1901-05-03

CRIMINAL CODE-AMENDMENT.

Mr. A. A. BRUNEAU (Richelieu).: (Translation.) I beg leave to introduce Bill (No. 132) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: (Translation.) Explain.


Arthur Aimé Bruneau: (Translation.) Article 105 refers to lotteries. According to section 6, subsection D, the ' Credit Fonder du Bas-Canada ' and the * Credit Fonder Franco-Canadien ' do not come under the operation of that article. The principle of the Bill is to have these restrictions done away with as regards the joint stock companies for loans and savings, and to put on a footing of equality with the ' Credit Fonder du Bas-Canada ' and the ' Credit Fonder Franco-Canadien ' all other joint stock companies which may have been incorporated under the authority of our provincial legislatures.
Bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT, 1900.

[Stage Direction]
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 64), the Dominion Elections Act, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee thereon.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved, as subsection 5a of subsection 5 :
5a. Subsection 70 of section 64 of the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :-
' 5. If his name be omitted from the list of voters on account only of some disqualifying provision of the provincial law specified in section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1898, as amended, he shall, if not otherwise disqualified under the provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote upon his taking or offering to take the oath in the Form T, in addition to any oath which he might have been required to take if his name had been on the list, so far as such last-mentioned oath is applicable.'
2. Any deputy returning officer or person presiding at a polling station who, in administering said last-mentioned oath, mentions as the disqualification under the provincial law any fact or circumstance which is not a disqualification within the meaning of the subsection 1 of section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1898, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $50 and not less than $10.
Amendment agreed to.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the Bill be amended by Inserting clause 6a as follows :
Subsection 7 of said section 64 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :-
''7. From any oath which any such person offering his vote at such election may be required to take there shall be omitted any statements as to residence which he cannot by reason of such change of residence as is mentioned in the next preceding subsection truthfully make ; and instead of such statements, the following paragraph may be added to such oath :
That you have resided in the (city or town) of of which this polling division is a part continuously from the said	day of
(insert here the day of the first sitting held for the registration of manhood suffrage voters, and if the voter has been temporarily absent for any of the purposes allowed by law, insert the words following : ' except occasionally or temporarily in the prosecution of your occupation as, mentioning, as the case may be, a lumberman or mariner or fisherman or in attendance as a student in an institution of learning in the Dominion of Canada (naming the institution), and that you are now actually a resident of and domiciled in the said (city or town).' "
Mr. HENDERSON.: That will apply only to places like the city of Toronto: it is not general ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Not general.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the following be inserted in the Bill as section 10a :
10a. Form T of schedule 1 to the said Act is hereby repealed, and the following substituted therefor :
' T (section 64). Oath of qualification of voter whose name is omitted on account of provincial disqualification.
You swear (or solemnly affirm) that you are legally qualified to vote at this election, and
Mr. FIELDING.: that you verily believe that your name was omitted from the list of voters by reason of your being (here name the office the holding of which, or the capacity in the public service of Canada or the province, the employment in which, or the profession, calling, employment or occupation, the belonging to or engagement in which, or the class of persons, the belonging to which disqualified or disqualifies the voter from having his name on the list or from voting at a provincial election) at the time such list was prepared, and for no other reason. So help you God.


Hr. CLANCY.: It seems to me that that is so exquisitely indefinite as to make it impossible for the ordinary deputy returning officer to know what to insert. It assumes that the deputy returning officer is intimately acquainted with the law, which every one knows he is not. I fancy that it will lead to greater complications than we have at present. It seems to me that the only safe way is to enumerate in each case one or other of the reasons to be inserted.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is what we are doing.


James Clancy: 
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: They differ in every province.


James Clancy: That does not help the Bill. It will lead to serious complications, because the deputy returning officer will not know what to do.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the idea of the hon. Solicitor General is that when a man whose name is not on the list comes forward to vote, he is supposed to know the particular reason why his name is not on the list. It seems to me he must know that.


James Clancy: He does not know. He says he has been in the country, and he thinks his name ought to be on the list.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that at some stage in the proceedings you must come to the particular cause of his disqualification. If the man is not able to get to that point, I do not see how a law can be framed to meet the case. If I am not mistaken, the deputy returning officer ought to have in his possession a copy of the provincial law showing what the disqualifications are in that particular province.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It appears to me to be a very simple matter. When a man makes application to vote, the first thing the deputy returning officer has to do is to examine the provincial list. He 136i
finds the man's name omitted. Then the man must state the reason why his name has been omitted from the provincial list, that is, because he is the holder of a certain office.


James Clancy: Take the case of a man whose name was omitted from the list, not because of any provincial disqualification, but for some other reason, and who offers to take the oath, what will be the action of the deputy returning officer under such circumstances ? The man himself does not know why his name was not on the list.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: He cannot vote, if he does not know why he is excluded.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman found that he did vote at the last election in many cases, so that this amendment does not remedy that at all.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have exhausted all my ingenuity in endeavouring to prepare such an affidavit as would meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. member for Bothwell. I would have been glad if the hon. gentleman had exercised his ingenuity in the same direction.


Mr. SPROULE.: This section is not intended to provide for the class to which the hon. member for Bothwell refers, but only to those who are not on the list, because of holding some provincial office.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I wish to propose this amendment with respect to the ballot paper, form ' P.' Beneath the heading ' form of ballot paper,' the following note will be inserted :
The black lines above the first name shall extend to the upper edge and the black line below the last name shall extend to the lower edge of the ballot paper, so as to leave no white space above or below.


James Clancy: Is the proposed ballot one devised by the department or patented ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is a combination of the ballot we have had in existence and one suggested by the Rev. Mr. Macdonald, of Glengarry.


James Clancy: Has Mr. Macdonald made any claim, or is it intended to remunerate him ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is a matter to be considered by the Secretary of State. All these forms of ballot were handed to me from his office, and we adopted the combination we thought best.


Mr. CLARKE.: If the government have appropriated anybody's design, they must I pay for it.

432S


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If we have appropriated anything copyrighted, we will haYe to give compensation, and even if we benefit by an invention not copyrighted, something should be paid the inventor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is absurd to say that we cannot make a ballot paper ourselves and put the black lines wherever we chose without Infringing somebody's patent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. FOWLER.: In order to cover the point I referred to the other day, I wish to move the following amendment:
That section 10, 61 Vic., cap. 14, be repealed, and the following substituted in lieu thereof :
Within ten days after the final revision of every list of voters for the purposes of provincial election, and within ten days after any change, alteration or substitution for any such list under the provincial law, it shall be the duty of the custodian thereof to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery by registered mail a copy of such list or change or alteration thereon or substituted list, as the case may be, certified under the hand of such custodian, and having every alteration, addition or erasure therein identified by his initials. The fees to be paid for such certified copy or copies shall be those fixed by the provincial law for furnishing such copies to applicants therefor, and if there is no fee fixed by the provincial law, shall he 25 cents for each 100 names, including additions and descriptions, and 50 cents for the certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to mention again the suggestion made the other day with respect to the North-west Territories. I do not know whether my hon. friend has considered that further. There is certainly necessity for some amendments to the election law as applied to the North-west Territories. I have had statements put in my hand with respect to difficulties in connection with elections there, which are really very grave and demand some change. My hon. friend states that this could not be done in this Bill. This may not be the best place to make the change, but, of course, the object aimed at can be effected by amendments in this Bill. If the sections which were set forth in the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche)' could be made sections of this Bill, and section 2 as it now-stands could be modified by inserting in the last line but one immediately after ' thereto' the words ' or where the North-west Territories are specially mentioned.' I think that w-ould do. If there are evils there arising from defective legislation I think we ought to provide some effective remedy, and I see no practical difficulty in dealing with them by amendments to this Bill, though I can see, as my hon. friend mentioned the other day, that it would be better technically if Mr. CLARKE.
] we introduced a separate Bill. But, if my hon. friend is convinced of the wisdom of the amendments suggested, its can be done now as well as any time. The Bill introduced by the hon. member for Marquette with, I think, one or two, slight verbal alterations, could properly become part of this Bill. When that was done, of course, w-e w-ould have to look to this Bill as well as to the North-west Territories Representation Act to find the law- applying to elections in the North-west Territories. But under amendments that have already been assented to by my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) you would have to do that now, therefore, that does not seem to me to be an objection. If it is true, as has been alleged, that abuses prevail w-ith respect to enumerators there, it is only right in the public interest that some attempt should be made by this parliament to remedy those abuses. I would like the hon. gentleman to say whether or not it is not worth while to make these amendments part of this Bill.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have considered very carefully- the suggested amendments and appreciate the necessity of making some changes probably in the North-w-est Territories Representation Act. My hon. friend will understand that it may be a question in the near future whether the North-west Territories are to be brought under the provisions of the General Election Act, and changes may take place within a short time after the census w-hich w-ill make anything now done entirely inapplicable. It is not a matter of pressing necessity and if w-e proceed to deal w-ith the matter at the px-esent time it might be that the law would have to be undone in the very near future.


Robert Laird Borden: I hardly agree w-ith my hon. friend when he says that this is not a matter of pressing necessity. Any one of these six seats may become vacant by resignation or otherwise, and, in that case, an election would have to be held at once. These same evils which are alleged to have shown themselves in the past would then be experienced again. If these are w-ise amendments-and I have heard no objection to them as far as the principle is concerned-it does seem to me it w-ould be a pi'oper thing for parliament to deal with this at the earliest possible moment. If the North-west Territories are to be brought under the provisions of theGenex-al Elections Act, it would be very well. But the making of this amendment now would not affect that. And the difficulty is that until this is done these evils which seem to be admitted w-ill remain unredressed.


Mr. HACKETT.: The Solicitor General said that, after discussing those amendments, he would have something to say aboxxt the amendment I moved.


Tlie SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend from West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Ilackett) are fully met by the sections to which I have already referred.


Edward Hackett: I may say that I am very anxious on this point. I came near being made a victim of a great injustice because of no protection being given to the ballot after declaration. On the 7th November last, I was elected by a small majority. Sly opponent demanded a recount, and the ballot boxes and their contents were ordered to be produced before Judge McLeod. As I have explained to this House before, 27 boxes were shipped from Alberton to Suinmerside, but only 26 reached Summer-side and were brought before the judge for recount. One box with its contents was stolen for the purpose of having me counted out. The villain who perpetrated this crime no doubt thought that this box containing a majority of 33 votes for me would be ruled out and my opponent would be declared elected. However, we had a just and good judge, and he did what was right. Now, you have in Canada machinery at work doing this kind of thing all the time. You may burn the ballots in Ontario, but you steal them at Prince Edward Island. The amendment I proposed was intended for the protection of the ballots after declaration day, and it provided that the returning officer should be held responsible for these ballots, and that if, through any carelessness or neglect of bis, these evidences of the sacred rights of the people were destroyed, he should be punished in an exemplary manner. I have here an article on this very subject which wras published in a Prince Edward Island paper on the 23rd November last. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) will agree with me when I say that the writer of this article is a perfectly independent man, a man who takes no side in politics. This article appeared in the Morning Guardian, and I want to read it to show the strong indignation in Prince Edward Island at that time with regard to the stealing of that ballot box :
A Great Crime.
With respect to the villany committed in the ballot-stealing case in West Prince, our readers may desire to know what provision the law makes for its punishment. Here is the law :
Now, my hon. friend the Solicitor General told me the other evening that this law was quite sufficient to meet every case :
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine in the discretion of the court or to seven years imprisonment, or to both fine and imprisonment, who steals or unlawfully takes from any person having the lawful custody thereof, or from its lawful place of deposit for the time being, any writ of election, or any return to a writ of election, or any indenture,
poll book, voters' list, certificate, affidavit or report, ballot, or any document or paper made, prepared or drawn out according to or for the requirements of any law in regard to Dominion, provincial, municipal or civic elections.
If we knew the thief, If we could find him, we could punish him. But I require now by my amendment that we should hold the returning officer responsible for placing these boxes and ballots in the hands of the county judge. Then this writer goes on to say :
The law thus makes provision for condign punishment of any person who steals, or tampers with any ballot-box, ballot or election papers, treating such action as a grave crime. Under the law as it stands, the West Prince criminal or criminals are guilty of many of the offences there specified, and liable to penalties which, if enforced with full rigour, would send them to the penitentiary for the term of their natural lives. Nor is this law too severe, for the crime is one committed against the state, an assault upon the very foundations of the government of the country, and partaking of the nature of treason. Besides it carries with it a public disgrace to the county, the province and the Dominion in which it occurs. Hereafter the fair fame of West Prince, and of the island will be tarnished with this grave scandal, and the community cannot be cleared of the ill-fame until the offender is brought to justice.
A grave and important responsibility

I want especially to call the attention of the right hon. leader of the government to what this writer says in this connection :
A grave and important responsibility rests upon the Dominion government in this matter.
I say a grave responsibility rests upon them, and I have been endeavouring all through this session to have the government take some action in this matter ; but they stand between myself and the public on the one side, and the thief who committed this crime :
The government appoints the returning officer, and he in turn appoints the deputies and clerks who have the entire official charge of all that pertains to the conduct of an election. All these officials are_ officials of the government, and the government is responsible for their capability, fairness, trustworthiness and watchfulness. If anything goes wrong in an election, as has occurred in the present case, it becomes the immediate duty of the government to search out and bring to justice each and every person who may have been guilty of wrong-doing or neglect in that connection. The duty becomes the more Imperative because of the fact that it is always to the interest of the government to secure the return of a supporter, and suspicion of unfairness will be quickly aroused and will remain if the government fails to do its full duty in the premises.
In the present case, and entirely without regard to whether the criminal "who broke the ballot-box and purloined the ballots may be suspected to act in the interest of one or other of the parties, prompt and energetic action ought to be taken to discover and prosecute the guilty party. Has this been done? The government employs detectives and secret agents
4331	COMMONS	4332
to discover and prosecute offenders against the revenue laws, and justly so, but the ballot thief is a wiclced offender compared with the mere smuggler. If a bale of goods escapes the payment of customs duties the loss can be measured in dollars, but the ballot thief attempts to thwart the public will and seeks to seat a member of parliament by fraud.
I would call the attention of the right hon. gentleman and the government to this. This article was written by an independent newspaper, and it is worthy the consideration of this honourable House :
If we could imagine an entire parliament elected by such means, our free institutions would be overthrown and revolution and anarchy must result.
Let the government clear its skirts in this matter. We do not for a moment suspect that the government or any one connected with it had any guilty knowledge of the shameful fraud that was attempted in West Prince. None the less if prompt and energetic measures are not taken to ferret out the guilty parties and bring them to justice, a suspicion may arise that such negligence is not far removed from being an accessory after the fact. We rely upon the government to do its whole duty in the premises. Let it not be said that ballot-boxes can be stolen and their contents plundered in Prince Edward Island, and no effort made to discover and punish the guilty.
Now, as I said before, I feel strongly on this matter. Are the government protecting from punishment the man who stole the contents of that ballot box ? What have they done to ferret out the guilty party in this connection ? Have they sent detectives on his track ? Have they endeavoured to punish the crime which was committed on purpose to place here a supporter of the present government ? Sir, I see the hon. Solicitor General, whom I believe to be a very fair man; he told me the other evening)-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Hackett: Yes, I believe him to be a fair man. He told me that this box was shipped as freight, and the government were not responsible for it. Sir, the whole matter was in the hands of the government. As the representative of the Department of Justice in this House and in this country, the hon. Solicitor General should have seen it to be his duty to make such a provision that this ballot box should not have been shipped over a railway like an ordinary barrel of flour or barrel of pork ; he should have seen that his returning officer, who is appointed by the government, if he ships these boxes over a railway, should take precaution to protect them, and to see that the contents of the box were handed to the county court judge on the day of recount. It was for this reason that a few days ago I moved this amendment to safeguard the rights of the people in respect to the ballot boxes, and to hold the deputy returning of-


Edward Hackett: fleer responsible after declaration day for these packets, and their production before the county court judge. The Solicitor General has not seen fit to accept my amendment. But I feel that it is made in the interests of the people that I represent, in the interests of the whole country. Some amendment should be made to our law by which you cannot steal, as you have done in Prince Edward Island, a box containing the records of the people, without being held up to the scorn, contempt and condemnation of the people of this country. I would ask the Solicitor General if he will not now accept my amendment. He may desire to modify it, but he should do something to hold the returning officer responsible for these ballots. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, smile. I do not say that he was accessory to the crime, or had anything to do with it, but his minions did. I do not see the Minister of Public Works 'Hon. Mr. Tarte) smile.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is all right.


