. It does seem to me that $90,000 is an extravagant expenditure for the number of immigrants that are likely to enter British Columbia from the west. It is not to be expected that there will be much European immigration into British Columbia, and to expend $90,000 for Japanese immigration that only amounted to sixteen hundred and sixty-six last year seems to me extravagant.


Mr. OWENS.: Land seems to be so valuable in these western cities that I should have thought the government would have sold this site, which I understand is close to one of the leading hotels and bought at the outskirts of the city where they could have secured a site much more cheaply.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will see the necessity of having the immigration building close to the incoming steamers.


William Owens: Will the minister tell us how this building is to be fitted up ? At a cost of .$90,000 it must be a palace.


William Pugsley: It has a frontage of 98 feet on Ontario street and it is to be two stories with a basement. It is to have varandahs 10 feet in width on both stories extending along both sides. The walls are to be of brick on concrete foundations, the basement above ground being faced with stone and the verandahs being constructed of iron and concrete. In the basement there is to be a boiler room, fuel room, storage, &c., The building is pretty nearly fire proof.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the equipment of the building be on a par with that of the minister's private yacht ?


William Pugsley: Which minister ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works ?


William Pugsley: The Minister of Public Works has no private yacht except a small gasoline boat down in New Brunswick which cost about $300 and which he owns himself.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am going to surprise the minister, and it will be a pleasant surprise for him, by telling him about the ' Speedy.' It cost $100,000. It has a $100 mahogany table.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will pardon me we will come to that later.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is too bad to allow the minister to remain in ignorance of what is in store for him with the summer season coming on. His tastes will be as luxurious as those of his predecessor, Mr. Hyman, who enjoyed himself very much with this yacht.


William Pugsley: My tastes are not luxurious.


Mr. URIAH  AVILSON@: In the nine months, ended March 31, 1906, Japanese immigrants arrived to the number of 720 while in the nine months, ended March 31, 1907, they number 1,666, an increase of


Uriah Wilson: 916 with a total immigration of 2,293.' I do not know why the government are erecting a building there. You do not want Japanese immigration and yet you are erecting a building at a cost of over $90,000 to accommodate 627 immigrants annually according to these figures. I think that as the Minister of the Interior is not here he ought to be sent for or the item ought to stand until we get the information because it is simply outrageous to think that for the accommodation of 627 immigrants a year we are going to spend $90,000.


William Templeman: The steamers arriving from the Orient bring passengers from Japan with passports for the United States. These steamers disembark .their passengers at Victoria in many cases. The ' Empress ' steamers certainly disembark their passengers at A'ietoria. The passengers have to wait there to take the local steamer to Seattle or Tacoma.


William Humphrey Bennett: Have we to provide accommodation for all transients ?


William Templeman: Unfortunately, that is the state of affairs. These steamers may disembark 400 or 500 people with passports for the United States. They have no right to come into Canada. They may be refused the right to land in the United States for various reasons or they may escape into Victoria, but it is the duty of our officers to see that passengers with passports for the United States shall go to the United States. The ocean steamers land at the outer wharf and this new building is contiguous to it. These passengers are corralled there for a time and then sent over to the United States. Sometimes they may have to remain if they are suffering from simple diseases and they must be put in the immigration building to be taken care of. The responsibility rests upon our immigration officials to see that these passengers go to their destination and it is necessary they should be housed probably for a night or two. I do not know the number of immigrants who have come into British Columbia during the last year or two but there is no question that a building is necessary at Victoria.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many immigration officials have we at Victoria ?


Air.   TEAIPLEAIAN@: ATery few. There is the medical officer and I think he has two assistants, or, he may have but one.


Air. W. WRIGHT.: If Japanese are coming across on our boats, or on any other boats, destined to the Uinted States ports, they ought not to be allowed to land until
108S1

they arrive at the United States ports. If they are allowed to land it looks like very lax management and it is something which onght to be corrected.


William Pugsley: Passengers coming by the Empresses, for instance, destined for ports in the United States, such as San Francisco, Seattle or Tacoma must disembark at Victoria or Vancouver to take the coast steamers for their destinations in the United States. It is certainly a very proper and humane thing to have a place where these people can be kept temporarily until the coast steamer leaves so that they may be sent, off to their destination.


John Barr: This is a very serious state of affairs and much more light should be shed upon this vote before it is allowed to pass. It is extraordinary that we should have to provide for the Japanese and Chinese who pass through our country on their way to the United States. Vancouver and the other British Columbia cities are almost in rebellion against the immigration of Japanese and Chinese, and if these immigrants are allowed to land there is danger of them escaping to the interior of the country in hundreds.


Mr. OWEN.: How many thousands of brick will be required for this building and what is the price of brick in that part of the country?


William Pugsley: I am sorry I cannot say, but I may mention that the lowest tender was $68,840, the next lowest was $65,809, and the lowest tender was accepted.


Charles Lewis Owen: How many stories in the building?


William Pugsley: Two stories, and a basement of stone, 98 feet frontage.


Charles Lewis Owen: It seems an enormous cost for such a building.
iMr. HENDERSON. The ,Ministe|r of Public Works made an announcement which almost surprised me. It would appear that $26,000 was voted for this immigration building last year and it would seem to have been brought down in the supplementary estimates because in looking through the discussion on the main estimates in ' Hansard ' I can And no reference to it.
Mr. PUGSLEY What was the surprise of the bon. gentleman?


David Henderson: My suiprise is that on the strength of the $26,000 voted last year the minister should assume be has the right to spend $90,000 on this building. The minister has only the right to spend just what the House votes and not what the Minister of the Interior or the member representing the constituency desires. If.
345J
we allow a small item of say $20,000 to pass for the construction of a public building, does the minister believe that this would bind parliament for any sum no matter how large that the minister thinks fit to expend.


William Pugsley: I did not say that.


David Henderson: No, but the action of the minister would indicate that such is his idea. If he holds to that view iwe will have to be more guarded in allowing these small items to pass without getting extremely strong assurances that nothing more than a definite sum will be expended.
I have for years contended that when an original vote was taken the minister should state positively how much money he will expend and be limited to that. The minister made another announcement of policy this session which was rather startling and that is that he was not presumed to know what a building would cost. When the Conservative party was in power the minister in charge had something to do with declaring the policy of the government, but it is a new idea of the Liberal government that all these things are to be left to an architect or an engineer and that neither parliament nor the minister is responsible for the expenditure of public money. That is getting very far away from responsible government, and it is not surprising that the expenditure of the country is growing by leaps and bounds.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, possibly through forgetfulness of what I said, has misconstrued my remarks. What I said was that parliament having voted $26,000 last year and a contract having been entered into on the basis of that vote, the government could not permit the vote to lapse because it is under obligation to carry out the' contract and pay the contractor. That is all I meant, and I said I would get the information for one hon. gentleman as to the number of immigrants who had landed at Victoria in the last five years so that the vote could be criticised later on on concurrence. I did not think that we should let the vote lie over on account of that. My meaning was that when parliament votes a sum of money for a building or public work in a particular place that is an expression by parliament of its approval of the erection of a building in that particular place.


David Henderson: To the extent of the money voted.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong in that because it has never been the practice of parliament to vote the entire amount for a public building or a public work at one time. Parliament votes the amount that it is assumed will be required during the current year. In this case an amount was voted for a public building at Victoria,

and if the building which is being erected is of an extravagant character or is not suitable and proper for the purpose that is a fair ground for criticism. I invite criticism on it and with reference to the construction of any other public building.


David Henderson: I would ask the minister also to let us know what statements were made by the Minister of Public Works as to the cost of this building when the $26,000 was voted.


Mr. GANONG.: How many were employed last year in connection with this immigration work.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Tempieman) says there were possibly two or three.


Gilbert White Ganong: Judging from the rooms the minister is fitting up it would seem that they intended to have a whole squad of employees there. Is this being built simply to furnish positions' for friends of the Minister of Inland Revenue ? It is not likely that in future there will be as many immigrants, as there has been an influx of Japanese and Chinese, but still he wants to spend thousands of dollars in fitting up a building which in addition to the initial cost which will entail an annual expenditure of $10,000 or $15,000 for the maintenance of the immense number of friends of the Minister of Inland Revenue, who will be given positions.
Victoria post office, alterations, $1,000.


