Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the secretary of His Royal Highness the Governor General:
Office of the Governor General's Secretary, Ottawa, February, 16th, 1912.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Eight Hon. the Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Royal Highness the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber this afternoon at 3.30 o'clock for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to

certain Bills which have passed the Senate and the House of Commons during the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to he,
Your obedient servant,
H. C. LOWTHER, Lieut.-Colonel,
Governor General's Secretary. The Honourable, the Speaker
of the House of Commons.



SUPPLY-CABLE RATES TO GREAT BRITAIN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: Before you leave the Chair, I would like to draw the attention of the House for a few moments to the question of cable rates. This question has already come before the House in a previous debate, but I thought this occasion favourable for bringing it again to the attention of the country. We all know that the news received some months ago, through the channel of the Post Office Department, that cheaper nates had been granted toy the cable companies was welcome news to Canada. When it was announced to the House by the Postmaster General, I was the first one to congratulate him over this signal success of or# many efforts to obtain a reduction in the rates. For several years past, and notably, since the time of Sir William Mulock until the present, there has been a continuous effort on the part of our postal authorities to join hands with the many British subjects abroad who are interested in the solution of this problem, namely, cheap telegraphic communication between the mother country and the various British colonies. I said, however, to my hon. friend the Postmaster General when he announced some weeks ago that a small reduction in rates had been agreed to by the cable companies and the British government, that in my judgment it was but one instalment, and that we should expect more from future pourparlers between the companies the British Post office and our own post office authorities in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say to the hon. member (Mr. Lemreux), before he speaks further, that it seems to me doubtful whether lie is not infringing a well understood rule of the House by anticipating a discussion of a notice on the order paper. The hon. member or Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) has a notice on the order paper which now stands at the head of Public Bills and Orders.
Further consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. Armstrong (Lambton), that, in the opinion of this House a commission should be appointed to investigate the systems of national telegraphs and telephones, wireless telegraphs and cables.
A discussion took place on that resolution, and now stands to be resumed. I would like to be advised by the House whether it is the judgment of the House that the hon. gentleman is or is not infringing the rule which would prevent another discussion taking place at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I somewhat anticipated the objection, hut I thought that, as the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) had a fixed purpose io his motion, that of the appointment of a commission to investigate these various questions and problems, my own motion-because I will conclude with a motion-would be in order. Of course, the hon. member for Lambton has mentioned several questions in his motion, while I desire to draw attention only to one of those subjects.
I think our purposes are different. My hon. friend .moves for a commission; I wish simply to obtain an expression of the opinion of the House my motion treads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House steps should he taken by the Postmaster Genera] of Canada with a view of obtaining further reduction in cable rates between Canada and Great, Britain.
I do not think the two motions clash.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish again to submit the question to the judgment of the House. While there is considerable force in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) says, I >am not fully convinced that his motion is not an infringement of the rule. But if it is the desire of the House that the hon. member should continue, of course the Speaker lias no objection.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in the judgment of the House. If my hon. friend the Postmaster General sees no objection I might be .allowed to proceed.


Mr. PELLETIER.: The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) seems to be along the same line as the motion of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), whose motion, it is true, refers to only one of the many branches contained in the motion of the hon. member for Lambton. Personally I have no objection to this mutter being gone into. If the hon. member for Rouville wants a discussion of the matter in the House, it might help us <pn the other side of the sea to know the opinion of the House of Commons of Canada, I suppose the hon. gentleman does not intend to press the motion very far. I do not think there could be much objection to his going on; anyway, I hope he will be short.


Rt.   H@: As there seems to be some differ-v ence between the new motions, as this

is an important subject, and as the time to be occupied will not be very great, perhaps it might be considered in order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman continue the debate?


Mr. HENDERSON.: Before that motion is passed I would say that I think it would only have been fair to the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), to have had notice that this discussion was to go on so that he could have taken part in it. I understand that, under the rules of the House, he is debarred from continuing the discussion which he was obliged to drop at six o'clock on a Wednesday night, and which he will not be permitted again to take up. But, if the hon. member for RouviMe (Mr. Lemieux), is to be permitted this afternoon to discuss the same question, I think it only fair that the hon. member for East Lambton should have notice. He should have been notified, and he should have been given an opportunity of being here to take part in the discussion and to continue his speech to the end.


Mr. BORDEN.: I think that is fair, perhaps under the circumstances, and as my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), does not appear to be here, it might be convenient to postpone it until another day. When I suggested that the discussion might go on I was not aware that my hon. friend was not here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to press the matter, but I may say that I understood the other evening that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), was allowed to proceed with a motion of a similar nature which dealt with one of the many subjects mentioned in the omnibus motion of the hon. member for East Lambton, and it seems to me that the same rule should prevail.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that it should not prevail, but I was suggesting that it would, perhaps, be convenient to postpone the debate until my hon'. friend from East Lambton is here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the circumstances I bow to the desire of the Prime Minister. We might fix a day when this question might be brought up. I have no objection under the circumstances to the postponement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa-grounds, $25,000.
['The appropriation is the annual one for the care of the parliament grounds. I stated the other day in the House that the government had not yet come to any conclusion as to the use to be made of that space on Sussex street acquired by the late government, nor has it come to any conclusion as to the plans for erecting a departmental building. A Committee of the Privy Council has been named to give the matter careful and prompt attention, but it has been utterly impossible during the progress of the session for that committee to give such a large subject the attention it requires. We will proceed in the matter as soon as possible. The late government acquired that site on Sussex street several years ago, and yet, so far as we have been able to discover, it had not formulated any plan for erecting buildings there. If the lion, gentleman wishes to know what I think myself, I may say that it has occurred to me that we might utilize that space which has been so long idle, and in which we have made such a large investment, for the erection of a justice building, which would accommodate the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Railway Commission, the Exchequer Court, and all other branches jn connection with the administration of justice. There was a plan prepared by Mr. Maxwell, architect of Montreal, for -a very handsome Justice Department building on that space on Sussex street, and I think it might be properly erected there, leaving large open spaces around which would give a park effect. It is out of the question to hope that we could put all the departmental buildings that will be required on that long narrow strip of land, and it puzzles me to know how such a thing could ever have been contemplated. We are considering the acquisition of other lands where a departmental building might suitably be erected.']
Mr. MONK.: This item of $25,000 is asked to be voted to make provision in ac-Mr. BORDEN.
cordance with an estimate submitted by the chief architect for keeping the grounds in connection with the public buildings, the Lover's Walk, Major Hill Park, and the mint and archives buildings, in proper condition during next year. For the grounds of Parliament Hill the estimate is $14,000, and for Major Hill Park $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there any plan of the work to be done in these grounds? I understood there would be a bridge connecting this side of the hill with Major Hill park?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a project of that kind, but that does not enter into the calculation of this estimate. I can give my hon. friend the details if he wishes them. This is the usual appropriation for plants, pay-lists, lawn mowers, arc lamps, electric lights and repairs.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am glad that my hon. friend has mentioned arc lamps in Major Hffll park. At the present time Major Hill park is not .lighted. I am glad to see that my hon. friend has taken some measures towards lighting it. We had some pour parlers with the city of Ottawa in regard to the lighting of the park. It has never been lighted up to the present time. Nepean Point park is li g%d by the commission but the other park lias not been lighted up to this time and the park has been of very little use to the public, because it could not be used at night. Has anything been done with respect to the matter?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I had that question under consideration two or three days ago, and I asked my officers to look up the deed of agreement between ourselves and the city of Ottawa in regard to Major Hill park so as to make sure of the ..unclitions under which we held that park. I believe there is an old deed between the city of Ottawa and the government in regard to the park. At any rate, we have placed in the estimates an item of $139 for additional arc lights in that park.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand the deed, I do not think the city of Ottawa will dispute that they are bound to light the park-I never understood them to dispute that point-but what they wanted was to have a plan showing where the lights should be placed. That was the condition of things when we left office and I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman has taken the matter up because the hotel will be ready early in May and we will be deprived of a great deal of the advantage it will be to the city if the park is not. lighted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What does the government intend to do with the grounds which

were expropriated on Sussex street to form the site of the new departmental buildings? There has been quite an agitation in favour of leaving this space vacant so as to round off the parliament grounds and make it a sort of a park. Does the minister intend to erect the departmental buildings on this vacant place or is he expropriating land elsewhere for that purpose?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The appropriation is the annual one for the care of the parliament grounds. I stated the other day in the House that the government had not yet come to any conclusion as to the use to be made of that space on Sussex street acquired by the late government, nor has it come to any conclusion as to the plans for erecting a departmental building. A Committee of the Privy Council has been named to give the matter careful and prompt attention, but it has been utterly impossible during the progress of the session for that committee to give such a large subject the attention it requires. We will proceed in the matter as soon as possible. The late government acquired that site on Sussex street several years ago, and yet, so far as we have been able to discover, it had not formulated any plan for erecting buildings there. If the hon. gentleman wishes to know what I think myself, I may say that it has occurred to me that we might utilize that space which has been so long idle, and in which we have made such a large investment, for the erection of a justice building, which would accommodate the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Railway Commission, the Exchequer Court, and all other branches jn connection with the administration of justice. There was a plan prepared by Mr. Maxwell, architect of Montreal, for -a very handsome Justice Department building on that space on Sussex street, and I think it might be properly erected there, leaving large open spaces around which would give a park effect. It is out of the question to hope that we could put all the departmental buildings that will be required on that long narrow strip of land, and it puzzles me to know how such a thing could ever have been contemplated. We are considering the acquisition of other lands where a departmental building might suitably be erected.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of
your honourable House in the Chamber of
the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal assent to the following Bill:
An Act to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['All right.']
Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the present government assumed office, we found that we were paying a very large amount as rental for accommodation in the different parts of the city of Ottawa. The amount has increased greatly within the last five or six years, and more space is wanted. At present. I believe, there is not one department in Ottawa that is adequately accommodated, and every day requisitions are made to the department for further accommodation. The departments are broken up one part of a department being in one building and another in another, so that communication between the segregated branches of the department becomes inconvenient and costly. It seems to be absolutely necessary for us to settle now definitely what space we shall require for the erection of departmental buildings, and to begin that -erection without -delay, so as to avoid as far as possible incurring new liabilities for rental, although I do not imagine that it will be possible even if we -begin building next summer, to continue mucjh longer without leasing additional space for the accommodation of the departments. This work the government will undertake as soon as it has been relieved of its sessional duties.'
Mr. jLEMIEUX. The hon. gentleman has mentioned some eastern ground. Will he please state where it is located?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The ground around the three main buildings here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely my hon. friend does not anticipate such vandalism. I am quite sure the public will be aroused if it learns that he intends to take any of that space for the erection of new buildings. We have gone, I think, to the very limit by the additions which have been made to the House oi Commons and to the Eastern Block. If my hon. friend has any feeling for the artistic and architectural beauty of the parliament buildings, he surely will not encroach further on the remaining land.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend misunderstood me. There is no thought of adding

to the present buildings except some addition to the Library. The idea is to acquire land to the east of the present buildings on which to erect new buildings.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would that be on Wellington street?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In that direction. I cannot speak positively, because nothing has been decided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman contemplate erecting a building on Sussex street for the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice and the Railway Commission, might not the space at present occupied by the Supreme Court building be utilized for the proposed extension?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Undoubtedly.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that the long-distance telephone at present in the basement is very inconveniently placed for the use of members. If there is any way by which the minister can have it placed on this floor, near the Chamber, it would be a matter of great convenience, I am sure, to every hon. member of the House. I would be much pleased if he would immediately direct some of his officers to look into the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will attend to this request. I .may say that as soon as we are free I intend taking up the question of the installation of telephones generally for government purposes. We pay from $20,000 to .$23,000 >ifor telephone service. It has been suggested to me by several who have some knowledge on these matters that our whole telephone system needs to be reorganized in the interest of both comfort and economy.


Wilfrid Laurier: What does my hon. friend mean by saying ' when we are free?' Is he not free now?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend surely knows what I mean. It is extremely difficult during the sittings of the House to attend to the matters that have been referred to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the fact that there are so many telephone connections with the parliament buildings and the public offices generally, would it not be well for the hon. gentleman to have prepared a special telephone directory covering the several departments and the House of Commons?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that it is in that direction that we can very much improve, because the present telephone directory seems to be very correct. I have been told, however, that we might have one, two, or three exchanges-for instance, one in each block by which means com-Mr. MONK.
munication would be much easier and more prompt, and there would also be a great saving of public money.


Mr. CRUISE.: I would like to ask if it is the intention of the government to build a customs house next summer at the town of Dauphin, in Manitoba?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot answer that question off-hand. I do not think it is the intention of the government to proceed with that construction this year; but the supplementary estimates are not yet completed. If my hon. friend can give me a special reason for that construction, we will consider it.


Robert Cruise: I would like to take this matter up with my hon. friend at some time. It is very important that there should be a customs house built there in the near future, and it is not necessary to buy any land for the purpose, as the new building could be erected on the ground on which the post office is now built. At present the post office is in an upper room, and it is not very convenient.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the maintenance of the parliament grounds done by contract?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, it is done by day work, I believe, as in the past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men are employed for that work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: About 25.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When were the men appointed whose names figure on that list?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not on this list the date of appointment of each of the men, but I am under the impression that there aTe men who have been employed for quite a long time. Most of them are employed during the summer. I do not think there have been any appointments lately. I can give the names to my hon. friend, but I have not the date of appointment. _ There has been no appointments lately in this branch of the Public Works that I am aware of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the minister take care that competent elevator men are selected? Are they required to undergo an examination as to their ability to run an elevator safely, or are they appointed merely on the recommendation of the members for the city?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are _ not appointed merely on the recommendation of the members for Ottawa, and they are chosen only after they have undergone careful examination by the heads of the branch. As a rule these employees are very competent and capable men.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who examines them?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have a superintendent, and I think his name is Mr. Shearer. The elevator men, I may say, are fully tested. Although we may make mistakes sometimes, I have had no complaints at all about these employees except that one of them was past the age when a man could carefully handle an elevator. That case will be investigated.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Those of us who come from distant parts of the Dominion and are immured on the third floor have to use the elevators very frequently, and especially on Saturday." Referring more particularly to the elevator which is used by the public who go to the galleries, the man in charge, and who has been there since Christmas, is not only incompetent to discharge that duty, but he lacks the necessary intelligence which every elevator man should have. This elevator is probably used three times as much as any other elevator in the building, and I would suggest that this man be removed and stationed somewhere else. I think those in charge of elevators should be bright and intelligent young men, who, in addition to a knowledge as to how to run an elevator, should possess some additional features of intelligence that would render them useful servants. Another complaint I would make is that on Saturday, when the elevator is most required, the man goes away. I would ask the Minister to give instructions not only to place a proper man in charge of this elevator, but that it shall be kept running on occasions like Saturday when it is so much in demand by members from a distance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make a note of the remarks of any hon. friend, and we will try and see that the difficulties of which he complains are remedied. Of course we cannot expect to have perfect men in charge of elevators.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question is a more serious one than the hon. minister seems to think. Elevator men are usually subject to very severe examination because the lives of the passengers who use the elevators are in their keeping. In all large cities a rigid examination is required by the civic authorities. In the city of Montreal no man is appointed to take charge of an elevator without having passed a very severe test, I would call the minister's attention also to the fact that the elevator men smoke whilst on duty. This is objectionable to members of the House and also for the ladies who use these elevators. On one or two elevators which I have occasion to use daily the elevator, men may be seen smoking vigorously, and the smoke they puff is quite offensive. That is not at all respectful to members, and these men should be compelled to discontinue the
practice. I have also noticed other officials, probably recent appointees, indulging in smoking in the lobbies. You would not see that in any great building owned by a corporation or controlled by a legislature. You never see elevator men, watchmen, and any officials smoking and puffing their smoke as do these men in this building.
Now, as we are talking about elevators, might I mention that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) dismissed the elevator man in the eastern block soon after he .took office. The man is a good officer, works faithfully, from early morning till late in the evening. But he was seen speaking with some of the ex-Cabinet ministers, and, of course, was spotted at once by the spies, and his head was cut off by the guillotine erected by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) on Parliament hill. This man is the father of thirteen children-it seemed to be an unlucky number in his case. But, fortunately, this country has as Prime Minister, a man with a big heart, He'found the head in the basket, replaced it on the shoulders of the poor elevator man-for this purpose acting over the head of the lord high executioner -and reinstated to his old post, the father of thirteen children. In the name of the country, and especially on behalf of those who have large families, I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) for his kindly act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister has evidently had previous notice of the incompetency of one of the elevator men, and, apparently, the one to which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) referred. There was no justification for the appointment of such a man to the place he holds, and I submit to the minister (Mr. Monk) that he had no right to take time to consider the matter of the man's dismissal. He ought never to have been appointed, and he ought to be dismissed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, Halifax) is not so generous, apparently, as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). The only report I had about this man was that he is afflicted with old age. I am very cruel, perhaps, but I do not dismiss men because of their age alone. The matter was mentioned to me by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer) who thought that this man was too old to be able to handle the crowds that use that elevator. I thought that deserved investigation. If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, Halifax) thinks the man is so thoroughly incompetent that he must be dismissed at once, I will take that into consideration; but I do not think that on the strength of a passing remark I should have dismissed him at once. But I will look into the matter. As regards the state of affairs reported here by my hon. friend about dismissals, I can only say that it is absolutely with-

cut foundation. Notices were sent out to some employees in the Public Works Department. Representations were made to me and I at once appointed an investigator, one who seemed to me a mir minded man, and to that investigator every man was entitled to go and explain his case, whether he had received notice or not. The man to whom my hon. friend referred came before this investigator, and it was found that there was no ground for removing him. There are a number of other similar cases. The investigation is going on, and nobody has been dismissed without investigation. Every man in my department has an opportunity of laying his case before the investigator. Some of them are assisted by counsel, as I believe my hon. friend is aware. That is very different from what happened at the last change of government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) refer to Mr. Chauvin's investigation?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is the one who investigates these cases in Ottawa? Now, has my hon. friend a list of the day labourers who are appearing before Mr. Chauvin? In other words, has he the black list?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The list of those charged with infraction of the rules of the department was placed in the hands of the investigator, and the parties were invited to go to him and explain the accusations made against them by members of parliament and others.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Are parties permitted to be represented by counsel?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The man appointed by the Department of Railways and Canals in the eastern part of Nova Scotia to conduct these dismissals is a partisan so violent that I have no hesitation in saying, on the responsibility of my position, that he is not the man to hear or adjudicate on any matter involving questions of party politics. He will not permit counsel, nor^ will he permit the party to ask a question of the witness, unless that question is first submitted to him; and if he does not approve of it, he will not put it. I am glad to know that in the Public Works Department methods different from those of the notorious Judge Jeffreys are followed in these investigations. I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) to the fact that the Jeffreys methods ought not to be encouraged or permitted in the Railway Department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Robert Laird Borden: I have not had my attention directed to any such matter. I shall inquire into it. I am afraid the commissioner referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) must have been misled by the example of the late Insurance Commission.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: He should not follow a wrong precedent.


Robert Laird Borden: No. But I did not hear my hon. friend's voice raised against the action of that commission. I am glad that we discern in him the symptoms of a newly-awakened conscience.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I do not wish to get into a general discussion. But I think that when I made such a statement as I have just made, the Prime Minister of this country should not rely upon so old-fashioned a method of reply as the tu quoque argument. I think he has pretty thoroughly exhausted that form of reply. It must surely seem clear to him that the course taken by the Public Works Department, of which we have the assurance of the minister (Mr. Monk), is the one to be followed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is; and I have said that I will inquire into the matter the hon. gentleman mentions. At the same time, it is proper to call attention to the fact that, under a commission of very wide-reaching powers issued by the late administration, precisely these methods were adopted.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Not into an inquiry into partisanship.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a distinction without a difference. However, apart from that, I agree that every person who is under investigation should have an opportunity of being represented by counsel and of cross-examining witnesses if he desires to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the right hon. gentleman say, if a case is not proven, who should pay the costs? The poor day labourer?