Edward Hackett: Well, we had his agent down there, we had a man sent out from the hon. gentleman's newspaper office, who was canvassing for that paper, who remained in that riding of West Prince for months before the election, and who was on the train the very night this ballot box disappeared. And 1 believe, Sir, although I do not want to charge any man with an offence without I have evidence to prove it, I do believe that this individual, standing so close to the Minister of Public Works, had somethiug to do with this theft of the ballot box.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am quite sure no language could be too strong to condemn an offence such as that to which the hon. gentleman has called the attention of the House. I wondered when he was speaking whether he was really sincere, or whether he was speaking like a man unacquainted with the facts. The outrage in stealing that box was a great one, but who benefited by it ? What motive could one have in stealing that box ? The hon. gentleman had been elected; he had been declared to be elected. A recount was demanded. but that recount was defeated by the stealing of the ballot box. The box was stolen. The hon. gentleman had been declared elected, and if the box was stolen it would thereby defeat a recount. Whether he was properly or improperly declared elected, there was no machinery by which that could be tested when once the box was stolen. Now, the hon. gentleman (Air. TTaekett) was on the train that day.
Some hon. AIEMBERS. Oh, oh.
r The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The hon. gentleman was there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. Nobody would impute that he was a party to this business, but he was there, and the box was stolen, and the recount was defeated. The recount could not have been held excepting by common consent, taking the published returns of that poll, so that the box never was recounted, and could not be. I do not charge the hon. gentleman with doing it. He was there, and the inference may be drawn. Now, my hon. friend has Intimated that the hon. Minister of Public Works is not smiling at this business, because his agent was on the train too. But, the agent had no motive in the world, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) had. I do not accuse him of doing it. I do not think he is as bad as that. However, I would call his attention seriously to the fact that so far as any proseecu-tion under this law is concerned, the law is now sufficient to base a prosecution upon it. If the hon. gentleman, who was on the train, could not prosecute this matter, how could he expect the hon. Solicitor General, who was in Quebec, to do it ? If the offender can be discovered, the law is sufficient to punish him.


James Clancy: Were not those in charge of the ballot box, and really in this case guilty of criminal negligence, the offenders ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Perhaps they were. If they were criminally liable under the statute, why did not the hon. gentleman prosecute them ? It is open to him to prosecute. The Dominion government does not prosecute. The prosecution would lie, of course, with the provincial government.


Robert Laird Borden: Was this before or after declaration day ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: After declaration day. The hon. gentleman had been declared elected, and the ballot boxes were all ready to be recounted. The recount was defeated, because somebody stole the box, and the hon. gentleman who makes the complaint was on the train.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not extraordinary that we should have a declaration made before the collection of the ballot boxes?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The ballot boxes were collected at Alberton. There had been an application made for a recount before the county court judge, and the ballots in this particular box would have been recounted, but this unfortunate circumstance happened which prevented the recount.


Robert Laird Borden: I have always understood that the ballot boxes were being
returned by the deputy returning officers to the returning officer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, no.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) has brought a very serious case to the attention of the House. If it be true that the returning officer, in taking these ballot boxes to the judge for the purpose of a recount, was guilty of very extraordinary negligence, as he seems to have been in leaving them in one part of the train and going to another part of the train, I am not very sure that the hon. gentleman is not right in asking that this law should be amended so that a man who is guilty of such negligence should be punished.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Whether he was guilty of negligence or not, I am not prepared to say. He seems to have placed forty ballot boxes in the hands of the railway officials. The boxes were locked up in a freight car, and he took a receipt from the officials, and on the way down the train was broken into and the box was taken out.


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard some things about ballot boxes being tampered with before, and I know how easy it is to have an excuse, that there was thoughtlessness, or that some one broke in. But, we cannot be too careful in providing legislation which will prevent the recurrence of any such thing as this. I do not know whether the destruction of this ballot box helped or injured my hon. friend. That is not the question before the House. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries only uses that, of course, as a diversion. The point is. whether our law does not require some amendment so that a returning officer, taking ballot boxes under circumstances of this kind for the purpose of a recount, which will determine the right to represent a constituency, shall be liable to such penalties as would prevent a repetition of a scandal such as that which has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for West Prince. I think that the hon. Solicitor General may very well turn his attention to this Act. and see whether it is not necessary to place 'some penalty upon the returning officer which would tend to ensure greater care than seems to have been present in this case on the part of the returning officer.


Edward Hackett: In reply to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), I just want to say one word. He would like to make it appear that, myself, or 'some friend of mine, had to do with the stealing of that ballot box, and that we prevented a recount by doing that. The recount went on.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It went on by consent, but the recount could not legally go on. It only went on by consent, and by taking the sum total of the ballot boxes and counting it in without being able to count the ballots. There could not be a legal recount under those circumstances.


Edward Hackett: Perhaps not, but the judge thought otherwise.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, the judge refused to go on, and counsel for both sides had to sign a written consent that he should go on and count such of the ballots only as were there.


Edward Hackett: The hou. minister is very desirous of standing between the public anil this thief, whomever he may be. Why should I have stolen the ballot box ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not accuse the hou. gentleman of stealing the ballot box. I did not say he did. I say that he is the only one who had a motive for stealing it.


Edward Hackett: I had a motive in purloining a ballot box when I had a majority of 33 votes in that poll ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It stopped the recount.


Edward Hackett: It is ridiculous. I am amazed that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries should stand up here and say that I would be in any way connected witli that. I could not imagine an act of this kind, that I would go into a baggage car and take a ballot box containing the rights of the people. I know the hon. minister would not do it.


Robert Laird Borden: Was he on the train too ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I was in Ottawa.


Edward Hackett: No, he was not there, but I was on the train.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not there.


Edward Hackett: This is a serious matter. There has been no investigation by this government, or any attempt to discover the thief. I was informed by the baggageman that the boxes were taken from the baggage room at Alberton and placed in a car. There were twenty-seven boxes. They were purposely placed thirteen in each row. thirteen below and thirteen above, and the twenty-seventh box, the box in which I had a majority of thirty-three votes, was placed on top, in order that it might be convenient for the thief to take it.


Edward Hackett: 


Mr. COWAN.: Did you not make a mistake in the box ?


Edward Hackett: You are treating with levity a matter that endangers the rights of the people of Canada. I was travelling on the train in the first-class car in the rear, and this baggage car was away in front, and I saw the returning officer reclining at his ease travelling as luxuriously as he possibly could and leaving the ballot box at the mercy of robbers in the baggage car. I was astonished to see the man having these ballots in charge so careless and negligent. I am endeavouring to have this law so amended as to prevent that, and the government not only will not accept my amendment, but with the greatest disregard for law and order they are seeking to protect the thief who stole these ballots. If the government want to do their duty, let them set their detectives to find out who the thief was. The Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) was not serious when he said I had anything to do with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Edward Hackett: Let him find the thief and if he tries to he will not find him far from the government. He will find that the man who stole this ballot box was associated with the men who burned the ballots in West Elgin and Huron. That is all I have to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Edward Hackett: Go on, yes. It is a sad thing that on the threshold of this twentieth century you find men in this parliament who will stand up and defend the thief who perpetrated a crime such as that.


Mr. WALLACE.: The member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) is making a very reasonable proposition in asking that the custodian of the ballot boxes should be made responsible for their safe-keeping. Here is a case in which an officer when asked to produce the ballot boxes before the county court judge could not produce the Greenmount box where the hon. gentleman [DOT] Mr. Hackett) had thirty-three of a majority. The man who has the highly responsible duty of caring for these ballot boxes should be liable to a very severe punishment if he fails in his duty. If we do not legislate against that we may expect a repetition of what has occurred here and elsewhere to my knowledge, when ballot boxes have been stolen or tampered with by interested parties. Whether tampered with or stolen, the returning officer should be held directly responsible under the severest penalties. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) are very jubilant this afternoon because they think they can prove an alibi in this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has it always been thus ?


James Clancy: This is a matter which should be treated very differently by the government. I do not know that a graver scandal has ever been disclosed in this parliament. The argument of the Minister of Marine: that it seemed to make some difference as to who would profit by this step, is not creditable to the hon. gentleman, and this is not an occasion for him to indulge in light chaff. A grave crime occurred, and is this parliament to declare that they are powerless to prevent a recurrence of it. If by any misconduct on the part of the returning officer or a deputy returning officer a constituency is disfranchised or the person returned has not received a majority of the votes, it is certainly a very grave thing. The Minister of Marine says that if we could find the thief we have a law to prosecute him. The hon. gentleman is a lawyer and he knows perfectly well that there is no law to reach the returning officer in this case. How convenient it would be for any man charged with this responsibility to be ignorant in order to allow the ballot box to fall into the hands of a thief by a preconcerted plan. The government can not afford to laugh out of court a matter so serious as this. The Solicitor General and the government are bound to take action towards at least attempting a remedy. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) may not entirely meet the case, but it certainly invites the government to take action. The House is entitled to some opinion from the Solicitor General as to what ought to be done in this matter.


The CHAIRMAN.: Shall I report the Bill ?


James Clancy: No. The government cannot afford to treat this serious matter in this way. The right bon. the First Minister is now in his place, and in face of the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Hackett), I appeal to him, if his government can ignore an offence of this kind and treat it lightly. If the law is defective, why should it not be remedied. I venture to say that there is not a legal gentleman in the House who will say that the law is sufficient to cover this case. The question is simply this, whether the person who has the great responsibility of having ballot boxes in bis charge shall be held to account for the faithful discharge of his duties. The right hon. gentleman knows that to take no notice of the matter is to offer an incentive to men on both sides of politics to do the same thing in the future. It may occur just as readily on one side as on the other, and neither party wants to derive any advantage from transactions of that kind.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are now in possession, and they ought to be all the more jealous of the rights of the people. I think that before this Bill goes through some effort ought to be made to protect the public interest for the future.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Such offences as the one which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from West Prince (Mr. Hackett) are, unfortunately, not isolated. It is not the first case of this kind that has occurred, though not under identically the same circumstances. I have a distinct recollection that the party to which I belong suffered, especially in the county of Montmagny, where the office of the registrar, who was the custodian of the ballot boxes, was broken into by a burglar, and some boxes containing ballots were stolen. Unfortunately, burglars will always exist: but there are laws against burglary and theft. The man who took the ballot box in question committed larceny. Whether or not the returning officer took all the precautions which he should have taken is perhaps a fair question for discussion. In my opinion, the returning officer was not in any way to blame. I say that very deliberately, after having heard the statement made by the hon. member for West Prince. The statement was that the returning officer was called upon to take the boxes before the judge. He had to travel, I am informed, sixty or seventy miles, and take the boxes with him. How could he have done It ? I do not know that he could have done it in any other way than by railway. He took the boxes to the railway station, had them carried as freight, took a receipt for them, and took the precaution of having the car containing the boxes locked. Could more precautions have been taken ? I would like my hon. friend to inform the House. In my judgment, I say it very frankly, the returning officer was not guilty of any negligence whatever. I do not know what more he could have done, unless my hon. friend from West Prince expected that he would travel in the baggage car with the boxes. I do not treat lightly such offences as this, but I think the law is quite ample to deal with the offender if the offender can be found.


James Clancy: I am told that these boxes were sent as ordinary freight. It may have been for a time in the year when it would be unreasonable to expect the returning officer to ride in the baggage car for any great distance ; but surely he could have taken some means to have had these boxes kept under the eye of some person. If he failed to do that, he was guilty of great negligence. I have no hesitation in saying that to put them in a freight car and leave them there was not a proper thing to do. If he had put them in an express car, the theft would not have occurred, because there would have been a person there at all times to prevent

it. I do not say that thefts do not occur in other matters ; but they are so rare, and the inducements to commit them are of such a personal kind, that they cannot be compared with this. It is not proposed to impose additional duties on returning officers which cannot be carried out; but if some means can be provided for narrowing down the difficulties, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will not say that that should not be done. My complaint is that there is no effort to do anything : it is assumed that the returning officer took reasonable care, and that it is utterly impossible to put any legislation on the statute-book which would prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing. I think the matter is of sufficient gravity to call for some such effort. I am not going to ask for an inquiry into the matter, as it is past ; but the important thing now is to protect the public interest against a recurrence of such things, and in that I am sure I have the sympathy of the right hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In a case of this kind, it seems to me there are two things in-j cumbent on the government ; the first is to institute an inquiry In order to ascertain who was the perpetrator of the deed and have him punished, and the second is to amend the law so as to provide that no such thing shall occur in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said as to the degree of care which the returning officer exercised in this case. I think it is undesirable that the returning officers throughout the country should arrive at the conclusion that ballot boxes may. under such circumstances, be sent forward exactly as might a barrel of apples. That was precisely what this man did, according to the right hon. gentleman's statement; he sent the ballot boxes forward as freight, and took a receipt for them. It is true, the car was locked, as freight cars often are. For my part, I am of opinion that when a returning officer forwards ballot boxes in this way. he should keep them under his personal supervision. If that necessitates his riding in a baggage car, he should do so; or, if his constitution is too delicate to permit him to do that, he should employ some one to do so. I am not sure that it would not be a proper thing to have this particular returning officer brought to the bar of the House to explain his conduct. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louisj Davies) referred to the fact that the hon. member for West Prince had a majority of 33, and he suggested that the ballot box was stolen for the purpose of preventing a recount. We are not misled by a suggestion of that kind. Every one knows that the object of stealing the ballot box, which gave a majority of 33 to the hon. member for West Prince, was to have a recount of the Mr. CLANCY.
remaining ballots, so as to put the hon. member for West Prince in a minority.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not agree with my hon. friend. It is quite evident that the man who stole the box desired to defeat the recount which was to be held before the judge, and in that he was successful.


Robert Laird Borden: If a lawyer stole the ballot box I could understand that; but if an ordinary unpracticed layman was the thief I think the view he would take would be this : I am stealing a ballot box which gives a majority of 33 to the Conservative candidate. The judge who has to make this recount, will count the remainder of the ballots, and that will give a majority to the Liberal candidate.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Euless he were a very astute layman or a very astute lawyer, he could not possibly know who had the majority of ballots in the ballot box. The ballot box does not show on the outside where it belongs to at all. You could not tell from the outside of the box what the contents were.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not as familiar with these boxes as my hon. friend. How does he know that this box had nothing on it ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Did my hon. friend ever see a ballot box with the numbers on the outside ?


George William Fowler: Yes, and the names too.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: And the polling subdivisions.	1


Robert Laird Borden: I am not so familiar with the facts of the case as my hon friend the Minister of Marine; and when he says there was nothing on the box to indicate where it belonged, 1 am not in a position to contradict him. I understand' that these boxes have marks or labels on the outside to indicate where they belong, and no doubt the stealing of the box in this case was intended to defeat the Conservative candidate


Mr. LEFURGEY.: This is not the first instance, since our hon. friends opposite have come into power, of malpractices in elections. In 1898, when I came out in a federal by-election, the number of cases of illegal practices at the different polls was enough to shock the whole community of East Prince. In one poll alone, the poll of Emeyvale, which up to 1898 had given a substantial Conservative majority, that majority was reversed, and we found that the deputy returning officer, instead of counting the ballots before the agents at the poll, had taken them home to his own house and counted

them there. But in the general elections, when we had good, trusty men, to look after our interests, we found things the other way, and had a substantial majority in Emeyvale. So flagrant are these malpractices in Prince Edward Island that they have become a by word and been woven into poetry, in which the name of our premier of Prince Edward Island, who had gone out to Emeyvale for the purpose pf corrupting the electorate, is given prominence.
The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. The	hon.	gentlemen	should
give us that poetry.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: When the Minister of Marine gets up and makes light of this matter

The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. The	hon. gentleman is	quoting from a public document. He should lay it on the Table or give it in full.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: When the Minister of Marine treats so grave a matter as this is in so light a manner, he takes a very small way of avoiding a disagreeable subject, and one whose importance merits more attention from the right hon. the Prime Minister and his supporters.
Bill reported.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved the third reading of the Bill.