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: This is to make provision for improvements and repairs to be undertaken at Williams Head quarantine station 10 miles from Victoria. The total cost is estimated at $43,559.50. There is a disinfecting plant in this building and also an electrical plant and other improvements such as are required in quarantine stations.
Jukon Territory, Dawson-commissioner's residence, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is to rebuild the government house at Dawson which was partially destroyed by fire. In addition to this being urged very strongly by the gentleman who represents the department in Dawson, it is urged strongly by Dr. Thompson, the member for the Yukon, and it appeared from the reports that if was not Mr. PUGSLEY.
necessary to erect a new building, that this building if restored would be suitable for the residence of the Governor of the Yukon.


Uriah Wilson: What is the population of Dawson and the Yukon ?


William Pugsley: I do not know the pi-e-sent population, it is changing considei'ably. Just at present it is declining. The opinion which is formed by those who I'eside there, and which has been xirged on me very strongly is that the Yukon will have a permanent future. While placer mining will perhaps go out, as in other parts of the west, quartz and hydraulic mining will take its place and it is likely to be a permanent industry.


Charles Lewis Owen: Who resides there ?


William Pugsley: The governor of the Yukon.


Charles Lewis Owen: Does Dr. Pringle live there?


William Pugsley: I do not think so. The cost is estimated at $24,525.


William Humphrey Bennett: What class of building was the old one?


William Pugsley: A frame building. It was quite pretentious and well worth repairing rather than erect a new building.


Charles Lewis Owen: Is there any insurance on It?
M r. PUGSLEY. No, the government does not insure any of its buildings.


Uriah Wilson: What is the population of Dawson city ?


William Pugsley: I regret I am unable to give that.


Richard Blain: Where is the commissioner living now ?


William Pugsley: He is living in a rented house.


Richard Blain: What is the rent ?


William Pugsley: Between $200 and $250 a month.


William James Roche: Does the government furnish the building as well as erect it ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
.Mr. W. J. ROCHE. What will it cost to furnish it ?


William Pugsley: $10,000 will be the outside figure.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will that cover ?


William Pugsley: Carpets, chairs, and all the ordinary furnishings.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want to call attention to the hitherto extravagant expenditure of the Yukon district, page V-97. I find that G. B. Randall furnished oriental rugs, two extra large, at $100 each and
108:85
,T U X E 18, 1908
three large at $75 each, and one at $50. Total, $475. Have these rugs been bought for the new building ?


Mr PUGSLEY.: I presume these were destroyed in the fire.


William Humphrey Bennett: When did the fire happen ?


William Pugsley: On Christmas day, 1906.


William Humphrey Bennett: This report of the Auditor General ends with the 31st March, 1907. So the rugs must have been bought subsequent to the fire.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. They may have been paid for subsequently. They would be bought from the 30th June, 1906, to the 31st March, 1907. That would be before the fire.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the minister's opinion of the oriental rugs at $100 a piece?


William Pugsley: It depends on the size.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does he propose to furnish the new building in this luxurious style?


William Pugsley: The instructions are to furnish it in a manner suitable for the residence of the commissioner of the Yukon and do it as economically as possible.


Richard Blain: There was a commission of inquiry appointed to find out the cause of that fire. What did it report?


William Pugsley: The commission reported that it was unable to ascertain the cause.


Richard Blain: What was the cost of the commission?


William Pugsley: I cannot say to-night.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: What is approximately the population of Dawson to-day?


William Pugsley: About 6,000.


Samuel Hughes: Including the police and others?
Mi-. PUGSLEY. I presume so.


Samuel Hughes: I understand it is even less. That is the population of a small country town in Ontario or any other province and yet the government is putting up this expensive building there.


William Pugsley: Not putting it.


Samuel Hughes: And are going to spend $24,000 repairing it for a little one-horse town like that. I presume these rugs and other things will be put in at a cost of $50,000 as before.


William Pugsley: No, $10,000 for furniture and not over $35,000 altogether.


William Humphrey Bennett: How is the building to be heated ?


William Pugsley: With hot water.


William Humphrey Bennett: What kind of fuel ? I notice that a Mr. Hellwinkle supplied 146 cords of wood at $13.70 a cord, amounting to $2,000. How many days in the year is this building supposed to be heated ?


William Pugsley: The heating before was by hot air, but I presume the fuel in the building when restored will be coal.
Public buildings generally, $10,000.	.


William Pugsley: This is to make repairs to buildings generally. The vote is the same
as last year. 11_is to cover expenditure not
otherwise provided for.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it not understood that when any public work is carried on, there is an estimate made by the engineer and that amount voted ?


William Pugsley: But it is found year after year that the vote usually is not sufficient to cover the total items of this description, and it is customary to take an extra vote, the particulars of which appear in the Auditor General's Report.
Construction of armouries, $50,000.


William Pugsley: As hon. gentlemen are aware, this vote, which is the same amount as that of last year, is for the construction of armouries through the country of a not very expensive character in regard to which special votes are not made. If desired, I can give a statement of the armouries now being constructed out of this general vote-
Mr. BENNETT Please give us the list.


William Pugsley: Strathroy


William Humphrey Bennett: What is that to cost?


William Pugsley: Probably $20,000. Medicine Hat


William Humphrey Bennett: Take one at a time Has the contract been let for Strathroy?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The amount as I have it is $13,000.


William Pugsley: The contract for Strathroy is $13,461. There are also boilers and heating $1,800, wiring and electric fixtures, $800; fittings and furniture, $1,300; sidewalks and fencing. $500; superintendence, contingencies, &c., $2,137.


Samuel Hughes: What is the item * heating and boilers,' for?


William Pugsley: I presume it is necessary to have the armoury heated, is it not?


William Humphrey Bennett: How many companies will use this armoury ?


Frederick William Borden: Turn.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the cost of the land?


Mr. CALVERT.: Nothing.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it proposed to erect armouries to cost $20,000 in all places the size of Strathroy?


Frederick William Borden: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: On what basis are the places selected?


Frederick William Borden: The desire has been to erect small armouries for two or three companies each in the small towns of the Dominion, at a cost ranging from $3,000 to $10,000. I have had plans made on that basis, but >
we have not succeeded in keeping expense down.


Samuel Hughes: How many companies would a ten-tkousand-dollar drill shed accommodate?


Frederick William Borden: It would
accommodate the headquarters of a regiment and two companies at least.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In what size of town would such an armoury be built ?


Frederick William Borden: It is not a matter of population, but of the numerical strength of the militia at that point. Suppose a place has two companies with a peace strength of about one hundred-that would be a war strength of two hundred

it would be considered justifiable to construct a small armoury to accommodate these two companies, and it ought to be done in such a place, it seems to me, for an expenditure of from $3,000 to $6,000.


Samuel Hughes: Is Strathroy the headquarters of the 26th Regiment?


Mr CALVERT.: Yes.


David Henderson: A short time ago the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) intimated to me that he had been approached on the question of an armoury for the town of Oakville, in Halton county. When in that town recently, I was informed that some gentlemen there were interesting themselves in a movement to have an armoury there. As the minister knows, the town of Oakville is now the headquarters of No. 1 company of the 20th Battalion, and also that a squadron of cavalry is located there. Can the minister inform me whether the armoury is likely to materialize and whether he has made up his mind to put an item in the supplementary estimates for the erection of this armoury? Or is it a matter that is merely spoken of? I would like very much if the minister would give me some definite assurance, as it might very materially aid the officers there in securing recruits to have it known that the government would give this assistance.


Frederick William Borden: I have no hesitation in saying that Oakville is one of the places I should select for a reasonable expenditure for the erection of an armoury.


William Samuel Calvert: I have looked into the matter recently, and I think that a small armoury ought to be located there. As to putting a vote in the supplementary estimates, I think it will be difficult to do that this year. An armoury at a place like Oakville should be constructed out of this general vote, but I am afraid there will be nothing left of this particular amount. But, next year, I should hope that there might be money for that purpose.


Samuel Hughes: How about Lindsay this year? The minister has been smiling and bowing to us for several years about the Lindsay armoury, and we should like to hear his little confession of faith on that subject.