Robert Laird Borden: That is a question upon which I would not like to pronounce an opinion at the moment; I do not know whether there is any precedent in regard to that. It is, however, a fair matter for consideration.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister what disposition he will make in cases where a man is declared to be innocent. Will he restore him to his position again? I have had some cases in the Marine and Fisheries Department, in my constituency, where lighthouse keepers have been turned out of office

without trial. In one case the minister has agreed to give a trial; he informs me that the man has protested that he is not guilty of any partisanship, and he will give him a trial. There is not much use of our going through the expense of a trial unless it amounts to something afterwards.
I would like to have the Prime Minister's view of a case in which nothing whatever has been proven against the official, and he has been dismissed after trial.


Robert Laird Borden: No case of that kind has been brought to my attention. If any such case shall arise, it will be a matter, in the first place, for the head of the department. Eventually it might have to be considered by the government.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Last week I was present at two investigations being held by the Commissioner of the Railway Department. In both those instances Mr. Lane told the gentlemen that they con'd be represented by counsel if they wished.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am quite prepared to believe that. I know Mr. Lane, who is an old schoolfellow of mine, and 1 would expect him to do that. The gentleman whom I referred to is Mr. Duchemin, and I did not expect him to do it, from what I knew before; and I am not surprised to learn that when he did undertake to do it, the commissioner said he didn't do it. Therefore, I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the case.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would not like to lay down the principle that an investigation is to be granted in all cases, far from it.
I was induced to do that here in Ottawa because there was so great a number of complaints. It was alleged that the employees of my department had been turned into a regular political organization, of which I have the proof. I stated on previous occasions that it is extremely unfair and cruel for candidates to insist that public employees, poor day-labourers, men who would not meddle in politics, men who drive a team or who are engaged in a similar humble occupation, should necessarily attend committee meetings, go out canvassing, and represent the candidate at the polls. These things are all forbidden, and I say that any candidate who asks a public employee to do that is committing a great injustice, because he knows what the consequences are. But where the minister is perfectly satisfied that these practices have been resorted to, and that an employee has infringed the rule, violated the regulations and laws, is the government to investigate simplv because the employee asks it to investigate, although the minister is perfectly satisfied without an investigation? That would involve the country in immense expense, 103	REVISED
without any utility whatever. Something must be left to the discretion of the head of the department. I had a case where a good employee was accused, and I thought I had convincing proof that he had been an active partisan and had violated the regulations. I explained the law to him, he was a good man with a family; he insisted that there was no proof whatever against him. I caused an investigation to be made-it must have cost $300 or $400, I suppose, when all the expenses have been paid, and there was evidence absolutely uncontradicted, that he had violated the regulations. That case is still pending before me. I do not admit, therefore, that in every case there must be an investigation. In Ottawa there were a very large number of men accused, and when I saw the number and knew that the accusations might or might not be well founded, as I could not investigate them myself, I named an investigator. I am satisfied that justice will be done.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: All these expressions of sympathy from the hon. minister are very good, but what we are concerned with now is to secure a fair investigation in all cases so that justice may be done. As far as the commissioners are concerned, I am afraid there is too much in what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has said. I am afraid that in some cases the partisanship of the commissioner gets the better of his judgment, and causes him to conduct investigations in a manner that would not be tolerated in any judicial inquiry. I could instance a case with which the commissioner to whom the hon. member for Pictou has referred had to do. He did not confine himself to the charges that were made against the person to be investigated, but he constituted his court a fishing commission. He goes around looking for evidence against others than those against whom charges are made; he tries to ascertain who constituted the executive committees and controlled the party organization in certain places. He inquires who are the men that had contributed towards legitimate election expenses and furnished teams, &c. He is an inquisitor, and goes outside the functions of a court. I saw a copy of the evidence in a certain case that was taken before the commissioner referred to by the member for Pictou, and I have described the nature of the investigation he was conducting in that ease. He was supposed to investigate a charge of offensive partisan-shin against a man whose position somebody else wanted, and he went on with an inquiry into the conduct of the whole campaign in that locality. I think that, in addition to giving the accused an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. it is only right that these commis-EDITION

sioners should confine their inquiry to the specific charges made. Surely any person who makes a charge of partisanship and tries to take the means of a man's livelihood away from him, though the latter is only exercising his Tight of citizenship, should be prepared to make his charge specific, and not go outside it.


Mr. McKENZIE.: There is one matter I have for some time wished to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, namely, his understanding of what is meant by an ' official '. It always occurred to me that a man who works with pick and shovel around these buildings, shovelling snow, or doing some menial work of that kind, can hardly be called an official. I notice that, in a discussion which took place on the 6th of December, the Prime Minister gave two reasons for his decision on this point. He gave two grounds, one was a section of the Civil Service Act of 1908; the other a resolution of this parliament. The section of the Civil Service Act which he read was:
No official, clerk or employee of the Civil Service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if under the laws governing the said election he has a right to vote. But no such officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with said election.
The resolution which the right hon. gentleman read was this:
That while it is desirable that every official in the employ of the government of Canada should enjoy perfect freedom of political opinion and the untrammelled exercise of his franchise in accord therewith, no official should be engaged or be permitted to engage in partisan work of any description in the election of a representative to the provincial or the Dominion legislature.
In the first place, he deals with those who come within the operation of the Civil Service Act, and who are not allowed to take any part in election campaigns, or otherwise interfere politically. The provisions of the Civil Service Act do not take in such men as I have mentioned-men working on the sections of the Intercolonial railway, doing ordinary day-work, and men who are handling freight in the freight sheds of the Intercolonial railway, or loading cars. Men of that kind are not covered by the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and they would not be subject to dismissal under that section. In the same way, the resolution dealing with officials certainly does not contemplate men who are working round the grounds here, shovelling snow, or running elevators.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does the hon. gentleman want us to understand that men doing this particular kind of work should be at liberty to take part in elections?


William Chisholm: 


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that every man who is earning $1.50 or $2 a day has a perfect right to do what he pleases, and that be should not be interfered with because he is politically one way or the other. I certainly say that it is degrading and bringing too low the idea of government supervision in this country to interfere with men in matters of this kind.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the interest of the public?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know that when a man cuts a drain so many inches wide and so many feet long and does a good day's work, or when a man shovels so much snow'and does it well, the public is particularly concerned as to what his mental outfit is politically. I do not think that it would interfere with the character of the snow shoveling or the water carrying capacity of the drain. The hon. member for Lincoln might have a different idea.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I learned my idea in Lincoln where the late government dismissed everybody without cause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not aware that the late government has ever dismissed a man from employment of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In Lincoln county they dismissed everybody.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not familiar with what has taken place elsewhere, but in the part of the country from which I come such a thing certainly has not happened. We have the Intercolonial railway from the Strait of Canso to Sydney, and I defy the hon. gentleman to name one man who was wonting at day's labour on that road who was dismissed by reason of his poliltics. The records of that stretch of road, which is the only part of the Intercolonial railway of which I can speak with knowledge, are before him, and he is at liberty to inquire into them. I am not, at all events, addressing any person in particular except the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister, and I say that the line of demarcation should be drawn somewhere. There should be some distinction between a head officer in a department who is getting a big salary and has a comfortable position, and the man who is doing small things. If he does his work well I think it beneath the head of any department to interfere in a case of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood the other day from the Minister of Public Works, that under no circumstances-he was very emphatic-had a man been dismissed without being given an investigation, if he claimed the privilege. That statement was published broadcast in the press and im-

326-t
mediately after I received a letter from an old friend of mine in the county of Gaspe, Mr. Geo. T. Harbour. Mr. Geo. T. Harbour is a good old Scotchman, a line old Presbyterian, and a most respectable man. He wrote the following letter:
Sandy Beach Centre,
January 23, 1912.
Hon. Rodolpbe Lemieux,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I have been dismissed from the position I held


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think I must remind the committee that the discussion has travelled a little far from the item under consideration. If it is the intention of the committee to go on with a general discussion upon dismissals, it is for the committee to so decide.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This will be the last name. We are getting- to the climax. I will read this letter and that will be all. It is in order to put my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works right. I want him to explain and justify himself, and I feel quite sure that he will be able to offer some explanation.
-held at the Deepwater wharf, and I just wish to tell yon that I took no part whatever in the September election, as I held a government appointment, and it is against the law to do so.
This is a good old Scotchman who has a deep reverence for the law. He says: It is against the law to do so and so and, therefore, 1 have taken no part in the election. I
I read in the papers that Mr. Monk says no one is dismissed except those who took an active part in the late elections, but he must have been misinformed in my case unless he calls being deputy returning officer taking a part. Will you be so kind as to state that 

fact to the Minister of Public Works

I am merely carrying out his wish:
-not that I expect to regain the position but simply to let him know that I was dismissed without cause.
With best wishes, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) GEO. T.. HARBOUR.
Here is a man who has taken no part whatsoever unless being a deputy returning officer and fulfilling a public duty is regarded as taking a part in politics. He was the representative of the Crown at the poll, not of the candidate, and he acted in the most honourable way. Then he was dismissed without any investigation. He is. a most respectable citizen, and I must warn my hon. friend that he is a Scotchman too and that there is a large number of Scotchmen in the country.
' Nemo me impune lacessit '-the hon. gentleman must remember that if he did an 103*
injustice to one Scotchman the whole Scotch community of Canada will resent it. I appeal to the many clans of Scotchmen in Canada to stand up in defence of George T. Harbour, who is a true and faithful descendant of the Highlands, and who. has been dismissed without cause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me ask the hon. gentleman if this wandering Scotchman ever stopped to contemplate the fact that he was paid by the government to work at something else than being deputy returning officer that day, and that if he had been performing the service for which he was paid he could not have acted as deputy returning officer in the election, I suppose, in the interest of the people who appointed him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is a very good lawyer; at least I was told so the other day by the Prime Minister that he was so good a lawyer that his cases are submitted to the Privy Council. I will have this case submitted to the Privy Council.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And his answer was the same as it is to my hon. friend that he had better talk common sense in this House.


William Chisholm: Now tliat the discussion has ranged to matters of this kind, I may mention that I have-the case of a French Acadian-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The committee asked me to rule that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


William Chisholm: I have only a word to say. If necessary I will move that the committee rise.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I want to say a word, Mr. Chairman, about your ruling and your attempt to interfere with and prevent debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It is well known


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Excuse me; I want to take exception to the ruling of the chairman and to his putting off debate. When we are voting Supply is the time, under every British precedent, when the rights of the public have to be ventilated by the representatives of the people. The chairman has applied a limitation to debate which I have never seen applied previously in this parliament. I want to object most strenuously to the rule being interpreted in the way in which the chairman has attempted to interpret it because

I intend to assert my rights as a representative of the people to discuss these questions.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has his recourse by appealing from the ruling of the Chairman of the committee.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am protesting against your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My duty is to see that the committee should follow the rules of the House. I have allowed the debate to wander from the subject to a large extent, but when I see that this irrelevant discussion is extending, and that it is likely to last for some time, my duty is to remind hon. gentlemen that the rule is not being followed.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I want you to understand that I am protesting against any such attitude on your part, and I intend to assert myself-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I will say what I please.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) should conduct himself in that way; he cannot say what he pleases.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: "I object to the Chairman limiting the rights of the representatives of the people here.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman surely knows that there are certain rules enacted for the governance of the House and its committee, and the Tule which is invoked by the Chairman is a very plain one. That rule is that the discussion must relate to the matter before the committee. The discussion has proceeded in a general way for some time, and I do not think the Chairman did any more than his duty in calling the attention of the committee to that fact, saying at the same time that if the committee desired that the discussion should be continued he would permit it to proceed, or otherwise he must enforce what is a very strict rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: Had my hon. friomd from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) been presenting something which was not in connection with the Department of Public Works it would be out of order, but we are now discussing the public works estimates, and anything which refers to that department is quite in order. The question is whether the minister who is now at the head of the department has or has not done something which ought to be discussed in parliament. Of course, undpr the present Act, it would not be in order to discuss dismissals from the Department of the Interior or from the Department of Mr. MACDONALD.
Marine and Fisheries, but certainly when these dismissals have occurred in the Department of Public Works the discussion is in order.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is a very fair statement of it, but the right hon. geu-tleman surely knows that we have been wandering over every department of the government.


William Chisholm: The matter to which I am about to refer comes under the Public Works Department. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) when discussing the dismissal of a public servant who was of that nationality, has spoken about the Scotch people being clannish. But I am now going to bring to the attention of the House the case of a French Acadian. I may say that in the province of Nova Scotia we have a large number of French Acadians, and better citizens in every respect we have not in this country, it is remarkable that the only French Acadian in the employ of the government on the dredges was dismissed by the present government without an hour's notice. He was dismissed within a very few days after the present government took office; he was harshly treated, he was given no notice that there was any accusation against him, and he was not allowed an opportunity to defend himself. When the Minister of Public Works tells the House that he did not dismiss any employee without charges being made and without an inquiry, the minister is labouring under a misapprehension. It is my opinion, after reading the papers, that in tins ease the minister was imposed upon and deceived. But, that is a very good reason why the minister should proceed very carefully in these matters, and not take the word of some person who may have a grudge against an official, without making due inquiries. In this case, the captain of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' was dismissed without any explanation, or without any charge having been made against him, and so when he seeks employment elsewhere naturally the first question asked him is, where was he last employed, and if it is ascertained that he was dismissed without the reason therefor being assigned, then he might be suspected of incompetency, or dishonesty. It was in order to vindicate this man to some extent that I moved for the papers, for of course I had no expectation that he would be reinstated or that justice would be done him by this government. I believe that the result of making the facts public will demonstrate that there is no stain on the reputation of Captain Decoste. Let us see the evidence on which this man was dismissed. There is

here a letter from Thomas Gallant, who was Conservative candidate in Inverness last election, and the letter was written on October 14, very shortly after the present government came to power. In that letter Mr. Gallant says:
I would beg leave to recommend that Captain Peter Decoste of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' be dismissed and Captain Dan Gillis of Port Hawkesbury succeed him. Captain Gillis is a most capable officer. He was dismissed in 1896 for absolutely no reason but that he favoured the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish)'. Hon. gentlemen say:	' hear, hear ' but I will
have something to say about that later on. The letter continues:
I think I can safely say that all the members from the Island of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia are thoroughly in accord with this proposition.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
Now, if it were true that Captain Gillis was dismissed in 1896 for no other reason than that he favoured the Conservative party, it would be a very high handed act on the part of the Liberals and possibly Captain Gillis should be reinstated. But the record of Captain Gillis must have been in the department and there is nothing here to show that the Minister of Public Works examined that record to find out whether the reason given for the dismissal of Captain Gillis in 1896 was the right reason. As a fact, the record will show that that was not the reason why Captain Gillis was dismissed, and, as to the statement in the letter that all the members of the Island of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia are in favour of Captain Decoste's dismissal, it is only necessary to point out that all these members are Liberals, and it is not likely they would ask for the dismissal of one of their own friends and the reinstatement of a man who was said to have been dismissed solely because he was a Conservative.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not these Liberal members ask for the dismissal of their own political friend if it was in the public interest?


William Chisholm: Your mind is too acute for me, I cannot follow you. I can say it is not true that a single one of the members from the Island of Cape Breton or the eastern part of Nova Scotia asked for the dismissal of Captain Decoste. I may say in justice to Mr. Gallant that probably what he really meant was that the defeated Conservative candidates at the last election and not the members from the Island of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia wanted to have this gentleman dismissed, and the other statement was probably an error in typewriting. I do not think that Mr. Gallant intended! to misstate the facts because 1 know him to be a thoroughly respectable gentleman and one who would not deliberately mislead the Minister of Public Works or any one else. But I think he was used as a tool in this case., that he was imposed upon, that he was not seized of the actual facts before writing the letter. And there are other letters on the record which sustains this assumption or belief on my part. There is a letter from one William Macdonald, president of the Pic-tou Conservative Club, who says:
As far as I know, the whole of eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton insists on this appointment.
That is, the appointment of Captain Gillis. It is evident that there is some fine Italian hand behind the attempt to get Captain Peter DeCoste out of his position. How is William Macdonald in a position to speak for the whole of eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton? But to show how confident these men were of being able to secure anything and everything they wanted from this government in the way of beheading unfortunate Grits, he winds up his letter by saying:
Kindly communicate your decision to me as soon as possible, as Captain Gillis is at present here.
They could not wait for an investigation; there was no suggestion that an inquiry should be made. All that these men wanted was the place for Captain Gillis, and they felt sure that the minister would fall into the snare and do what was asked without an inquiry. Next I find a letter from J. A. Gillis, who was the Conservative candidate in Richmond county. I mention this tof remove any idea that Thos. Gallant tried to deceive the department. Mr. Gillis says:
I beg leave to recommend the dismissal of Captain Peter Decoste of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' and the appointment in his place of Captain Daniel Gillis of Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton, at present of Piotou, Nova Scotia, Captain Gillis is an exceptionally competent man and was dismissed without cause in 18-9S to make way for Decoste.
What is the first tiling that the minister should have done when he received that letter? Should he not have inquired whether it was really the case that Captain Gillis had been dismissed without cause in 1896? T cannot find any evidence to justify that statement. You will also observe that there is not a single scintilla of evidence to show that Captain Decoste wjas a partisan, or was in any way offensive to the community.
Air. DAVIDSON-Why was Captain Gillis dismissed?


William Chisholm: The records of the department are there, and the minister will be prepared to explain that, I presume.


Mr. DAVIDSON.: You said that the statement made by Mr. Gallant that- this man *was dismissed without cause was incorrect.


William Chisholm: I made the statement that the minister should have 'looked up the records and ascertained whether that statement was correct or not. He had no right to assume such an alleged fact. I will go further to satisfy my hon. friend, and will say that Captain Gillis was not dismissed because of offensive partisanship. He was continued by the late Minister of Public Works as an employee on one of the government dredges up to the day of the election; after the day of the election, and up to the time he took the place of Captain Peter Decoste. I would be sorry to say anything against Captain Gillis. I think he is a pretty good Liberal, 'but I hope that will not hurt him, and that the minister will not dismiss him from the service on that account.	He was dismissed for other reasons.	I think the
member for Cumberland county made some charges against him, but they were not charges of offensive political partisanship. I do not want to go into that, because I do not want to say anything against Captain Gillis. But I do blame the Minister of Public Works for not having ascertained whether the charge made in these letters which I have read, was correct or not, that Captain Gillis had been dismissed for political partisanship; and I blame him for dismissing Captain Decoste without any accusation having been made against him. He should at least have insisted that J. A. Gillis, Thomas Gallant and William Macdonald and the others disclosed and undisclosed or some of them should have made a charge that Peter Decoste was guilty of offensive partisanship and on that account was not entitled to remain in charge of the dredge 'Cape Breton.' All through this correspondence you will not find one hint or suggestion that Captain Decoste was an offensive partisan, or that he had done any wrong, according to the standard by which the minister has been judging officials since he came into office. I-find a letter here from John McCormick, who also was a defeated Conservative candidate in North-Cape Breton, as follows: I
I beg to recommend the dismissal of Captain Decoste of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' and the appointment in his place of Captain Daniel Gillis of Port Hawkesbury Cape Breton, who 'in 1896 was dismissed without, cause to make way for said Decoste.