James Clancy: In view of the Solicitor General not having adopted the amendment I proposed, and which has been standing with some other Bills, I would like to ask the right hon. the First Minister if he will allow us to reach Public Bills and Orders,[DOT] in order that we may resurrect from the1 grave Bills such as the one which stands in my name.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would not like to postpone the resurrection of my hon. friend's Bill to the day when Gabriel sounds his trumpet, but it certainly can be postponed until next year.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 63) to amend the Franchise Act, 1898.-The Solicitor General.
Bill (No. 121) further to amend the Post Office Act.-Hon. Mr. Sutherland.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the grant of pensions or gratuities to staff officers, officer^ and men of the permanent militia force, and
to the widows and children of such officers, read the second time and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 133) respecting pensions to officers and men of the permanent staff and officers and men of the permanent militia, and for other purposes.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
[u"This Bill (No. 103) to which the motion to go into committee refers, is an amalgamation of two Bills that were presented to this House, Bills No. 102 and No. 103. The first one deals with the lease of\n\nthe Northern Pacific lines in Manitoba to the Manitoba government ; the other one deals with a lease or a transfer of those lines to the Canadian Northern, and also contains provisions for guaranteeing and assuming further large obligations by that province in connection with the railway. The Canadian Northern lease was a lease practically for all time, namely, for 999 years ; it included all the lines owned by that company in Manitoba, which were to be handed over to the Manitoba government with the option of purchase. They were to be valued for this purpose at \xa57,000,000. The rental was to be for the first ten years, $210,000 ; for the second ten years, $225,000 ; for the third ten years, $275,000 : and for the balance of the term, $300,000 per year. The government were to have the right at any time to purchase the whole system at a price of $7,000,000. By the next Bill the province of Manitoba agrees to hand over this option on these lines to the Canadian Northern Railway, and with it the option of purchase and all practical control, retaining only the liability for rental. Then by that agreement of the province of Manitoba with the Canadian Northern, the province of Manitoba would assume the liability for $5,800,000 on the Rainy River Railway, being in the province of Ontario, and which is calculated as a guarantee at $20,000 per mile. A large mileage under this company in the province of Manitoba carries also guarantee bonds ; so that the total guarantee of the province of Manitoba, including the rental of the lines that were leased to the Canadian Northern, would amount to nearly $17,000.000. or a total liability of about $000,000 a year, practically equal to the total revenue of the province at the present time.\n' Now this gigantic proposition for a small province has been but a short time before the people of that province. As a matter of fact, the existence of that agreement was first made public on February 14th of this year ; it was introduced into the local legislature on February 27th ; It passed its second reading on March 11th ; and was assented to by the Lieutenant Governor on the 16th of the same month. Only 26 days elapsed from the date of its first being made public to its final passage through the local legislature. This was in spite of the fact that the public in Manitoba, and nearly all those organizations, associations, councils. &c.. that were considering the matter, were all the time giving the government of Manitoba great credit for inviting public criticism and discussion so that nothing should be put through without being thoroughly understood. There is one remarkable thing with regard to these Bills, and that is that in all the discussion in the newspapers and in this House, so far as it has gone, no reference whatever has been made to the condition of the railway company who asks for legislation, because everybody who investigates the Bill is so astounded that their\ninterest is taken up entirely with the position of Manitoba in the matter, with the position of only one party to the contract.\nX have watched with some care the newspaper comments since that deal was first made public, and I will refer to one made shortly after the agreement was made public, and to another in the Globe of yesterday. On the 24th of February, La Patrie, of Montreal, had an article headed ' A gigantic abomination,' and it reads as follows :\nThe arrangement made by the Manitoba government with Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann merits more than passing notice. It is in fact one of the most audacious deals this country has ever witnessed. Here is a little province scarcely able to meet its ordinary liabilities, assuming obligations reaching to $12,000,000. We do not know what the attitude of the Lieutenant Governor was, but we do know what it should have been, or what it should be at the present time.\nMr. Roblin should be forced to dissolve the legislature and to seek the opinion cf the electorate upon this scandalous affair. It is. in fact, useless not to call things by their right name, for there is evidently an enormous scandal in this operation. The powerful capitalists, Messrs. Hill, Morgan, etc., who are preparing to invade British Columbia, certainly count for something in this astonishing transaction.\tThe public\nprotest, signed by a certain number of Manitoba business men, contains nothing but the truth.\nI do not, in fact, tell all the truth, because all the truth is not known. The province cf Manitoba is incapable of supporting the load which its imbecile or corrupt government has just placed upon its shoulders, and then what will happen ? In the near future they will turn to the federal treasury and ask the old provinces to pay the price of their extravagance. In a word, we see clearly enough through this gigantic abomination.\nThat was very mueb how it struck most of the people who read the contracts when they were first published. Passing over the interval from then until now. I would like to quote from an editorial in the Globe of yesterday, which shows the trend of thought of those who have followed these Bills during the last few weeks :\nThe traditional Philadelphia lawyer could scarcely keep track cf the various phases which Manitoba's railway policy passes through. The situation becomes vaguer with each turn of the wheel. What remains clear is that Manitoba will become surety for some seventeen millions of dollars, advance the interests of a group of railway promoters for whom the country has done exceedingly well already, and then have no more substantial concessions than should be secured under the provisions of the general law if they were urged to their full extent. It will be said that they never are or never will be urged to their full extent. We do not accept this view, for we believe that public opinion is rapidly moving towards the conviction that railways, enjoying as they do great privileges at the hands of the state, are subject in a large measure to its control. The day when this is practically recognized and enforced may not he just at hand, hut we have a shrewd guess that it will arrive about as soon as the advantages which Manitoba will reap from her railway bargains.", "Although entertaining this view about the matter, we are by no means disposed to counsel the Dominion parliament to undertake the task of saving Manitoba from herself. The legislature of that province, fresh as it is from the people, deliberately gave it.s sanction to these bargains, it was fully aware of the responsibilities which it assumed on behalf of the pro-yince. There is nothing to warrant us in treating the province as if incompetent to manage its own affairs. The only duty that lies on the Dominion parliament is to see that its own control over the railways which it has sub-ventioned and the control of the provinces which have granted aid on definite terms to some of these railways are not impaired by the legislation which is now asked for.\n-there certainly is in that nothing very nattering to the parties in Manitoba who have made these deals. There has been no criticism of their Bills as railway Bills, because they are connected with a deal *which is all on the side of tile railway company. Whatever else may be accomplished whatever chances may be run, this, on the face of the contract, is assured, that for the next thirty years the Canadian Northern Railway Company have the key to the cash box ot Manitoba, and if they do not help themselves it will be more out of charity and honesty than for want of an opportunity. I have placed on the Motion paper an amendment which is not an ordinary one, because the conditions that exist in' this case are not ordinary conditions. I wish to make my point good in asking that these Bills be not passed, but that they be held over until such time ns a direct reference has been made to the people of Manitoba, to ascertain their will and their wishes in connection with this bargain. I believe myself, thoroughly, in the principle of the referendum, hut I am aware that it would not be reasonable to ask this House, on an ordinary occasion, that the question should be submitted to a referendum vote by a direct reference, to put it in that way. simply because I thought so. I am going to lay sufficient information before this House to convince it that the greater portion of the intelligent people of Manitoba have expressed themselves as against the Bills, and are m favour of action similar to that which I am advocating, i am going to deal with the city of Winnipeg, and with the public opinion there, and with the sentiment throughout the province separately. I shall deal with Winnipeg first, because in itself it is no small portion of the province of Manitoba, and then I shall deal with the expressions of opinions by public meetings and by municipal councils throughout the province. As regards Winnipeg. I am going to quote an expression of opinion"]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are a few items scattered over the main estimates which I would be glad to have the committee dispose of.
Civil Government-Contingencies-The Department of Inland Revenue :

Clerical and other assistance	 $2,000
Printing and stationery	 2,800
Sundries	 2,200


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is an increase in this appropriation as compared with last year of $750, the increase being made up of $700 increase in printing and stationery, and sundries $50. This is due to general increase of business, the appropriation of the previous year having been found somewhat short.
Superannuation-Extra allowance to Hr. Wallace, ex-postmaster at Victoria, B.C., $240.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the same appropriation as last year and for a number of years past. I do not remember the circumstances under which it arose, but it is an old vote. Public Works, I suppose the committee is not ready to take up. Then we have the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for steamships, but we will have to reserve them all.
Miscellaneous-Salaries and contingencies of the office of the Paris agency, $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: This seems to be the same as last year, but will the hon. minister please explain ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is for the Paris agency, and is the same vote as has been given for the last twenty years. The agent is Mr. Fabre.
Miscellaneous-Expense of litigated matters which may be paid for services in connection with the litigation conducted within the Department of Justice, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $15,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is the same as last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of last year's appropriation was used ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I carmot give the exact amount, but I think nearly the whole of it-$13,000 or $14,000 if I remember aright.


Mr. TAYLOR.: When hon. gentlemen opposite sat on this side, they used to condemn the government of that time for expending any money for legal matters so long as they had a Solicitor General. We have a Solicitor General who is fully able and competent to do the business of the department. The government should carry out what they proposed when on this side, and an item of this kind ought not to appear.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We cannot well dispense with this vote, no matter who may be Solicitor General or no matter how arduously he may work. But I may state that since the change of government took place, there has been a decrease in the amounts paid to lawyers in respect of litigated matters in the Department of Justice. The average amount paid each year before 1896 was $18,000, while now it is $7,000. Since. 1890, fully two-thirds of the cases have been managed in the Department of Justice. I do not wish to claim credit for that myself, because it could not have been done without the hearty co-operation of the officers of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government could not do without this vote, because there are lawyers who are found very handy when an election comes on.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has not in mind Mr. Hogg, of Ottawa?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had one of these lawyers in North Bruce. He took a very lively interest in the matter, and I venture to say that if I had the Auditor General's Report or the Public Accounts of Ontario I could show that he had been a beneficiary for a number of years. I. refer to Mr. L. B. Heyd. I have a newspaper clipping here in which it is said that Mr. Heyd's judgment must be biased. According to the Public Accounts of Ontario, he received the following: 1894, $116 ; 1895, $170; 1896, $150 ; 1897. $425 ; 1898, $325 ; 1899, $354 ; 1900, $117. I had one of these benevolent lawyers in my county during my election, Mr. R. C. Clute. And when I consulted the Auditor Gerenal's Report, I found that he had been paid for services, 116 days at $40 a day, over $4,000 for doing a little work. Such items as this are very handy from a party standpoint, because they save hon. gentlemen opposite the necessity of raising funds from other sources to pay them.


Mr. WADE.: If the hon. gentleman had investigated a little further back in the records of the late government, he would Mr. SPROULE.
have seen how much the firm to which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) belonged received.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Wade's) friends sat on this side, we had a universal condemuation of this system, and when they got into office we expected them to show their disapproval of it by adopting a better one.


Robert Laird Borden: As my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has been good enough to refer to me, I can only say that I was fortunate enough to have retainers from both the Liberal government of Nova Scotia and the Conservative government here. If the hon. gentleman means to insinuate-I do not know whether he does or not-that I ever lifted a finger to get a retainer or to get employment from either of these governments, he is insinuating that which he cannot truthfully affirm and which I most positively deny. I do not know what other reason he could have for making the observation except to so insinuate.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I insinuated nothing ; I simply stated a fact, as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) did, that a certain lawyer had received certain payments from the department. If anybody has made any insinuation, it is the hon. gentleman himself. I know that the firm to which the leader of the opposition belongs was paid large sums by the late government. I make no insinuation at all. The department has to employ solicitors in the different places, who, I assume, render fair services for the money. Is it fair, when one man receives $300 or $400, to insinuate that he has received it improperly, while nothing must be said about parties who have received $8,000 or $10,000 in one year ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I referred not to $400, but to $4,000 for part of a year's work. Had not these hon. gentlemen condemned the system. I would not have mentioned it here; but the fact that they condemned it so strongly, and assured us that in the event of their coming to power this would be stopped, and it is not stopped, is the reason why I directed attention to it today.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The remaining items are those which have been reserved at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not present to-day to take up his items; so we will now turn to the supplementary estimates for the current year.
Charges of Management-Additional amount required in connection with the issue and redemption of Dominion notes, $290.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That represents some small increases which are

made to the salaries of the ladies In that department. Their salaries have already been provided for the coming year, hut the vote did not cover all the existing year's requirements. That was discussed on the main estimates.
would be unreasonable to ask such men to work for $300 a year.


Mr. WILSON.: Supposing they started at $300, how long would they have to be in the service to reach $400 ?
Civil Government-Governors General's Secretary's office, $3,030.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one statutory increase of $30 and an additional amount for contingencies of $3,000. This is chiefly due to the very large amount of telegraphing which was necessary in the Governor General's office during the current year.
Office of the King's Privy Council for Canada, $5,300.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to ask parliament to increase the contingencies of the Privy Council Department by $4,000.' Nearly all this increase is occasioned by telegraphing, and mostly for one cause alone. When we were negotiating for a Pacific cable between Australia and Canada, we were informed that the Eastern Company, which is proprietor of a cable on the other side of the globe, was negotiating with the several Australian colonies to enter into an agreement with them which, if it had been carried out, would have seriously affected the profits of our cable. We had to send and receive numerous cablegrams in communicating with all the different colonial governments of Australia, and these cablegrams were very expensive.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-Further amount required, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is chiefly required for telegraphing, much of it in connection with an investigation into steamboat inspection; also for printing and stationery.
Department of Finance-Contingencies-Clerical and other assistance, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, together with sundries, $775.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the provision ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We had two messengers on the permanent staff who have left us, and we have had to take men in their places. Under the Civil Service Act we could only give them $300, but we want to start them at $400. We cannot ask a man who has a family to take a position at $300.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why not amend your Act to cover such cases ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is desirable. I think we should have some men of maturity ''n this post, and it


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would take them three years before they could get the other hundred.


Uriah Wilson: Will their service be counted now when they are employed in this temporary sort of way ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would have to be done by a general change in the Civil Service Act, and that is worth considering.
Department of Militia and Defence-Contingencies-Printing and Stationery and Sundries-Further amount required, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This additional amount is required largely on account of the extra work the department have had to do in sending the contingents. It is absolutely necessary to have this vote in order to meet the requirements.
Annual drill-Further amount required, $1S0,-000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is to drill that portion of the militia which goes into camp prior to the 1st day of July. The amount required for the drilling of the whole militia is about $425,000, or $450,000. In the main estimates last year we had, I think, $275,000, and this added to that will make the usual amount voted for the drilling of the whole militia. I am not able, at the present moment, to state to the committee in detail the number of the battalions that are going out or the dates at which they are going. The list is now being made up.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does this provide for taking out all the different branches of the service ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, the whole of the militia. On the supplementary estimates for 1901-1902 I will be able to giv5 the committee a detailed statement of the dates at which the different battalions and corps are going into camp.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. minister to say that it took about $400,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: From $425,000 to $450,000, is the amount required to drill the whole militia in one year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The amount voted for annual drill last year was $275,000. Now

$180,000 is taken, and this will make up the amount tliat the hon. minister states.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, but we cannot tell exactly, because it varies in different years. Sometimes more of the militia are drilled, so that it takes more some years and less in other years. That is about the expenditure, however, for the calendar year.
Salaries and Wages-Further amount required, $13,500.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have a statement here from the accountant, which I will read :
The increased expenditure for the current year is largely due to the extra work caused by the South African war. This could not always be separated from the ordinary expenditure chargeable to salaries and wages, and was therefore charged against this vote. Of course, whenever expenditure was directly due to special service force it was charged to that vote, but much of this extra expenditure for wages is indirectly due to special service force and South African war.
What I ,stated when my main estimates were under consideration applies to this vote. There has been a general increase in the wages paid of something like 25 cents a day. That applies to the thirteen districts throughout the Dominion. Men who received $1.25 a day are now receiving $1.50, and men who were receiving $1 a day are now receiving $1.25. Labour was in demand, and it was necessary to increase the rate of wages in order to retain our employees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This appears to be both for salaries and wages. I notice that last year there was an increase of $3,000 for this purpose, and it seems that the vote has fallen short by $13,500.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There has been a very much larger increase than you expected.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It looks to me as if some further explanation would be necessary. There was an increase of $3,000 last year, and now there is' a further increase of $13,500. That would represent thirteen men at $1,000 each to do additional clerical work. Surely the hon. minister does not pretend to say that the South African war entailed any such additional clerical work as that ? The men who have charge of military stores get $400 or $500 a year. I do not think there was any increase in the staff, but the men were simply doing a little more work than they formerly did when the rush of business came, but it was only temporary, because the soldiers went away to South Africa, and the further duties and responsibilities of the department ceas-Mr. SPROULE.
ed. We have not had any reason given us why there should be, for this purpose, such an extraordinary increase in the expenditure.
.The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. I may say that there has been an increase of something like 20 per, cent all round in the amount of wages paid. Most of this is for labour.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: In the regular civil service there would be no increase ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, this is all for the outside service; largely here, at Halifax, at Quebec, some of it at Montreal, but in all the thirteen districts in which we spent some $75,000 or $80,000 a year, there has been an increase in wages, and there have been special men employed during the time the contingents were going off and since. The fact is that the work, resulting from the sending of the contingents, and not only the sending, but the return, is not ended yet by any means. I have not a detailed statement here, at least I cannot put my hand upon it at this moment, but I can only assure the committee that the work has been carried on with the utmost possible economy, and I am only surprised that the amount of work that has been done has not increased the expenditure more than it. has. I will have further items in the supplementary estimates for next year, and I will endeavour to give the exact details as to the increase in each district if they are required.
Military Properties-Further amount required, including expenditure for rails and ties for tramway to Rockliffe rifle range, and $22,000 (Governor General's warrant) for repairs to Quebec walls, $74,658.38.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: How much has been expended upon this tramway to Rockliffe ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The amount expended is $13,473.38, as follows : Paid the Intercolonial Railway for 440 tons and 800 pounds of rails, for the Rockliffe rifle range, $21 per ton, rails 67 pounds to the yard. $9,247.50 ; paid the Canada Atlantic Railway Company for freight, $590.46 ; Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, for ties purchased for electric railway to rifle range, $3,635.42, total, $13,473.38. There is an item in this for $22,000, repairs to Quebec walls. It was found necessary last summer to expend a considerable amount for urgent repairs on these walls, and a Governor General's warrant was taken for that amount. There is a further amount of $39,185, made up as follows : To complete the range at Montreal, $9,100 ; Bedford (near Halifax), $9,785 ; to complete the work at Quebec, $9,500. I have a detailed statement here of the work done at Quebec, and we are still $9,000 short. There is further expenditure on the

drill shed at Charlottetown, $2,500 ; heating system, barracks, St, Johns, P.Q., $3,500; new concrete floor for drill hall, Quebec City, $4,800 ; total, $39,185. The $74,053 is made up In this way : Quebec walls, Governor General's warrant, $22,000 ; railway to rifle range, Ottawa, $13,473.38, and to cover the items I have just read, $39,185.


Edward Gawler Prior: Would not the electric company extend the track to the rifle range without our paying for the rails ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They would not do it. This is the very best arrangement that could be made. The company provided the right of way, and did the work, and agrees to operate the road.


Edward Gawler Prior: Does the government get any concession with regard to fares ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: A maximum rate was fixed, and the company undertakes to operate the road during the summer months a certain number of hours each day.


Edward Gawler Prior: What is the fare from town ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think the rate is about 15 cents, there and back, from the centre of the city.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the same rate as would be charged to the public who might visit the range ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the rails and ties become the property of the tramway company ?	'


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Where did the government purchase the ties ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association negotiated the purchase through the electric railway company, because they could get them at more reasonable rates than the government ?


James Clancy: What was paid for them ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 8,975 ties, at 37 cents each. 200 ties at 30 cents each ; cartage, 2 cents.