Frederick William Borden: Lindsay is a more important centre than Oakville and one of the places that are on the list-


Samuel Hughes: Far down?
'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-but the money does not seem to extend far enough. It takes too much to construct each armoury, and we cannot divide the vote up sufficiently.


Richard Blain: Three or four years ago 1 directed the attention of the minister to Brampton, the headquarters of the 36th Peel Battalion, in this connection. I am anxious to know how far down on the list it is.


Samuel Hughes: Letter B.


Richard Blain: At that time, the minister spoke very favourably. Perhaps he would explain the present position.


Frederick William Borden: I can only repeat what I said to my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) two or three years ago. I am still living in hopes. I think that an armoury ought to be built in Brampton, and if I could get a vote of money I should be delighted to construct all these armouries. I think they should all be built at once. But there are many complaints made about the amount of money spent now, and I am afraid we shall have to go a little slbw. But, if my hon. friends will be patient, they will all have their turn.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister remember the cost of the Peterborough armoury ?


Frederick William Borden: I remember it is very heavy.


Samuel Hughes: That is the point I want to make


Frederick William Borden: It is a very large structure.


Samuel Hughes: Why? It is a place of very little larger population than Lindsay and is not the centre for the popu-

lation of Peterborough county. Lindsay, on the other hand, is the metropolis of the entire county of Victoria and the region round about. We have not asked for a city regiment in Lindsay, but we do ask for a battalion drill shed. I do not want to be urgent; we have waited in the hope of getting a drill shed at least equal to that of Peterborough. I do not think Lindsay should be put off. We should have had that five years ago. We have been patient with the minister all these years.


Frederick William Borden: Lindsay is getting a rifle range this year. One thing at a time.


William James Roche: What is the average cost of these armouries covered by this vote ?


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid they will be more than I had hoped. I did expect that we could build suitable armouries for from $3,000 to $10,000, but I do cot think anv of them have been below $10,000.


William James Roche: I would like once more to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that we have a squadron of dragoons in my town of Minnedosa, as he is well aware, a very efficient squadron, and we have a rifle company in the town as well, and they are very sadly In need of a drill hall or armoury. The officers are very enthusiastic volunteers, and every year they are taking the company out to camp at Brandon. They have been most efficient in the exercises, carrying away in two successive years the chief prizes. I think if the minister will consult his chief military officials in the city of Winnipeg he will find that they are all anxious that Minnedosa should have a suitable drill hall. It is rather a reflection upon the Minister of Militia and his department that where there are arms belonging to the government for a squadron like that in my town, it is left to private enterprise, to those at the hend of the squadron, to put their hands in their own pockets, as they have been obliged to do this summer, and erect a building sufficient to protect the government arms from being destroyed. They could not get any grant out of the government. Four years ago I think it was, the minister promised when there was a vote similar to this for armouries that it might include the town of Minnedosa, although at the time there were two specific items for drill halls for Brandon and Virden. both in the constituency of Brandon. However, that vote has not materialied as yet for the town of Minnedosa. It is not very encouraging for those who are in the volunteer corps to be refused a grant for a small building for the protection of the government arms. I would once more strongly urge upon the minister the necessity for a drill hall there.


Frederick William Borden: Since the hon. gentleman has reflected somewhat upon me for neglect of duty to provide accommodation at this particular place, it is only fair that I should say that precisely the same accommodation is provided at Minnedosa as is provided in nine out of ten of all the headquarters of the different corps of militia in the eastern part of Canada. We have in my own county three squadrons of cavalry for whom the same provision and no better is made. The commanding officer of a squadron is given a sum of money for the purpose of taking care of the arms and of the saddles. I do not remember the exact amount, but he is paid precisely the same in the east that he is in the west, and he is paid more than he used to be paid.
I quite recognize that rents are higher in the west than they are in the east, and it is more expensive to build, and more difficult to secure accommodation. At the same time, when I am taken to task in this way it is only fair to point out that the same provision is made-it may not be adequate, it may not be sufficient-but the same provision is made all over Canada for the care of arms. These gentlemen are paid for taking care of the arms, and they are supposed to find, and do find, accommodation for arms and accoutrements. I think something more should be done, it is my desire that more should be done, and I am trying to get money to do it with. I hope we will be able to put up these buildings more rapidly in the future. I hope we will be able to devise some way by which they can be constructed for much less money, so that for every one we construct now we can build at least two in the future. I hope and believe that that can be done.


Samuel Hughes: A few years ago I drew attention to the sum spent on the drill shed at St. Hyacinthe, I forget what it was, but I think it was $60,000 or $80,000 for two companies.


Frederick William Borden: Four companies.


Samuel Hughes: I am sure that St. Hyacinthe would have been satisfied with a 'drill hall costing $10,000 or $20,000, and the other $60,000 could have been taken and divided into sums of $2,000 each with which to build drill sheds in other parts of the country. $2,000 will build a nice company drill shed for a little town or village. X am satisfied that more benefit could be conferred on the volunteers in this way than by putting enormous sums of money into costly structures in the large centres, structures that are not needed for military purposes. Take the amount of money that is invested in drill sheds in a few of the city regimental districts, and the average per head of the volunteers, and then compare it with tlie average expended on many of the country regiments much superior to

them, and the minister will he surprised. In the county of Victoria not one dollar has been expended for many years by the government for drill shed purposes, or anything outside the ordinary pay of the men. Take the city of Toronto, many hundred dollars per head are expended on the volunteers and on public buildings. Take London and Brantford, they have drill sheds that cost enormous sums.


William Foster Cockshutt: The first drill shed in Brantford cost $20,000, and of that sum the people of Brantford contributed $10,000 out of their own pockets. It is true that a face was put on the old building lately by this government, that cost about $30,000.


Samuel Hughes: I thought a very large sum had been expended in Brantford. Expenditures like these are going on in these cities and larger towns, expenditures running up into the tens of thousands, while nothing whatever is expended on the rural regiments for a building in which to store their arms, or for battalion drill sheds. If in every country village where there is a company headquarters, we had a nice little company drill hall, it could be used for military purposes, for shooting galleries, and in the winter time for public entertainments, and in that way the government would be conferring a benefit on the public ; whereas in cities there are always public halls and large buildings that can be used for public meetings and entertainments. I have directed the minister's attention to this matter more than once.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I am glad this discussion has taken place. My attention has been drawn to this matter and the Minister of Militia and myself are endeavouring to reduce the cost of these armouries and drill halls throughout the country. We are endeavouring to see if we cannot arrive at some means by which we can secure proper buildings at less cost. I have asked my chief architect why he can not got the price down to $5,000 or '$10,000, and he says that the officials of the Militia Department make such sketches of the requirements that it is difficult to get the price down as low as we would like to have it. But the Minister of Militia and myself are putting our heads together in a combined effort to reduce the cost. There is a good deal to be said in favour of building smaller armouries costing $3,000 to $5,000. rather than spending $50,000 on more pretentious buildings. I am in hopes that we will be able to get out plans which will enable us to meet the reasonable requests of the people in various sections of the country and also request of lion, gentlemen opposite who urge from time to time rhat drill hall and armouries should be constructed in places which they specify.


Mr. TAYI.: OIt. It is fair to assume that these armouries will cost about $10,000 Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
apiece and this vote of $50,000 will therefore erect five armouries. I would like to know where the minister is going to place these. I want to remind him that they ought to put Gananoque in as good a position as the government found it in when they came into power. We have at Gananoque a battery and a company of rifles. When this government came into power we had a first class drill shed and armoury, but the government saw fit to tear it down and to purchase another site. They purchased an expensive site and tore down a drill hall and armoury because it was located alongside of a church. It should have been removed but instead of erecting a new armoury on the site which they purchased they rented an old building in the centre of a lumber yard large enough to allow the battery to crowd their arms and guns in there. The government should place Gananoque in the same position in which they found it twelve years ago. They should provide sufficient money out of this vote to carry out the promise that the government made when they tore down the drill shed, that they would erect a new one on the site which they purchased. We have as good a battery as there is in Ontario and a first class rifle company, but they have no accommodation whatever.