Avard Longley Davidson: How does he know that Captain Gillis was dismissed without cause? There is no doubt that he was sincere in the matter, but why did the minister act on this statement? Why did he not verify the facts for himself? You will observe that in this letter there is no hint or suggestion that Captain Decoste is a partisan. There is a similar letter from J. W. Maddin, the late representative for Cape Breton South, who goes one better. He says:
_ Captain Gillis is a man of great experience in the dredging business, and was dismissed in 1896 to make room for Decoste.
If that is so, it would be only right that Captain Gillis should be reinstated. Is it so, however? Where is the evidence of it from tlie record or otherwise? But if we go a little further, we find Finlay Macdonald, president of the county of Cape Breton Liberal-Conservative Association saying:
Captain Gillis is a most competent man against whom I believe no complaint ivas ever made. Captain Decoste's record you will he able to get from your officials.
Is this correct? Was there no complaint ever made against Captain Gillis? Here is another reason why the minister should have asked these men to make their charge against Captain Decoste, unless there was something in his record which satisfied him that Captain Decoste should have been dismissed. But I have a copy of all the correspondence relating to this dismissal, and I cannot find a single word against his record. Then, we have a letter from the Liberal-Conservative Association of Inverness county. In that letter it is said that Captain Decoste is a man of no experience whatever.' That is ridiculous. He has had experience under the late administration from the time he took the place until he was dismissed. His record was good, excellent,. But behind that he had the experience of a quarter of a century as a navigator and had the highest certificates. How was this dismissal brought about? The only information he had of it was in a telegram dated October 26, 1911, from the assistant engineer to Mr. Graham, the superintendent of dredging as follows:
Kindly arrange to have Captain Gillis of Port Hawkesbury replace Captain Decoste of dredge 'Cape Breton ' giving him all necessary instructions regarding his work.
Then Mr. Graham writes to the assistant engineer under date of October 27, 1911:
I am to-day in receipt of the following message from Mr. A. K. Dufresne, assistant chief engineer, Department of Public Works, Ottawa:-' Kindly arrange to have Captain Daniel Gillis of Port Hawkesbury replace Captain Decoste of dredge Cape Breton, giv-

mg him all necessary instructions regarding liis work/ The above telegram is self explanatory and I have instructed Captain Gillis to report at my office to-morrow morning in connection with the same. When Captain Gillis arrives at the dredge I will feel obliged of you will give him any information you can in connection with the work being performed at St. Ann's, and also as to the operation and maintenance of the dredge. On his arrival on board the dredge, Captain Gillis will take charge of the plant.
Evidently Mr. Graham felt that Captain Gillis was not competent to take charge of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' without first having received instructions from Captain Decoste-without first being schooled in the work to be done. Now, you will observe that immediately after this government came into power, or a very few days afterwards, the minister, without any investigation whatever, and without any notice to Captain Decoste, sends a telegram to Mr. Graham, the superintend. ent of dredging, and asks for the dismissal of this man, Captain Decoste. Tire mails in drae course would: be too slow; the lightning rapidity of the wires- had to be used. That 'Certainly wias high-handed dealing and gross injustice towards Captain Decoste. But I desire to say, in all justice and fairness to the minister, that I believe he was imposed upon. Possibly he read the letters, or somebody else read them for him, and then he assumed that there was a charge of partisanship against Captain Decoste.
He thought that these men who had written these letters would not ask for a dismissal on any flimsy charges, or without having some justification for such action, and he took it for granted, perhaps, that Captain Decoste was an offensive partisan, or that these letters contained an accusation of offensive partisanship. But the correspondence does not show any charge whatever against Captain Decoste. The whole thing is simply this: it was desired to make a place for Captain Gillis, and, therefore, Captain Decoste was removed. I would ask the minister whether in, justice to Captain Decoste, and in justice to himself, he will not insist upon charges being made against Captain Decoste first, that then tihe charges diould be communicated by the government to the accused, and that he be given an opportunity of exonerating himself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would ask the minister to inquire into the charges upon which Captain Gillis was dismissed. I am informed that he was dismissed not for political partisanship, but because of insubordination, or trouble of that kind, and I think the records will bear that out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must take the liberty of telling my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr,
Chisholm) that in my opinion he is making a great to do about nothing. I can assure him there will be no investigation in the case of Captain Decoste; we are well rid of him. He was quite unfit for the work of commander of that dredge, and in any event he would not have been retained in command any longer. The proofs of Captain Decoste's unfitness are in the department.


William Chisholm: If there are charges against him, why have those charges not been brought down?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were complaints against Captain Decoste.


William Chisholm: We have no record of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a record in the department where my hon. friend can see them. There are quite a number of reports and my superintendent of dredging told me that Captain Decoste was not a satisfactory man. I have no doubt whatever that he was an unsuitable man to command that dredge, and I would not have maintained him there anyway. As to Captain Gillis we will see. I have never pretended that there would be an investigation in all cases where charges were made against officials. What I stated the other day, and what I repeat to-day, is that in Ottawa no dismissal would be effective without the man accused having an opportunity of going before the investigator. Some notices of dismissal had been sent out, but the general order regarding inquiries was given, and Mr. Cliauvin was appointed to investigate every case without exception. I do not by any means intend to apply that rule everywhere. Where there is ample proof before the minister that the employee has transgressed, he will be dismissed without any unnecessary investigation. In Ottawa the circumstances were different. The charges covered over 100 cases, and I thought it was better to have a general investigation. And I was right in saying that in Ottawa no employee has been dismissed without an investigation of the charges against him; and in every ease where the investigator reports to me-some reports have already been presented but I have not yet had time to look into them-that the charge is unfounded, justice will be done, whatever notice the accused man may have received. Replying to my hon. friend from Cape Breton I would say that every man employed in my department has had clear intimation, whether he is temporarily or permanently employed, that he is not to become an offensive partisan. Violations of this notice will be treated in the same way without any exception whatever. Of course the hardship is much greater where the

person concerned is a permanent employee, but to make a distinction which my hon. friend invites me to make would be extremely unwise. The law is there, and the regulation is in force, that no man employed and paid by the public can meddle in politics whether his employment be of a permanent character or not, and I intend to adhere to that rule in my department as strictly as possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is Mr. Chauvin paid a per diem allowance of $15 or is he paid so much per case?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All the investigators are paid the same per diem rate of $15.


John Howard Sinclair: How many commissioners are engaged in investigating charges against officials? Can the minister give their names?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not the names of all of them. If my hon. friend will move for that information it will be supplied to him.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I want to call the minister's attention, but not in any critical spirit at all, to the desirability of a public building for the town of Swift Current, and I trust that he will take the claims of that (dace into his consideration when he comes to prepare his supplementary estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All the facts in regard to Swift Current were placed before me yesterday by a delegation, and they are now being considered by the officers of the department who have charge of the preparation of the suDplementary estimates.
Mr. KNOW'LES. I thank the minister for giving me that information, but I still deem it urgent and necessary to press upon him as strongly as I can the necessity for the construction of this building. The town of Swift Current has grown faster, proportionately, than any other town in Saskatchewan. It is a very important centre for the reason that no other town of any consequence is located within anything like reasonable distance of it. It is 111 miles from Moosejaw, and 89 or 90 miles from Maple Creek, and the territory to which it ministers extends southward for probably 100 miles, and northward for 50 miles. The town is going to be an important railway centre. The main line of the Canadian Pacific railway passes through the place, and construction of two other lines, one to run in a southeasterly, and the other, in a northwesterly direction, has been commenced. The amount of business that is transacted in the federal offices in Swift Current indicates the importance of the town. In this connection let me read a letter I have received from the accountant of the Post Office Department dated Ottawa February 2, 1912:


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Dear Sir,-Replying to yours of the 1st instant addressed to the secretary of the department, I beg to inform you that the revenue of the Swift Current, Saskatchewan, office for the calendar year ended 31st December 1911 was $11,912.91.
Yours truly,


W. J. GLOVER,
[Stage Direction]
Accountant.
I want to read a similar letter from the Department of Inland Revenue showing the revenue of that department at Swift Current:
Department of Inland Revenue,
,	Ottawa, February 2, 1912.
Dear Sir,-Replying to yours of the 31st ultimo, I beg to inform you that the moment of duty collected during the fiscal year ending the 31st March 1911 at Swift Current was $9,268.01.
I regret that I cannot give you the figures for the calendar year as the books of the department only indicate the amount collected during the fiscal year.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
That is a good criterion. Now, let me read for the information of the minister a similar communication from the Department of the Interior, and, with all due respect, I dc not think my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has this information:
Department of the Interior,
Canada.
Ottawa, 5th February, ]912. Statement of Revenue of the Dominion Lands Office, Swift Current, for the calendar year 1911, including payments made direct to head office.
Dominion Lands Revenue.
Total.
Agency	$216,238	26Head office	
14,214	10
[Stage Direction]
School Lands Revenue.
Agency	$1,080	34
[Stage Direction]
 1,080 34
[Stage Direction]
Then I have the following from the Department of Customs, showing the revenue at Swift Current through that department: Department of Customs,
Ottawa, 5th February, 1912. W. E. Knowles, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 31st ultimo, I have the honour to advise you that the customs revenue at Swift Current, during the calendar year 1911, was $30,362.85.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN McDOUGALD, Commissioner of Customs.
So the minister will see that there was a total revenue of well over $300,000 at Swift Current in the last year. I submit that the minister might well use that town very generously. If he will contemplate the enor-

mous revenue which is received by the government through this town, he must see that that puts the town in a different class from ordinary towns In the different parts of Canada. There are the two facts -a revenue of over $300,000 and nothing whatever in the shape of a public building. There is great need of a public building. The post office service suffers for lack of it and is very poor there at the present time. The Postmaster General is paying a large rent for accommodation there, also the Cugr toms and Interior Departments. It would be economical to put up a public building; it would be just to put up a public building, especially in view of the enormous revenue which comes to the treasury of this government from that centre.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the town give us a site?


William Erskine Knowles: I have not heard that point discussed. As a representative of the people I must say that 1 do not see why the town should be asked to give a site. The people of that town are paying up to the hilt in the way of customs and one thing and another, the town and district as I have shown, paying over $300,000. I should think that this is one of the towns in whose case the government would not be justified in insisting upon a site.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Many towns give us a site.


William Erskine Knowles: But very few of them can present so good a case as that which I have been able to make to-day. I doubt if he can show any other town yielding a revenue of over $300,000 and without anything in the way of a public building. The site need not cost a great deal. At the same time, I doubt if the town will give it. I have not consulted my constituents; but I would not recommend them to furnish a site when the town affords so large a revenue. I hope the minister will decide to buy a site; he could probably get it for $40,000. And I hope he will not think the cost of the site too much. A large sum besides this could be put into a public building and still keep within lines of economy. He could probably put up a building for $125,000 that would meet the present requirements of the town and reasonably anticipate the growth which is sure to take place there. I would ask the hon. minister to give me the assurance this afternoon that he wilt give the matter consideration with a view to providing means for a public building, not next session but this session, because the need is imperative and very urgent.


David Henderson: I think this is only another i'iustration of the maladministra tion or lack of proper administration during the regime of the Liberal party.


William Erskine Knowles: How so?


David Henderson: Here, according to the hon. gentleman is a most urgent case He pointed out the large revenue derived from Swift Current. But while these large revenues have been coming into the treasury for years and years past the government of which he was a strong supporter paid no attention to his request and left the town without proper accommodation for its business. I am surprised that the [DOT]hon. gentleman should make such am exhibition of the incompetence and neglect of the administration of which he was an ardent supporter. Had the place been represented by an opponent of the government, I should not have expected, under the rules laid down by the previous government it would pay much attention to his request. But there would be a candidate who would be responsible for bringing the claims of that town to the attention of the govereraemit. But this is only another illustration of the lack of interest of the late government in many parts of the country.


Mr KNOWLES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) is entirely in the dark. His assertion that this revenue has^ been received ' for years1 and years ' is without foundation. The Customs Office in Swift Current the Dominion Lands Office, and the Inland Revenue Office there are not two years old. If the hon. gentleman would come west he would understand that the conditions that prevail in my riding, have not existed ' for years and years ' to use his own beautiful expression. But the fact is that, had our Conservative friends in the last parliament not adopted that remarkably stupid 'System which they did adopt of obstructing all His Majesty's estimates, iit is probable the late government would have provided for the case. Prior to that, there was no great urgency and immediate need such as now exists. Perhaps the hon. member will take my word for it that he does not understand the condition. I presume that he knows something about Ontario that he thinks highly of it, and is highly thought of in that province. But he is absolutely at sea when he attempts to discuss the situation in a west-<>rn town. And I am sorry that he, so prominent a supporter of the government, should, in this indirect way, thiow cold water on my request for favourable consideration of this matter on the part of the government.


David Henderson: I am surprised, indeed, at what tlie lion, gentleman (Mr. Knowles) says, that the town of Swift Current is only two years old.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say that.


David Henderson: Well, that the town was of no importance until two years ago- that is what I infer from what he says.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. gentleman infers too much.


David Henderson: Then, I do not know what he did say. I remember going through that country twenty years ago, and I am pretty sure there was a place called Swift Current then.


William Erskine Knowles: The Tories were in power then; why did not they put up a public building?


David Henderson: It had not a revenue of $300,000 at that time. But it was growing and has grown very rapidly. The * current ' has been ' swift ' for the last two years, yet the government of which the hon. gentleman was such a swift supporter did not do anything to help the town to accelerate its motion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) says that we who were of the opposition of the day were responsible because we obstructed the estimates. Well, I do not know that the late government's majority ever came so low that any obstruction that we could offer would prevent them from putting an item through if they desired it. We criticised the estimates-very true. But I have no recollection of an item respecting Swift Current being criticised. The hon. gentleman has not told us that he had an item in the estimates for Swift Current. The probability is there -was no such item. So, the hon. gentleman has no right to find fault with the government for not giving attention to this important place. It is only an illustration, as I 'have said, of how the former government, when they thought they had a constituency absolutely certain to return a supporter, failed to give it attention. I am not opposing this estimate. The Minister of Public Works tells us that a deputation waited on him no later than yesterday and had presented the needs and demands of Swift Current more forcibly, if possible, than the hon. gentleman has presented them.
It was not necessary for the hon. gentleman to come forward at this time and repeat what- had been so well stated by the deputation, because the minister has all the facts, and probably the minister will listen to the deputation, and the hon. gentleman will find to his surprise that there will be a public building there-I will not say of the dimensions he speaks of. But is was a matter of curiosity to me why the hon. gentleman rose at all, when he knew that the government had .been already provided with the information, and that everything was going along smoothly. Perhaps he wanted to make a little cheap political capital by causing the people out there to think that the very forcible speech which he delivered this afternoon in support of a public building in Swift Current was the reason for its erection. I


David Henderson: hope the hon. gentleman will succeed in getting His building, proportionate to the size of the important town to which he refers.


William Erskine Knowles: We all well remember that when the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), was in opposition, he had a hardy annual request to the government then in power for something for his riding.


David Henderson: And I never got it.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend is not finding fault with me because 1 haven't got it, but because I asked for it. Great as is my respec-t for that hon. gentleman, when I think well to ask for a public building I will ask for it, and I will keep on asking, and he can make Lis little speech as often as lie likes. It is a matter of absolute indifference to me. But my hon. friend knows nothing about the circumstances. Let me tell him that the town of Swift Current, although it did not give me a majority in 1908, in 1911 it gave me a majority of 80. I do not think the people will find that I am neglecting their interests. No matter what deputations may come down bare, I have my duty to discharge to my constituents.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not understand the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to throw any cold water on this -request.


David Henderson: Not at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But he was -endeavouring to point out the real reason why the town of Swift Current was put off so long in getting this request. I have in my department a number of public buildings that are either being terminated or will have to be paid for, whose erection had been decided upon by the late government, but where one-tenth of the necessity did not exist that exists in the town of Swift Current, and where there is not one-third of the business done that is done in Swift Current, There is no doubt that the late government started upon a lavish erection of public buildings, and we have fallen into that hereditas damnosa, where there is nothing like the need that there is in Swift Current. It is surprising that the late government should go into those towns in the west where the price of sites is so terrifically expensive, where you have to pay for comparatively new towns, all the way from $40,000 to $125,000 for sites. It is astonishing to find that there was so little foresight in the last administration, and that they did not acquire sites at a time when they could have been purchased comparatively cheap. But they thought nothing of the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is always difficult to predict what- changes will take place in a

country like Canada, and especially in the west. It is also hard to implement promises that have been made in the past. For instance, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who was so lavish in his promises when he sat on this side of the House of what he would do in the future, now that he is in office is very reluctant to implement those promises. The other day I asked what he was going to do with the harbour of Montreal, if he was going to make it a national and free port. My hon. friend said: No, not now, I am too busy, we have had no time to consider it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not recollect saying anything of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, my hon. friend has no recollection at all, he is sleeping all the time. He promised his electors the Georgian Bay canal, to make Montreal a free port


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is coming quickly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is like Rin Van Winkle. After sleeping for a century, probably he will wake up and find that all these things have been done, not by his friends, but by us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Much you did for Montreal.


Mr. LAW.: I would ask the Minister of Public Works what he proposes to do to give increased accommodation to the post office in the town of Yarmouth. The late government purchased a property directly south of the public building there, but I see nothing in the estimates this year for the extension of the post office so as to give the needed increased accommodation. I may say to the minister that the people of Yarmouth have complained for some time of the inadequacy of the post office quarters there. The late government purchased a building directly south, and it would require quite a sum of money to extend the post office to that building. I trust the minister, in his supplementary estimates, will put an amount sufficient to give this increased accommodation to the town of Yarmouth.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will do my best.


William Chisholm: I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works before this item is carried. Last November, I asked him why the captain of the dredge ' Cape Breton ' had been dismissed. He did not intimate that his services were not satisfactory, that he was incompetent, or that he had discharged his duties in a way that did not meet with the approval of the officers of the department. On the contrary he suggested that I should move for the papers in the matter. I got the papers, and read them to the House, and there is not a word in them to indicate that a
charge had ever been made during the whole fifteen years or thereabouts that Captain Deeoste was in the employ of the government. He never had any accident to his men during all the time that he was employed, he never lost a tug, or steamer, or any of the equipment used on a dredge. His record, to my own knowledge, has been good. If since the change of government, my hon friend the minister has discovered anything against the ability or the fitness of Captain Deeoste to hold that position, why didn't he bring those papers down with the rest of the correspondence?
I asked for all the papers, letters and correspondence in connection with his dismissal. I have a right to assume that all the charges that could be made against Captain Deeoste are found in the papers that are brought down, but there is not a single line in the form of a charge against him. Now it is decidedly unfair to Captain Deeoste that the minister should shift his position, and say: that might is right,
1 am Minister of Public Works, I am a member of a government with a strong majority behind me, and Deeoste must get along the best he can, he is only an insignificant French Acadian down in the county of Antigonish, and he lias got to face the music. Now, the minister practically says to those who inquire on behalf of Captain Deeoste that he dismissed him without having any charges made against him, and he refuses an investigation. I submit that such conduct is not what you would expect from a minister of the Crown, it is not compatible with those protestations of fairness and justice from the lips of the Minister of Public Works again and again since this session began. I submit that it is only fair to Captain Deeoste, that he should know what the charges are against him, and that he should be given an opportunity to vindicate himself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is very lengthy in his complaint, but I do not say there were charges against Captain De-coste. I said that my officers reported to me that lie was a very unsatisfactory captain of the dredge. I can demonstrate that to my hon. friend if he will come to my office. I can show him the complaints


William Chisholm: Are they in writing?
Mr. MONK

and produce before him
the officials of the department who will confirm what I am saying now. As to Captain Deeoste being a French Acadian, as alleged by my hon. friend, I may say that side of the question was never considered by me. He is probably an Acadian of French descent, and as such is extremely interesting to .me. But, there was no national question, fortunately, in this matter at all. I believe that Mr. Gallant is also an Acadian

by descent. Mt. Girouard is an Acadian. I believe, and ihe was dismissed in 189t without any reason whatever by my hon. friend and had to go and earn his live' lihood in the United States. I do not think that the national question will help my hon. friend very much in this matter.