James Clancy: What kind of ties were they ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They were special ties. I am assured by Col. Tilton, in whose statement I have absolute confidence, and who has been looking after this matter, that this is the lowest rate at which these ties could
be got, and that they were fortunate in being able to get them at this rate.


Edward Gawler Prior: How far do they take the track out ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think a little short of two miles.


Edward Gawler Prior: The government has made the company a present of the rails and ties for two miles in order to get the riflemen a cheap means of reaching the range.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Practically.
* Mr. SPROULE. In my part of the country they deliver hemlock ties at from 18 to 22 cents, and cedar about the same.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE- . FENCE. This is a double track road, and * I suppose the ties are double length ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never heard of that before. I do not think you can put the two tracks on the same ties.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not know about that.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is there an item in the supplementary estimates for improvements tP the Brampton public buildings in connection with the Militia Department ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Not in this vote. There will be another vote in the supplementaries for next year in which it may be included, but I cannot tell at this moment. The Minister of Public Works has a vote of $35,000 for the construction of armouries, &c., of which $28,000 is to be revoted this year, and perhaps it is in that. I will inquire and give the hon. gentleman information later.
Militia-Clothing and Necessaries-Further amount required, $100,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: Would the hon. gentleman give us some particulars of this ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The annual cost of clothing, when the whole militia is called out, is in the neighbourhood of $180,000. It has been the custom for a long time to pay for the clothing of the previous year out of the next year's vote. I wish, if possible, to get the accounts squared, and if I get this vote it will practically square the accounts up to the end of this year, but not quite. I think it is desirable that we should begin, if possible, on the 1st of July, and that thereafter the vote for a given year should pay for the work done in that year. This work has largely been done, and this estimate is required to pay for the clothing which has been made during the present financial year, or which is now under way.


Edward Gawler Prior: Then, when this clothing is delivered, the hon. gentleman will have what he considers a sufficient supply for the force ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Oh, yes.


Edward Gawler Prior: There has been a great deal of argument on the part of military men as to the insufficiency of the clothing in the stores in the event of any trouble arising. Will this cover all that is required, or will the minister ask for a further vote later on ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: To provide a surplus such as we ought to have would require a great deal more money than this. This is only to pay for the clothing which we actually require. It must be remembered that when the militia drill every year, instead of half every year or once in two or three years, the amount of clothing is very much increased. I am not able to say that this vote will provide us with the surplus we ought to have, although it will put us in very much better shape for the coming year than we have been.
Warlike and Other Stores-Further amount required, $36,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is for waist belts, tents, marquees, mops, horse blankets, and warlike materials generally. These goods have practically been purchased now. The Ottawa Car Company is to be paid $2,250 for ambulance wagons, stretchers, &c. Certain gun carriages, purchased from the War Office, England, cost $12,500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are all these supplies purchased by tender, or are they purchased from our friends without tender ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: In most cases tenders are asked by public advertisement.
. Mr. WALLACE. There was no tender for the goods supplied by the Ottawa Car Company ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, I think tenders were asked from two or three firms who do similar work. One was the Massey-Harris Company, and the other a Brantford firm, whose name I do not remember. But I am sure the work is being done satisfactorily, and at the lowest figure at which it can be done.
Royal Military College-Increase of pay to Prof. Martin, from July 1, 1900, to September 21, 1900, $112.50.


Robert Laird Borden: I have had a suggestion that it would be a desirable and proper thing to place some memorial in the Royal Military College at Kingston to those graduates of the college who have fallen in the war in South Africa. I do not know Mr. BORDEN (King's)
how many graduates in the forces which we ourselves sent were killed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think only one, young Osborne.


Robert Laird Borden: Besides, there were two men in the Imperial service-Lieut. AVood, of Halifax, and Capt. C. A. Hensley, of Halifax. These two young men took a distinguished part in the war, and both fell in battle. I think it would be fitting that the government should place in the college a memorial to them as well as to Lieut. Osborne, and I am sure there is no one in the House or the country who would not at once assent to such a proposal as a worthy one. Indeed, in some of the cities of Canada memorials are already being erected by private subscription. That is well in its way ; but as these three young men were graduates of the Royal Military College, I think the government should see that a proper memorial is erected there.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am in entire agreement with the suggestion made. I may say that the University of McGill has done the very thing fo which the hon. leader of the opposition refers, in connection with the students of AIcGill who have fallen in South Africa, and I think it would be a very proper thing for the government, which owns this college, and is responsible for it, to do at least what the universities of the country are doing. I may say that a memorial to young Osborne is being placed by his father ; but 1 will at once look into the matter referred to, and, if necessary, will ask my colleagues to agree that a vote be taken for the purpose.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I thought Lieut. Osborne belonged to the regular army.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I would not be sure.
For purchase of Work Point barracks property, Esquimalt, B.C., $3,140.


Edward Gawler Prior: What price has the government paid for the land, and how much is there of it ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This was a property of Thomas E. Sedger. As the owner would not accept the valuation offered for it, and the Imperial authorities require the property at once for the extension of the barracks, it has been expropriated. There are 5 15 acres, and $3,140 is the price paid-I suppose the lowest at which it could be got.


Edward Gawler Prior: While on this matter,
I would again call attention to the claims known as the Macaulay Point claims, by men who have property there, and who say that it has depreciated in value owing to the building of the forts. Two or three claims

were paid during tlie time of the late government, and these men claim that they have an equal right to be paid. The former men were paid on the advice of the Department of Justice. These claimants want leave to apply to the Exchequer Court and have their claims adjudicated. I would ask the hon. minister to assist them in every possible way. Have they to apply to him or the Minister of Justice ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE-rMUi. Application should be made to the Minister of Justice. I have referred the matter back to him, and it is now in his
I) n n rl n
Gratuity to Lieut.-Col. McGill, R.M.C.. " Sergt.-Major Dingley, R.D.C.
Compensation to Lieut. McLeay	
W. E. Fegan	
Amable Frigon


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: $1.50 per day.


George William Fowler: Col. Maunsell, who was in command of that district as lieutenant-colonel, came out in 1865, and was afterwards retired on a gratuity of nearly $10,000. At the time he was retired he was just as capable as ever. Capt. McKenzie was just as faithful a servant, and some officers of the militia in the maritime provinces would say that his services were, if anything, more valuable than those of Col. Maunsell. However, I do not wish to make any invidious distinctions, but here is a man who is upward of 70 years of age,and ought to be allowed to retire, yet he has to go on performing the duties of caretaker. I think it is the duty of the department to retire Captain McKenzie at nice and give him a reasonably fair pension.


George William Fowler: I want to draw the at tention of the minister to the claim of Cap tain Thomas McKenzie, which was refer red to some days ago. There is no more de sei ving case than his : He was connected with the regular army many years touglit through the Indian mutiny, was re commended for the Victoria Cross, was ii twenty-two general engagements, and eon ducted himself as a brave soldier should He came out in 1861 as drill instructor foi Canada, and ever since he has been con nected with the Canadian militia. His duties lay principally in the maritime provinces and there is not an officer who has been connected with Captain McKenzie during those years who will not speak in the highest terms of his efficiency. He is now advanced in years, and I think the government should show its appreciation of the splendid work he has done by including him m the list of those to whom gratuities are given. After all these years of service, he now holds the very subordinate position of caretaker of the drill hall at Fredericton, fins is a very unjust way to use this most deserving officer, and I trust the Minister of Militia will bring clown an amount as compensation to this officer and place him on the retired list with a sum amply sufficient to maintain him in his declining days.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. leader of the opposition brought up this case the other day. At present Captain McKenzie is in active service and in receipt of a salary. We have increased his pay 25 cents per day, and he is in receipt of an Imperial pension of 50 cents per day. As he is able to perform his duties, I do not think it is necessary to superannuate him or give him a gratuity. I can only add that I know Captain McKenzi-well, and at the proper time his case wil receive every consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you give hill as caretaker ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have a letter from Captain McKenzie thanking me for the increase of 25 cents per day and not intimating the slightest desire To be retired'.


George William Fowler: I have a letter from him in which he expresses the wish to be retired and hopes the matter will be brought to the attention of the government.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The gratuity to Lieut.-Col. McGill is the one to which I referred yesterday in my remarks upon the proposed pension law. It Is a gratuity of one-tenth of the salary he was receiving for every year he had lived. This has been made up by the accountant, and amounts to $3,183. He was appointed July 1, 1S83, and retired September 15, 1900, making seventeen years two and a half months in service. His pay and allowances were $1,850 per year. He gets one year's pay for each ten year's service.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention to allow Sergt.-Major Dingley to go back to England ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: I know Sergt.-Major Dingley very well indeed. He comes down every year to instruct the cavalry regiment, to which I formerly belonged, and he is a very efficient instructor. The department is making a great mistake in retiring him. He is a man full of vigour and in full possession of his faculties. We will certainly not be able to get a superior man, and I doubt if you could get his equal. I do not believe that his superior exists1 to-day.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Sergt.-Major Dingley was retired because it was reported to me by the general of the staff that it was desirable he should be replaced by a young man. My



hon. friend knows very well that after a certain length of time, a man doing the work of a sergeant-major becomes stale. I am acting entirely on the views of my military advisers. There is no other possible motive in this, political, social or other. If there is one point upon which the advice of the military staff should be of some use, it is on a question of this kind, and that is why this is being done.


George William Fowler: But these staff officers are not cavalry officers, but infantry, and consequently they do not know very much of the capabilities of a cavalry instructor. As to requiring a younger man, Sergeant-Major Dingfey is not an old man, but is in the prime of life, and he keeps himself up to date so far as his profession is concerned.
I should think the general should give the grounds on which he bases his recommendation.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have given the grounds. This man has served seventeen years, and it is desirable, in the interest of the permanent force, that his place should be taken by a younger and active man fresh from the school, and up to the modern methods. That is the whole reason, and I think it is a good one.


Robert Laird Borden: We have not had an explanation with regard to these other three cases.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The case of Lieut. McLeay is a rather serious one. This officer was thrown from his horse and seriously Injured. I have not the memorandum of the case at hand, but I remember it. The claim was made for, I think, $1,500, and a board was held and a very careful investigation was made-in fact more than one. We decided that it was only fair that we should pay this man $750 as proposed here. He was laid up for a long time, and this will not begin to compensate him. The injury resulted through no fault of his own, but was accidental and happened at the time of the camp.


George William Fowler: Was this gentleman engaged in drill at the time of the accident ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, In camp.


George William Fowler: Is he an officer of the permanent force ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, a militia officer.


George William Fowler: This is unusual, is it not?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. That is why we took such a long time. The accident happened about two years ago.


George William Fowler: Was he an infantry or a cavalry officer ?


Mr. BORDEN (King's).: 


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Cavalry. Mr. Fegan, for whom we ask $500, was late sergeant in the 6th Battery, Montreal. He contracted acute rheumatism as the result of exposure while on duty in the North-west with his battery in 1885-serving in the North-west rebellion. He has been liable to recurrence of these attacks, which prevent him holding permanent situations for which he would be qualified. This matter was investigated by a board of medical officers. The last case is that of Mr. Amable Frigon, of the 64th Battalion. He was struck on the shoulder by a piece of wood which fell from the cook-house then in course of construction at the Laprairie camp in 1891, and his collar bone was broken. He lias suffered very much because the fracture did not unite. After careful consideration one of my predecessors, Mr. Desjardins, signed a recommendation for $300 for this man. The case seems to have been overlooked qfter that time, but it was revived and a board was held for further investigation. The solicitors of friends of the claimant decided to accept the offer we made of $200 in full of the claims he might have against the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Finance have given further consideration to a matter which I have brought twice to their attention, that of compensation to the family of the late Major Maxwell, who was killed while endeavouring to qualify himself in a course of equitation in Halifax. It is true he was not killed while actually at work in the school. He endeavoured to improve himself in his course by practising riding from his own house in the morning, and it was while so engaged that he was killed. I do not know whether anything I can say now will induce the government to take the case into further consideration. They seemed almost inclined to do so two years ago. It is different from one of the cases we are dealing with, that of Lieut. McLeay, only in the fact that Mr. McLeay was actually on duty when the fall from his horse occurred. Mr. Maxwell was to have been on duty in the school of equitation and he was endeavouring to instruct himself in the course which he was taking at the school. The case is an exceedingly hard one, because Major Maxwell has left a widow and family who are almost destitute. I would be glad if the minister would give it further consideration. If my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan)
' were here, I am sure he would join me in . the request I make.
1 The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mi-. Borden, Halifax) that this i case is a painful one, and it is certainly an unusual one. I brought the matter to the

attention of my colleagues, but, after very careful consideration the conclusion was arrived at that it would be undesirable, however much we might like to do it, to ask parliament to vote a gratuity in this case. As the hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out, that officer was not at the time on duty.


Sir. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Was lie not taking an equitation course ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Not at the time. He was attending an equitation course in the city of Halifax, no doubt, where he resided, but at the time he was not riding on a horse under the direction of any of the teachers, nor was he mounted upon the horse provided at that equitation school. He was at his own home. He had borrowed or hired, I think, his brother's horse, and was going out, as my hon. friend says, to perfect himself in the art of riding so that he might make better progress when he attended at a later hour of the day, or on a subsequent day, the exercises of the equitation course. But he was not at the moment in any way under the control of the military authorities.


James Joseph Hughes: I think he was. He was attending to take a course in equitation, he was receiving his daily pay and allowances, and was therefore subject to the general officer commanding.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the leader of the opposition has referred to me, I knew Major Maxwell very well, and I also knew very well some of his friends who were warmly interested in this case, and I approached it therefore with every desire of assisting his claim. It is a very hard case indeed. The difficulty we had, however, in persuading the government generally that it was a proper claim, was this, that there was a distinction between the man who was on duty and the man who was not on duty. As was suggested by the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), a moment ago-and I am not giving my judgment but rather trying to explain the reasons which prevailed with the government-it was thought that if this claim were paid there would be innumerable other claims arising from members of the militia force, very enthusiastic militiamen who spend a great deal of their time in perfecting themselves as Major Maxwell was doing. He was so enthusiastic in militia work that he was not content to take merely the hours at school, but he was giving extra time. But if he was not on duty at the time of the accident, it is difficult to see how a good ease can be made out for damages. I am not anxious to make out a case against him, I would rather be able to make out a case in his favour if I could, for my sympathies are entirely with the members of his family.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. 137}
Hughes) has made a very pertinent suggestion. He has put the case on this basis, that Major Maxwell was practically in the same position as a member of the permanent force would be if he were injured at a time when he was not actively engaged in the duties of the service. Suppose he were walking on the street and met with an accident of this kind without any fault of his own-I am referring to a member of the permanent corps-is not Major Maxwell exactly in the same position as that man would be ? Suppose a member of the militia was called off duty for a moment and met with an accident of this kind, is not Major Maxwell exactly in the same position ? Major Maxwell was at this time in receipt of pay as a member of the militia of Canada while attending the equitation course. I do not think you can distinguish his case from what it would have been if he had been at Fredericton at the equitation school, and while riding in the afternoon, not under the control of the officer in charge, but for the purpose of perfecting himself outside in his course, he had met with an accident of this kind. The fact that he was in Halifax has no bearing on the case. The question is, was he in receipt of pay as an active militiamen at the time; and is his family therefore entitled, on the principle laid down, to some compensation for the loss occasioned by his death ?


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: I think this is a case where the government should not adhere strictly to military rules, but rather lean to the side of mercy. I think this is a case which is worthy of reconsideration, and perhaps if the government consider it again, they may take a more generous and just view than they have now arrived at.


James Joseph Hughes: Passing from this matter, I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence in relation to a soldier who was named a moment ago, and who put in a claim for indemnity on account of rheumatism contracted in the North-west in 1885. I think there was a certain time after the medical board had ceased their investigations within which those who had claims against the government could put them in. In two or three cases where this was neglected and where these men subsequently contracted a disease, rheumatism being one of them, they were not allowed to present their claims, or their claims were not entertained. Now, if at this late hour claims on account of rheumatism are to be presented, I promise the minister a batch of them.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have read all the particulars with reference to this case. It seems to me. and I think the committee will agree with me, that a case which might have been supposed at the time to be an ordinary case
43: 9

of rheumatism, and liad been attended with partial recovery, but it turned out later on that the man became a confirmed invalid, which could not have been seen at the time. It would seem that such a case could be fairly reopened. Tihis was a case of that kind. A board, as I have said, composed of such eminent men as Dr. Birkett, of Montreal, Dr. Itoy, also well known there, and Dr. McTaggart, examined into this case and recommended it as one worthy of consideration. On the strength of their report, and of the report of military men of my branch, I made this recommendation. Mind you, I am in favour of reconsidering-I think it is our duty to do so-every case which is brought before us; I am quite prepared to and willing to consider any case.


George William Fowler: In the case of this man Frigon, when did the accident occur ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: In 1893. His case was considered by the late government in 1895, and the then Minister of Militia, Hon. Mr. Desjardins, recommended a vote of $300. For some reason nothing more was heard of it. The case was brought to my notice shortly after I came in, and the compromise to which I refer was arrived at after careful examination.