William Pugsley: It is usual to take this ns a general vote for the construction of armouries, the locations of some of which have been specified. I have not been informed by the Minister of Militia as to where he intends to utilize the balance of this money. The vote is the same as that which has been taken from year year.


Frederick William Borden: There are some drill halls under construction now.


William Pugsley: The armouries which have been under construction are at Park Hill, Strathroy


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the Park Hill
one to cost ? I see	on page V-	-09 :	IV. T.Robinson, contract	for armoury,	ParkHill, $1,050.


William Pugsley: Yes, that	is a	small
one.			
Sir FREDERICK	BORDEN.	That	is for
repairs.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. No, that is the total cost of the building ; it is for one company. Then there are armouries at Strathroy, Medicine Hat, Truro and Walkerton. We will use all the money we require to pay for the finishing of these buildings and then go on with the construction of others which are asked for by the Minister of Militia.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If this $50,000 is to be used to finish 13 armouries my hon. friend will not have much left for building more. I was going to ask the Minister of

Militia if lie has not received a strong request from the people of Yalleyfield for an armoury. A delegation came there and impressed upon him the fact that it would be very useful to build an armoury at Val-leyfield where there are two companies and where there will be more later on. Out of this vote of $50,000 something might be built that would be good enough to store the arms and equipment of these two com-panys. I would be glad if my hou. friend could find it possible to comply with the request of the people of Yalleyfield in this respect.


Frederick William Borden: Two deputations waited upon me partly to secure an armoury and partly to induce me to agree to the establishment of a city regiment at Yalleyfield instead of the G4th rural battalion. Nothing has been done in that regard ; in fact, the 64th battalion has been reorganized as a rural battalion and, as I told my hon. friend to-day, they will go into camp this year and send a representation also to Quebec. I think that a small armoury might very well be built at Val-leyfield for the two companies there. It would be one of the places at which I should think an armoury might properly be erected, but, as I understood the deputation, they were rather more ambitious. I am afraid their ambitions would hardly be satisfied by the construction of a small armoury. I think they had larger ideas. Possibly a $5,000 of $10,000 armoury might suit them. As to the place where armouries are to be built, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works correctly says that the Militia Department makes requisitions upon his department. As I understand it, there is work going on now at Strathroy, Walk-erton and Medicine Hat. I understand the Medicine Hat armoury is to cost $15,600..


William Pugsley: 


Frederick William Borden: Strathroy $13,000, and Walkerton $8,700. These are partly constructed. I do not know how much of this $50,000 will be needed to complete them. Truro, I think, is practically completed if not entirely. There is some work being done at Alexandria. Two rooms are being fitted up in a public building for the 59th Regiment. That will be a small expenditure. Fernie, B.C., two companies Kootenay Rifles, a small armoury ; Portage la Prairie, one squadron 18 mounted rifles, two companies of infantry ; Joliette, two companies, headquarters 64th Regiment. These are places on the list but I cannot say they will be the first to be taken up.


George Taylor: What about carrying out your arrangement at Gananoque ?


Frederick William Borden: I will put that on the list when I return to my office in the morning.


George Taylor: Gananoque should be the first on the list because we had a drill shed and armoury there and the minister tore it down. He bought a site but he has not given the boys an armoury since.


Frederick William Borden: I had forgotten about it but I will look into it again.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Of course the minister would not like itHo be said that there are any politics in the militia, but would he give us a few instances in which he has erected armouries in these small towns in constituencies opposed to the government ?


Frederick William Borden: We might take Hamilton and Toronto, and London.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was not the armoury at London undertaken when Mr. Hyman was minister ?


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps so, but there is St. Thomas.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am afraid there is little hope for these small towns in Conservative constituencies so long as the hon. gentleman has control of the funds.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend is faithless.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have reason to be, but it will not be long till there is a change.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Aylmer west was formerly the headquarters of the 25th battalion but for some reason it was transferred to St. Thomas. We have in Aylmer some of the men who were members of the 25th and we have some South Africa volunteers, one of whom returned bearing the marks of a wound which he will carry to his grave. If we could get a drill shed which would cost even as low as $3,000 it would suit our purposes, and we have the material there for the formation of a splendid company. I -would ask the minister to consider that.


Frederick William Borden: How far is Aylmer from St. Thomas ?


David Marshall: 12 miles.


Frederick William Borden: It is my wish that wherever there is an isolated company it should have a home of its own with accommodation for arms and accoutrements and a sort of lecture room where the members of the company could meet in the evening and hear lectures.
IMr. SAM. HUGHES. And a rifle gallery.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly. That is my ideal, but I regret I have not been able to carry it out. I do not quarrel with the Department of Public Works, but

10S96
the minister sometimes thinks we are too extravagant. 1 may say that the engineers in my department have made plans which would give us buildings ranging from $2,500 for a single company armoury up to $10,000 for a regimental headquarters armoury. I have proposed to the Minister of Public Works recently that an inter-departmental committee composed of officers of both departments should be constituted, which should take up each individual case and decide what are the requirements of the place and the cost of a building for that place. We tried to do that a year or two ago and did not succeed, but the Minister of Public Works is sympathetic to that view and I think we can now carry it out. If so we ought to get good buildings for very much less than we are now paying.


William Humphrey Bennett: IIow many companies at Burford, Ontario ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN'. One squadron of cavalry.


William Humphrey Bennett: You expend $14,000 in that small village.


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid we did.


William Humphrey Bennett: Burford is in North Brant, and I suppose the Minister of Customs had some influence.	.


Mr. BEATTIE.: Did I understand the Minister of Militia to say that the Strath-roy armoury cost $13,000 ?


William Pugsley: That is the contract price.


Thomas Beattie: I was In Strathroy a few days ago and I saw the armoury which is a very handsome building indeed. It is situated in a very good locality near the post office, and altogether it provides a nice home for the Strathroy companies. It is a building which would be quite suitable for a town of 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has referred to the large armouries in cities like London and Hamilton but he forgets that in London we have eight companies of the 7th regiment, a cavalry troop and a battery of artillery, and the headquarters of the District Officer Commanding. It would be impossible to do with any smaller armoury in the city of London. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) speaks of Lindsay but any little shed would do for a town of that size. I may also say that the armoury in London was commenced long before Mr. Hyman came into this House. The armoury was proposed and an appropriation made for it when I was in the House in 1898. It was completed, however, during Hon. Mr. Hyman's regime. The first vote of $20,000 was then made. I can only say Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
that the building is a very handsome one, that it is a credit to the city of London. It would be a shame to have anything else in a city like London, one of the finest on the continent.


Samuel Hughes: I do not object to London getting a fair armoury, but I wanted other places to be recognized as well. While London is an important city, it has nearly always had a disorganized regiment. Occasionally it bursts up and is reorganized.


Robert Laird Borden: It is one of the best in Canada now.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad to know it. But at the same time it has been in (that 'disorganized condition. I do nbt think it due to the fact that our gallant friend from London belonged to the regiment. Lindsay and the county of Victoria have always had a regiment which in rifle shooting or in active service at the time of the rebellion or anything of that kind has always been to the front. We have been very patient in asking for some recognition and return in the way of a drill shed. I do not object to these other places getting armouries, but I say we should get something. The minister did not understand the member for East Elgin. He asked for an independent company for Aylmer. Their company. was taken away from them and moved into St. Thomas so that they have no company there now, although there are many men anxious to form a company, and he asked to have a company and an individual company drill hall. Why could not the minister get up plans, say for a standard $2,000 or $2,500 company headquarters armoury, build one each year for each of 100 regiments, and occasionally build five or six or eight or ten headquarters' drill sheds, and in a few years every regiment would have its company headquarters, armouries and regimental drill sheds.


William Pugsley: How much would that cost?


Samuel Hughes: A couple of hundred thousand dollars. The minister spends that in wharfs in his own county or in drill halls in places of no importance.


Thomas Beattie: I wish to correct the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) He said the 7th Regiment had been disbanded two or three times.


Samuel Hughes: I said practically broken up.