John Howard Sinclair: I have the honour to represent several thousand French Aea-dians in my constituency adjoining the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm, Antigonish); I aim acquainted with Captain Decoste and I feei I should enter my protest againist what the minister has been saying with regard to him this afternoon. I was isorry to hear the minister say that Captain Decoste would not have any investigation. I do not say that because he is a French Acadian, but because he is a British subject and a good citizen of this country, a man who has the respect of his neighbours and of people generally in eastern Nova Scotia who know him. 1 think that for these reasons he ought to be accorded an investigation. The minister 'has told us that there are some charges against him by some officers of the department, which he has not produced to the House. It is a serious matter to Captain Decoste, it means his livelihood, it means his future, it means an end to his business ais a captain if the statement made >by the minister should go abroad and be believed by people who wished to employ Captain Decoste in the only capacity in which he is capable of serving. It is a very serious matter to him, and I do not think the minister was justified in stating so positively .that there would be no investigation into the case of Captain Decoste. The reason was that he had some papers, some statements in his possession


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He was found an unsatisfactory officer.
Mr. SINCLAIR

reflecting on the character, I suppose, of Captain Decoste. If there are documents of that kind in the department I would remind the minister that the House passed an order that all documents relating to t'he dismissal of Captain Decoste should be produced. We have the documents here that were produced and we do not. find any complaint of that character. I do not think that this is a. position that the minister should take. I think he should say that he will bring down these documents and that he will give Captain Decoste ran opportunity of being heard.' It is not a question of getting back his job, but it is a question of his character, and that is very important to him. If he has an, opportunity of clearing up his reputation a.s a captain he might get employment somewhere else, but when the minister summarily discharges him Mr. MONK.
and states in parliament that here will be no investigation in Captain Decoste's case, it wall be a serious matter for Captain Decoste personally. I have a very high respect for him. He acted as captain of a dredge on work in my constituency, he gave thoroughly good service and there was no complaint against him by anybody. He did his work very well and I think there must be some mistake somewhere, because I do not think that Captain Decoste got fair play or that documents could be produced in the Public Works Department or anywhere else that would show that he was unfit to perform his duties.
I would like the minister to reconsider the decision that. he has come to this afternoon and to tell the House before this matter closes Drat he will give Captain De- -coste an opportunity of being heard for the purpose of clearing his character.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say there were charges or accusations against this man. I said that he was an unsatisfactory officer by general report and that we did not consider that he was a loss to the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is another matter that I want to mention to the Minister of Public Works and particularly while the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) is in his seat. Some years ago a person in the town of Digby was appointed by the Department of Public Works to attend to the winding of the clock in the public building in the town for which he was to receive $25 a year. I understand that he is in no sense a partisan and not considered as such in the town of Digby. Recently isonae person, whether by authority or not I do not know, placed on the door entering to the clock in the tower a padlock wfaidh prevents the proper person gaining access to the place where the clock is in order to wind it. This may he a very serious matter to the town of Digby if some day they ascertain that the clock in the public building is stopped. I would like the Minister of Public Works to look into this and instruct the man who put the padlock on the door to take it off so that the person employed some few years ago to wind the clock may have an opportunity of getting at it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will look into it.


Mr. JAMESON.: I think that I will possibly be able to explain the situation to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean). This gentleman to whom he refers as having charge of the clock in the public building at Digby has been reported to me as having been unsatisfactory. It was said that he did not care for the clock sufficiently well to keep it going, that at times it was, owing to lack of attention, stopped, and that otherwise it was not attended to

in a satisfactory way. I brought the matter to the attention of the Department of Public Works and the department removed that gentleman from office and appointed [DOT]another. The man who was appointed to -office received a notification to that effect, but through some oversight, as I am given to understand, the person who had previously held the appointment, did not receive notification. The result was that when the new official went to discharge his duties, after attending to them, he put a padlock on the door. The padlock, however, was removed by the gentleman who had previously attended to the clock. I think the matter has been explained to the satisfaction of all concerned by a notification from the department which has reached the first official to the effect that his services are no longer required.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He has been dismissed?


Clarence Jameson: He has been dismissed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And notified to that effect?


Clarence Jameson: And notified to that effect.


Bowman Brown Law: I was not able to be present when the item of $100,000 for dredging and improvements in Yarmouth harbour came up. I would like to ask the minister what he proposes to do with the $100,000 that was voted, whether it is to be expended upon dredging or other work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is under consideration. The matter has not yet been decided, 'but I think dredging probably.


Bowman Brown Law: It seems to me that before the estimate passes the House we should be entitled to know something about the work that is to be done. There is an obstruction in Yarmouth harbour at Sollow's Rock ledge which has been there for many years and for the removal of which $75,000 was placed in last year's estimates.
Owing to the dissolution of parliament that money was not expended, and I would like the minister to state definitely now what he purposes doing with that vote and whether there will be an additional vote in the supplementary estimates. The port of Yarmouth is one of the most important in the maritime provinces; there are more first-class passengers landed there in the course of a year than at any other port in the maritime provinces or probably in the Dominion. We have a line of steamers now between Yarmouth and Boston and we are looking forward to having another line from Yarmouth to New York. The Canadian Pacific railway have purchased the Dominion Atlantic railway, including their steamship line, and it is proposed in a short
time to put larger boats on the route between Yarmouth and Boston, while of course the New York boats will also be larger than those plying at present to that port. I point out to the minister the urgency of the need of improvements at the port of Yarmouth. While the late government had been lavish in its expenditure there, and had greatly improved the harbour, yet there is a great handicap to shipping in the inadequate channel leading from the mouth of the harbour to the business part of the port. There is a ledge situated outside of the harbour on which there is at low water fourteen feet six inches, and that will require to be blasted out at a large expenditure. I submit to the minister that the necessity and importance of the port demand early action on the part of the government. There is considerable dredging also required in the harbour. We have in the channel a depth of twenty feet, but if the Canadian Pacific railway should put on larger boats as they intend to, a great deal of dredging will have to be done. The people of Yarmouth will appreciate the $100,000 which is now in the estimates, and I have nothing to say against it except that it is altogether too small. I trust that the minister, when he looks into the matter, will be able to place in the supplementary estimates an equal amount. When some gentlemen from Yarmouth attended the liquid banquet which was held in Halifax last fall, they said when they returned home, that they had seen the Minister of Public Works and the report was current that he intended to expend two or three million dollars on Yarmouth harbour, and although we appreciate the $100,000 in the estimates, the drop from two or three millions is great indeed. Has the minister any idea as to how he will expend the $100,000 in the main estimates?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have a general idea, and that general idea which is very firmly imbedded in my mind is that when the late government spent- so much money in that locality it is a pity it did not remove that ledge to which the hon. member has referred. That was the key of the situation in the harbour of Yarmouth, and instead of employing the dredges in the neighbourhood _ of private docks, probably with the ob.ieet of advancing private interests, if they had removed the ledge at the entrance of the harbour it would have been a far more profitable service to the port. The port of Yarmouth will require our attention and there is a vote in the estimates for it.	,
The determination of the Canadian Pacific railw'ay, having acquired the Dominion

Atlantic line, to place new boats on the route, is not yet an accomplished fact. Although Yarmouth is an important port it is not the only port in Nova Scotia. There are other important ports along the Bay of Fundy, and until we know exactly what the plans of the Canadian Pacific railway are, and how far our improvements may meet these plans, the matter remains to a certain extent in doubt. Justice will be done to the harbour and certainly the work will be more profitable to the general interests of the port than anything done in the past by the late government.


Bowman Brown Law: In denial of what the minister has said, I wish to state that if he goes to Yarmouth he will only find a very few partisans who will say that the dredging done in Yarmouth Harbour has been dene for the benefit of private owners of wharfs. There has been no work done in the port of Yarmouth solely for the benefit of owners of wharfs; the work done there has been done in the interests of the general navigation of the port. I deny most emphatically the statement made by the minister. He has apparently been posted by some gentlemen from Yarmouth who have taken considerable interest in the matter, but I know that the statement he made to-day is absolutely wrong, I know that ninety per cent of the dredging done in Yarmouth Harbour has been done largely in the main channel, and while it certainly has improved private wharf property it undoubtedly has improved the harbour facilities as well. There was a channel dredged at the south end of the town which has opened up a largo fishing industry and I doubt if the Minister of Public Works will find even a Conservative in Yarmouth who will object to that work.
I know what I am speaking about and I say that the work done by the late government was done for the benefit of Yarmouth Harbour and was not done for the benefit of any private wharf owner. If the minister will spend this $100,000 to as good purpose as the late government spent the money, there will be no fault found. As to why the late government did not remove this ledge, I may say that there was only a certain amount of money voted and the dredging was done first, leaving it for the present government to take out the rock. Had the Liberal government remained in power, and I am sorry it did not-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear hear.


Bowman Brown Law: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh, but if the rest of Canada had given as intelligent a vote as the County of Yarmouth did, we would have been on the other side of the House to-day. I feel [DOT]satisfied that had the late government been in power to-day I would have got a vote


Frederick Debartzch Monk: of no less than $250,000 for the development of Yarmouth Harbour and if the present government puts that amount in the estimates they will be doing a lot of good in the public interest.


Avard Longley Davidson: As a representative of one of the western Nova Scotia counties I wish to corroborate in a measure what has been said by my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Law). It is in the memory of this House that on a certain occasion when there ^ was to he a banquet in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Law) and when the officers of the great Canadian Navy wore required there to furnish partners in the dance for the charming ladies of that locality, the ' Niobe ' was ordered to that port.
-Did notwithstanding the large expenditures of the late government for dredging in that harbour, it was in such a condition that the ' Niobe ' met with a very great misfortune.


Bowman Brown Law: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. She met with no misfortune in the port of Yarmouth. What the hon. gentleman is stating is absolutely false, and he knows it.


Avard Longley Davidson: 1 would ask the hon. gentleman to take back that statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The statement should be withdrawn.


Bowman Brown Law: I say then that it is not in accordance with the fact.


Avard Longley Davidson: The point I wish to make is this, that owing to the order given by my hon. friend, who wanted to make a day of it in Yarmouth, the warship ' Niobe ' .was despatched to that port. In carrying out that order she got into trouble and got the Dominion government into a great deal of trouble. Therefore I would like to see such expenditures made in that locality that not only would the people engaged in the dredging business be benefited, as I know they were by the expenditures previously made, but such improvements would be made in the port of Yarmouth and its vicinity that on the occasion of another visit to the port of Yarmouth, the Canadian navy, if it happened to be in existence at the time, would safely ride in and safely come out.


Bowman Brown Law: I do not want to allow the statement to go unchallenged that the ' Niobe,' before she left Yarmouth, met with a bad accident. The hon. gentleman will not hear that statement made in Yarmouth harbour or Yarmouth county. It has been made by the hon. member and circulated by every Tory newspaper in the Dominion of Canada, but I say that the ' Niobe ' met with no accident in the port of Yarmouth.

Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.) Will the hon. member for Annapolis tell us what business the Niobe ' had at Yarmouth at that [DOT]time?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: She was loaded with potatoes', apparently.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before this item passes I would like to impress upon the hon. minister the necessity of doing some dredging at the Magdalen islands. Last year 1 obtained from my colleague the late Minister of Public Works the promise that a dredge belonging to the department *would be sent to the islands, and one was sent. As my hon. friend knows, there are several harbours around these islands, but the sands are continually shifting, so that the harbours are very difficult of ingress and egress. No dredge had been sent to the Magdalen islands since 1875, and it has always been difficult to obtain from the department the services of a dredge for that district, because the dredges were all monopolized by the various harbours in the maritime provinces. But, last year the late Minister of Public Works sent a dredge to the islands. The great difficulty, I am bound to say, is to get the work started at a stated point. Every man on the islands-I do not except my own friends - wanted the dredge to start in bis locality. This is a great mistake. There are certain harbours which should be attended to first, because the steamer stops at them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the name of the dredge that is there?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know the name. The resident engineer should select the places where the dredge should work. I told him not to be dictated to by any of the residents, but to follow' his owrn judgment. I may say that I lost heavily on the Magdalen islands because I followed the straight path and adhered to it from beginning to end. The dredge is still there, and I expect will be working next summer. The man who should be consulted in this matter is Captain McClure, the captain of the steamer which plies between Pictou and the various ports of the Magdalen islands. He lias prepared a map of the islands, which shows the places where the work should be done. I believe there is a duplicate of that map in the Public Works Department, and I would urge my hon. friend to give instructions to the resident engineer to follow the advice of Captain McClure, who is more experienced in such matters than any one else in that region.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Strong representations similar to those I have just heard have been made to me by the sitting member for the county (Mr. Gauthier), and we will endeavour during the coming summer to carry on the dredging in the wisest w'ay.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).: The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), says that about the bars and harbours of the Magdalen islands there are shifting sands. If that is the ease, no benefit will be obtained by dredging in the ordinary way. All that can be done is by dragging or harrowing. If the minister will consult the officers of the department, I think he would . find that they will agree with that statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was a dredge used by the department for ordinary dredging, but in view of the shifting sands of the Magdalen Islands the then Minister of Public Works (iMr. Pugsley), sent a special dredge for the work.


Mr. OLIVER.: When the estimates of the Minister of Public Works were under consideration before, I asked the minister some questions, and, if I remember correctly, he promised to furnish me with answers by letter. I have not yet received any communication from the minister, but I hope he will keep the matter in mind, and let me have the desired inlormation at his earliest convenience.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I got my officers to prepare answers to all the questions put during the discussion in committee that I was not able to answer at the time. I will put this information upon tire table so that hon. gentlemen interested can have access to it.
Ottawa-Heating, including salaries of engineers firemen and watchmen, $150,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What explanation has my hon. friend to give about this?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the usual vote, but somewhat increased this year. It is a vote to make provision for a large number of items of expenditure which are incurred every year in connection with the heating of the public buildings here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What system of heating is adopted by the Public Works Department?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe there are hot water furnaces in most of the departmental buildings, and in others the heating is by steam.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many firemen are employed?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have 57 firemen whose wages range from $330 to $660 a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister dismissed a fireman named Gariepy?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not remember the name. If any complaint had been made against him, his name would be handed to the Ottawa investigator.


John Howard Sinclair: Why have the services of Mr. Williams, door-keeper at the door of this chamber, been dispensed with. This man is a British navy veteran, and possessed a number of medals gained in active service?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know nothing of the circumstances and doubt very much if this man was in my department. If so, and there was complaint against him, his case would have been referred to the investigator, Mr. Chauvin.
Ottawa-Removal of snow, including Rideau Hall, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many men are employed in removing snow?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I could not tell exactly, but the number is a little larger than last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom are the men employed in removing snow recommended?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The men are engaged on the recommendation of any reputable person. Part of the work of removing snow is done by contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the explanation of the increase in the cost this year?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose there are more buildings to attend to. I do not know of any other reason.
Ottawa-Repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $250,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What has the minister to say about this item? The item for furniture was very severely criticised during the last parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This vote is asked for the purpose of carrying out works of improvement, and repairing and procuring furniture. We find this necessary from time to time in order to maintain the public buildings in the city of Ottawa in a proper state of efficiency, and to meet the requirements of the public service. There is an increase from last year. The men who mainly perform these works are mechanics and labourers, employed under the direct supervision of the officers of the department, in compliance with requisitions received from the various departments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When furniture is required by the department for the various buildings is it furnished by the department itself, or is it purchased outside?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As a general rule it is purchased outside. I do not think we manufacture furniture.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From what firm?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I really could not tell my hon. friend. It depends upon the kind of furniture that is required. I think that where a large purchase is contemplated, the purchase would have to be by contract. I have not had myself any transactions of the kind carried through since I have been in office. The demands have been limited to desks and things of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend complied with the $5,000 limit in these cases?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In every instance.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 84),
respecting certain patents of Thomas D. Rambaut.-Mr. Ames.
Mr. CARVELL.: When the hour for private Bills expired on Wednesday last, I think we were discussing section 2 of this Bill. I have certainly an objection to this Biil, but as the promoter is not present, I do not wish to force on a discussion, although, if the committee think it proper to go on, I will do so.


Mr. REID.: We will let it stand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister be willing that it should not come up on Monday, as I shall not be able to be here until after dinner on that day?


John Dowsley Reid: Wc might let it stand for a few minutes, and if the member in charge of it does not come in, we will let it- stand till another day.
Bill allowed to stand.


PATENTS OF THOMAS WADGE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No 16) respecting patents of Thomas Wadge reported from Committee of the Whole without amendment.
Mr. CURRIE.: Mr. Speaker, I hold that this Bill is still in the committee, and has not been discharged from the committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: According to my recollection, this Bill was passed by the committee and we entered into the discussion of (Bill 84) and discussed it until nine o'clock, when Your Honour took the Chair without the Bill being reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the Bill is printed, ' as reported by the Committee of the Whole.' It was not reported to the House, as the hour for private Bills having expired while the committee was sitting, it could not be reported.

Mr. CURRIE I do not go by anything that was expected or understood at the last meeting of the committee. I go by the order of proceedings as laid down in the order paper, anid item 41 says:
February 13-Further consideration in Com-mitte of the Whole of the following two Bills

And it names Bill (No. 16) and Bill (No. 84). I do not want to sultify the order paper, and I hold that the Bill is still in the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must rule that the Bill has passed the committee, because I was here waiting until the business of the Committee would be reported, but as the hour for private Bills expired before this Bill was reported, -although to any personal knowledge it had passed the committee and was ordered to be reported therefore I must treat it as reported now. There will be an opportunity for any motion or discussion on the third reading.


Mr. STAPLES.: I happened to be out of the House when this Bill was last in committee, but I certainly want to oppose it.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I move that the Bill he now read the third time.


William D. Staples: This Bill is for the renewal of a patent on wind-stackers, which the patentees have enjoyed the benefit of for 18 or 20 years. The patent covers a piece of machinery that is used on threshing machines in the western country and aha in other parts of Canada and in the whole world. I think in the interests of the consumer it is now time that such a patent should lapse. The effect of this would be a reduction in the cost of that piece of machinery of possibly a couple of hundred dollars.


John Allister Currie: I certainly think that the Bill should be allowed to stand, and be compelled to stand, especially as the hon. member who has charge of the Bill is not here. I called the attention of the House to these Bills when they first appeared. I said that they should be accompanied by an explanation of the specifications to prevent a fraud of any kind' on the public. No explanation has been given of what these patents cover, and this Bill is so framed that you cannot extract from it any idea of what the patent is. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Armstrong) took occasion to inquire at the Patent Office what the specifications of this patent were, and he received a letter from the Commissioner of Patents that the specifications would be sent to him for $6.50 or $7. Now, I think that the hon. member who desires to have the Bill read the third time, might just as well, in the 104
interest of peace, let it stand until we satisfy ourselves whether the patent deals with a stacking apparatus or not. I have never heard in the House an explanation of what the patent is. If the House does not adopt the rule that there should be such an explanation on every patent Bill, we shall have applications coming here for the renewal of the patent on the Bessemer process of making steel, and on a hundred other things, and the result will be that this country will be burdened down with patent rights which do not exist in other countries. We have stopped patent Bills before, alnd the people of Great Britain have been compelled to prevent the patenting of articles not patented in other countries. If a corporation has a patent such as this, it need not manufacture in Canada unless it likes. In view of these facts I think it would be well that the Bill should stand over; therefore, I object to the third reading at present.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) is in error as to the facts connected with the Bill, which I excuse him for, as he has not been intimately associated with farming for many years. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is, however, on a different footing; I think there is hot such an excuse for him. Had he been in this House when this Bill was passed by the committee last Tuesday, he would have known that the very explanation which he asks for was. then given. To correct first the hon. member for Macdonald, I may say that the patent does not cover anything with wind-stackers at all. The patent originally covered something connected with a fanning mill for cleaning grain. Just when the patent was taken out I cannot tell, but I know it was only a little over seven years ago. Mr. Wadge is the purchaser of the two patents. What the specifications cover I do not know, and it is not material to the Bill. Mr. Wadge purchased the patents in the ordinary way, on an 18 year basis; but owing to an error of his solicitors, who did not discover that the patent period paid for was only 6 years, he went on manufacturing, and has manufactured very largely ijn the city of Winnipeg, in the belief that he had the title for 18 years.