George William Fowler: Where does he live ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: He lives in Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to read to the hon. minister an extract from a letter dealing with the question of pensions to Canadians who were disabled in South Africa. I know this subject is under the consideration of the government, and particularly of the minister, at the present time. It has been mentioned on two or three occasions lately, and as it is under consideration, I think it is well that I should place before the government an opinion on the matter which is very well expressed in this letter. It is as follows :
From what was said to one of these men

That is one of the disabled Canadians.
-when in England on receiving notice of his pension, it would appear that Great Britain expects the colonies to look after their own injured soldiers. The man to whom I refer was permanently disabled in South Africa. He was granted a pension by the Imperial authorities for one year only, and was told that the sum allowed was for the minimum amount, and was for the period named only, as they expected the colonial governments would look after their own disabled men. I am told that the colony of Natal pays those of its men who received permanent disability, such as the loss of a limb, the pay of their rank which they were receiving prior to such injuries, and not less than 5 shillings -a day. The Imperial allowance for similar injury is about Is. 6d. a day, or the same as they give to their own regulars who, in many cases, join the army for the sake of a livelihood, and who are of a different class, Mr. BORDEN (King's).
speaking generally, to those who went from here, and who get their pay in peace as well as in war. Most of those who went from here were volunteers purely and simply, and who left ordinary means of livelihood to take part in the defence of the empire. As a rule these men were from a higher class than are those from which the British troops are drawn. They are accustomed to a difierent mode of living. The part which Canada took in the defence of the empire has cost her but a trifling sum in money compared with the great advantages which she has received and is receiving from the Imperial government in the way of defence, both actual as well as moral, and it would seem to me that we ought at least to take care of those men who went from Canada at the call of duty and who were disabled for life.
I will not add a word to that, because I think it very well expresses the ideas of a great many people on the subject.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am positive that the writer of that letter is misinformed as to the intentions of the Imperial government.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be.


Mr. LOGAN.: I regret that I was out w'hen the matter of Major Maxwell was brought up by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I only wish to add my strong urging upon the government to take some action of the kind that has been suggested. Major Maxwell was a born soldier, his whole life was a life of soldiering, and when he was killed, although I believe he was not in active practice under the militia regulations, still, he was endeavouring to fit himself for this work.


James Joseph Hughes: I have another point in reference to this matter that I wish to bring before the hon. minister. I trust the boh. minister will give his consideration to this point. The man was not on duty, but nevertheless he was in the service of the government.^ He was receiving $1 a day when he was taking his equitation course, and it is a question whether the government are responsible for a man under pay but off duty.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) to vest certain foreshores in the city of St. John and for other purposes.- Mr. Tucker.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HEYD moved third reading of Bill (No. 120) respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. C. S. HYMAN (London).: Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read a third time, I desire to say a few words on behalf of certain members of the order with regard to which this Bill purports to legislate, who have brought several matters to my notice, asking that I should bring them to the attention of parliament. In the first place, I will say that when I first received an intimation that some of the members of the order objected to this legislation, I went to the hon. member (Mr. Heyd) who has charge of the Bill, and I gave him a copy of the documents which have been placed in my hands, asking that the High Court of the Older of Foresters should send some one to the district where these objecting members are, to see if their objections could not be removed. I have received information for them within the last two or three days, to say that nothing of this kind had been done, and desiring me to bring their objections before the House. I regret exceedingly that owing to the pi-ess of work I was unable to attend the committee to present these objections. Therefore, I purpose to move to-night that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce for further consideration. I may say in the first place, that the notice given for this Bill was very short indeed. The only intimation that the members of the lodges had that any legislation of this character was being sought, was by a circular dated the 2nd of April. There was not the usual notice given. There was no notice given in the paper, and the only notice, as I understand. that the members of the Foresters order had, was by a circular sent out from the House of Commons, dated the 2nd of April. I may say almost immediately after that circular was sent out, i received the following resolution :
Subsidiary High Court of Canada,
Ancient Order of Foresters,
April 9th, 1901.
Court Brighton.


To Charles S.: Hyman, Esq., M.P.
Dear Sir,-At a regular meeting of the above court, held in their hall, Sraig street, this April 9th, the inclosed notice was read.
That refers to the notice that was sent out from the House of Commons, containing the provisions of the Bill.
And it was resolved that as a court, we request you, as member from London, to use your influence to prevent the passage of this same Bill, as per inclosed notice. For thi3 reason : the attempt was made in Toronto and they had to make an amendment directly stating that no interference could be made with funds of any subordinate court.
I understand, Sir, that since the Bill was introduced, an amendment of that character has been incorporated in it, but 1 also desire to say that these gentlemen who.
through me are petitioning that this Bill should go back to the committee, are not yet satisfied. The resolution continues :
That they state in this circular that this Bill will not affect our funds in subordinate courts, is no assurance to us, as they have overstepped the powers granted them already, and we have no confidence in them. The powers of the extreme council of the high court are for carrying out measures prescribed by the delegates in high court assemblies between meetings of the high court, and they had a right to first lay before the assembled delegates in high court the Bill they are trying to get passed at Ottawa ; thus, we consider their object in obtaining such powers so as to be able to override the courts of the order. They have already put themselves, by their actions, largely in debt, and although at the high court meeting in August, 1899, the delegates gave them an increase in the sick and funeral fund of $2,100 per year, and in the management fund $1,800, yet according^ to their last audit they show no decrease in their indebtedness. Thus, you see, we have good reason to regard their present action with suspicion.
Done on behalf of the court, which, I might say, numbers over 170 members and have been doing good work in London South since its organization in August, 1880.
JOHN G. ORCHARD, Chief Ranger.
CHAS. FINCHAMP, Sub-Ranger.
WM. ROW, Treasurer.
HY. SUTHERLAND, Secretary.
I may say that In addition to that, on the Otli of April I received the following :
London, Ont., April 9, 1901. Sir, I have taken the liberty of sending you the inclosed resolution, trusting you will use your best endeavours to defeat the Ancient Order of Foresters' Bill when it is brought before the committee, or in the House, in behalf of 1,400 members of Middlesex district.


W. RICHARDS,
[Stage Direction]
. District Chief Ranger.
Moved by Bro. Peter Todd, P.D.C.R., seconded by Bro. R. W. Timson :
That this meeting of the members of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Middlesex district, assembled at London, Ont., this 8th day of April, 1901, are of unanimous opinion that no further legislation should be applied for on behalf of the Ancient Order of Foresters until after the views of the members of the order are obtained at the next high court meeting is held in August, 1901, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Bro. Mills, High Chief Ranger, and the members of the Dominion parliament representing the city of London and the county of Middlesex. '

[Stage Direction]
D.C.R., Middlesex district.
I wrote to the members of the order who had been corresponding with me, telling them that I had spoken to the lion, gentleman who had charge of the Bill, asking that some deputation or some high officer of the order be sent to discuss the matter. This, however, was not done, and I am la receipt of the following :-
[Stage Direction]
London, April 13, 1901. Charles Hyman, Esq., M.P.,
Dear Sir,-Yours just to hand re A. O. F. Bill.
I might say on behalf of the Middlesex district that no explanations from the officers can satisfy the members of this district.
Mr.  L. F.@: Heyd, our high court solicitor, has asked the House of Commons, on behalf of an applicant, to have this Bill passed. The Ancient Order of Foresters has no one-man power; at each of our bi-annual meetings the representatives of the subordinate courts elect an executive body to transact our business, and the said representatives make rules for their guidance. This executive body has not met to instruct our high court solicitor to ask for such a Bill; even if they had met and instructed him to do so, they would be exceeding their duty. From information we have received the Independent Order of Foresters, not the Canadian order, got into the same trouble and asked for legislation. The Independent Order is an insurance society first, and sick benefits if a member wishes to take such benefits. The Ancient Order of Foresters is a sick benefit society first, and insurance if a member wishes to accept it. There are abount one thousand members in our order in Canada that have taken insurance, the remaining 12,000 have sick benefits only. If there is legislation required, the various subordinate courts should have been consulted, or, in other words, we say our high court meets next August, then if legislation is required the delegates will say whether it is required or not. This same Bill, or a similar one, was asked for by the same person at this present session of the Ontario parliament, and their Bill was defeated.
I am told that is not so. I am informed that the gentleman is wrong in making that statement.
Petitions were sent in from different parts of the province asking the Bill not to pass for the same reason I have quoted. Not thinking that this Bill would have gone to Ottawa, or else copies would have been forwarded to Ottawa.
We trust that you will do your utmost to have the said Bill laid over or defeated until our high court meeting in'August next.
Yours very truly,
W. RICHARDS, D.C.R., Middlesex District.
This, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say in the matter. Out of 12,000 or 13,000 members of the order, here is a protest coming from nearly 10 per cent, stating that they had not had proper notice of the legislation. Under the circumstances, it is only fair and just to give them an opportunity of expressing their views before the committee of the House. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bast Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour), that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce for further consideration.


Mr.   W.@: ROSS (South Ontario), t am somewhat in the same position as my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman). I have no direct interest in the order, and I scarcely feel like putting myself on record against


Charles Smith Hyman: the hon. member who is introducing this Bill, but I have a duty to discharge to one of my constituents, who has written me in connection with the matter, and I proprose to read some correspondence I have had from him. He writes me :
The executive council of this order, it would appear, has of late been assuming the right, in the name of the subsidiary high court, to secure legislation along such lines as it chooses. The constitution and by-laws ot the subsidiary high court do not confer any right or power to the executive council to legislate on behalf of the order.
At this session of the legislature of Ontario, the executive council made an attempt to push through a Bill giving the council power to take over and to control all the ' assets, rights, credits, effects and property, real, personal and mixed, of whatsoever kind and wheresoever situate,' practically stripping the subordinate branches of the order of everything they possessed, but prompt action and opposition to the Bill before the committee of the House secured to the subordinate courts a saving clause which, I understand, has been added to the Bill.
For your information, I may state that there are two classes of members in the order, those who enter for sick and funeral benefits only, and those who are connected with the order for the sick and funeral benefits plus any insurance they may wish to take, from $250 up to $2,000. Many of the subordinate courts, through choice, are working along the benevolent and fraternal lines of the order, their members not desiring or choosing to take out insurance in the order, and these courts, through care and judicious management, have to their credit considerable sums, prudently safeguarded, for their use in the event of an epidemic or jiny unusual distress amongst their members, and as a matter of course they are averse to their funds being confiscated and taken over under the management of others.
Should a Bill similar to the one introduced to the Ontario legislature appear in the Dominion House. I trust a saving clause may be added to it, protecting the funds and properties of the subordinate courts.
He writes again on the 25th of April. I have sent him a copy of the Bill and all the information I could obtain on tlie matter ; and he assures me in the second letter that the Bill is not all right. He says ;
The assurances which you have that the Bill is all right, are not. reliable, and must come from the promoters of the Bill. The Bill is not all right, as you will plainly see by comparing it with the Ontario Bill, a copy of which I sent you a week ago or more. The Ontario Bill was amended in committee by the addition of two clauses, Nos. 5 and 6.
Our court held a meeting last night, and the court members were very anxious that the Bill shall be held over until after the high court meeting, which will take place in about three months; and if it cannot be done, it is desirable and necessary that a clause shall be added to it similar to that which was, added to the Ontario Bill. If the Bill, as its promoters claim, is all right, and it is not its aim to confiscate the funds of the subordinate courts, there can I be no harm done in having the saving clauses I added.

I just give you the ideas of this particular court, which is situated in my constituency. I know nothing of the Bill, but X am assured by the promoter that some of these matters have been arranged, and I would be glad to have him state that they have all been arranged.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I have received a letter from the secretary of the Ancient Order of Foresters, in St. Thomas, bearing on the same points, and asking for the same provisions that have been asked for by the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), and the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When this Bill was before the committee I objected to it on similar grounds ; but, on being assured by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) that there was no objection to the Bill, I allowed it to go through. But, 1 raised the same objection in the House. It occurred to me that if such legislation was necessary, it should first be submitted to the subordinate courts, to be dealt with by them. Then, they would know what was being done. But this Bill was being hurried through without the usual delays or notice.


Mr. HEYD.: There appears to be a tremendous amount of wilful ignorance, as well as misrepresentation, in regard to this Bill.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that parliamentary ?
Mr. HEY'D. I would not accuse any member of this House of misrepresentation, but the information which some hon. members have got is false. This Bill is quite simple, and in the oxiinion of the High Court, is absolutely necessary. This legislation was applied for, not by a person, but by the High Court, which is authorized to make the application. The Bill was introduced into the Ontario legislature shortly before it was introduced here. About fifty delegates attended there to ascertain the nature of the Bill, and, having ascertained what it was, they unanimously supported it, and it passed through the local House, and has become law in the province. The clause which my hon. friend from South Ontario alluded to, guaranteeing not to interfere with the funds belonging to the subsidiary courts, was added in the Ontario House, and the same clause was introduced into this Bill at the meeting of the committee. Therefore, the Bill which we have before us is exactly the same as the Bill which unanimously passed through the local House, after having been discussed by the members of the order who were there, and who went away satisfied with it. Now, what does the High Court ask for ? Some twenty years ago the Ancient Order of Foresters got a provincial charter as a friendly society. They added to it an Insurance branch. To this about 10 per cent of
the members belong. In 1S97, the legislature of Quebec passed an Act requiring all friendly societies doing business in that province and not having a Dominion charter, to deposit $5,000 in money. The membership belonging to the insurance part ol' the order being very small, the $5,000, compared with the total assets of the society, was very large, and the High Court thought it would be cheaper to get a Dominion charter than to deposit $5,000. In 1898, the High Court applied for a Dominion charter and obtained it, and their action was ratified at a subsequent meeting of the High Court, and they have been doing business under their Dominion charter ever since. Recently, In Manitoba, a suit was instituted against the Independent Order of Foresters, who had a charter similar to ours ; and they discovered that it was defective, in so far as it did not pass the membership belonging to the provincial lodge over to the Dominion Grand Lodge. The suit was compromised. The Independent Order of Foresters came down here and got supplementary legislation to remove the difficulty. That legislation passed this House unanimously. The Ancient Order of Foresters detected the same defect in their legislation, and they have come down here with a facsimile of the Bill of the Independent Order of Foresters, word for word, in the first four clauses, and they ask that it be passed. No harm can happen to a single individual belonging to the Ancient Order of Foresters. The executive committee, who represent all these courts, think this legislation is absolutely necessary in order to preserve the funds of the society; and the letters read here to-night are written under an entire misapprehension of the scope of this Bill. In order to remove any objections which might exist, a clause was inserted in the Bill when it was before the committee, similar to that which was asked for in the Ontario legislature, and there unanimously accepted. The Bill does not affect the finances of the subordinate courts. It is asked for by the accredited representatives of the order. I myself am one of the High Court trustees, Mr. Clarke, of West Toronto, is another ; two out of the three being members of this House : and, together with the executive committee, we ask that this legislation be passed in the interest of the Ancient Order of Foresters. There cannot be any objection to it. When the Bill came before the committee these letters were read ; and in order to give people who might be opposed to the legislation an opportunity to make themselves heard, we postponed the action of the committee to a subsequent date; and, as I predicted at the time, there was not a man there to raise his voice against it. These letters are read by hon. gentlemen to show their constituents that they are not neglecting their interests ; but, so far as they afford a valid objection to this Bill, there is nothing in them. To say that the courts had not suffl-

cient notification is absurd. They had sufficient to enable them to carry the matter through the provincial courts ; and in order to give them more information still, a circular letter was addressed to every court in this country, and we have answers from nearly 200, of whom only two or three make any objections. In the face of such a unanimous request from the order, in the face of this request from the officers of the order and its trustees, it strikes me that the objections urged by two or three people should not have any weight in this House.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Upon representations made to me personally, as also by letters, such as the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) has just read, I feel called upon to support this amendment. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) says there is nothing in these representations and that they are the result of an entire misapprehension of the proposed legislation. It is possible that the hon. gentleman, is correct, but, if any misapprehension exists it is because the subsidiary bodies have never been consulted as they should have been. As I understand that body, of which I am not a member, I think, after reading the preamble, that the petitioners are quite right iu their objection. In the first place, there existed the Ancient Order of Foresters, incorporated by the provincial House in the year 1877. This continued in operation until the 30th of June, 1898, when it ceased existence and the Dominion Order of Foresters was incorporated by Royal assent. And on that date, the Dominion Order of Foresters, apparently without any authority other than the decision of its executive, assumed all the contracts and liabilities of the provincial corporation, performed all its duties and fulfilled all its obligations as they matured; and having done this without any authority from the subordinate body, the Dominion Order asks this parliament to enact as follows :
2. The Dominion corporation defined in the preamble shall be deemed to have had the authority on the 13th day of June, 1898, to accept, and^ shall he deemed to have accepted on the said date, a transfer to the Dominion corporation. its successors and assigns, to its and their own use absolutely, of all the assets, interests, rights, effects and property, real, personal and mixed, of whatever kind and wherever situate belonging to the provincial corporation, also defined in the preamble, or to which the provincial corporation was, is or shall hereafter be entitled.
I do not think this parliament should step In between the executive and the subsidiary lodges and declare that the executive laid the right to make such an arrangement for the purchase of the assets and the redemption of the liabilities of any other body.
It has been stated by the hon. member for Brant that two amendments were introduced in the local legislature and have been added to this Bill, the effect of which is to relieve the subordinate body of any responsibility


Charles Bernhard Heyd: or liability by reason of this High Court taking over all the assets and liabilities of the provincial corporation. But this amendment will not apply to the individual members of the lodges who hold a certificate of insurance from the High Court and not from the subordinate lodges. This taking hold of those assets and paying off those liabilities, whether it may have good or evil effect, will affect every one of those individuals who hold this insurance. This being the case, and the subsidiary courts not having been consulted, we should not pass this legislation. It seems that the High Court holds bi-annual meetings to which the subordinate courts send delegates, who there consult with regard to any legislation or bylaws required, but that has not been done in this instance. The High Court has never consulted the subordinate lodges about this legislation, and I maintain that the latter should be consulted and be put in a position to make their representations here. If they are under a misapprehension as regards this legislation, that is not to be Wondered at as they never received notice of it. I will, Mr. Speaker, second the amendment moved by the hon. member for London.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Let me read the two clauses which are added to the Bill :
Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to affect or interfere with the funds or assets of the subordinate courts.
Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice the right of any plaintiff in any action now pending to make any claim now open to him, but he shall have the same right thereto as if this Act had not been passed.
The effect in the legislation is this. The Dominion Grand lodge have the funds and are carrying on the business, while the members that belong to the insurance branch of the order think they have not been regularly transferred. While they have the money they have not got the old members, and it is to put these old members right, they are asking for this legislation.