Thomas Beattie: The 7th never disbanded and, more than that, for the last 40 years, I do not think there has been a regiment in the Whole country equal to it, outside of Toronto. At the time of the rebellion, General Laurie, formerly a member

10S98
of this House, complimented us and said lie was pleased to have the regiment come to Moosejaw and that It would compare favourably with any regiment in the British army He kept ns there and made us do most of the work.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Guarding the provisions.


Thomas Beattie: My hon. friend has not done much fighting. He fails to understand that many good regiments are in the rear and must be or many of the regiments in front would come to grief. He knows there is nothing in his county to compare with the 7th. The regiment was never disbanded. They had some trouble when they could not get an officer to take command, and I think for that I was to blame.
I had been in the regiment for many years, perhaps I was not as enthusiastic a militiaman as I had been, and I would not take the command. Finally the officers all resigned in order to get a clean sheet to start the regiment with and to bring it to perfection. To-day we are not perhaps as strong in numbers as the Queen's own, the Grenadiers, or the Highlanders, but we are equal to them in every respect, all our companies are full and the minister will find when they go to Quebec that there will be no regiment in the parade of which he will be more proud than the 7th of London. Moreover, I will say this, that the present commanding officer of the 7th, Ool. Frank Reid, is in my opinion, one of the most capable officers in the Canadian militia today.


Gilbert White Ganong: Since the minister has been suggesting the building of armouries or drill sheds where there are one or two companies, I would call his attention to the fact that there are two companies of the 71st regiment in my county, one in Mill-town and one in St. Stephen's, practically the one town. With this $7,000 building he speaks of built there, it would accommodate the two companies. If we are to have some military display this might be an object lesson to our friends under the Stars and Stripes as the military building would be in sight of those people Within the last two weeks I chanced to be where Captain Ryder was taking care of some of the equipment belonging to one or two of those companies. I do not know if the company furnish their own rooms or not, but he seemed to be taking great care of the property of the militia, and although the quarters were small he had everything apparently in good order. I think that under the conditions the minister might at least consider it. I would ask how much the soft persuasive way of our friend from Oarletou county has succeeded in having expended in the town of Woodstock for an armoury?


William Pugsley: I regret I have not the figures here, that armoury was built some time ago.


Gilbert White Ganong: I presume the government spent in Woodstock enough to furnish three or four such buildings as I suggest, and while I have no objection to Woodstock having a respectable building, I think the amount spent there might have been spent with better advantage to the province at large.


William Humphrey Bennett: Orillia has two companies of the 35th regiment and a squadron of horse connected with the cavalry corps at Barrie. What are the prospects of Orillia being treated with a little more than cold justice?


Frederick William Borden: The book shows only the 35th regiment.


William Humphrey Bennett: Orillia is a town of considerable importance, of some 5,000 or 6,000 people, and with the militia I have spoken of. I see that at the little town of Burford, $13,000 has been expended. I would ask the minister to consider the claims of Orillia.


Frederick William Borden: I certainly think Orillia ought to be considered. There has been some suggestion made that no headquarters are provided for a regiment or a company in any county (represented by a Conservative. That certainly does not apply to the large towns and cities, and I do not think it applies to the smaller towns. But I do think this, that regiments and companies should be selected for these favours according to their qualifications. If five or six or ten buildings are to be constructed, they should be given to the regiments, squadrons or companies best qualified, which have shown the best results in their annual training. That would be the principle I would lay down.


Samuel Hughes: Why does not the minister follow it ?


Frederick William Borden: We have tried to do that. There are a great many excellent regiments in Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: The 35th has a continental reputation.


Frederick William Borden: Of course once or twice a very unfortunate accident happened. After spending a great deal of money constructing an expensive armoury the regiment temporarily disappeared. In fact I almost hesitate at times constructing armouries at all on account of such incidents. That happened at St. Thomas and at least two other places, but I am happy to say these regiments have been reorganized and are now in good working condition. There should be some principle laid down by which selections would be made without any reference to favouritism. It should not be left to this or that member, as a result of greater personal or political

influence, to secure for his section or favourite regiment that which is more deserved by a regiment or company in some other part of the country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: As the unworthy commandant of a very modest regiment, called the 17th, which probably cannot compare with the regiments from London and Victoria and Haliburton, might I appeal to the Minister of Militia, as well as to the Minister [DOT] of Public Works, to do something in the town of Levis ? That is a centre where an armoury or a shed or accommodation in some shape or form should be erected. If fault is found with the regiments commanded by colonels who are Conservatives, I think I am a staunch supporter of the government and therefore may appeal to the minister-not saying anything about the merits of my regiment-'.o do something in the town of Levis. That town is not only the headquarters of my regiment, but has a garrison battery of artillery, and when we ask for some accommodation, even if it be only a shed, we cannot be accused of extravagance in our aspirations. I would strongly urge on the minister that something should be done in that town.


Frederick William Borden: This matter has been before the department some time, and I think steps are being taken in that behalf. Levis is a large town and an important military centre, and if nothing can be done this year, something will he done in the near future.


George Oscar Alcorn: While the minister is in an unbending mood and has intimated bis intention of procuring the erection of a number of buildings of a less expensive class, may I take the opportunity of pressing on his attention the claims of the town of Picton in Prince Edward county ? We have there the Sixteenth battalion and a squadron of dragoons and there has never been any accommodation. The only place provided for the keeping of arms is a room in a remote corner of the court house, which is certainly a very inconvenient and undesirable place. The county is one of the oldest in Upper Canada, peopled to a large extent by descendants of the U. E. loyalists, no lie tier population in Canada, and considering the fact that no public money has ever been expended in that county, tifs is an opportunity when the loyal sons of a loyal people might be shown some consideration


Mr. CARVELL.: I am in a position to give the information regarding the armoury at Woodstock, N.B., which the Minister of Militia was unable to give a moment ago. Thq difference between the militia requirements of Woodstock and other small towns is that Woodstock is the centre of a very large military district. We have an armoury which was erected there some four or five years ago, and as it was erected when Carieton was represented by a Con-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
servative, there can be no charge of political favouritism in that instance. The contract price was $32,000 exclusive of the land, but Woodstock is, in the first place, the headquarters of the Sixty-seventh regiment which has been in existence since before confederation. It is also the headquarters of two companies of that regiment, and those two companies are actually quartered in that building. Then it is the headquarters of No. I company of Engineers, which used to be called the Brighton Engineer company, the oldest engineer company in Canada, with a force of 200 men and the ordinary equipment of horses and carriages and everything that goes with such corps. In addition it is the headquarters of the Tenth Field Battery, consisting of 100 men and some 00 horses. It is, therefore, an important military centre. And with the exception of places like London and Toronto, there is none which has anything like the military organizations centered around and in it that Woodstock has. And the time this building was ei'ected it was not the policy of the department to build individual armouries. From my present observation I think the policy of the government at present is a splendid one. I know many places in the country where one or two companies of infantry have become permanent, and it is a splendid idea that some sort of a home should be provided for such companies. There seems to be the idea that in many of these places where there are no armouries, the officers are compelled to look out for themselves. That is not true, because in all cases the officers receive very liberal allowances for taking care of the arms and renting a building. It would be better that each company should have its own permanent headquarters. There they can get together in the evening, have their shooting galleries and lectures and everything pertaining to military life. I am much pleased with the sentiment displayed by hon. gentlemen opposite who are asking for the armouries. I have been very muc-h impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). He may be a little extravagant in asking for a hundred every year, but suppose we build fifty per year and distributed them according to merit, that would be a splendid beginning. In a very short time, practically the whole militia of Canada will be permanently housed. And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that nothing would be of more benefit to the militia generally, nothing would more conduce to a proper spirit among the militiamen than having these permanent homes, places where they could go to as a club, if you will, and where they will be able to improve themselves along military lines.


George Oscar Alcorn: Following the line of the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I am very

sure tuat the 16th Battalion, if they had permanent headquarters, would be largely-improved. If there was a building in which they- could meet and exchange ideas and perform their duties, a place which would be, in effect, a regimental club room, the effect upon the regiment would be very-beneficial indeed. And I can promise the minister that a site will be provided at a sum which, perhaps, will astonish the ministers who are accustomed to pay- the sums we have heard mentioned here to-night.