John Allister Currie: Is the patent in existence in any other country for this additional term or is it the fact that this six, or eight, or fourteen years required here does not hold good in the United States?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think we are concerned with the United States?


John Allister Currie: Of course, the patent law of Canada states that when a patent



expires in the United States, it expires here automatically.


Arthur Meighen: I could tell the House what I know about the patent law in a short time, I confess, to my hon. friend from North Simcoe. But, I know this, and it is sufficient for the present Bill, that Mr. Wadge, who purchased the patent, purchased the patent for Canada and that is all we are concerned with. The patent for Canada expired at the expiration of six years, although he had purchased it for 18 years. The reason that it expired was owing to an error of a firm of patent solicitors-a very competent firm-in the city of Winnipeg. In the spring of 1905 he began to manufacture this patent in Canada and he has'manufactured it continuously since. Last year he made 1,800 and this year expects to make 2,400 of the articles covered by the patent. This is simply to correct an error which was no fault of Mr. Wadge's, but only his misfortune. What is the result if we do not? In the first place, no one is injured if we do. This was all explained to the committee before and the House will forgive me if I traverse it again. The rights of all who may have acquired rights since the expiration of the patent are reserved in the Bill. Any rights acquired since the expiration of the patent are protected but Mr. 'Wadge's patent is continued to the expiration of the time he purchased it for. Had he known, which he did not, that it would expire at the end of six years, that being the only term that was paid for, he would have paid the very small fee and secured this renewal. This is simply to correct the most obvious of errors. It may be obtuseness on my part, but I cannot see why United States rights have anything to do with the Bill that is before the House.


William D. Staples: It is quite natural that a man who is off the farm for a period becomes a little rusty in his farming pursuits. According to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has evidently become a little rusty in his law. However that may be, I frankly admit to the committee, according to the affidavit which I have now read and which was not brought to my attention before, the rights contained in this Bill do not extend as far as I thought they did. I thought the Bill renewed the patent for pneumatic stackers, and if such had been the fact I certainly would have opposed it. After hearing the explanation of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie I withdraw my protest against the Bill.


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


PATENTS OF THOMAS D. RAMBAUT.
[Stage Direction]
On the order for further consideration in Committee of the Whole of certain patents of Thomas D. Rambaut.-Mr. Ames.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If this Bill is going over to the next sitting of the House, will it be understood that it will not be taken up on Monday before six o'clock?


Mr. ROGERS.: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to offer some objection, and I cannot be here before six o'clock.


Robert Rogers: All right.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill i(No. 61) respecting the Gatineau and Ungava Railway Company, and to change its name to the Ottawa and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Chabot.
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 93) respecting the United Gold Fields of British Columbia, Limited.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Pacific Trans-Canada and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 56) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 67) respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.- Mr White (Renfrew).
Bill (No. 73) respecting the Vancouver Island and Eastern Railway Company.- Mr. Barnard.
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Northern Territorial Railway Company.-Mr. McKay.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Clements.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the British Western Loan Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).

Bill (No. 102) for the relief of Edna Wells.-Mr. Beattie.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in Committee of Supply.
Rideau Hall (including grounds)-improvements, furniture and maintenance, &c., $35,-
000.
['Yes.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the minister give an explanation of this item?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This vote is to be applied to carrying on the works of renewals, improvements and repairs, procuring furniture, &c., required for Rideau Hall, and maintaining the grounds in proper condition in accordance with the specifications of the chief architect. It is a smaller vote than last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand the vote is to complete the refurnishing of the interior of Rideau Hall. What will be the cost of that?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The cost was very considerable, amounting in respect of furniture and fittings to the sum of $5,000. The furniture was in a very poor state when the new government took office, and it was deemed absolutely necessary after an inspection to make this provision.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention of the government to carry out the idea propounded by the late Governor General? Lord Grey was of opinion that the government should procure another site and build a new gubernatorial residence, in fact he had himself selected a piece of ground not far from Rideau Hall which was better suited for the purpose than the old estate. If I remember well, he had committed to his views gentlemen like the Prime Minister, and I believe also the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I remember being present last year at an afternoon tea when this question was discussed freely, and every one agreed that too much money had been spent on the old building and that there ought to be a new residence occupying another site.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the idea is a very-good one and ought to have been carried out. However, we have already made considerable expenditure for repairs. The cloak rooms have been built up, and other repairs carried out, and I do not think there is any immediate prospect of carrying out the project which nas been so often mooted. The residence was a wretched building for the purpose in the first place, and if some years ago a more suitable residence had been erected on a better site it would have been preferable to what has been done. The expenditure of large sums, however, has made the dwelling, I am informed, tolerably comfortable. And it will 1041
be suitable enough for the present. We have such large expenditures to make in the immediate future for departmental buildings, that until greater necessity arises I think we can leave the matter as it stands.
Dominion buildings-furniture, $19,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this vote for new furniture?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The vote is asked for the purchase of new furniture for the use of employees of the federal government in the Dominion buildings in the various provinces.
Power for running elevators, stamp cancelling machines, $35,000.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: From whom do you get the power?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: From the Ottawa Electric Company.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I take advantage of this opportunity to draw attention to a somewhat important matter. Not long ago-a friend of mime who is interested in a Canadian Coal Company, while visiting these-buildings suggested that there was no reason why heat, and power also, except such as that obtained by hydraulic means, for the public buildings of Canada might not be developed from the uise of Canadian coal. The coal at present used in our buildings is brought in from the United States, and although there may be some difficulties in the way, I would like to see the opportunity taken to assist Canadian industry. I draw the minister's attention to this point as perhaps it is one which he has so far overlooked. We all glory in Canadian made articles, and why should not Canadian coal be used in connection with the heating and lighting of our buildings in preference to coal from the United States. I do not know whether the minister has considered this question?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Then I would like the minister to give the matter hiis at/tiem tion, because when we have a coal production in Canada of something lixe 10,000,000 tons, the least we can do in the way of rendering patriotic assistance to the men who produce that coal is to burn Canadian coal in our public buildings.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not had occasion to give this question very much consideration but it is certainly worthy of attention. I hope the time will come when we will be able to get all the heat we require through the medium of the immense water-powers-which surround this city.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Pending the time when we shall see the development of

electricity on such a large scale in this district, and the long expected ventilation of these buildings in a modern way such as the members of this House have been talking about for the last 30 years, I hope the minister will not lose sight of this important question of the use of Canadian coal in our public buildings. I ask the minister's serious attention to the matter-, and hope he will look into it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the coal produced in the province from which my hon. friend comes suitable for heating purposes in buildings of this character?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Yes; people in the maritime provinces depend entirely upon the bituminous coal produced there for keeping their houses and buildings warm in winter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it used in the government buildings in Halifax?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Yes, in the government buildings in the maritime provinces generally. The Minister of Public Works calls for tenders every year for the supply of coal for the public buildings in eastern Canada. There is no reason why he should not extend that so as to include the public buildings in central Canada as well. The coal from Alberta should be used, if it is not, as far east as Manitoba. Of course, the element of cost will enter into the question of supplying coal from the east and from the west for the central area; but, I submit, that every Canadian ought to be patriotic enough to prefer to have Canadian coal used in the public buildings, even if it costs a little more.


Mr. BENNETT (Simeoe).: Did the late government do that?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: This ' late ' government business is becoming a habit with my hon. friend from East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett). He is always looking to the past. We have a new government which came in with great professions of what they were going to do for Canada, particularly in such matters as this. We were told that if we ventured to buy or sell with the people of the United States, our loyalty would be endangered. I call the attention of the government which came in with these hopes and professions to an opportunity for action in line with those professions, and I hope they will not fail to act upon it at an early day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All the same it must seem a little singular to people not familiar with political idiosyncrasies to find that the coal which is used this evening to heat this very building was bought outside of Canada to fulfil contracts made by the friends of the hon. member (Mr. Macdon-Mr. MACDONALD.
aid) in violation of the principle which he is so energetically defending to-night.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I decline to have a matter so serious as this dismissed by hon. gentlemen opposite with an excuse so hackneyed as the tu quoque argument. How long are they going to keep it uip?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Very long.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Then, I think the best thing they can do is to take up everything the late government did and imitate it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) seems to forget the virtuous professions made on behalf of the party now in power of what they would do if they were given control of public affairs. But when we ask them to fulfil their pledges, even in a small degree, their answer is: We are not going to do it because you did not do it. 1 say we have had about enough of that proposition, if these gentlemen are to make any pretence whatever at standing to the principles. I am surprised specially at the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). I have brought this question of the use of Canadian coal to his attention at the suggestion of a friend of his own. It is no answer to tell me that the liate government did not do it. The hon. minister ought to look into the matter. If there is good reason why Canadian coal should not be used in the public buildings, let us know it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have given the hon. member the assurance that I will look into the suggestion. But when he becomes irritated and indignant on this question of Canadian coal, I think it fair to remind him that the coal we are burning at this moment, and which, I think, was supplied under contract to the late government-I do not recollect giving any order for coal-was bought in contravention of the principle which the hon. gentleman laid down. We have had absolutely no opportunity of putting in practice the principle he is defending so valiantly; and, in answer to his indignant protests, it seams fair to say that that which excites his indignation was the act not of this government but of his friends.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: If the hon. gentleman is worried because of any supposed indignation on my part, I Leg to assure him that I am in the best of humour. I accept the minister's assurance that he proposes to look into this .matter. If so, I hope that, if not this season then next session, we shall find that he has looked into the matter and has seen to it that Canadian coal iis purchased.


John Howard Sinclair: There seems to have been a very clear and decided difference between the attitude of hon. members on
the other side and that of the late govern-

ment in regard to these matters. It should be remembered that the late government was disposed toward freedom of trade with the United States, white oot friends opposite were very much opposed to it. What we are asking them to do is simply to live up to their professions. The fishermen in my county thought it would be a good thing if they were enabled to sell their fish in the United States. But a trooper representing the conservative party came down with a. poster ' Canada for the Canadians,' ' God save the King,' and so on, and the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite declared that it would be a bad thing to adopt the policy which the late government proposed. And now, when we ask the Minister of Public Works, in pursuance of the policy ot his party, to burn Canadian coal in the public buildings, his answer is that the late government did not do it. That is no proper answer. These gentlemen ought to be ready to live up to their professions, and one would think that to ask them to burn Canadian coal to heat the public buildings would be to call upon them to fulfil only a very small part of those professions. I notice by the public returns that Canada imported last year something like $50,000,000 worth of coal from the United States. I believe the greater part of that coal was burnt by those who were so much opposed to our doing business with the United States-by the combines, the railway magnates and the big manufacturers. Of course, if Nova Scotia could get a larger market in 'Canada for her coal it would be a good thing, and I would like to see everything done in that direction that we can do. I would like to see Nova Scotia coal go further west than it does at present. It is not sold much further west than Montreal. Could we sell it in Toronto and other places m Ontario, we should have a much larger business than we have at present. Anything this government could do to promote the consumption of our own coal would be but an attempt to live up to the professions they made >o,n September 21st.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton).: I do not. know whether the suggestions of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) are practical or not. But I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works with reference to lighting the public buildings in Ontario. I would like him to take into considerationdhe fact that the Hydro-Electric Commission are doing a gTeat public service for Ontario, and as far as possible we should make use of the power they supply to light and heat the public buildings.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make a note of it, and when we take up the question of lighting I will look into the matter further.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice in this item a vote for ' Power for running elevators, stamp-cancelling machines, &c.' What are the stamp-cancelling machines?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A number of post offices have stamp cancelling machines, and they require electrical power to operate them.
Dominion Buildings-rente, $340,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the minister rented any new buildings since taking office?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have rented one building on Metcalfe street since taking office. Last year the amount of our rentals was $306,485.89. This year we will require $340,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are rentals cheaper or dearer this, year as compared with former years?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are paying something like 98 cents or $1 a foot for the building on Metcalfe street, which is a somewhat high rental.


John Howard Sinclair: How much a foot was paid for the Woods building?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is considerably more than that, but that was some years ago.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister mdans considerably less than $1 a foot, does he not?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I think it was more than $1 a foot in the case of the Woods building, but it would be difficult to establish any comparison because rents have gone up a great deal during the past few years.


John Howard Sinclair: My recollection is that the rent of the Woods building is less than 80 cents a foot.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is one way of estimating rentals. We have found in the case of the last lease we made that we are paying 6 per cent upon the expenditure. I think in the case of the Woods building and other buildings rented at that time the percentage was far greater than that on the cost and that in some cases it went to 20 per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the length of the lease of the Metcalfe street building?	[DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Five years. I made that lease as short as possible, but I do not anticipate that we will be ready in five years, unless we use very great diligence, to install our departments at home.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the minister made any comparison between the rentals

paid by the departments and other people who rent buildings or does he find that the rentals paid by the government are just about the same, or sometimes less, than the rentals paid 'by other people?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I took the trouble to get special reports on that and I find that our rent is the same as that paid by other lessees in the locality.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What arrangement has the minister made in regard to lighting the building?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not in a position to give full information to the House in regard to lighting, but I have heard that there was a contract signed for a considerable space of time-four or five years- with the company that is at present lighting the building. I have not been able to verify that fact. The only thing that I have before me is the amount we ask to meet the requirements of lighting for the coming year. However, I intend to look into that as soon .as I have an opportunity to do so.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Does the contract require that the building is to be lighted by the government or by the owners?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We provide for the light if I am not mistaken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it included in the $1 per foot?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am under the impression, but I am not absolutely certain. The elevators are.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you a list of the new rentals?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The only new building rented by the government is this building on Metcalfe .street. They asked us $19,000, and we brought it down to $16,000. I think that we are paying $13,000.


John Howard Sinclair: If it is true that we are paying at the rate of $1 per foot for floor space in this new building, and that we rented the Woods building at 80 cents a foot, I would like to draw the fact to the attention of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). I would have expected to hear some protest from him when the rental is increased to such an alarming extent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know exactly what the conditions of our occupation of the Woods' building are. I think we heat that building. We do not heat the building we have rented o'n Metcalfe street, but, in any event, a comparison cannot be established on that footing at all. The increase in rentals within the past two or three years in Ottawa is something quite abnormal.
Mr. McKenzie. [DOT]
The real test in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend would be, what percentage does the proprietor receive upon his investment? Clearly, I think, there is no doubt that, in the case of the Woods' building, the percentage received by the proprietor far exceeded the sum of 15 per cent. In the case of the building rented on Metcalfe street the revenue of the proprietor does not exceed six per cent upon his investment. That is the proper test of what is a fair rental, because, in a city like Ottawa, or Montreal, where rents vary a great deal and increase in such a large proportion, you cannot say that $1 per foot at one period of time is a heavy rental when compared with a period four or five years previously, when the rentals were very low.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose that if we are to make that the basis of the value of a building we must take the value of the building during the present year. Suppose that the owners of the Woods' building erected that building at a small cost twenty years ago and property has increased so that it is very valuable to-day, I do not think we should place the valuation altogether on the original capital that was put into the building. The same would be true of the Metcalfe street building if it were of any age. It would increase from year to year, as the city got larger.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Woods' building was built especially for the government.
Mr. SINCLAIR-If we are to adopt that principle we should take the value of the building as it stands in the market to-day, and find out what the proceeds of that) value would be. That is what would be done in this case. If any one else were going to rent the building the proprietor would expect to get the value of his property as it stands in the market to-day, and not the value as represented by what he originally put into it.
Mr. MACDONALD-Are there any offers to rent buildings other than this one?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are receiving offers every day. People imagine that we do not intend living in any other way. People come and offer buildings that they have on their hands, or offer to erect buildings suited exactly to our requirements provided we will pay the. rent. I think that condition of affairs is' regrettable, and that as soon as possible we should deal with the question.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What policy does the minister adopt in dealing -with these men who want to erect buildings for the government?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My policy at the present time is, in spite of the discomfort and want of accommodation that we are undergoing everywhere, to try and rent as little

as possible and push as quickly as possible the adoption of some comprehensive scheme ' for erecting buildings of our own and getting out of these rented buildings.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Does the minister contemplate renting any additional buildings at the present time?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid that before we are in a position to get into our own departmental building we will require further accommodation. ,


Rodolphe Lemieux: For what departments?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All the departments seem to be in want of further accommodation. Many departments are divided up in different parts of the city and they complain a great deal of the inconvenience that it causes them. Some departments are unduly congested and cannot accommodate their staff. They are prevented from securing the necessary help for the work of the departments not because they have not money to pay the employees but because they have no accommodation for them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose the buildings for the departments are scarce?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.
Dominion buildings-salaries of caretakers, etc., $250,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the minister permit this item to stand as there are some returns which are coming down and I would like him to hold it over until we get them?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no objection excepting that we will have further items in the supplementary estimates which will enable the question of caretakers to be discussed and I am very anxious, if possible, with the indulgence of the committee, to get rid of the main estimates to-night and allow the committee to take up the items on some other department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This will be the only item that we will ask to be held over.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the salaries paid to the caretakers of public buildings in Nova Scotia, and while I do not know how they compare with the salaries paid to similar officials in the other provinces, I submit that the salaries in Nova Scotia are altogether too low for a living wage. It is not hard work, but it takes all the time of the caretaker from early morning till late at night. In eastern Nova Scotia the mails arrive sometimes at midnight and at four o'clock in the morning and the caretaker must be there to receive them if the nost office happens to 'be in the public building. A salary of $400 such
as is paid in these places is not sufficient to support a man and his family. I should think it ought to be $600 or $650 to the man whose whole time is taken up in any. government service especially, as of late years, the cost of living has gone up to such an extent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The salaries paid to caretakers in Nova Scotia appear to range from a minimum of $400 to $770, whereas in Quebec, except in Montreal where they are $500 and $600 the salaries range from $150 to $300. There is $150 paid in Laprairie, $300 at Longueuil, $300 at L'Assumption, $150 at Hull. There appears to be no disproportion between the salaries of caretakers cf public buildings in Nova Scotia and in the other provinces, but I will make a note of the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and inquire into the matter.
Water supply-$28,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year, Dr. Black, then member for Hants, called special attention on several occasions to the water supply furnished to the public buildings by the city of Ottawa, and as Dr. Black is not here this session the matter is not engaging the attention it deserves. The Minister of Public Works will remember the epidemic of typhoid we had in the city last, year, and I think it was the present Speaker of the House who suggested that parliament should be prorogued or adjourned for a period rather than that the members of the House should take the tremendous risk of drinking the water we had to drink in this city last year. That epidemic has passed, and I fear there will be very little done to improve the water of the city until we are in the throes of another epidemic. The government pays large sums of money towards the upkeep of municipal work in Ottawa, and as the representatives of the people are bound to come here, they should feel that they are as safe in this city as anywhere in Canada, and that they are not forced to drink water which may bring disease and possibly death. I have remarked nothing in the proceedings of the city council which would conduce to bring about a better state of affairs in this respect than we had last year. I think the Minister of Public Works should refuse positively to contribute any money from the treasury of Canada to the upkeep or beautifying of the city of Ottawa until there is a pure water supply in the city. Nothing will bring people to their senses like stopping the money supply, and as long as the city of Ottawa is getting the money of the country without any protest it is not likely that anything will be done. It is quite within the power of the city of Ottawa to give us a supply of pure water. The minister should say to the city authorities that they will not get any more money from us until they put themselves