James Gilmour: While as the subordinate lodges or their funds may not be effected, the individual members of the order, holding their insurance from the high court, will be affected.


Mr. FLINT.: I would like to call attention to one fact not mentioned, and that is that this legislation asked by the High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters is in every respect the same as that passed this session on behalf of the Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters. Bill No. 6. This shows that the condition of these two great bodies was precisely the same as regards their power under the provincial Act, and the powers subsequently assumed under the Dominion Act. It is not intended, in the slightest degree, to interfere with the fund or organization of the subsidiary bodies, but simply to carry out the scheme already agreed to by ail

the subsidiary bodies and which has been in actual operation quite a long time. The provincial body had transferred all its assets and liabilities to the same body, subsequently incorporated under a Dominion Act. The same situation as exists in this case was found to have existed with regard to the Independent Order of Foresters, and the Bill dealing with the latter was passed by this House without objection. The presumption is that there should not have been anything in it prejudicial to the members of the subsidiary courts. Otherwise, we would have had objection similar to that taken on behalf of some of the subsidiary bodies of the Independent Order of Foresters. I took considerable pains to understand this Bill and to talk with the counsel who was here, and I am strongly of opinion that the Act asked for here is almost purely of a technical nature and does not in the slightest degree Interfere -with the control of the funds or any substantial interests of the members of the order.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the object of the proposed amendment to enable these parties to be heard before a committee


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If you postpone it you will not have a soul in committee. We tried that once before.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I must accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman), that these gentlemen desire to be heard before the committee. if upon his responsibility he informs the House that such is the object of his motion. I would remind the House that the Bill came before us under exceptional circumstances. On the 1st of April my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. ITeyd) moved that the 49th rule, limiting the time for petitions for private Bills, should be suspended. And I would infer that this Bill had not received the ordinary notice given of private Bills through the medium of the press. Am I right ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I would suggest to my hon. friend from South Brant that if gentlemen interested in the association desire to be heard before the committee, an opportunity should be afforded them. Certainly, their request to be heard is entitled to more consideration than if the usual notice had been given of this Bill and the Bill had received the assent of the subordinate lodges. When the directors of a corporation come here with a Bill affecting the interests of the shareholders, the House refuses to pass the legislation except subject to the proviso that it shall receive the assent of the shareholders at a general meeting. This Bill has not received the assent of the subordinate lodges, as I understand it, and I think it only fair that those lodges
should be allowed an opportunity to be heard before committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the clauses added to this Bill on Friday last were not acceptable to the members of the order, I would strongly support the proposition of the hon. member for London, that further delay should be granted. I have had a great deal of correspondence with the members of the order in Toronto, the city where the order was first established in Canada, and where it has hundreds, if not thousands, of members. After correspondence with these brethren, and after sending them a copy of the Bill as it was amended last Friday, I received the following communication :
I heartily thank you for your favour received to-day of Bill as amended. They are the same clauses, which we had inserted in the local Bill, referred to in my letter to you of yesterday, and that removes any opposition that has been shown to the Bill as we believe the added clauses clearly define the position of subordinate courts, re their surplus funds.
Accept the thanks of myself and 'the 'brethren of the city who have shown interest in the Bill, and who are now quite satisfied with the Bill as it stands.
With be3t regards,
Yours truly,


J. S. WILLIAMS.
[Stage Direction]
E. F. Clarke, Esq., M. P.
Mr. Williams is one of the oldest and most earnest and indefatigable workers in the order in the province of Ontario, a gentleman who lias occupied almost every position in the order. The fear that was entertained by the brethren has been removed by the action of the committee, prompted by my hon. friend from South Brant, by the insertion of sections protecting the funds of tile subordinate lodges. Their interests are absolutely secure, as I believe and am advised, under the Bill before the House. Under these circumstances, I hope tfhe objection will be withdrawn and the Bill passed to-night. I am satisfied the brethren are labouring under a misapprehension as to the powers given, and I am satisfied the funds of the subordinate lodges are protected by the amendments made in committee.
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: After hearing the statement of my hon. friend from South Brant and that of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who is one of the trustees, I understand, of this association, it may be that the objectors are labouring under a misapprehension. But, for the sake of peace and harmony and to satisfy these people, I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) that it would be better to accept the motion and to refer the matter to the committee. It would only delay the measure for a few days; and, when these people find that objections have been removed by the amendments, that will create a better feeling and be to the advantage of all concerned.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I have no objection to delay it for any length of time, if there is no danger of it lapsing to the prorogation of parliament. If my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) will agree to have the objectors here next Wednesday, I will accept the amendment.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) will accept the motion. I will undertake at once to send the amendment to these parties. I do not know whether they have had notice of them and whether the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has had correspondence with these people in Middlesex


Edward Frederick Clarke: I sent the Bill this day week to the gentlemen who were objecting to it, and I have read the answer I received.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. member (Mr. Heyd) will accept my suggestion and will have the matter brought up in committee on Wednesday


Charles Bernhard Heyd: We want to hear all the objections that can fairly be raised. We do not want to smuggle the Bill through the House.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. S81 to incorporate the Canadian Nurses Association.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have some communication from parties interested in this Bill, and I would ask to have it stand so that I may have the opportunity of consulting the promoter of the Bill, who is not present.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) what the nature of these communications is ? We have allowed the Bill to stand over again and again in the committee at the request of gentlemen who are interested.
mode of determining who should be members except by one or two methods, either by declaring it specifically in the Act, or by giving the corporators power to determine. The hon. member objected that the corporators would probably pass a by-law in similar terms to the Bill, and the effect will be to exclude those nurses in hospitals having only twenty-five, Personally, I am satisfied that there seem to be differences of opinion and that it was an objection that would bear a little consideration.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I must say that the hon. member for Montreal who is promoting the Bill was not present. If the hon. gentleman will allow it to stand, perhaps by changing a word or two we may be able to meet the objections. [DOT]


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I said the consideration of this Bill had been postponed again and again, I probably did not convey the meaning that I intended. After meetings of the Private Bills Committee had been called again and again for the purpose of considering this Bill, at the suggestion of hon. members the meetings were postponed, or it was determined that when the committee did meet the Bill should not be taken up. I sent copies of the Bill to all the hospitals in the city of Toronto, to many members of the medical profession. Of the answers, I think only one or two were opposed to the Bill, the others were all favourable, and I sent them to be considered by the committee, and every objection made to any clause was met by the withdrawal of that clause. However, I have not the slightest objection to accede to the suggestion of the acting Postmaster General and allow the Bill to stand over until Monday.
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	*

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clarke's) pardon. I attended all the meetings of this committee. This measure came up twice. On one occasion the hon. member for St. Antoine Division, Montreal (Mr. Roddick) was not present, and the Bill stood over to allow him to be present, and, when he came, objection was taken to clause 3-1 think it was-which defined those who could become members of the association.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That was stricken out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend from Guys-I'orough (Mr. Fraser) took strong objection to the clause and I suggested that it would be stricken out, and that it should be left to the corporators to define who might become members. I did not know any other Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
Mr. McISAAC moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 103) relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting certain railways.


Mr. ARTHUR W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: The time that can be devoted to private business this evening is so short that there is no probability of making any progress with this Bill, and I would suggest to the mover to let it stand to-night, as the time we may give to it to-night would be simply wasted.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Go on.


Arthur W. Puttee: Although entertaining this view about the matter, we are by no means disposed to counsel the Dominion parliament to undertake the task of saving Manitoba from herself. The legislature of that province, fresh as it is from the people, deliberately gave it.s sanction to these bargains, it was fully aware of the responsibilities which it assumed on behalf of the pro-yince. There is nothing to warrant us in treating the province as if incompetent to manage its own affairs. The only duty that lies on the Dominion parliament is to see that its own control over the railways which it has sub-ventioned and the control of the provinces which have granted aid on definite terms to some of these railways are not impaired by the legislation which is now asked for.
-there certainly is in that nothing very nattering to the parties in Manitoba who have made these deals. There has been no criticism of their Bills as railway Bills, because they are connected with a deal *which is all on the side of tile railway company. Whatever else may be accomplished whatever chances may be run, this, on the face of the contract, is assured, that for the next thirty years the Canadian Northern Railway Company have the key to the cash box ot Manitoba, and if they do not help themselves it will be more out of charity and honesty than for want of an opportunity. I have placed on the Motion paper an amendment which is not an ordinary one, because the conditions that exist in' this case are not ordinary conditions. I wish to make my point good in asking that these Bills be not passed, but that they be held over until such time ns a direct reference has been made to the people of Manitoba, to ascertain their will and their wishes in connection with this bargain. I believe myself, thoroughly, in the principle of the referendum, hut I am aware that it would not be reasonable to ask this House, on an ordinary occasion, that the question should be submitted to a referendum vote by a direct reference, to put it in that way. simply because I thought so. I am going to lay sufficient information before this House to convince it that the greater portion of the intelligent people of Manitoba have expressed themselves as against the Bills, and are m favour of action similar to that which I am advocating, i am going to deal with the city of Winnipeg, and with the public opinion there, and with the sentiment throughout the province separately. I shall deal with Winnipeg first, because in itself it is no small portion of the province of Manitoba, and then I shall deal with the expressions of opinions by public meetings and by municipal councils throughout the province. As regards Winnipeg. I am going to quote an expression of opinion



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Railways-Intercolonial Railway-Increased accommodation at Sydney, $57,000.
['Some time during the week, the Prime Minister said.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The bon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) is not here. He understood that he was to have the papers in connection with some questions that were under discussion before, and that he was to have a little time to look into them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: That was in reference to the general debate that he wanted to have on the Intercolonial Kailway. That was not in reference to the supplementary estimates. Before six o'clock I saw the hon. gentleman, and I told him that my supplementary estimates would be on after dinner, i gave him some of the information that he wanted, but not all. We have discussed almost all, if not entirely all, of the various items that are mentioned here. These are merely supplementaries, but I will give any information that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) desires.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this vote of $57,000 for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for the land I spoke of.
I handed the plans to the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), and I presume he may have left them with some of his colleagues. We are providing for the payment of $45,000 for the land, and $12,000 for the filling, as estimated.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: The hour is up.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hour for private Bills being exhausted, the House will resume in Committee of Supply.
Mr. PUTTEE


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much land are vou purchasing ?	'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the need of buying so much land here ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no possibility of our getting safely along without this land. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not familiar with Sydney or he would know what great congestion of traffic there is there. You take a small village and almost at once introduce the immense volume of business which is being carried on in connection with the enormous Sydney works, and you will see that the railway would be absolutely crippled without extensive accommodation. We are called upon by business men, and by public opinion to provide the neces_sary railway accommodation there. We have laid out a number of tracks, and we propose to build a station on this ground. We are endeavouring to meet the reasonable and just expectations of the people of that locality in the way of railway accommodation. I am not buying a foot of ground that I do not feel is absolutely required.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While I am familiar with the locality or the value of the land there, I must say this seems a very large amount to pay for three and three-quarter acres. If the needs of the railway necessitates this, and we cannot go outside the town a little where the land would be cheaper, there may be justification for the purchase. It has always struck me that whether we buy land at Sydney, St. John or Halifax, for the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway, there appears to be an enormous price paid for it compared with the vnlue of land in our section. That applies even to the metropolitan city of Toronto, where land is quite ns valuable, if not more so. than in the cities and towns.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You could not undertake to buy this quantity of land in Ottawa in any place suitable for railway purpose, for this amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, I do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the knowledge we have of land values throughout our country, it always strikes us that the figures paid for the Intercolonial Railway lands are exceptionally high.
Rolling stock, $213,000.


John Graham Haggart: Give an account of this enormous increase of rolling stock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These are box cars. In the statement I am preparing for the hon. gentleman, I will give the details. This is for 225 cars which have already been ordered, and are under construction, and will have to be paid for in the coming year.


John Graham Haggart: When will you have this statement ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope to have it early next week.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman has given me the contracts for the purchase of locomotives in the United States. In addition to these, I want the tenders, the quantities of rolling stock, the communications with the parties, a statement of any that were purchased by any one in the department, and all the particulars.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will furnish the hon. gentleman with any reasonable information he requires. My deputy has taken a minute of all that the hon. gentleman has asked for.
Intercolonial Railway-Towards purchasing three travelling cranes, $4,500.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had a vote of $30,000 for these, but it has fallen short, as prices have gone up somewhat since we made the estimate.


John Graham Haggart: I forget the three places where you said you were going to erect these ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My recollection is that one was to be at New Glasgow, one at Moncton, and one at RiviSre du Loup.
Intercolonial Railway-Additional conveyer on
west side of wharf at St. John, $17,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is only one conveyer on
4379	COMMONS	4380
the elevator as originally constructed. This is to provide an additional one, so that a steamer can load on whichever side is most convenient.


John Graham Haggart: This makes the total cost of the elevator how much ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 

Intercolonial Railway-To remove rock by widening Gennet's Cutting, near Ldvis, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a tremendously high precipice running along our road for some distance, and we are in deadly peril of it rolling down on our track. The action of frost or something else has loosened it, and the department has decided that it is imperatively necessary that this should be removed.
Intercolonial Railway-Towards improving ferry service jit Strait of Canso, $70,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In addition to the ferry, we require to equip the landing on each side of the strait. We require to put in landing [DOT]stages, which have to be very powerful and long enough to carry trains down to the ferry. The ferry will take trains bodily across the strait.


John Graham Haggart: Have you put on a new ferry boat ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are doing so.


John Graham Haggart: What are you doing with the old ferry boat ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are still using it. The new one has not yet been completed.
Intercolonial Railway-Increased facilities and accommodation along line, $18,400.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When we obtained the grant last session, nobody anticipated that the increased facilities we were providing for would cost $220,000 ; but, owing to tile increased cost of material and the rise in wages, it is wholly impossible to do the work which was then authorized by parliament for the amount of money we then obtained, and we have to get this additional grant.


John Graham Haggart: This is confined to the improvements you mentioned before ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Intercolonial Railway-Additional sidings along line, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This additional grant is required for the same reason. The sidings authorized last year cost us $20.000-an actual Increase of 20 per cent in the cost of materials and in wages.


Mr. BLAIR.: To purchase additional land for track and repair building, Prince Edward Island, $2,000.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANxALS. This is at a place called Cardigan station. There is a building within six feet of the rails, which is very much of a nuisance and liable to be burnt down. The superintendent of the Island Railway has been urging us to acquire this piece of ground and the building. We need a building for the residence of the station agent and an addition to it for freight purposes, and this piece of ground will answer that double purpose. The superintendent succeeded in obtaining an option of the lot and we concluded to avail ourselves of it. $1,500 will pay for the land and $500 will furnish a very complete building.
Steel rails, $54,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are providing 2.700 tons of 56-pound rails, 80 tons to the mile, which will lay 25 miles.


John Graham Haggart: What price are you paying ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We credited the rails taken up from the Intercolonial Railway at $26 a ton and are charging it against this road at the same rate.
Lachine Canal.
Towards building regulating weir.. $2,100 To dredge between locks 1 and 2... 5,000 To deepen Riviere St. Pierre... 7,500


John Graham Haggart: What is the matter with this weir ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not large enough.


John Graham Haggart: Is the hon. gentleman dredging between locks 1 and 2 and what is the depth of water ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are making it 20 feet. There is a good deal to do yet. We are doing this work with our own dredge.


John Graham Haggart: On what principle are you deepening Riviere St. Pierre ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are finishing the work done by the hon. gentleman. There must have been a good deal to be said for it or he would not have done the work.


John Graham Haggart: Whatever justification there is for taking the water down into the canal from Riviere St. Pierre, there is no justification for deepening that river. It is purely a municipal and local work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are completing what the hon. gentleman began. My hon. friend only spent $170,000 on it.


John Graham Haggart: Not a copper on the deepening of Riviere St. Pierre. Before my time I found a contract made for the building of a drain from Lachine village down to Lac St. Pierre, but I never expended one cent on deepening the river and refused positively to do it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has not correct information. Not one cent was expended by the department, either when I was there or previously, in deepening the Riviere St. Pierre from the La-chine canal down to the St. Lawrence river.
To Remove Shoals-Lake St. Francis, $10,000. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Is this entirely outside the Weddell contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: These are two or three shoals that the department has found since that contract was let. What is the estimated cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Something over $100,000. We have spent $79,000. We are asking another $10,000 which will leave about $10,000 or
$2ojo00.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was $15,000 In the main estimates for next year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The amount we require to expend would be $20,000, in addition to this amount in the main estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the hon. gentleman said the cost would be $100,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The details are these : Down to 31st January last, we had expended $54,607. We obtained in the estimates $15,000 and we ask now for $10,000-making altogether $80,000 in round numbers. I am informed by my officers that it will take another $20,000-altogether $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: I thought last year there was a vote of $5,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In 1897-8 we spent about $3,000 or $4,000 out of, I suppose, $5,000 voted. In 1898-9 we spent $22,000, and in 1899-1900, $23,000, and this year we have spent $5,000. So there have been four successive yearly appropriations.