Frederick William Borden: I agree entirely- with my hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) that Picton is a place where a moderate expenditure of public money for an armoury is necessary. I observe that Picton is'the headquarters of the 16th Regiment and also headquarters of two companies. The 10th is an old regiment, and a very good one. I say freely that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to secure from the Public Works Department the necessary money to build such an armoury.


Mr. WHITE.: The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) said that the standing of a regiment at camp should have an effect in deciding as to the building of an armoury for its accommodation. I think that the building of these armouries would be conducive to the efficiency of these rural regiments especially-. Pembroke is the headquarters for the 42nd Regiment, which has always stood well, being, in fact, one of the best in No. 4 Military District. But we are at a great disadvantage for lack of an armoury. We have but two small rooms, in one of which we store our clothing while another is used for the arms. The men have to drill in the open, and if the weather is inclement, it is impossible for them to drill. I would impress upon the minister the importance of building some sort of armoury in the town of Pembroke.


Samuel Hughes: As efficiency has been made an element in this discussion. I may say a word on that subject. I do not believe in tooting one's own horn too much in this respect, because in every part of Canada where I have been I have found good men. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) referred to his locality-. I can testify- to the fact that the men from \\ oodstock. N.B.. who were in South Africa were second to no men there-first-class fellows. I say two of them got shot, but both refused to report as wounded-very seriously wounded one of them was, too. Seeing the minister has brought up this point of the quality of the regiments. I want to point out to him that the 45th Victoria Regiment, until a year or two ago. stood first of all regiments in Canada in the number of men sent to Wimbledon and Bisley

I think it has been passed now by the 13th of Hamilton and the 43rd of Ottawa. But that, no doubt, is for the reason that we have had neither drill shed nor
armoury in Victoria for many y-ears. I have seen as many as eight men from that regiment eligible for Bisley in a year, in days gone by. The late Colonel Macleod of the Northwest Mounted Police-began his military training in that regiment. And so did Colonel McMurtry. The boy-s who broke the line at the battle of Batoc-be were from that regiment. On every- occasion, when men have been required for fighting or for show purposes, or for skill in shooting, the 45th Regiment has been to the front. I may tell the minister that if he turns up the reports of the department, he will see that the Generals from Britain, in inspecting the regiments, have pointed out the 45th as second to none-superior in physique and equal in drill to any- in the imperial service. I would remind the minister that he himself saw the regiment reviewed in Toronto and said that no regiment could compare yvith it in marching- the uniforms were not equal to those of the city corps, but no regiment was superior to the 45tli in drill. I trust that the minister. having laid down the rule of efficiency-, will live up to it and that Victoria county having a regiment like the 45th-I am not in the regiment now, so I am free to speak of it-will be given a suitable armoury.


Frederick William Borden: I am thoroughly- sincere in what I have stated as the proper basis for the establishment of these armouries.	.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: I had a very interesting conversation, a short time ago, with a member of a rural corps. I asked him if it would not be a good thing to have armouries where there were one or two companies. He said it would be a very- nice thing indeed to have these armouries, but thought it would be more desirable and more practical to give the corps a place in which to store its arms and also a rifle range. He believed that if rifle ranges were established, they would draw- the men out more than having an armoury where they could meet for pleasure. The rifle range would be a good place of meeting and would afford a means of splendid training. You send 5,000 men to camp, w-here they are trained in tactics as I understand it, but, at the rifle range, they only fire twenty shots. I would undertake to say that there is not one in fifty- of these shots that make a hit. I think the first duty of the department is to show the men how- to handle and Are a rifle. .


Samuel Hughes: I think that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) was not in when it was pointed out that part of the equipment of a drill shed should be a minature rifle gallery. Of course, tlfat is not as good as the long range.


Adam Zimmerman: Of course, the miniature range is a very useful adjunct to the armoury, but. from what little knowledge
10903 .

I have of military affairs, I am led to believe that better opportunity should be given to the volunteer to learn to shoot and more time given them for rifle practice.


William James Roche: The Minister of Militia seemed somewhat sensitive about the criticism I directed towards himself and his department for not having as yet provided any protection for the arms of D, the squadron of Dragoons in Miuue-dosa or any drill hall for the accommodation of the squadron. But let him put himself in my place-met session after session and year after year with promises of consideration and partial promises of fulfilment, ' not this session, but we will see what we can do next session,' and none of these promises implemented. I think the time would arrive with him when he would conclude that forbearance had ceased to become a virture, and when he would stop his gentle pleading and speak in a more drastic manner.


Frederick William Borden: All right, I don't blame you.


William James Roche: Now the minister stated that the same provision is made for the care of arms in that town as is made in every other town. But what does it amount to ?	$80 for looking after
the arms from one year to another. Now I have already given the minister a. history of those arms. Those arms were in a room at the back of the town hall, and the time arrived when the town council gave notice to the officer of the squadron that the room was required for municipal purposes. On the spur of the moment he had no time to provide other quarters, he could not find a building in the town that was vacant- which fact was rather a tribute to the progressiveness of that town. The only place he could find in which to shelter the arms was a building in the outskirts of the town and he placed the arms there. In the course of time some person broke into that building where tne arms were stored, and if I remember right also abstracted some of them. Now the officials in command of that squadron are responsible for the government arms to the government, and all they get is $80 per annum. Under those circumstances they felt that in order to protect themselves it was necessary, at their own expense, to put up that small building this summer. I was glad to hear the Minister of Public Works enunciate a doctrine that we on this side of the House have been advocating for a long time. It is ail right in theory but I do not know whether the minister will put it into practice. The theory is that instead of spending so much money in several of the larger towns and cities on expensive armouries and drill halls, he will distribute Mr. ZIMMERMAN
it among the smaller towns on less expensive buildings. We heartily approve of that plan on this side of the House. In the province of Manitoba there is not another squadron in the whole province that is not provided with an armoury or a drill hall, save and except the squadrons In the town of Souris and in my own town. Possibly one reason why Souris is not provided is that it is in a small compact constituency where there are two other drill halls, namely, in Brandon and Virden. Brandon is a very nice city, and I am glad to see they are provided with a nice armoury. But that armoury has cost $40,000 or $50,000, and I do not think it is necessary to have so expensive an armoury as that in Brandon. Every place in Manitoba where there is a squadron could have been provided with a suitable shelter with the money put into the Brandon armoury. While Brandon is a progressive town, still the squadron there is just of the same strength as in my own town, namely, 68 non-commissioned officers and men and 6 officers. In Brandon you have an armoury costing $40,000 or $50,000 and in Minnedosa none at all, although the squadrons in both places are of equal strength. I notice that the Minister of rublic Works, in reading the list of towns where he intends to spend money, mentioned the town of Medicine Hat. I have no objection to Medicine Hat having a suitable armoury. There you propose to spend $30,000 or $35,000 in building an armoury, and a few weeks ago you put through an item for an expensive public building in that place.


Frederick William Borden: $16,000 in Medicine Hat.	.


Mr.  W. .T. ROCHE@Marquette: The original estimate is always exceeded, so you can count on $20,000 at least at Medicine Hat. It is this centralization of expenditure in a few towns and cities that we object to. I hope the minister will keep that in mind, and in future will keep my town in view and not neglect it any longer.
Experimental farms-new buildings and renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., in connection with existing buildings, fences, &e., also residence for manager at Lethbridge farm, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This vote is to make alterations and additions to buildings on the farm at Ottawa, and also to make the repairs that may be required in the existing buildings. The manager's residence at Lethbridge is expected to cost $6,000. There is a vote in the main estimates for $10,000. and we will have to ask for a supplementary vote, probably $25,000 or $30,000.


George Taylor: Has the contract been let for the Ottawa buildings ?


William Pugsley: No. It is estimated that they will cost $20,000.


Mr.  A. A.@: McLEAN'. Two years ago we were promised that an experimental farm would be established on Prince Edward Island, and we have not got it yet. Is there anything in the estimates for that purpose ?


William Pugsley: That is altogether outside of my department, that is in the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Is anything to be brought down in the supplementary estimates for that purpose ?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend.


George Taylor: I understand the minister to say that the new buildings at Ottawa would cost $20,000 ; why is he only asking for $10,000 ?


William Pugsley: To make a start. This work will be let by contract, the same as all other work of that description.