in a position to deserve that treatment from the government. I bring this matter most seriously to the notice of the minister.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid I cannot take the rigid position which my hon. friend has suggested, and refuse to pay for any water until I have an absolute certainty that the water is pure. The subject is a very interesting one, and so far as we can help to solve the water problem in Ottawa or anywhere else we will do the best we can as a government. I think I have in the department a full and interesting report on the water conditions in Ottawa, and if so I shall lay it on the table of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What truth is there in the report published in the press that the Minister of Public Works has signed a contract for the St. John harbour works?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The fact is not as alleged. There is no contract signed yet, but we intend carrying out the improvements contemplated at Courtenay Bay on the east side of the harbour of St. John, as soon as I have the necessary authority to enter into that contract.
Graving dock, $35,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are rumours afloat that the Levis graving dock will be enlarged or that a new dock may be built.
If I remember well, there was formed a year ago, a company composed of Sir Montague Allan and other gentlemen of very high repute, and they asked the government for the usual subsidy, but owing to some difference between them and the government as to the amount to be guaranteed, the project fell through. I see by the papers in Quebec that a delegation from that city is to meet the Prime Minister and the Minister oi Public Works shortly, and that one of the questions to be discussed is that of a new dock in Quebec. Will my hon. friend state whether tlie dock to be built in Quebec will be built by a company under the Dry Docks Subsidy Act, or built by the government? In Quebec the opinion generally expressed is that the government should build the dock and operate it. On the other hand, there are people who think that it should be in the hands of a company, i have no opinion to express myself, but I would like to know wliat is the policy of my hon. friend. It is stated in ' L'Evenement ' that this meeting is to be strictly private, only a select few to be present; but this is a matter of vital concern to the whole country, and I would like to know whether the hon. gentleman will receive suggestions only from this Quebec delegation. Many people believe that a graving dock at Quebec is a national necessity; many believe Mr. MeKENZIE.
that the harbour of Quebec is superior to all our other harbours. I regret to see that neither the hon. Postmaster General or any of the Quebec members are present, but I know that they -axe very optimistic with reference to the future of Quebec, and I would like to have an expression of their views on this question. I hope the hon. minister will give us a peep into his department, and let us see what his policy is in regard to it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The question is a very large one to discuss at this point, but there is no doubt that there exists at Quebec a great necessity for a suitable graving dock. No port anywhere nowadays is complete without a graving dock. European ports, which have cost anywhere from fifty to a hundred million dollars invariably have graving docks, and the same is true of properly equipped ports according to modern notions in the United States and in South America. Quebec is one of the ports recommended by the Transportation Commission to be improved as a national port. There is a graving dock there which I visited some time ago, and while I was convinced that a graving dock there could be made a paying concern, the existing one is too small for modern requirements and it has never been administered in such a way as to pay, although it yields a fair revenue. Another, and large dock, is an absolute necessity if Quebec is to be equipped as a national port. Nothing has been done for that port during the last few years. No equipment of any serious and durable value has been carried out under a general scheme of improvement. Such a general scheme or plan is the first step to be taken. It is the first step we took in Montreal under somewhat different conditions, and even though we had there a plan which would take years to carry out fully, the equipment of the port of Montreal is at present very far from complete. The policy of the late government was to grant subsidies, under the legislation of 1908 and 1910, to companies for graving docks. I do not think it is a bad system, but the legislation requires to be improved in many respects. I am not. prepared to say that the government should undertake, in all the 12 or 13 national ports of this country, the construction of graving docks; but the necessity of an improved graving dock at Quebec, in keeping with modern requirements, is apparent, and as soon as possible that matter will be taken up.


Mr. EMMERSON.: We are all familiar with the legislation of 1910, and previous legislation to stimulate the construction of dry-docks. In connection with that legislation several projects were mentioned, at Collingwood, St. John and other points.

The provisions of the legislation were that if a dry-dock of a certain character were constructed, a subsidy, proportionate to the cost, would be given. The first legislation failed to bring about any results, and amendments were made increasing the subsidies. My purpose in calling attention to this is to make an inquiry of my bon. friend in respect to the St. John dry-dock. An appropriation was made recently by this House for improvements at Courtenay Bay at St. Jlohn, and since then I understand that tenders were invited for the construction with the terminals at Courtenay Bay, for a breakwater for the protection of that portion of the harbour of St. John which is exposed to south-easterly gales, and for dredging that portion of the harbour.
Tenders for all these works were invited en bloc, but any one who desired to bid for other portions of the work would necessarily have to include in their tenders an offer to construct a dry dock. Tenders were received and I understand the contract has been awarded, but it would not be opportune nor relevant for me at present to criticise in any way the course taken either by the present government or its predecessors. I do not desire at present to criticise any action that has been taken, however much I might be disposed under proper circumstances to do so. The firm which holds the contract for the construction of these several works, will, I assume construct a dry dock. Will they be entitled to receive any consideration as a firmi under the subsidy Act, or is the work to he constructed and paid for by the government and owned and operated by it when completed, entirely apart from any consideration under the Act now in force?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad: that the hon. gentleman narrowed his question down to the one he has just put, because the general question of the improvement of St. John harbour would require extensive application. Therefore I will simply answer him by saying that the tenderer for the work obliges himself to build a dry dock at St. John and nothing more. It is as if he had applied for the subsidy under the terms of the Subsidy Act of 1910, and after the proper formalities have been complied with, the works will become entitled to the ordinary subsidy as defined by the Act. The government will not own the dock. It will be the property of the party who constructed it just as in ordinary cases and that party will be entitled to the subsidy. The reason of this is that it was not supposed that we could get anybody to undertake the risk of constructing a dry dock in St. John except under the conditions of that person having the contract for the construction of the other works referred to in the tender. My hon. friend understands, I hope, that it is' absolutely a construction
under the ordinary conditions of the Dry Docks Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Would I be correct in understanding the minister to state that when the contract of the Messrs Griffiths is completed, they will naturally receive the compensation under that contract, and the government will naturally have paid for the construction of a dry dock as well as for the other works contemplated under the contract?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, my hon. friend is mistaken as to that. It is not a block contract such as my hon. friend stated. There is no contract as yet. It is contemplated to make a contract with unit prices and details, but it does not enter into the sum we mentioned in the contract price of the dry dock. The condition was that they would execute the work, and furthermore oblige themselves to build a dock under the Dry Dock Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then my hon. friend having stated that it would be impossible to secure a dry dock under the subsidy Act at St. John, apart from the consideration of these other works, it is to be assumed that the contractor will perform these several works- that is the construction of a breakwater, the dredging of a harbour, and the construction of the docks-for a certain sum of money aalculated of course upon the schedule prices? Is it not also to be inferred that the government will have paid them not only for these several works, but in addition have given them in the prices awarded, a contribution to the construction of a dry dock? That would be the inference-that apart from the amount of money which he had received for the construction of these other works, they would not be willing to construct a dry dock under the terms of the Dry Docks Subsidy Act. That seems to me quite apparent. It may be all right-I am not going to question it at this moment, it would not be proper for me to do so-but I simply want to understand the situation; and therefore while we know as to the cost of the several dry docks which may have been built in Canada, on the Pacific coast or on the great lakes, under the terms of the Subsidy Act, in the case of St. John we do not know, because a portion of the consideration for the construction of that dry dock is involved in the construction of the breakwater, the dredging of the harbour, and the construction of the loading docks known as the terminals. That would seem to be the clear reasoning to be gathered from the circumstances as detailed by my hon. friend. I do not quite so understand it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has made a natural inference, but be is entirely^ misr taken. No doubt the House will desire to see the contract when it is prepared so as

to examine the unit prices in order to convince itself that the dry dock it not at all provided for hy the consideration therein, and the inference of my bon. friend is very natural until one has occasion to look into the details of the contract. The situation is this:	It was deemed! impossible
to induce anybody with a harbour such as St. John, unimproved, possessing no equipment of a modern kind whatever, to undertake the icomstnuction of the dry dock there; but when these works of importance will have been carried out, the shipping will undoubtedly greatly increase, and with a harbour properly equipped under the terms of this arrangement there will be a better prospect of a dry dock. Therefore it was deemed necessary, I think very wisely, to include in the contract with a large and powerful firm, the stipulation that when these works of improvement had been carried out, a dry dock would be constructed. But my hon. friend bears in mind, no doubt, that when the time comes for constructing that dry dock an estimate of the cost of it will have to be laid before the government and carefully gone into by its engineers in order to determine what subsidies will be paid to the company. When this estimate is fully gone into, and when the unit prices mentioned in detail in the contract is considered, it will be seen that the natural inference of my hon. friend is absolutely not founded.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend is correct and the works are not to he carried on contemporaneously, then I can see some reason for the action taken. Apart from that, it seems to me that no concern in Canada would compete for the several V'orks in connection with the harbour terminals, if associated with that work there was required to be an undertaking to engage in the construction of a dry dock even at a later date. That is to say that practically, if not wholly, it prevents competition in the dredging, the breakwater, and in the terminal docks so far as Canadian contractors are concerned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend knows that the form of tender was established before this government came into office. I have examined it very carefully. I find the tenders that are in greatly reduced the price, as the House will see when the matters come before it. But I cannot find fault with the form of the tenders; I think it was a good form in every respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the part tendered for by Norton, Griffiths & Co., has been awarded.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, there has been no award of any kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No partial award?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, there will be no partial award. The whole work will be undertaken ' en bloc '.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Referring to the Quebec proposed dry-dock, has the minister received any offer from a syndicate or a company which would undertake the construction of the new grading dock at Levis?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no proposition now for either Levis or Quebec before the government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am told that a syndicate has been formed in Quebec and that it has already had some interviews with the minister, with a view to obtaining a subsidy or guarantee from the government in connection with the construction of a graving dock at Levis.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no knowledge of that. I saw some gentlemen to-day who are interested in some such construction and who made some representations to me in reference to the Subsidy Act of 1910, which requires amendment in several particulars, and they laid their observations before me. Whether these gentlemen constitute a syndicate or not, or what they intend, I have no knowledge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman have any objections to giving the names of the gentlemen who interviewed him?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know if my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is right in calling them a ' syndicate '. Mr. Webster, of the Quebec Harbour Board saw me in reference generally to the very urgent improvements required in thp port of Quebec. With him was a gentleman whose name I do not remember, who seemed to be very much interested in dry-docks, and a couple of members of the district. Sir Rodolphe Forget was also of the number. They made representations merely with reference to the Quebec harbour improvements and the necessity of enlarging the scope of the Dry-dock Act. No mentipn was made of any particular scheme.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the tenders put in were at lower prices. Does he mean to say that there has been an actual reduction in the prices, or has the change in the specifications meant that the total, as his engineers figure it out, will be a reduction in the cost of the work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I meant a general reduction, calling at the same time for lower prices. The tenders are all very high. The department did not think it would be possible to recommend the adoption of even the lowest tender unless it was possible to bring the lowest tenderer within

a more measurable distance of the estimate. That was what I alluded to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I understand it, the Department of Public Works has nothing to do with the dry-dock at Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have everything to do with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought it was under the supervision of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under the Dry-Dock Subsidy Act, all dry-docks subsidized are constructed under the Department of Public Works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but I understood that arrangements had been made between Vickers Maxim and the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There have been various contracts and arrangements between the Harbour Commissioners and Vickers Maxim who are constructing a floating dock; but the determination of the subsidy and the class of floating dock came under the consideration of my department before my time. The documents are all in my department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that before the department pays over the subsidy the work will be inspected. I understood that the builders had made arrangements with the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot speak with absolute knowledge as to that. I believe so, and all these arrangements would come under the purview of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There may have been some sales or leases of land or contracts for the preparation of the cradle of the floating-dock. Where we come in is the determination of the subsidy, the inspection of the work and the approval of the plans.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are rumours about a sale of land. The hon. gentleman ought to know that no lands "were sold to the company but that the arrangement made with the Harbour Board of Montreal is with relation to the lands which are being dredged by the company; but they have had no sales of land from the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When I say ' Sale of land,' they must have come to an arrangement with the Harbour Commissioners as to where they would install the floating dock and must have concluded a lease or alienation of some kind in order to have a place within the limits of the harbour of Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, the hon. gentleman is not right in that. I say that with all due respect. I would like to make that point very clear in order to dispel the rumours afloat.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What rumours?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The rumours which the hon. gentlemen probably knows.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not heard any.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have made arrangements with Vickers Maxim that the material dredged out of the river St. Lawrence over a long distance will be used by the Vickers Maxim Company for their plant. But there has been no land on the main shore sold to the company.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know nothing of that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad the hon. gentleman states that. Has he any idea when the dock will be completed?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have heard a rumour that it is nearly finished. It is being constructed in the old country and is to come out to us in the spring. It is a floating dock. The cradle, or place where it is to be put is at the foot of the harbour of Montreal, and I imagine the dock will be installed there about the month of June.
Public Works-chargeable co collection of revenue-telegraph lines-land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable services, $140,-
000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend looked into the case of the Magdalen Islands cable linking the islands with the mainland? Fot several months in the year these people -are cut off, and I obtained several years ago the advantage of a cable line and a -cheap rate. I would like to know if the rate is being maintained or if it h-as been changed?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think there has been any change.
Mr. M-cKENZIE. Referring to the item including the working -expenses of vessels required for cable service, have you more than one vessel, -o-r is the ' Tyrian- ' the only vessel?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Som-e two years ago the head-quarters of this vessel, the ' Tyrian,' was moved from Halifax to North Sydney. The m-ost of the work performed by this boat is in the Gulf and River St. Lawrence, and it was -considered that North Sydney was a -central place for the homes of the crew, and -also a pliac-e -at whi-ch co-al could -be obtained -more economically and conveniently than Halifax. I am told

lately, although not departmentally, that this vessel has been moved back to Halifax. Would the minister tell me anything about this?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As far as I know the ' Tyrian ' was moved to Halifax before the 21st of September last. I think that at present the vessel is at Dartmouth or Halifax and there has been no change since the government came into power.
Telegraph lines-Yukon system (Ashcroft-Dawson), $213,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that for maintenance?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, this is for some very important extensions. We expect to have a revenue this year from our telegraph lines of $110,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any idea what rate the people pay, or is it the rate of the ordinary telegraph lines?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is the same rate as that of the ordinary telegraph lines.
Telegraph service generally, $7,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is that item for?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That item is to be applied to cover a number of unavoidable expenditures in connection with the Dominion telegraph service, including Point Pelee telegraph line service, superintendent, repairs, operators, use of instruments, travelling expenses, and stationery. The appropriation for 1911 was $7,000 and the expenditure from the 1st of April, 1910, to the 28th of February, 1911, was $5,548. A request has been made to keep in abeyance the item under Dominion buildings, salaries of caretakers. There is no special objection to that except that if my hon friends would [DOT]allow that item to pass it would enable us to take away a large quantity of documents required in the department and questions which might he raised under the item can be brought up under several items of the supply estimates. It will be a convenience to the department if the committee will adopt that item completely, which would close the main estimates in so far ias the Department of Public Works is concerned.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Unfortunately, I was not in a few moments ago and perhaps the minister would let me know something in regard to the item for telegraph lines between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Has the minister received any request from the Maritime Telephone Company which has telephonic communication with the island in regard to assisting their project in substitution of the old agreement which was made with the Anglo-American Cable Co.? I understand that they are prepared to give a better service. I am surprised that our friends from Prince Mr. McKENZIE.
Edward Islland are not here to refer to the matter. I understand that the Maritime Telephone Company are making some representations in regard to the matter. Does the minister recall anything in regard to it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Application was made quite recently by the Telephone Company of the maritime provinces to us to lay a cable to the island. The matter was considered and we came to the conclusion, as far as I can recollect that we could not do it.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Of course the matter is one in which the people of the island are primarily interested. There is a long standing complaint in regard to the lack of accommodation furnished by the Anglo-American Cable Company, which has some old contract, and I assume that that may be the difficulty that the minister anticipates in connection with this matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any telephone communication at the present time?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Yes there is. The reason I speak of the matter is because there is an island midway between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, which is in my county, which this present telephone service touches, which is inhabited by quite a number of people, and which is a very fertile place. I understand that the company were making some application to the government-I do not know exactly what the nature of it is-but I should hope that the minister would be able to find some method of dealing with it which would give a better service than that which is obtained under the vote which, I think, is one which is given to the Anglo-American Cable Com pany. It formerly was impossible to have a. telegram delivered in Pri,nce Edward Island after eight o'clock at night, owing to some regulation of the cable company. If that financial assistance were diverted to the telephone people, the whole of the maritime provinces would be benefited. I hope the minister has not fully closed the door against considering the proposal that these maritime province people have submitted and if the minister could see his way clear -having regard to existing contracts to make any arrangement with them, it would be much to the public advantage.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is quite a recent application-I do not remember the circumstances very well, but I would be very glad to show the file and correspondence to anybody who is interested in the subject. 1 was impressed with the idea that they were asking the government to lay a telephone cable largely for the benefit of the telephone company in question. It may be that there is some public interest operating in favour of our laying the cable between the mainland and the island, but at the time it seemed

to me that we were invited to render this service to a private corporation. II I am mistaken in that I shall be very glad to look into it again.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Of course, at the present time the service is performed not by the government but by a private corporation, which is not locally interested, and does not attempt to serve local interests.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They have a monopoly.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: They have a monopoly, as my right hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) .states. There is this consideration, that the government do grant assistance to private companies and if this company of local people were to undertake the service the minister might be asisured that it would be very much improved.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Calculations were made in my presence that it was a considerable expenditure from which we did not appear to stand to derive any revenue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There have been telephone companies formed of late in the peninsula of Gaspe, and when they came to provide for putting up their lines they found that the distances, were so great and the patrons so few that it was very difficult for them to find money sufficient to erect the poles. I understand they intend to ask the Minister of Public Works for permission to use these telegraph poles to string their wires on. The settlements are very scattered around that peninsula, and the telephone has become such a modern necessity that I hope the Minister of Public Works will be generous when applications of this kind are made to him. I trust he will allow the telephone companies in such a remote region as that to string their wires on the government telegraph poles.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In these sparsely settled regions I think it is a good policy for the government as far as possible to grant the right to telephone companies, under certain circumstances, to string their wires along our poles. We have had no applications so far, but I would be inclined to favour the idea, provided the public interests b|e safeguarded. Of course, unless there are very special circumstances it is a bad principle to follow.
Immigration-salaries, agencies, in Canada, Cfreat Britain and Foreign countries, $400,000.	I .	.	;	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the government settled upon any immigration policy for the maritime provinces? The subject was discussed here some few weeks ago in the House, and I would like to
know if the minister or the government has arrived at any matured plan.


Robert Rogers: I have had a deputation wait on me from New Brunswick, in the person of the Premier and Mr. Grimmer, and one other of their colleagues, and we discussed a proposition suitable to that province, and which appeared satisfactory to them. With regard to Nova Scotia, I had the pleasure of being waited upon by a large deputation, the spokesman of which was Mr. Cummings, a government official of that province, and we discussed a plan which was apparently satisfactory to them, and which included the appointment of one or two agents in London to work together with our own staff in European countries, and the appointment also of one or two agents in the province of Nova Scotia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was Mr. Cummings delegated by the government of Nova Scotia to interview the minister?


Robert Rogers: I think he so represented himself.


John Stanfield: I think Mr. Messenger was appointed by a farmers' meeting in the province to meet the minister, and Mr. Cummings happened to be here and went along.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About what date did the department engage the services of Mr. Hawkes, and was he promised the position prior to the last election in the event of the defeat of the Liberal government?


Robert Rogers: I may tell my hon. friend that the matter of Mr. Hawkes' appointment was never discussed previous to the election, so far as I know. In fact it was my own suggestion to Mr. Hawkes, probably a month or more after the election, that he should undertake this work.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give us a statement in regard to the officers in Great Britain and the Uunited States?