John Graham Haggart: Was the money voted for this purpose, or did you take it out of the general vote before last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was voted for this purpose.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital -Canals-River St. Lawrence and Canals-Surveys 

Placing buoys, $5,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will it require $5,000 each year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The future expense of placing buoys will be an ordinary charge against maintenance.


Robert Laird Borden: Dealing with the security of navigation seems to be divided amongst a great many departments, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Public Works and Railways and Canals. I should think a system of that kind would not be very advantageous. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blair) think it is desirable to have it so divided ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are some disadvantages, I am free to confess. Perhaps the existing condition of things may have largely grown up out of the fact that the Public Works Department as originally constituted had the most of this service under its jurisdiction. In drafting the statute separating the Railway Department from the Public Works Department, no doubt every effort was made to be as explicit as possible ; but it will be seen by any one who looks at the statutes or is familiar with the circumstances, how difficult it is.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand these surveys. You took your vote last night for surveys from Prescott to Montreal. Apparently, no surveys from Prescott to Kingston are needed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not in our jurisdiction, Prescott is as far up as we go.


John Graham Haggart: Is it the Marine Department that places the buoys from Prescott to Kingston ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Whatever buoys are placed between those points must be placed by that department.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister onlv takes charge of the navigation and placing of the buoys from Prescott to Montreal 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. I suppose the hon. gentleman is aware that, whether by understanding between the minister or by an interpreting of the statute, certain jurisdiction is allowed to each department. The same condition has prevailed down to the present.


John Graham Haggart: As Minister of Railways and Canals, I always assumed

jurisdiction over the river from Prescott to Montreal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what we have done.


John Graham Haggart: If my memory serves me right, there is some dredging done, particularly in the neighbourhood of C'oteau, by the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was wharf dredging rather than channel dredging.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital- Canals-Culbute Canal-To pay for damages by flooding, $6,500.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand these damages.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will recollect that when he was in the department, claims were being pressed upon him for alleged damages by flooding of lands in the locality through the raising of water by that dam. These claims have been very persistently pressed fiorn time to time. We have been endeavouring to dispose of them as rapidly as we can bring about an agreement witli 'the parties. I'he sum of $1,600 is required to cover the claims which we have become satisfied are proper to pay.
ring in the department during all those years. I say that commencing with 1884, and continuing at periods of various intervals, this work has been going on, of building protecting walls. The hon. gentleman's memory must have failed him, else he would not make this criticism.


John Graham Haggart: In the first place, we paid for the lands which were supposed to be overflowed by the erection of a government dam. And now we have to build a retaining wall to keep the water from overflowing them.
Trent Canal-Repairs to Young's Point dam $7,000.	'


John Graham Haggart: Is it a dam we are obliged to keep up ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a dam of our own construction, built in 1888. It has become very defective and requires to be repaired.


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend from Cornwall (Mr. Pringle), who is not here to-night, would like to discuss the canals, and I suggest that one item in the canal estimates be left over for that purpose ; or, will there be an item in the additional supplementaries upon which we may discuss the canals ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND


John Graham Haggart: 
John Graham Haggart: I will tell you why, because we expropriated those lands long ago that were damaged by the overflow of Lake St. Francis, and paid four or five times their value. Now, after paying for them, you are erecting walls to keep the water from flowing over those same lands.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If is a mystery to me how my hon. friend can make a statement of that kind in face of what has been occur-Mr. HAGGART.
LANAL&. les ; if not, we will put one there for the purpose.
Mr. VliOOMAN. I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the dam at Bob-caygeon, and its effect on the navigation of the Scugog river by reason of raising and lowering the water level in Sturgeon lake. The Scugog river is an important tributary of this Trent Valley system, and from where it empties to Sturgeon lake ; it is navigable for forty miles up the river, to the village of Port Perry ; the river is navigable all the way up to that point. A great deal of business is done on this river. Ten miles from its mouth is situated the town of Lindsay.
I want to call the minister's attention to the amount of business that is done on this river. Last summer steamers plying up and down carried 27,000 passengers, and the wood product towed up the river amounted in value to $350,000. The manufacture of this raw material into finished products gave employment to 350 men. They received 875.000 in wages last summer 'for doing that work. Now. this river is very shallow. The bottom is rocky near the town, and when the water falls boats cannot reach the wharf. I see this dam is mentioned in the hon. gentleman's report as follows :
At Bobcaygeon a dam 553 feet long controls the water level up to Fenelon Falls.
That dam was built a great many years ago. If the minister will stand there and look, he will see that it is becoming more and more useless every day, inasmuch as

water is flowing through the dam in increasing volume, and thereby the surface level of the lake is reduced.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think this dam belongs to the department of the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. VROOMAN.: But, the Trent Valley canal system is in the Department of Railways and Canals.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no objection to the hon. gentleman going on, the Minister of Public Works is following him.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I will be glad to have the attention of the Minister of Public Works, because I am going to ask him to promise me a grant. I want him to understand that this is a very important matter to a large number of people in the county town in which I live. I am glad that this government made a grant in the last parliament for improving the navigation of this river by dredging. They made a grant, I think, of $5,000, only half of which was spent, and I never could understand why the rest was not spent. In the summer season, when the water falls, boats cannot get up to the town wharf. There Is a wharf close to the town, from which embark on the boats a large number of tourists who come down on the railway. They take steamers and go down to their various resorts, where they remain usually during the summer season. When the water becomes low in the river, these boats have to stop away down the river, and the tourists and citizens have to take their baggage and walk over the sawdust in hot weather, among the lumber piles and across the railway tracks. This is a great inconvenience to them.
Now I want to draw the hon. minister's attention to another matter. The dredge came up there to deepen the channel. The mills that manufacture timber into lumber are built immediately on the banks of the river and they have gangways going down into the water for the purpose of drawing the timber up into the mills. When the dredge came down by deepening the channel along the opposite shore it drew the water away from these mills thus depriving them of the privileges which they enjoyed; and as a result the timber cannot now be drawn up into the mills as heretofore. The dredging should be done so as to leave the mills in the same position that they were in before. The citizens of Lindsay and the people all through that part of the country are very much interested in the dam at Bobcaygeon. If that dam was repaired the water level of the lake would be kept up and it would improve the locks at the village of Fenelon Falls and also deepen the river at the town of Lindsay. I hope the hon. minister will see his way clear to do something in the direction I have suggested, because this is a very important question. The 138
river all the way down is very serpentine in its course, the current low, the bottom lower down the river is muddy, and the wash of the steamers up and down keeps throwing the dirt into the channel and it becomes very shallow. This river is a very important one and I would like the hon. minister's attention to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will take a note of the words that have been uttered by my hon. friend (Mr. Vroo-man). Perhaps it would be better if we had this question discussed again when my estimates are under consideration. I will have more information to give then.


Mr. MONK.: Does this belong to the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Part of it. The dredging would come under my department.


Adam Edward Vrooman: The Minister of Railways and Canals has the whole thing in his report here and that is the reason I was induced to bring the matter up now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The dredging would belong to the Department of Public Works.


Adam Edward Vrooman: How about the dam ? The dam is a very important matter. It is as important as the dredging. If the dam were made good the water would be raised all the way up to the wharf at Lindsay.


John Graham Haggart: There are some items chargeable to income. Are you going on with the whole of your estimates now ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I would like an item in refernce to canals to stand. Some hon. gentlemen who are away want to speak next week on the question of canals and particularly on that of the Trent canal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be items in the supplementary estimates in connection with the canals and when they come up the discussion can take place.


John Graham Haggart: When will they be brought down ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will be early.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We can finish these now and there will be an opportunity to discuss any question which any hon. gentleman desires to bring up.
To pay Mrs. Chamberlain, the widow of the late J. R. Chamberlain, a gratuity of two months' salary, $116.66.


John Graham Haggart: Is that all you give to the widow of an officer you had in the department ?

438/


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Two months' salary is the usual gratuity.


John Graham Haggart: It seems a small one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have followed the rule.
Intercolonial Railway, $1,200,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is this vote for the Intercolonial Railway in addition to the one in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It would be better perhaps to take it up at some future day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As this is for the current year we will have to draw upon it.


John Graham Haggart: Is this for the current year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Well then there are no objections if you leave the other.
Laehine Canal-Repairs, &c., $20,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the bon. minister's attention to an application that has been made several times by the municipality of Lacliine for the right to use the bank of the old canal as a public park under lease from the department. I have inquired about that at the department and I have been informed that there is a lease at present existing of the property applied for by the municipality to the Montreal Terminal Railway Company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is leased to one of the electric railways.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that lease has been annulled or surrendered by the electric railway company. I know they are disposed to surrender it, and I understand that they have informed the mayor of Laehine that they have done so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am informed that they have not done so yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose if they were willing to surrender the lease the government would not object to granting a lease of a similar kind to the municipality of Laehine to enable them to embellish the bank of the canal, which is not used by the department, and which is an eyesore to the town of La-chine.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will be very glad to consider it.


John Graham Haggart: When was the lease granted to the terminal railway ? This is the first time I have heard of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is on the old canal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is on the old canal that existed before the present one was made. It is more of a ditch than anything else. I think it is the old canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: This is the first time I have heard of this and when we have an opportunity of discussing the item again I would like to see the lease granted to the Montreal Terminal Railway Company and to ascertain the terms of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will make a note of it.
Cornwall Canal-Repairs, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: An inquiry was made yesterday as to the Welland canal. I am able to state that the gates have all been put in and were in working order this morning.
Chambly Canal-Repairs, $5,410.


John Graham Haggart: What are you doing on the Chambly canal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are rebuilding a section of bridge No. 1, building a wharf at Chambly Canton and repairing the wharfs and piers.


John Graham Haggart: We did not hear what you are going to do on Laehine canal with $20,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for repairing and remodelling one pair of gates for the new lock ; building a fence at C6te St. Paul bridge, and making a wagon road at Wellington street bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the minister considered the question of a new bridge at COte St. Paul ? That matter came up some time ago, and the minister seemed to be very busy that day. He did not feel disposed to consider the question as I raised it. It is becoming more and more urgent every day on account of the enlarged traffic in that direction and the impossibility for the street cars to get across the canal. A subway has been suggested, as the minister knows, which would be less costly and of a more permanent character than a bridge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have felt very reluctant to take upon ourselves the responsibility of building a new bridge, seeing that the present bridge is all right for ordinary purposes. The new bridge would only be necessary in order to allow the street cars to pass. It


John Graham Haggart: 

is hardly proper that we should be asked to build a bridge tor the tramway company.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems a strange proposition that the street railway company should be obliged to build a bridge because the canal is there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is done by other railway companies where they cross a canal, and why not a street railway company ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have any railway companies b*ilt bridges across the canals?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes. If a street railway [DOT]company warns to get over our canal why should we be at the cost ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not for the railway so much as for the people who use it. As I have already pointed out, the COte St. Paul bridge is a very old one and scarcely sufficiently wide for the ordinary vehicular traffic. Nor is it sufficiently wide for the purposes of the canal, because I am informed that the steamship Bohemian touches both sides while going through, and great precautions are necessary. It seems to me that the government might consider the propriety of building a bridge without the concurrence of the railway company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the present bridge were not adequate for the ordinary passenger and vehicular traffic, or if it were unsafe and we had to construct a new one, it might fairly be a question for us to make an arrangement with the tramway company, they bearing a legitimate portion of the cost of the structure so that it should be sufficiently strong and wide to answer their purposes, and we bearing the balance of the expense. But to build a bridge for a railway company is not in accordance with the usage or custom of the department. I am not just clear at this moment that there is any ground that would justify it.
To pay Robert Coulter for services as collector at Port Robinson, Welland canal, in connection with passing vessels on Sundays, 270 hours at 20 cents, $54.


John Graham Haggart: How is it that you are paying this sum to the collector ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It appears that a dispute arose as to whether or not the collector had any instructions to attend on Sundays, to pass the vessels, and it was finally decided to allow Mr. Coulter this amount which is customary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any rule in the-department as to the caretaking of the locks on the Lachine canal on Sundays ? I have heard frequent complaints that the lock-men are obliged to take care of the locks on Sundays, whereas the lockmaster, who 138J
has his dwelling at the canal, is supposed to do so. If the lockmen are to take charge on Sundays they expect to get some extra pay. Is there a rule on that point ?
The MINISTER Oh" RAILWAYS AN*D CANALS. There is no such rule in force In the department. The rule which has always prevailed, prevails to-day, and I understand that by an arrangement between the lockmaster and the lockmen, they keep an eye on the canal, on Sundays, in turn. It is supposed to be a part of the terms of the engagement, and nothing is allowed for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The contention of the lock-men is that the lockmaster is paid by the month, and they are paid by the day, so that if they are called upon to work on Sundays, they expect a remuneration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This system has continued uninterruptedly without any question having been raised until this session. It was not brought to my attention until the hon. gentleman put the question on the Notice paper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have made these inquiries year after year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am told in the department that there have been no claims preferred for any such service in times past.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are afraid to make a claim.
Ottawa Military Buildings-New store, $10,500.


Edward Gawler Prior: How much is that going to cost in the total ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: $70,000. This, with the item in the main estimates, is expected to finish it.


John Graham Haggart: Where is it to be placed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On Cartier Square, at the back of the present building.	*


John Graham Haggart: Is there any contribution from the railway companies towards it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are going to receive $10,000.
Public Buildings-Nova Scotia-Lunenburg Public Building-Interest on unpaid balance. of purchase money of site, $34.29.
Mr. IvAULBACH. I am very glad indeed to see that the hon. Minister of Public Works has acceded to the request I have been so solicitous of for a number of years, that he has seen the reasonableness of it, and has put this item in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I always try to be fair.

Public Buildings-Quebec-Grosse Isle quarantine station, $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a waterworks for the hospital. The water is taken from the St. Lawrence. It is salt water, and has to be pumped into large tanks, and condensed, and then brought down to the hospital.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no other water there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I am Informed that we have spent a great deal of money in digging wells which would not work.
Peribonka-Immigrant building, $2,500.
Roberval-Immigrant building, $3,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the minister explain these two items ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are on Lake St. John. There is a large immigration going on in that district. Last year, if I remember rightly, 1,600 settlers went in, and the Department of the Interior has asked for two buildings.


Uriah Wilson: I do not remember seeing in the report of the Minister of the Interior that any great number of immigrants landed at these places, and I am surprised at seeing $5,500 for two buildings where there is only a small number of immigrants.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know that district very well, and I can assure my hon. friend that immigrants are pouring into it rapidly at the present time.


Uriah Wilson: Is it European immigration ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and people are coming from the United States in large numbers. I believe that within the last few days 200 or 300 people went there.
Rideau Hall-To make good damage done by the fire of November 25, 1900, and putting In new concrete floors in stables in place of old wooden floors, &c., $5,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is putting in the concrete floors ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our own staff at Rideau Hall.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where do you get the cement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We buy some at Montreal.
Paris, Ont.-Public Buildings-Governor General's warrant, $18,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the Governor General's warrant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A fire destroyed the building and they had Mr. TARTE.
no money available, so we obtained a warrant. This will not complete the work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister received any application for a public building at St. Laurent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, several people of both political parties applied for a public buildng there. If I have some little encouragement another year, I may be glad to try my hand at it.
Toronto Post Office

Extension of the Union station sorting room, elevator, tower hoist, &c., $12,000.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand that this money is to be expended on Grand Trunk Railway property.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is an arrangement by which the Grand Trunk Railway pay us some interest on the money spent.
New Westminster, B.C., Public Building-Reconstruction, $10,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: What is the total amount spent on New Westminster public building last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $34,000 up to the 1st of January.


Edward Gawler Prior: Will this finish it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will require $10,000 more in the supplemen-taries. The work is under contract.
Telephone Service-Public Buildings, Ottawa, $2,350.


James Joseph Hughes: How much per telephone does the government pay ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WrORKS. Thirty-five dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: How much is the main appropriation for telephone service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $5,000. We were behind on that appropriation from year to year, and we concluded to ask for an additional amount to pay up arrears.
Public Building, Ottawa-Fitting up offices over Molson Bank for Labour Department, including steam coils, &c., $4,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC 'WORKS. This is the Labour Bureau on Metcalfe street. These are steel files run along the wall with places inside for papers.


Robert Laird Borden: There are many papers in some of the public departments, which represent a very large expenditure of money and are not adequately protected from fire. It would be worthy of consideration to see whether they could be protected.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When we had a fire in the West block, if

the department had been supplied with these steel files we would not have lost so many papers. In the supplementaries there Is a pretty large amount for steel files. We have most of the departments not protected as they should be.


George Taylor: I moved some time ago for a return of all the buildings rented by the government.
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC [DOT] WORKS. I will bring down this paper early next week.


George Taylor: I am informed that the Inland Revenue Department have lately rented a building somewhere on Queen street near the market and that the laboratory has been moved to that building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know that the Inland Revenue Department has a building on Wellington street, but I do not remember any building of theirs on Queen street.