George Taylor: What amount is estimated for the fencing ?	*


William Pugsley: We have not a separate estimate for that.


George Taylor: This total is simply for doing work which includes a new building at a cost of $20,000. Why is it intended to put up a new building at the experimental farm at Ottawa ? There is surely money enough sunk there now.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Agriculture has asked for this and in addition to this amount he tells me that he must urge very strongly that a further amount be placed in the supplementary estimates.


George Taylor: Before we commit ourselves to this very large* expenditure we should know what it is for.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Agriculture is not here, but I will get the information and give it to the hon. gentleman on the motion for concurrence.


George Taylor: Let the item stand until to-morrow when the Minister of Agriculture will be present.


William Pugsley: No, we had better let it pass.


Mr TAYLOR.: We ought to have an explanation before we commit the country to an expenditure of this kind. The feeling of the country is that there has been an awful expenditure at this farm compared with the benefit that the farmers get out of it.


William Pugsley: The next time that we go into committee I will give my hon. friend the information.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the building at Lethbridge to be used for?


William Pugsley: At Lethbridge a residence is asked for the manager of the farm.


Richard Stuart Lake: What sort of a building is it to be?


William Pugsley: A building costing $6,-
000.


Richard Stuart Lake: $6,000 out of $10,000 is required for a residence for the manager?


William Pugsley: A memorandum has been furnished me of what are the requirements in connection with these farms by the Department of Agriculture, and this amount of $36,000 is the estimate of the total cost, but we do not propose to spend it ail this year. These are the works which we propose to undertake, but the contracts wrill not be let until quite late in the summer, and we will not require to make the whole amount of the expenditure this year


George Taylor: The minister states that there will be something in the supplementary estimates, but he does not tell us how much the supplementary vote will be.


William Pugsley: I do not know exactly what the supplementary will be, but I presume it will not be limited to these items I have mentioned. The Minister of Agriculture has not given me the details of what he told me he would ask for in the supplementary estimates .


Richard Stuart Lake: I presume the manager at Lethbridge has no house at the present time?
Mr. PUGSLEY I presume not.


Angus Alexander McLean: This item ought to stand until the minister is prepared to give the information that the committee requires. He does not know what buildings are required at Ottawa, and I do not think that any vote should be passed until the minister is in possession of the information.


William Pugsley: I gave the building at
Ottawa-two wings to the office. I also mentioned a residence at Lethbridge.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is that all to be built out of this $10,000, or where is the $10,000 to be spent?


William Pugsley: The $10,000 will be to commence these various works, and next year we will ask for an additional amount.


Richard Stuart Lake: How much is it proposed to spend on the residence at Lethbridge this year?


William Pugsley: Probably we will get plans prepared and call for tenders. It depends on how long we are kept here before we get started there. It may be two months before we can get the contract let.

That will carry us along to the early fall and probably we will not spend more than $2,000.


John Herron: What material is this building to be constructed of?


William Pugsley: The plans are not prepared, but it will be a brick building.


George Taylor: There was $40,000 provided for this purpose last year. What was done with that money?


William Pugsley: The money was expended as follows: Nappan, $695.85; Brandon, $1,607.15; Indian Head, $382.30; Lethbridge, $6,270.45; Agassis, $695.34; Ottawa Experimental Farm, $25,206.88; total, $34,957.97. The appropriation was $40,000, and tnere lapsed $5,042.03.


George Taylor: $25,000 spent at Ottawa last year?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. TAYLOR, Was that spent on new buildings?


William Pugsley: There were additions and changes made to the main barns and stables.
Kingston, Royal Military College-barrack accommodation for stables, $5,000.


George Taylor: The minister will please explain what he purposes doing there?


William Pugsley: This is to provide barrack accommodation for stables for horses. It is a re vote.
Kingston-new magazine, $3,000.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: This is a new magazine which the Militia Department report is required there.


Samuel Hughes: Where is that being erected?


William Pugsley: I think in the artillery park.
Kingston military buildings-
Additional stores building, $7,000.
Gun and wagon shed, $7,000.


George Taylor: What is the explanation of this?


William Pugsley: The memorandum which I have from the Militia Department is that this is a new building for storing of clothing, equipment, and necessary ordnance stores for Military District No. 3. Necessity for the new building is urged by the ordnance officers of Kingston. The site is on the government property. The building will be 90 feet long by 49 feet wide and 40 feet high, three stories, fireproof.


George Taylor: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: No.


George Taylor: The minister promised last year that out of the sum voted for Mr. PUGSLEY.
Kingston military buildings he would have certain repairs made to the towers, the tops of which were blown off several years ago. They are in a dilapidated condition now and nothing has been done.


Frederick William Borden: I inquired about this knowing that my hon. friend would not forget my promise, and I was told the work had been done.


George Taylor: If so it has been done lately. Are there not sufficient buildings in Kingston for this storage without spending more money on new buildings ? Barriefield common appears to be deserted, everything seems running to decay and the walls are tumbling into the river.


Frederick William Borden: That will be repaired.


George Taylor: It is high time it should.


Mr. DANIEL.: What store buildings are in Kingston at the present time ?


Frederick William Borden: The storage in connection with the old barracks is not sufficient. At Kingston there is the Royal Military College, it is also a depot for the permamfht force and the headquarters of two military districts, No. 3 aud 4.


George Taylor: What is Fort Henry occupied for?


Frederick William Borden: It is practically not used at all. It is necessary to have storage for a considerable amount of stores as it is the headquarters of two districts.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has there been any addition to the forces to require additional stores?


Frederick William Borden: It is not so much the addition to the force as additional equipment, a reserve of equipment, arms, clothing,.ammunition, &c., is being accumulated and plenty of storage room is necessary.


Angus Alexander McLean: This vote for military buildings in Ontario alone comes to something like $592,500. That is a large amount to expend on military buildings when we consider that only between $500,000 and $600,000 is spent by the government of Canada on agriculture, and I think we should pause before that large sum of money is voted. Why is this great amount of money required for this purpose in Ontario? I think this is unnecessary aud uncalled for.


George Taylor: Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent at Fort Henry by the British government, and it is capable of storing all the stores for the Dominion. Why it is necessary to put new stores I do not know. Fort Henry lias been practically abandoned and it is

not creditable to this government. We Should use a property that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.


Frederick William Borden: When General Herbert was here we made an attempt to utilize some of the rooms in Fort Henry to put stoves in them and to try to dry them out, but the experiment was not a success. I was of opinion that we should utilize such an expensive property, but military experts say that as a fort it is of no value whatever, and that it would cost less money to construct new buildings in convenient situations than to repair the old fort.


George Taylor: The British government not only built the fort but constructed the Rideau canal in order to get supplies through to Kingston, and I think if there is any point in Canada which ought to be preserved, it is Fort Henry. To have it fall into decay is not creditable to the government or to the country.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN It was in that condition when we came into power.


George Taylor: Oh, no.


Frederick William Borden: I know what was done by the late government. ,


George Taylor: The late government had the walls rebuilt, pointed and put in good shape, but now they are going to pieces.


Mr.   E M. MACDONALD@: What are you going to do with it?


George Taylor: The government should protect it and store the munitions of war there in place of spending more money on new buildings.


William Pugsley: I have a great desire to get along. I am willing to strike out these contentious items about Kingston. Strike out Kingston new magazine, Kingston veterinary hospital, London military building and magazine, London military building, new gymnasium, Ontario military buildings, additional stores building, Ontario military building, gun and wagon shed.
Mr. BLAIN Is it because they are not required?


William Pugsley: No, but I have a memorandum here which I have shown my hon. friend, the Minister of Militia, and it appears, from what he says, we can get along this year without them, and this is a year of ecouomy. Ontario military buildings, armoury for one section field telegraph, you may strike those out, Mr. Chairman. The Toronto drill hall we passed the other night.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the total cost of the Toronto drill hall including the amount we have voted to-night, and what are the new corps there?


William Pugsley: I shall have that in a moment.


William Humphrey Bennett: The new corps are MacKay's ragged remnants.