Robert Rogers: In May, 1911, A. F. Jury was transferred, from Liverpool to Exeter, succeeding Mr. Alex. McOwan, who resigned on the 1st March, 1911, John Mclennan was transferred from Aberdeen to Liverpool, and G. H. Mitchell was transferred from Birmingham to the High Commissioner's office in London; J. K. Millar, formerly of Saltcoats, Sask., was appointed Agent at Birmingham. W. B. Cumming, formerly of Saskatoon, Sask., was appointed Agent at Aberdeen, Scotland.
In the United States, J. S. Crawford was transferred from Kansas city, Mo., to Syracuse, N. Y. in January, 1911; W. H. Rogers from Indianapolis, Ind., to Kansas city, Mo., March, 1911: George Aird appointed agent ait Indianapolis,

March, 1911, and in January, 1912, Mr. R. A. Garrett, of Manitou, Man., was
appointed acting agent in charge of the office in St. Paul, Minn., relieving Mr. E. T. Holmes, who is seriously ill. No new offices have been established in Great Britain. No office is closed in the United States except the one in Boston for reasons which my hon. friend can appreciate. We have established offices in the United States at Crookston and Des Moines, Iowa.


Frank Oliver: Who are in charge of these two offices?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Askett at Crookston and Mr. Black at Des Moines.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: In regard to the appointment of Mr. Hawkes, who has been touring England at the expense of Canada and writing flamboyant articles about himself and sending cables to Canada about his activities over there, I do not know whether the minister promised this gentleman his position during the last election campaign or not. I had the honour of a visit from Mr. Hawkes in my constituency, where he undertook to instruct the men who nad come from old England and Scotland as to their duty in regard to political matters in this country. I am glad to say my constituents had the good sense to resent the attempts of this gentleman, who had hardly reached the standard that he could call himself a dignified Canadian, to direct them how to vote in the somewhat eggressive manner in which he did. I am sorry my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) is not here so that he might tell the minister of the performance which his appointee indulged in in his county when the hon. member had to apologize for his utterances and his conduct in discussing public questions.
I do not know whether the minister saw the very keen review and discussion of Mr. Hawkes made by the Victoria ' Sunset.' It does seem to me on general principles that a man who goes forth to represent this country, in immigration matters or anything else, should stop talking about having been born in Scotland or England or anywhere else-that he should be a Canadian first, last and always, and should go forth in that capacity. But that does not seem to be the method of this electioneering agent of my hon. friend or of some of his friends. The performances of Mr. Hawkes are not such as to bring very much pride to the average Canadian who is proud of his country. From what I saw and heard of him in the maritime provinces in the last election, I am surprised at the minister, who is usually given the credit of being a man of sound judgment, selecting a man like Mr. Hawkes, who seems to be running Mr. ROGERS.
papers for his own glorification. I saw in Montreal the other day the British ' News/ which is his newspaper, and which contains quotations from his own speeches delivered in the old country, and writings as to his various performances. You would think that he was the centre of interest for the whole of Canada from the very hour he arrived in Great Britain, and that nobody else who had ever gone there before knew anything about Canada. It seems to me that the minister should send for that gentleman and give him a lecture as to his performances instead of attempting to foist him on the Canadian people.
' Mr. ROGERS. I have not had the privilege of reading any of the articles to which my hon. friend refers, but I am informed, and I believe correctly informed, that Mr. Hawkes has now no interest whatever in the British ' News/ or whatever the name of the paper is. I regret that Mr. Hawkes met with such misfortune in the maritime provinces on the occasion to which my hon. friend refers; but I am glad to say that he had not the same misfortune in other provinces which he visited about that time. However, that had nothing to do with the appointment which he at present holds, further than this, that I recognized in Mr. Hawkes a . suitable man for the work of immigration, in bringing to the notice of the people of England, Scotland and Ireland the great advantages of Canada for immigrants. I think still that Mr. Hawkes is a desirable man for that work, and from the statements of my hon. friend, he is-evidently a man capable of securing a good deal of advertising


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: He advertised himself.
Mr. ROGERS

and that is the right
sort of man as an immigrant agent. I may say, with regard to bringing Mr. Hawkes back from the old country, that I believe he is on the ocean now, and he will be here in a few days.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will his mission be completed then?


Robert Rogers: He is not engaged for any definite period. That will be determined when we get his report.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is his work for the department?


Robert Rogers: His work was first of all going to the different provinces of Canada with the view of enlisting the co-operation of the local governments with the Dominion in the matter of a general immigration policy. He visited all the local governments with a good deal of

success. Then he went to London for the purpose of visiting our different agencies and offices there, in order to make a report as to whether or not it would be advisable to make any change. I hope we shall have his report in a few days after he arrives, and I shall be glad to submit it to my hon. friends for their consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Could not that work have been done by somebody else in the department?


Robert Rogers: I regarded Mr. Hawkes
as a very suitable man for this work, arid he has certainly done it very well up to date.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Were any definite arrangements of a lasting character made between the department of the hon. minister and the government of Nova Scotia, for instance, with regard to immigration? What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that this gentleman met with considerable success?


Robert Rogers: He met with success in interviewing the government of British Columbia, and I believe he met with the same success with the government of Alberta. I have had a letter, I think, from a member of every local government in the Dominion of Canada, after Mr. Hawkes' visit, expressing satisfaction with the idea of their cooperating with us in immigration work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was not a new idea in this country.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It was not Mr.'; Hawkes' idea.


Robert Rogers: No, it is our own. idea.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What credit is he to get for it?'


Robert Rogers: He was selected as the man to have the interviews and to arrange the plan of co-operation with each province as far as we possibly could. Take the province of Ontario:	We are combining our
forces and saving a considerable amount of money instead of duplicating our work. The same applies to New Brunswick, and it was only a few days ago that I had a report from a member of the government of Nova Scotia, shortly after Mr. Hawkes had visited that province, and we had the deputation the other day with regard to cooperation in an immigration policy suitable to that particular province.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That is a tribute to my hon. friend's judgment, if the idea had not existed before, that it would be a good thing to co-operate with the provinces. My hon. friend is altogether too modest. Be need not fancy that Mr. Hawkes is of [DOT] some consequence because the minister conceived the idea and Mr. Hawkes was sent to_ carry it out. I am satisfied that the minister had in the department men of experience, whose knowledge of this whole immigration business would have enabled them to carry out the minister's idea better than Mr. Hawkes. The minister is adroitly confusing the fact that he conceived this idea with the notion that that is a defence of Mr. Hawkes. A man who had hardly any root in this Canadian soil, was hardly the man to send forth with all the panoply of the greatness attributed to him in his own newspapers, for this work. The cablegrams about his movements in the old country are sent by himself, and of course the government pays for them. I am quite sure that the hon. minister has gentleman in his department who could have done more effective work. From what we have seen of Mr. Hawkes in this country, he is not a man who should be sent abroad bearing any credentials from this government as a sample Canadian agent. The minister is putting forward his idea of co-operation as if it were some defence of Mr. Hawkes.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that my hon. friend is not acquainted with Mr. Hawkes, or he would not have made such a statement. Mr. Hawkes has spent years in western Canada, and he knows our conditions as few men do, so that I felt that he was a suitable man for the work. While we have first-class men in the Immigration Department, every man there has a special work of his own, and it was necessary to have some one else, and I selected Mr. Hawkes as a suitable man to stir up interest in immigration.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Hawkes was given the work of interviewing the various provincial governments and formulating with them a policy of co-opeTation in immigration. My hon. friend has told us that. I think that he should give us some idea of what the proposition iis in regard to each of the provinces. While there has been some co-operation in the past, I understand from what the hon. minister says that it is intended to adopt the principle of co-operation as an important part of our immigration policy from this time forward. That policy having been decided on, Mr. Hawkes the special agent of the government, having interviewed the governments of the different provinces, and amicable arrangements, we are informed, having been arrived at, I think the minister should give us an idea of what those arrangements are, so that the House may judge of the merits of the scheme.


Robert Rogers: With certain of the provinces who have agents as we have had in the past, and as we have in London, we are uniting the offices, in so far as we pos-

sibly can, and are working from the same office, instead of having dual work. As between the Dominion and a particular province, we are working and co-operating together to that extent. No'w, Mr. Hawkes will be here in a few days. He left rather hurriedly for London about Christmas time without presenting his report on his tour of inspection through the different provinces of Canada. However, the report will be prepared by the time he returns here, and I will be nleased to present it to. the House in order that the full details may be gleaned as to his work. -


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very much interested in this work which Mr. Hawkes is carrying on. I do not know whether the government has had a report from that gentleman of an interview which he apparently has had with the representatives of the province of Quebec, which province within the past few months has established in London a new agency. It was a new departure and one which has been much commented on by the people of Quebec. I should be very pleased to learn that Quebec's agent in London is working in cooperation with the officers of the Department of the Interior. Speaking with regard to the province of Quebec, and the immigration policy as it affects that province-and not only Quebec, but the Dominion as a whole-I know that necessarily the immigration from Europe must above all come from the British Isles. I favouT that policy, and I believe it to he ia wise and good one. Of course we get good citizens from the continent of Europe, and we make good Canadians of them. That has been seen in the mixed population of the west where the foreign element has been quietly absorbed and to-day forms some of our best citizens. The minister himself, born and bred as he was in the province of Quebec, and being one of its bright sons, is aware that his native province has sent thousands of her sons into the maritime provinces, over hundreds of thousands into the province of Ontario, and many thousands into the far west; and he will admit that the province of Quebec deserves to be helped somewhat by a slight sprinkling of French emigration from Belgium and from France I have given this question some consideration for years past. At the request of myself and some of my colleagues in the late government we obtained from his predecessors the appointment of agents in Belgium, and in France. An announcement recently appeared in the press that the salaries of the agents in France had been cut off. I do not believe that statement was true, and I am glad to see my hon. friend take exception to it. It would be a very unjust proceeding if that were done because the men who represent the de-Mr. ROGERS.
partments in Paris, Mr. Wiallard and his assistants, are very able and active, and they have become experts in the matter of French immigration. The minister knows that it is very difficult for a Canadian agent, or indeed for any agent, to make any headway in France, as regards emigration to this country. The French government is opposed to emigration and they have very many good reason for that attitude. They have a standing army and compulsory military service, they have their own colonies, and more than that, lacking the virtues of their descendents in New France . they	lose in	natural
growth of population thousands of citizens. Naturally the government of France is not favourably disposed towards emigration, in fact it adopts many precautions to prevent it. Yet there are a certain number of people in France who are prepared, of their own volition to emigrate to this continent, and among that class our agents are quite able to get their proper share for this country. Many of these French immigrants go to Argentina and the United States. During the last fifteen years we have received our fair quota but we could find room for more. We must always remember that it is very difficult for our agents to make any active propaganda in the various provinces of France, in fact some years ago the then Prime Minister, Mr. Clemenceau, .issued an edict or circular, prohibiting agents from conducting any active 'propaganda in the interests of emigration to this country. I read that circular myself, being in France at the time of the death of the late Mr. Prefontaine, and I saw Mr. Clemenceau who was then the Minister of the Interior. He explained to me the reasons which 1 gave a moment ago, that they could not see their way to facilitate the activities of our agents. However, he said, out of the people who did go abroad they were quite satisfied that the Canadians should get their fair share. As regards the Belgians that country is small in extent but numerously populated, and we can get from there an excellent class_ of immigrants. We all know the qualities of the Belgians: they are very thrifty, very industrious, and very excellent gardeners. Around our large cities such as Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg there would undoubtedly be a large sphere of operations for them. Some are located around Montreal and they are probably the best gardeners on the island. I would ask the minister to enable our agents in Belgium to send, not only in Quebec, but elsewhere our fair share of this very interesting population. The province of Quebec deserves that consideration. The results of every decennial census show that in that province we are doing our duty towards the Dominion, and we are spreading

throughout the whole country. In order to maintain Canada as loyal and as proud as it should be, we should get some recognition from the Minister of the Interior.
In that way, we get from abroad a isprinkling of French blood. It is good blood. Look .at the Anglo-Saxon race, the finest race in the world, after the French-Canadian. It is a mixture of French, Saxon, Dane and many other races. But the Norman predominates in the Anglo-Saxon and is the best part of him. I hope that Mr. Hawkes, who has been employed by the Department of the Interior, to promote co-operation in immigration with the provincial governments, will not lose sight of the fact that, while it is1 a good policy . to have the British-born in Canada, to have the bulk of our immigration from the British Islands-which I approve, sincerely approve-yet we can make excellent British *subjects of those of pure French and Belgian slock. For these people find natural affiliations in this country, not only in Quebec, but in parts of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and in the maritime provinces as well. I was pleased to read the other day the interview given to the papers by Hon. .Richard McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, commending to attention the words of Rudyard Kipling of some years ago, ' pump in the whites,' referring to the need of this policy in order to keep British Columbia as a white mam's country. And Mr. McBride made a special appeal to tire French-Can-adian race, declaring that it was the best race for British Columbia. Send more French-Canadians, was his conclusion, *and British Columbia will be ultimately saved. When I think of six Tories from British Columbia in this House, I cannot but think that the province needs salvation. If we Iliad more French^Canadian inhabitants in Die Rocky mountains, British Columbia would soon give a good account of herself. But, speaking seriously, I hope my hon. friend, who knows the French, having been brought up in the good old county of Argenteuil, will not forget that they have some claims on his department.


Robert Rogers: I am sure I have but little fault to find with what my hon. friend has so well said. First, with respect to the matter of co-operation with the province of Quebec, we shall undoubtedly be as well pleased to co-operate in regard to immigration with the province of Quebec as with any other province in Canada. My hon. friend has just stated what 1 already knew, that the province of Quebec has opened offices of its own in London and elsewhere. I believe we gain advantage by working together, especially in respect to literature. The Dominion is preparing literature suit-, able for the different provinces at all times,
and literature suitable for the local governments and under their direction will be distributed by our agent, as well as in the localities in which they may have their agent's offices. So far as immigration from France and Belgium are concerned, and especially with regard to our office in France, I may say that no change has been made in the officers or their salaries. The only change made since I took charge of the department is to provide better and more suitable offices for the officers in that place. My hon. friend correctly states the position which we occupy in sending our agents to France. The government there has adopted a view which the hon. gentleman describes, and we are prevented from pursuing a general policy of immigration such as we pursue elsewhere. We are obliged to do what little work we do under the head of an information bureau. If we con expand, even in that way, I can assure my hon. friend we are ready to increase our staff or do anything more we possibly can to secure additional immigrants from France. We only secured something like
10.000	during the past ten years. And, while as the hon. gentleman says', conditions are a little different in Belgium-we have more freedom there-I think we have only secured
8.000	from that country in twelve years. In the meantime, we . shall be glad, if possible, to introduce assistance there and adopt a more vigorous policy with a view to inducing people in France and in Belgium to take advantage of the many opportunities which offer, not in the province of Quebec only, but in the other provinces as well, for people to better their positions and live under conditions where they can carve out a place for their children and do much better, I am sure, than they could do by remaining at home.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There may be some misapprehension as to the course pursued in the past with regard to co-operation. If it should be thought that there has not been co-operation hitherto, certainly the person so thinking labours under a misapprehension. I know that when I was connected with the provincial government of New Brunswick, the agent-general of that government in London, who had charge of immigration for the province, co-operated with the federal officials and an active propaganda was carried on. It was particularly active between the years 1897 and 1900 inclusive, as I personally know of. And since then the province of New Brunswick has had an agent-general in London whose chief duties were to give attention to immigration matters in eo-operation with the federal Department of Immigration. The late Charles Duff-Miller represented New Brunswick as agent-general for many years. Probably no man has



been, in London more active in immigration to the province of New Brunswick. He saw to it that literature was circulated, and acted with the officials of the Dominion in that regard; and I know that the federal officials were very much disposed to assist him in the work. So we should not run away with the idea that there has been no co-operation in the past between the provincial and the federal governments in this matter. I think it is due to the committee that my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers), should state exactly what new arrangements have been made in this respect, and how far co-operation has been elaborated as between the several provinces and whether they have reached the point where they will probably co-operate more fully than in the past. I presume that that information is in the department. As we understand that an official has recently been appointed to confer with the provincial governments with a view to closer co-operation than in the past, I think it would be an advantage to the country to know what the arrangements are. I suppose there must have been correspondence and other writings with regard to these plans. Several meetings have been held. I would like to know the nature of the understanding, and, if there are any financial features, what they are- whether there is any arrangement for the division of the expenses that are assumed, and have been assumed by the provincial governments in the past.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate what the hon. gentleman has said with' respect to New Brunswick in particular. I want to endorse everything he has said with respect to the agent-general, Mr. Duff-Miller, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on more than one occasion in London. He certainly was a most worthy representative of the people of New Brunswick, and a credit not only to that province, but to the Dominion of Canada as a'whole. He did much to make pleasant the visit of any Canadian that he met upon the other side while he occupied that position. I can understand that any government will cooperate with and lend assistance to such an individual as was Mr. Duff-Miller, occupying the position which he did in England as the representative of New Brunswick. I had a visit from the Premier and some of the ministers of the province of New Brunswick and we took up this matter. They have a plan of their own in respect to how they propose to divide their work up, and I presume they will announce it in their own legislature in due course. But, I may say to my hon. friend that I gave them the assurance that we were prepared to supply an agent named by the province to represent them at London, England, and to do the work as re-Mr. EMMERSON.
presenting that province, but paid by the Dominion. I also 'told him that we were prepared to give them one or two agents for special work in the province of New Brunswick. This plan is being prepared, and I shall be glad to furnish any information in connection with its progress to my hon. friend.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: I would like to ask the minister if he has sent farm delegates to the British Isles this winter?


Robert Rogers: We have followed the general practice and a number have gone. I do not know that we have been able to send as many as went last year, but the number is pretty nearly the same.


Michael Clark: So far as I understand the policy of the minister it is to pursue unremittingly the policy of Canadian immigration propagandism that has been pursued by his predecessor. In regard to these farm delegates, my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will bear me out in what I say, that there were at least two members in what was then the opposition, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), who showed tremendous hostility to these farm delegates being employed. I do not call attention to that subject to express any sympathy with their action then, nor to follow the example of their action myself now. But, there are circumstances in the present condition of western Canada that I think should be in the minister's mind in connection with his immigration policy. We had what to me was a very pregnant admission from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) in this House in another debate the other day. He said that it had to be admitted that for the moment production has outrun transportation in western Canada; that is to say, that production had outrun our present ability to dispose of what we produce. The only object af production is to dispose of what we produce, and, clearly, if we do not dispose of it, it would be better not to be produced. If we are to pursue unremittingly this immigration propagandism the difficulty occurs in my mind that in a few years production must invariably, by the process of logic, still further outrun our transportation and marketing facilities. I do not want to saddle my hon. friend or the government with the responsibility of providing markets, but he is far too clearheaded a man not to see the connection between that part of his departmental work that is now under survey, and the admission of his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Mr. Arthur Hawkes, in the recent election, I understand, made an appeal to the British-born to forego the advantages of a great and freer market.

Mr. Hawkes is now making another appeal to the British-born to come to the same country where he previously pur-suaded their fellow countrymen to forego the advantages of this market.


John Allister Currie: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will pardon me-?


Michael Clark: No, I will not pardon the hon. gentleman.


John Allister Currie: I understand he is making a statement in reference to Mr. Hawkes. When did Mr. Hawkes state-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order, order.


John Allister Currie: I am going to ask on what occasion did Mr. Hawkes state that he did not want us to have wider markets. Do not put statements in his mouth that he did not make.


Michael Clark: One has a great deal of trouble with 'buddin- ministers in this House. I prefer to deal with actual ones. I do not think the Minister of the Interior resents a single word I am saying.


John Allister Currie: The trouble with the hon. gentleman is that- he was only in the bud as a minister.


Michael Clark: I was pointing out a difficulty which I see in connection with the policy of the Minister of the Interior and of the government. I _ think, Mr. Chairman, that I was within the rules of order and pointing the difficulty out and drawing the attention of the government and the minister at present before us to the difficulty in parliamentary terms and in courteous language. My point is that it is due to this side of the House to know what the government means to do in the presence of a difficulty which exists out of the mouth of one of the members of that government. Now, as I have said already, I do not want to saddle the minister or the government with the responsibility of providing the markets, but ;t is very clear that unless this deadlock-because it is that in western Canada to-day-is removed there may be more wisdom than we saw at the time in the contention of the hon. member for Halton and of the present hon. Minister of Public Works that we should hold our hand for a little in this immigration propagandism. I believe that my contention is strictly logical and to the point, and I am sure the minister will bear me no grudge for pointing out this matter to him.