Frederick William Borden: I can tell the names of the corps. The Governor General's Body Guards, 400 men; 9th Regiment of Horse, 300 men; 9th Field Battery, 100 men; 2nd Field Company of Engineers, 100 men; 2nd Regiment of Infantry, 800 men; 10th Regiment of Infantry, 400 men; 48th Regiment of Infantry, 400 men; No. 2 Company Army Service Corps, 110 men; No. 12 Company Army Service Corps, 110 men; Nos. 10, 11 and 13 Field Ambulance Units. 1 think the Ambulance Corps and Army Service Corps are new.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the estimate of the total amount of additional accommodation required there?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The total cost of the extension of the drill hall, including lighting, wiring, heating, furniture, &c., is $259,136.11.


Richard Stuart Lake: For how many additional corps ?


Frederick William Borden: The 2nd Regiment of Infantry has been doubled. I cannot from memory tell exactly what the new corps are. One of the Army Service Corps is new and part of the Ambulance Corps and Field Units. That would give a very considerable increase. I think the 9th Regiment of Horse is new, but not absolutely certain.
Mr. DANIEL, Is this a new building or an addition to the old one?


William Pugsley: An addition to the old one.
Mr TAYLOR My hon. friend is satisfied we have done sufficient work and we Should adjourn.


William Pugsley: Let us go on an hour longer.


George Taylor: The members of the opposition have to be here at 9.30 a.m. for a private meeting, and we obliged my hon friend the other night when they had an early morning meeting.


William Pugsley: Let us finish this up.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman in sists we shall have to go on.


William Pugsley: We ought to pass these two other items. So many have been struck out We ought to pass 'the Toronto magazine building, $3,000 ' and ' Toronto Military buildings - barracks for permanent corps, $50,000.'


George Taylor: That is all you want ?


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: If these lion, gentlemen do not wish these items for Toronto to go through

if there is any objection to them-I think the minister might abandon them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: That won't fizz on Toronto.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I support the position taken by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) ; I think there is too much spent on militia in the big cities. I agree that if we are going to spend so much money on militia more should be spent on the rural corps. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to keep the House sitting, and if there are objections to voting these items for Toronto, 1 would be prepared to support a proposition to strike them out.


Richard Stuart Lake: All we want is reasonable explanations. I admit that the explanations of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) have been reasonable, when he has condescended to give them. But we have had to work for them and wait for them for a long time. I would ask how much reduction has the minister decided to make in his requests for military buildings. He has been striking out items, I suppose, under the necessity for retrenchment.
Mx-. PUGSLEY. If the hon. gentleman will stay about an hour longer, I will give him the statement.


Richard Stuart Lake: Surely, the hon. minister knows the total.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman might be well occupied in taking the items down.


Richard Stuart Lake: I shall be pleased to do so if the minister cannot give the total.


William Pugsley: We are losing time. Are these two items for Toronto carried-the military buildings magazine, and the military buildings, barracks for permanent corps ?


George Taylor: Yes. And the minister said that was all.


William Pugsley: There are three items for the Toronto post office that I did not notice, and these will finish Ontario.


George Taylor: None of the Toronto members are here, and some explanation of these items may be desired. The minister said that these two military items would be enough, and they were carried without a word of explanation.


William Pugsley: I thought that these were all the Ontario items, but


George Taylor: 


George Taylor: You have another day to-morrow, you can get into Supply again and put these through.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In the line of the argument of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) I call attention to the fact that here is a quarter of a million for Toronto, and for the town of Levis with 10,000 inhabitants, there is not a cent voted. I enter my protest against that.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If we are speaking of armouries, perhaps the minister might inform us the cost of the Halifax armoury. I am not complaining of that cost in any way, but


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) is not aware that the military items are passed.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the Minister of Militia could give us


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the point of order ?


William Pugsley: The point of order is that the point we are discussing is not armouries, but the Toronto post office.


George Taylor: No, we have not reached that item. The mihister made the direct promise that if we allowed these two items to pass, that would be the end.


William Pugsley: If there is any misunderstanding, we will move the reconsideration of the Toronto military buildings.


George Taylor: There is no misunderstanding. The minister's statement was plain and we accepted it and passed the Items without a word of explanation.


William Pugsley: The items are open for discussion.


George Taylor: The items are passed. They have been declared carried by the chairman on a distinct understanding, and the minister cannot cancel that action of the committee.


Charles Marcil: The next item is the post office item.


George Taylor: The other items were passed on the distinct understanding that that would finish the business.


William Stevens Fielding: Then, why does the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) want to continue the discussion ?


George Taylor: He was asking a question, and the minister (Mr. Pugsley) raised the point of order.


Charles Marcil: I informed the hon. member that the two military items-

were carried. I took that from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor).


George Taylor: 1 agreed on the condition stated by the minister.


William Pugsley: I move that the two military items for Toronto be reconsidered


Mr. J. D. REID.: I do not think there is disposition to oppose these items-


William Pugsley: I do not want to be charged with having made a misstatement.


John Dowsley Reid: There is a little misunderstanding in the matter. So far as these Toronto post office items are concerned, there may be some concerning them. 1 think the minister should let them stand until the morning, and then they could be put through in a hurry.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many times do hon. gentleman want these items to be postponed ? A month ago, when they were under discussion, night after night for a week the threat was made that not a dollar would be allowed to go through until the Minister of Militia was brought here. He is here, and

	.


George Taylor: And the items have been put through.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But there is a disagreement among hon. gentlemen opposite ; the member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) says they are passed and the member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) says they are not.


Samuel Hughes: I think the Minister of Public Works has made a mistake, and I think he should be man enough to stand by his mistake and let the House adjourn.


William Pugsley: I was under the impression that all the Ontario public buildings had passed except the military buildings. I have been trying for a good many weeks to get through the estimates for ipublic buildings. Now my hon. friend says that I gave an assurance that if these two items were passed I would move that the committee rise. If that was a misunderstanding, I have moved that they bo reconsidered, and they are now open for discussion.
Air. GRAHAA1. What we want to do is to get through with these two items. Every one knows that Toronto is the centre of Ontario and the post office facilities at Toronto must be enlarged. I do not think tb.ere is any objection to these items relating to the Toronto post office.


Richard Stuart Lake: I still insist that the Alin-isler of Public AVorks stated that he would move the adjournment as soon as these two items were passed, and I am much surprised to find that a minister of the Crown should co back on his promise.
346J


William Pugsley: I cannot permit an hon. member to say that I have gone back on my statement when I have not done so. To make that charge good, the hon. gentlemen must show that they have been in some way prejudiced by what took place. After these two military items were passed the hon. gentleman asked that the committee should rise. I said, No, because I was informed by my deputy that there were three or four items for Ontario which had not been passed. I was under the impression they had all been passed except the items in regard to military buildings. Then I said to hon. gentlemen opposite :	You should not be prejudiced, and I moved that these two military items be reconsidered. I think it is not creditable to us if we cannot pass these three or four additional items for the province of Ontario, relating particularly to the post office accommodation in the city of Toronto, with regard to which there can be no controversy.


George Taylor: I asked the Alinister of Public Works to stop when we got through the Toronto drill hall item, and the one below that, and he said, No, there are just two more militia items, pass these and then we will quit.


William Pugsley: Two more items.


George Taylor: No, militia items.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Public Works asked for one hour more to pass a few more estimates ?


George Taylor: The minister may certainly have made a mistake, but that was his statement to the committee and ' Hansard ' will prove it.


William Pugsley: Did I not say that there were only two more items?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, two more militia items.


William Pugsley: I did not say militia items.


George Taylor: He said there were two more Ontario militia items. But having made that statement his deputy informed him that there were three mor e Public Works items and I asked as a favour on behalf of the Toronto men to let these items stand as there were no Toronto men present and they might desire to ask some questions with respect to them.


William Pugsley: They are all revotes but one.


George Taylor: But the minister says he will allow a full discussion of them on some other item. That being the case, I say let these two items go through and we will rise.
Some resolutions reported.

Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: Will the Minister of Finance be kind enough to inform us what business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up the Bill to amend the Bank Act, the resolution respecting the lead bounty in British Columbia, the Bill to amend the Manitoba Grain Act and then Supply, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works continuing his estimates.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Friday.

Fbiday, June 19, 1908.