Robert Rogers: I can understand and appreciate the difficulties that have occurred this year by reason of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark, Red Deer) is pleased to term the overproduction of grain in 105i
western Canada. It is true, it is a fact, and I am sure that as western members, at all events, we are all proud to notice and declare the fact that we have grown in the three prairie provinces something over 450,000,000 bushels of grain of different sorts. Naturally, ;n view of that great development, we have had very considerable difficulty in securing railway transportation for that amount of produce. However, I see a brighter outlook for the future perhaps than my hon. friend in this regard. We have now under construction two additional transcontinental railways which will be finished in the very near future, I hope, and in addition to these we have the Hudson Bay railway well under way. I am one of those that have confidence enough in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway to believe that we are going to get an outlet there, not jalone for three or four months in the year, butl think that is the only outlet shown on the map of Canada where the people of western Canada will ever be able to get their products transported to the markets, of the world for twelve months in the year. In my judgment, if this government undertake and carry on the _ construction of the Hudson Bay railway to Fort Nelson or Churchill and undertake the construction of a line of railway from the other side of the bay to the Labrador coast, we will be able to have open navigation for twelve months in the year. It is true, as everyone knows, that it would he impossible to secure that by going through the straits, but I think that by avoiding the straits and undertaking the construction of a line of railway such as I have described, we will be able to have, not alone for three or four months in the year but for twelve months in the year, an outlet for the .grain that we produce.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How would you get across Hudson Bay in the winter months?


Robert Rogers: It does not freeze over during the winter months.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Surely there is ice there.


Robert Rogers: There is ice, but we have ice at Port Arthur and elsewhere. There are ice-breakers that are very convenient for keeping the harbours open in the winter time and I think this is one of the things, at all events, to be considered in the future. Nevertheless, we will get our marlrets and I hope that we will be able to get our transportation in such shape as will lead to greater development and prosperity in western Canada in the future than we have had in the past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am rather surprised at the statement made by the hon. gentleman about the Hudson Bay railway. As far as we know navigation through the

straits is possible only for two and a half or three months in the year. I know that Hudson Bay itself is navigable at nearly all times of the year. But my hon. friend says that if we build the Hudson Bay railway from the Pas to Nelson or Churchill and that if we build from the other side of the bay to a port on Labrador we will have solved the question of transportation.
That brings up the question of the construction of what is generally called the James Bay railway. When my hon. friend mentions the Labrador railway, does he mean that this section of the Hudson Bay railway would have its terminus on the Labrador coast? The most popular and feasible route would be one from the head of James Bay following the Nottaway river, tapping the Transcontinental railway at some point and coming in a direct line to Montreal or Quebec. That would solve the question of the transportation from the west at all times of the year. I was speaking to Captain Bernier the other day and he told me there are reports in the Department of Marine which mentioin the fact that Fort Nelson is the most available port taking it all the year around, and that very little work would have to be done at it. In order to solve the Muestion of transportation when the Hudson straits are not open it was pointed out the other day by the Minister of Railways and by Sir Lomer Gouin, Prime Minister of Quebec, that the construction of the James Bay railway from the head of that bay to Montreal or Quebec is the proper course to pursue. It is only five hundred miles long and it traverses a splendid territory, rich in minerals and in lumber, and has fine agricultural land being a continuation of the famous clay belt of Ontario.


Robert Rogers: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) but in the development of our country, as he knows, we have to take it step by step. I quite believe that before the suggestion which I threw out a moment ago will be realized we will have in operation the James Bay railway to which the hon. member has referred. In my judgment such an outlet will give a longer period of transportation than would navigation through the Hudson straits.


Rodolphe Lemieux: - I am told there are about nine months navigation that way.


Robert Rogers: In addition to that, this parliament has already voted a large subsidy for the greater portion of the James Bay railway and I hope it will be carried on and that by the time we get our railway built to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill the James Bay railway will be constructed so that we can make a connection and secure all the advantages that the construction of such a line, would give to the people of western Canada.
Mr. LEMIEUX


Frank Oliver: What provinces have agents in England now?


Robert Rogers: I am not sure but I think British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and 1 think Quebec is starting now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Nova Scotia has an agent general who is the representative of the province at large.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is also an agent from Prince Edward Island.


Frank Oliver: Will these agents be withdrawn -as the result of the scheme of cooperation that is being entered upon?


Robert Rogers: That will be a matter entirely for the provinces. I think the provinces now feel important -and strong enough to believe that they should be represented by their own agents general who will probably not devote so much of their time to the matter of immigration as formerly, but who will do other work in connection with the provinces which they represent. At least that has been suggested, and I do not know to what extent the practice will be adopted.


Frank Oliver: In what way will this duplication of work be .avoided, and in what way is the 'expense to be decreased by the co-operation system proposed?


Robert Rogers: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister appoint the men designated by the several provincial governments and will the Federal government pay the salaries?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax)-. Will the Federal government pay the greater portion of the -maintenance and literature?


Robert Rogers: That has to be arranged
yet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is only fair I think that the federal government should bear, if not the whole, the greater portion of the cost, because it is not a fair expenditure to force upon the various provinces.
I think the minister will agree with me that the several provincial governments in this country have all they can do with their limited financial strength to perform the various public services which fall under their jurisdiction, and these are becoming more burdensome on them all the time. I think in the matter of immigration the federal government might well pay all the expenses of the printing of immigration literature for the provinces.


Frank Oliver: I must say that I fail to see the economy of the arrangement so far as the Dominion is concerned, although, of course, there may be economy in respect of the provinces.


Robert Rogers: I do not wish to be understood as saying that we will have any increased economy so far as the Dominion is concerned, but we will have increased economy to the extent that between the Dominion and the provinces we will not be duplicating the work, and having two men doing what one man could well do. For instance, the other day the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario arranged with me to join forces in the office in Toronto which is a considerable saving for our department, and he would pay the rental if we would supply him with a certain amount of literature. We save duplicating the work in that way. In a general sense it is not as a policy of economy that we are doing this, but in order that we may work in unity towards the same end.


Frank Oliver: I quite understand the situation now, and I think it is desirable that the House should understand that the economy is an economy of effort rather than an economy in money. If I njight criticise, I would think that in all human probability the Dominion will have the privilege of bearing a very large share of the cost under the arrangement that is made. It is to be hoped that it will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency. Does the minister intend to reopen the office at Boston?


Robert Rogers: Yes, on the 1st of March.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the office entirely closed at Boston?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then why re-open it?


Robert Rogers: We found the necessity of it to a certain extent and _ the closing gave rise to the false impression that we were closing offices in the United States and not going to be as vigorous in our immigration policy towards our neighbours as we had been in the past. We have had a considerable number of applications for information and we found it necessary to re-open the office.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose all the officials employed in that office were dismissed, and I would be very suspicious that the closing of the office was a modus operandi for getting clear of some officials.


Robert Rogers: The hon. member is
mistaken.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the explanation?


Robert Rogers: I think the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will bear me out when I say that the officials who happened to be in charge of that office were not desirable for the carrying out of the work, and in any case whether the office had remained open or otherwise it would have been necessary to dismiss them. They were not suitable for the work. Accidents will happen in all cases and this was simply an accident.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were Mr. Hetherington and Mr. Copp the only officers- employed there?


Robert Rogers: Yes, there were one or two stenographers besides.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Whom does the minister intend to appoint?


Robert Rogers: We have not selected any one yet.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid I can hardly accept the co-operative principle my hon. friend accords me with regard to the Boston office. If I had held the same opinion of the officials there as he holds it would have been my business to have dispensed with them.
While I admit that the officials had their limitations, they had their good parts-. Mr. Hetherington, who was the first agent appointed there, was a New Brunswicker, a man of very good standing in his province, and well known both in New Brunswick and in New England by the New Bruns-

wickers living there, and for that reason it seemed to me that he was a valuable man. I admit that he had attained a considerable age, and was not as active as he might have been, but certainly he had the qualifications for the work. Mr. Copp, who assisted him was a Nova Scotian, and had formerly been a member of this House. He was a younger man than Mr. Hetherington and certainly was an active man, and I would suppose was a suitable agent. I find no fault with my hon. friend. He is responsible to the country for the efficient operation of his department, and has a right to decide on the efficiency of those in the service. But I do not want to leave myself under the imputation of having retained in office persons who were unsuitable. I would be sorry to see the office permanently closed, because I think there is a good field there, on the lines on which we established it, for securing a population for our western country from the maritime province people, who have settled in many thousands in the New England states.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When Mr. Copp and Mr. Hetherington were dismissed, what reason was assigned in the notification to them?


Robert Rogers: No special reason was given further than that the office was to be closed. It was a recommendation of a departmental officer which brought it about, nothing else.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What salary did Mr. Hetherington get?


Robert Rogers: $1,800 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What did Mr. Copp get?


Robert Rogers: 


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was not a very expensive staff. All I have to say is that I do not like the look of the whole transaction. It does not look as if there was departmental candour at least in getting rid of these officials. They were not highly paid officials. In the case of Mr. Copp it has proved to be a great hardship. While not very old, he is well up in years; he is an ex-member of parliament, and has a good knowledge of Nova Scotia, and I think he could have rendered service to the country up to the extent of the small salary he received. It looks as if these gentlemen were dismissed by a policy of fraud and deception. While the reason given was that the office was to be *closed, we are told that the office is to be opened again. Unless the minister will take the ground that they were dismissed for incompetency, I think his action was most unfair. He could not dismiss them for political partisanship. I think the chairman (Mr. Jameson) will bear me out in Mr. OLIVER.
saying that Mr. Copp, since his appointment to that office, has. not taken any part in politics in Nova Scotia.


Robert Rogers: I may say that there was no politics whatever in the closing of this office or in the dismissal of those connected with it. The action was taken entirely on the recommendation of the officials of the department, for the reason that they did not consider either Mr. Hetherington or Mr. Copp capable of fulfilling the duties they were expected to perform. I did not know them myself; I simply acted on the recommendation of officials of the department. There was no outside interference or request of any description with reference to the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In connection with the immigration from the United States, might I remind the hon. minister that some years ago, under his predecessor in office, and under Mr. Sifton, some French-Canadian agents were appointed specially to look after the repatriation of French-Canadians from the New England States? Amongst the agents appointed were some well-known priests who were well acquainted with the various French-Canadian settlements in the New England States, and I must say that they have been quite successful in repatriating several thousand French-Canadians, many of whom have settled in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, I think, in Alberta. As these agents have proved to be very satisfactory in the past, I hope my hon. friend will continue their services. There is a large population of French-Canadians in the New England States. According to the census returns published by the United States government, the population of French origin from Canada in the United States is nearer one million than a half million. This started many years ago-first at the time of the establishment of the cotton factories in the eastern states, and again during the hard times before 1896. And there was quite an influx of French immigration to the United States. Now the tide has turned, thanks to the efforts of the clergy and to the immigration agents who have been appointed in various cities of the neighbouring republic, and quite a number of these people have come back to Canada. I hope the minister will maintain these agents and see that they continue to do their work well. In this way we can recover many of our people who have not foresworn their Canadian citizenship although they are living on the other side of the boundary line.	.


Robert Rogers: In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) I may say that we are retaining all the officers to wham he has alluded, and that we are favourably considering recommendations for extending this kind of work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We in the province oi Nova Scotia are particularly interested in the details of the proposed co-operation because we are very desirous of attracting more people to that province for agricultural purposes. I was glad to hear the minister say they hoped to settle in New Brunswick people who would take an interest in market gardening, and presumably agricultural pursuits generally. In Nova Scotia, more particularly the eastern part of the province, we are confronted with a condition of things that is highly detrimental to agriculture. Prior to 1875 and 1876, farming was almost wholly the occupation carried on in that part of Canada. Almost everybody engaged in agriculture and the cost of living was consequently low. Of recent years large industrial centres such as coal mines, and the steel and iron works, have operated and have had the effect of drawing the rural population from the country. The result is that large tracts of land which previously were thickly settled by farmers, are now practically vacant while there are large centres of population entirely unproductive, requiring tremendous quantities of food stuffs. Hence the cost of living in these busy centres of population and industry is becoming alarmingly high. Our only hope and salvation is that we can secure a class of people who will settle on those vacant lands and make them productive. I have talked to the Premier of Nova Scotia upon the subject, and the question is where are we going to locate immigrants if they come or what inducements can they hold out to them. There is abundance of land but it is not owned by the government, and I would therefore suggest to the minister that in order to effect any substantial progress with his policy in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia he should acquire some of this land. It can be got very cheaply and if it were divided into small farms of fifty acres the necessary inducement to immigrants to come and settle on them would be found. Around Sydney and North Sydney there is much good land available out of which splendid farms can be created. The creation of colonies of fifty or sixty farms in my opinion would be highly successful, and in a short time this scheme would practically make its own way. I am very hopeful that the policy announced will be successful. I wish the minister every success and I trust that his plan will promote the settlement of vacant lands in the maritime provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would sug-best to the minister that in making appointments to the Boston office, it would be desirable to select persons from the maritime provinces who will appreciate the conditions there much better than persons who have lived in the provinces
of Quebec and Ontario. Such a course might also have the effect of influencing immigration from the United States back to the maritime provinces.


Clarence Jameson: As I was in the chair when the question of closing the Boston office was being discussed I wish now to say a word witn regard to that matter. My first intimation that that office was about to be closed, or that any. change had been made in connection with it, was the receipt of a newspaper clipping forwarded to -me from Digby to the effect that Mr. Copp who was in charge of the Boston office had returned home again. Mr. Copp was my opponent in the election of 1908, and he and I have always been on most friendly terms, and I am glad to say the same friendly feeling exists to-day. Immediately upon receiving the newspaper intimation I -vent to the department and made inquiries, and after a time was informed that the change had been brought about as a result of a report by an officer of the department to the effect, I believe, that it was necessary in the interests of the department, and of that branch of the department's work. I also heard at the same time from Digby that Mr. Copp was very unwell. The information given to me at the department was that while the Boston office would be closed on the 31st of December, Mr. Copp had been retired on the 21st of October. I then saw the Minister of the Interior and represented to him that Mr. Copp was unwell, and urged that he be reinstated for the remainder of the period that the office would remain open, that if necessary, Mr. Copp, though too unwell to resume his duties, should be allowed leave of absence and his salary paid as though he were still in the service of the department at the Boston office. The minister acceded to that, and Mr. Copp has been paid his salary up to the 31st of December. Only yesterday I received from Mrs. Copp a letter expressing appreciation of what had been done in that regard, and stating that her husband's health was such thal she regretted his inability to write me himself. I do not want any member of the House to think for one moment that I had ever done or said anything that would militate against the interests of Mr. Copp as an officer of the department, because, as I have already said, we have always been on the best possible terms, and it would be the last thing I should have thought of under the circumstances.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No one has ever suggested such a thing.


Frank Oliver: I wish to ask whether under this proposed co-operative arrangement as applied to the province of Nova Scotia, that province is to nominate an immigra-

tion agent with a permanent residence in England, at the expense of the Dominion with two or more subordinate agents. All the provinces are represented in the government, excepting Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, and I have no doubt that the ministers representing the other provinces will take care, of the interests of those three provinces in this arrangement. I would ask the minister if the arrangement he has sketched is equally open to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island as to the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Rogers: The same conditions will obtain in all the provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to clearly understand the new policy of the minister as regards this co-operative work between the provinces and the Dominion. If I understand rightly the officers thus working together will be paid the one by the province, and the other by the Dominion. And then the Department of the Interior will see to the literature to be issued to the public. Will the literature tend to move immigration towards the west especially?


Robert Rogers: No, the idea is to have special literature for each province prepared by the representatives there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Dominion government will do just as much to help immigration towards the several provinces as towards the public lands of the west.


Robert Rogers: Just the same.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When we are next in committee on these estimates I should be glad if the minister will give some details about the mission intrusted to Mr. Oliver Asselin. I understand that he has a commission from the department to look after agencies in Europe.


Robert Rogers: I will answer that at once. The mission was simply in connection with the French and Belgian agencies, with a view to widening our scope, the subject we discussed a few moments ago. Mr. Asselin was represented to me as being a suitable man for this Work, and he was going anyway. He receives the same salary as a farm delegate. He undertook the work, and will make a report,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister received the report?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should be glad if the minister would inform me when it is received. Mr. Asselin is a very able man, Mr. OLIVER.
a splendid writer; I shall be much interested in reading his report.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When we are again in Supply, I desire to ask some questions concerning the application made by some of the East Indian population of British Columbia with regard to the admission of their wives into that province.


Robert Rogers: Does the hon. gentleman want the information to-night?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Frank Oliver: As to the agents of the provinces appointed in England, will they occupy a part of the offices provided by the Dominion or will they have separate offices? and if so who will provide these offices?


Robert Rogers: That has not yet been definitely decided. Some of the provinces are ambitious enough to have their own offices and buildings and wish to remain in them, -while others have not. I think we have reached the time when probably this government should do something about securing large and suitable buildings in London for the purposes of the Immigration Department and other departments of government that are represented over there. If that scheme is carried out in the near future, I hope we shall provide, in that building under whatever arrangement we might make, suitable and acceptable accommodation for each province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly that is an excellent idea. It is the idea propounded the other day by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). One goes to London, and passing along the Strand sees on one side the Ontario building, on the other side the Quebec building; and a little further, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and all using the magic word ' Canada.' Why not have one big central building for the Dominion with all the provinces located in that building? When my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was Minister of the Interior, a proposition was made by Lord Strathcona to provide for a splendid building in the heart of London. I believe a site could then have been obtained on favourable terms on Trafalgar Square which would have been very suitable. The Department of Immigration has offices on Charing Cross, a small place and occupying a very valuable site, but the display made there, I am sure, has brought thousands of immigrants to this country. Passing there morning, afternoon or evening-for the place is kept bright at night with electric light's, one can always see a crow'd looking at the exhibits in the window. And, as

I say, this is a small corner of Charing Cross, If we had the old hotel in front of the Nelson Statue-I think it is called Morley's hotel, one of the old landmarks-


Robert Rogers: I am told that is a very expensive site.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It may be so; but you cannot have a central site in London suitable for Canada without paying the piper. But look at the Grand Trunk railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Allans, and all the big concerns that have erected splendid buildings and that are doing the advertising for Canada. Canada is big enough and rich enough to do advertising for herself. And certainly I would commend the action of the government if they were to erect in the heart of London, which is the heart of the empire, a big building -which would be architecturally beautiful, and would in itself be an advertisement for the country; make it the headquarters of our High Commissioner, and rally all the provinces under that roof.
I think it would be the beginning of a very sane imperialism.


Frank Oliver: I see that there is an increase of $50,090 in the first item on the list.


Robert Rogers: While n appears as an increase it is not such in reality. It is due to the fact that in former years a number of salaries were charged to the vote of contingencies. These were added to the salary list for the year 1912-13. According to a statement prepared early in November, it will require $387,812.26, to pay the salaries of the immigration employees in the outside service, leaving little over $12,000 to provide for new appointments and increases during the ensuing year. While you provided $350,000 you spent $387,817.26 up to November 15. So that it is practically the same thing.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. ROGERS moved the adjournment of the House.


Frank Oliver: What business will be taken up on Monday?


Robert Rogers: Government Bills, and, if we get through with those, Supply.


Frank Oliver: What Bills?
1 Mr. ROGERS. The Bills on the order paper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And when we go into Supply we will take up my hon. friend's (Mr. Roger's) estimates?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.23 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 19, 1912.