Uriah Wilson: I do not know the name of the street, but it is a new building down near the market. The officers of the department have just moved in. I was there and saw the stuff there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am at a loss to know what the hon. gentleman means. My deputy does not seem to know anything about it, and neither do I. The building may have been rented by the department without my knowledge, though I should be surprised if that were done. Still, if they rent it and pay for it I would not object.


Uriah Wilson: I understand that the rental is $1,200 a year.


The. MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well. I will bring a complete list of the buildings that are rented here in Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: How many buildings in Ottawa are now rented by the various departments ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are thirteen buildings or parts of buildings rented.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. gentleman give the committee an idea of the amount paid in rentals per year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Have the government considered the question of providing additional accommodation by the erection of a building, instead of providing room in this piecemeal way, and sometimes, apparently, being compelled to pay pretty high prices. It is well known that more accommodation is required in these very buildings for instance, the library needs more room, and more room is needed for the various purposes in connection with the House of
Commons and the Senate. It is apparent also that better accommodation is required for the various departments. One would think that a more business-like way would be to consider the advisability of erecting another building, and, if necessary, purchasing a site for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only additional accommodation provided for in my estimates is in connection with this House. I intend using part of the yard over the engine house. We can get there a space of about 40 by 00 feet. The building will afford us six additional rooms, and, in the top storey a large committee room 40 by 00 feet. If it was permitted me to speak not as a minister, but as a member of parliament pure and simple-


Robert Laird Borden: We will permit that for a few moments.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Especially the pure and simple.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will take that permission, and I would entirely agree with the view expressed by the leader of the opposition. To my mind it is ridiculous to have so many departments and public offices scattered over the city. When I took office there were several buildings rented, and we have been obliged to rent others. [DOT] Instead of that, we should erect the public buildings that are necessary. The departments are cramped, and there is not an additional foot to be had. I have been all over the buildings with the chief architect, I do not know bow many times. But when a poor Minister of Public Works comes before his colleagues with an expenditure of two or three hundred thousand dollars in view, he becomes a public enemy; his budget is too large; he is an expensive man


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am only telling the gospel truth. The minister is told that the project is too large. That is my position so far. I am prepared to carry the blame, but I fully recognize that we should not go on, as my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says by this piecemeal method. It is a bad system. At the same time, I must say it is a difficult question to grapple with. First there is the question of site. Sites are pretty expensive in Ottawa. We are accused of paying, high rents. I am glad the question has come up, because the more it comes up the more it will help me to carry out the views that I think are right. We should have an additional building somewhere. There was in former days, and there is now some talk of a colonnade that would unite the buildings together. The chief architect, Mr. Ewart, who is a capable and most practical man, is giving his attention to this question now. I have not made up my mind as to the plans I

would advise my colleagues to adopt, but I fully recognize that we are not doing what we ought to do.


Mr. BOYD.: I am glad to hear the Minister of Public Works admit that the system which has been adopted by himself and his predecessors is not giving the satisfaction that the arrangement adopted should give. I think a suggestion might well be thrown out that the public buildings we now have might be used to a great deal better advantage than they now are. If the hon. minister were to go into the establishment of Armour & Co., or Swift & Co., of Chicago, he would find in one building the size of one of these, three times as many men as are in the whole of these buildings, and under the supervision of one man, he would probably learn how to place a lot of men without putting each man by himself into a room large enough to accommodate three or four men. The custom has been heretofore that, as soon as a man is required to look after any particular branch of a department, he gets room for himself and an assistant, and they shut themselves up in that room, and you do not know whether they are doing anything or not. The next man gets another room, 20 feet square for himself, and so on. So I think when the government are talking about erecting extra buildings in order to make extra space, they [DOT] would do well to adopt some business system whereby a greater number of employees may be grouped together and thus save a great deal of space. .


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: When the Langevin block was erected this very question came up, and Sir John A. Macdonald was of the opinion that a large number of employees could be grouped together in some big rooms. It is not necessary to go to Armour's place for an example; if you go to Montreal you will find the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway Company have their employees in large rooms. Here the question has been settled in another way. I fully admit that the suggestion is worthy of consideration. There is no doubt that if a larger number of employees were in large rooms we could economize space to a great extent But those who preceded us and had experience, thought differently, and we have followed their example
5Ir. RICHARDSON (Lisgar). Has the minister ever thought of the idea of putting on an extra story on the present building, or would it destroy their architectural beauty ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the architecture of these buildings is so refined that I would not like to change it. The question came up when the Western block wTas destroyed in 1898, and after much consideration I made up my mind that we would not put on another story.


Mr. TARTE.: 


Robert Lorne Richardson: I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) with regard to ripping out the partitions and putting a large crowd into one room. You would then have better supervision over them, you could get better results and. economize space.


Robert Laird Borden: It is wonderful how many men you can accommodate in a moderate space where space is expensive. I have never been in the Armour building, but I have been in large shipping offices, and in the Produce Exchange Building in New York. You see there a whole army of men working in a very moderate space. I am sure the space per man is not one-fourth of what is allowed in these buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think in the Canadian Pacific Railway offices in Montreal, only the superior officers have rooms of their own, and all the employees are located in a large room together. The suggestion is worth considering.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You see the same thing in large banks.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was a plan mooted some years ago of building a bridge across the Rideau canal and getting access to some government property on the other side. I heard that was a plan of Sir John A. Macdonald ; has that been under consideration ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I apprehend that the Geological Museum will be built in the Major's Hill Park. Then this question of building a bridge will probably come up. A few days ago some friends and myself went over the ground and we discussed that improvement.


George Taylor: Did the hon. Minister of Public Works ever consider the idea of providing quarters for our Speaker, Sergeant-at-Arms and chief messenger, outside this building, thereby giving more accommodation for members and committees ? At present I think that if he will look into the matter, he will find that nearly one-half, if not more, of the space in this building is occupied by officials of the House. I think that we ought to provide a suitable residence for our Speaker outside. That plan would be much cheaper than enlarging the building, as the minister proposes. The same way with the chief messenger and the sergeant. The members of both sides of the House at present lack accommodation. If we had the room occupied by these officials we would have all the accommodation we need. I think the government ought to consider that. The members have to spend three, four or five months here every year, and they ought to have some comfort ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the coming recess I will give my best attention to the necessity of having addi-

tional accommodation, and I will consider * the suggestions that have been made tonight by hon. members on both sides. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) has a plan of his own that he has submitted to me, and which I think has the approval , of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart). Other members of parliament have made suggestions to me.
I think if the hon. gentleman's views were carried out they would give us increased accommodation. As far as the chief messenger is concerned, I think it is only proper that he should remain In this building. The Speaker, I presume, would have no objection to be located outside. I will not make any promise now, but I will carefully look into the suggestions that have been made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One serious disadvantage arising from a discussion like this in the House, is that it adds immediately to the value of land in Ottawa. I happen to have had occasion recently to make some inquiries in an indirect way as to the value of certain land, and I was told it had increased during the last month in consequence of some statements made in this House as to the necessity of the government getting more land.


Jabel Robinson: Are there any other private residences owned by the government except Rideau Hall in or near the city ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORK.: No, we have no other residences.


Jabel Robinson: I think then it would be well, if we are going to have a surplus next year of five or six mililon dollars, to build some private residences for the members of the government, either across the bridge or in some other convenient place, so that we may know where to find them. I do not know where they live.
. I suppose they are scattered all over the city. I would suggest that we have a Minister's Row across the canal, or some other place. Of course, you would have the nicest residence for the premier. I do not expect ever to be premier myself, but who ever should be premier would expect the nicest residence. Then you would go down by gradation to the lowest place, which, I suppose, would be allotted to the Minister of Public Works. I think it would be a very good idea, because they have to pay rent and perhaps an exorbitant rent for the buildings where they live. I think if the government owned these buildings, hon. gentlemen in opposition would be aspiring and expecting some day to live in them, and that would stimulate them still further. I think it would be an excellent plan, if you had the ground, and had the money to do it. It would cost the country less to have a nice colony of ministers pretty close to the buildings, and convenient,
so that members might call and see them when they come down.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was there not some suggestion in regard to the Supreme Court building, as to locating it in a new place ? Would that not be a good site for additional premises ? While I am on my feet I also want to ask the hon. minister about an elevator. There was a question about an elevator to be placed in this building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the improvements that we are going to carry out, there is room not only for one elevator, but for two elevators, which are most necessary to have.
Lighting Dominion Public Buildings-Additional, $5,000.	[DOT]


Uriah Wilson: How much does this make altogether for lighting public buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have an additional number of buildings all over Canada, and this amount is necessary for the lighting.


Uriah Wilson: How' much was there in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Uriah Wilson: And this makes $50,000?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Every dollar of this expenditure is controlled by the chief architect.'


Robert Laird Borden: I think these additional buildings were made to do duty for an increase in the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These estimates are for this year only. The appropriation voted in the main estimates is short, and we must have that sum of money for this year.
Nova Scotia-Comeauville-Repairs to Breakwater-Revote of lapsed amount, $1,200.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was it not expended before ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the accounts were not received until after the appropriation books for 18991900 were closed.
Ingonish, North Bay-Breakwater-Balance due contractor, &c., $10,800.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the etcetera ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the foreman of the work, and so on.
Parker's Cove-Extension of wharf (work done, including interest on balance due contractor, revote of $1,822, $1,950.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is Parker's Cove ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Annapolis county.
New Brunswick-St. John Harbour-Negro Point-Breakwater, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this for repairs or construction ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Rebuilding and repairs.
Quebec-Ste. Emilie Wharf-To complete. $2.000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Lotbiniere county.
Ontario-Hawkestone-New Wharf-Work done, $502.20.	f	'


Robert Laird Borden: We had better leave this, as there are no Ontario men here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are only a few small items.
Mr, WILSON. I think you had better leave them as there is not an Ontario man in the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What do you want to pass ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Simply the Ontario items. They are only small items, and not disputable.
Port Burwell-Harbour improvements, $15,000.


Uriah Wilson: What is being done there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is going on. I have explained the whole thing already. I will have another amount in the supplementary estimates, on which my hon. friends can ask for explanations again.
Manitoba-General repairs and improvement to harbour, river and bridge works, $1,500.


Nathaniel Boyd: Where is that money to be expended?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for general repairs, small things that we have to do, works here and there.


Mr. McCREARY.: I think that in the supplementary estimates for this year larger sums should be brought down for improvements on Lake Winnipeg. A very large sum of money is being expended on the improvement of St. Andrews rapids on the Red River, about $750,000, and to get the full benefit of that improvement there are other improvements which should be made. The mouth of the Red river should be dredged. There is a sum of -$8,000 in the estimates which I would like to have increased to $15,000. in order that this dredging might be stopped ; as you are aware, the dredging of the mouth of the Red River has been going on for 18 years, and I believe that if $25,000, or even $15,000, were


Robert Laird Borden: placed in the estimates this work could be discontinued after another year or two. Steps should also be taken to deepen the Icelandic river, and some of the other rivers emptying into that lake.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the St. Andrews rapids improvements are completed, the level of the lake will be raised to such an extent that it will not be necessary to have any more dredging done at all.


Nathaniel Boyd: "What does the minister propose to do in regard to the petitions he has received asking for the lowering of the level of Lake Manitoba, and also for dredging where they are running a small boat ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) knows we are completing works for lowering the waters of the lake and they will be done for August next. I hope they will be successful.


Nathaniel Boyd: I myself forwarded some petitions about dredging portions of that lake and I would like to know what is the intention of the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very sorry to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) that unfortunately we have no dredge available. I have instructed our resident engineer to see what the dredge used there by Mr. Lemoine is worth and whether it is capable of doing the work which my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) asks for. If the dredge is a fairly good one and if too much is not asked for it, I will be able to comply with the request of the hon. gentleman.
Dredging-Quebec and Ontario, $20,000.


Uriah Wilson: What is the explanation, of this ? We have already had a vote for this, and I suppose this extra expenditure is for extra work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The appropriation is short and we want this $20,000 to go on with the work up to the 1st July. This is to pay for the work of our own dredges, and also for the dredges wo hire. My department is simply flooded with demands for dredging and I am very sorry that we cannot comply with them all. 1 would remind the House that we are building several dredges for the maritime provinces, for Ontario, for British Columbia and for Quebec, and these dredges will enable us to do better and cheaper work. As every one knows, the department has been very badly equipped in the past in this respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I avail myself of this opportunity to call attention to the want of some dredging at Pointe Claire. There is a wharf there that we are indebted to the minister for, but the last time I was in Pointe Claire there was a demand for dredging In

order to reach the wharf. Will the minister make a note of that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will not only make a note, but I will do the work, which is better.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is very acceptable. There is also some dredging required at the St. Lawrence Boating Club near Dorval, and I think the club deserves to have the work done for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that all the work asked for last year both by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and other friends of ours has been done. If there is anything else necessary I will do it with pleasure.


Uriah Wilson: As the minister seems to be in good humour, I would like to know what his intentions are about dredging the Napanee river. I brought this up last year and had a promise from the minister that he would obtain sufficient information to make an estimate, but when the supplemen-taries were before the House the acting minister told me they had no such information, and they would have to get a survey before they could make an appropriation. The survey has been made now and I would like to know if the minister intends to have a sum in the supplementary estimates to dredge that river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The survey has been made and we have now the necessary information. We have only a limited number of dredges at our disposal, but we can take the amount necessary out of the general estimates.


Uriah Wilson: Will you put in a special vote for this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not necessary.


Uriah Wilson: I know it is not necessary, but your engineer made an estimate of the cost and I think the usual course is to put an item of that kind in the estimates. I quite understand about the general vote, but if you intend to do any special work you generally put in an item for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It can be taken out of the general appropriation.


Uriah Wilson: You are taking a very large amount for general dredging and I may look to it being done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are asking $15,000 more this year for general dredging.


Uriah Wilson: All right.


Adam Edward Vrooman: May I ask what is the intention of the minister with reference to the River Scugog, near Lindsay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We did dredging last year. We thought we had done enough to comply with the demands made upon us; but I will take a note of what my hon. friend says, and look again into the question.


James Joseph Hughes: The department did some blasting there last year in the river bed. and the debris was piled on one side and completely obstructed the way to one of the important industries to the town of Lindsay, and it is still lying there. I am sure the minister only needs to have his attention drawn to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry that my attention has not been called to that before. I will have it attended to immediately.
Dredging-British Columbia. $5,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has the hon. minister given instructions for the upper harbour of Victoria to be dredged forthwith ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Instructions have been sent that as soon as the work at Tozo Rock is completed, the dredge will work in the upper part of the harbour.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am told that the work will only cost $1,500. The dredge is not working at Tozo Rock at the present time, I am informed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The new dredge which we are building is a sand suction dredge, which could not work in the harbour of Victoria.


Edward Gawler Prior: Why ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that the nature of the soil would not permit of the dredge working there. That is a matter into which we can look again.


Edward Gawler Prior: I think you had better, foi', if I am rightly informed, it is just the kind of material in which the new dredge will work. It is mud and silt. The amount which the hon. gentleman has for Victoria harbour is absurdly small. I hope he will see that a larger amount is spent there than has been spent in the past. It is a very important harbour, in whicii there is a large amount of shipping.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say that as soon as the work of removing the Tozo Rock is completed, the dredge will work in the upper part of the harbour. More than that I cannot say.
Roads and Bridges-Ottawa City-Bridges over the Ottawa river, the slides and the Rideau canal and approaches thereto-Ordinary repairs, &c., $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Explain.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This amount is asked by the chief engineer

to make repairs to the Wellington bridge, the Sapper's Bridge, and the other bridges which are under the Department of Public Works.


Robert Laird Borden: How is the amount expended which is voted annuai'y as a contribution to the cits'- in lieu of taxes ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of Finance is the proper person to answer that question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The money is in the hands of a commission appointed by the government. Their practice is to prepare estimates of their appropriations and send them to the Governor !n Council for approval. Having obtained that approval, the expenditure of the money is entirely under their control, though the accounts are subject to the audit of the Auditor General, as required by the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: It occurred to me that it might not be undesirable to have some portion of that money expended on Sussex street, which is in a very bad condition. That street connects property belonging to the government at one end with property belonging to the government at the other end, and it is traversed a great deal by prominent people who come to Ottawa. If the hon. gentleman has ever attempted to go over it, he will agree with me that it is in a most disgraceful condition. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has had any experience on a bicycle. If he could be persuaded to learn to ride, and go over that street as I have done on a conveyance of that kind, he would concur most heartily in the suggestion I am making.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree with my hon. friend as to the desirability of improving Sussex street, and I hope the commission and the city authorities will be able to come to an understanding by which it may be improved. But having left all such matters in the hands of the commission, we can only bring the suggestion to their attention. I sympathize very much with the object the hon. gentleman has in view.
Surveys and inspections, $16,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is intended to cover the cost of a survey on the French river, with the view of obtaining the necessary information in order to have the improvement carried out which the vast majority of the country desire. A survey was made last month, and this is to pay the work done. There is a difficult question to be decided. Lake Nipis-sing has been raised five feet to drown the rapids we have to grapple with, and we have not sufficient information to know how Mr. TARTE.
many thousand acres of land may be grounded. By the moderate expenditure of $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, we will have a direct route from Chicago and Duluth to North Bay on Lake Nipissing, which is only 330 miles from the port of Montreal. When we have twenty feet of water from Duluth to North Bay, we will have the best route we ever had for our western trade. The survey was made by Air. Fraser, one of the engineers of the department, with the help of some others of our engineers. The report has only been prepared in a temporary way, but, perhaps, before the session is through, I may place it before the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one item relating to the post office which I would like, the committee to take up.


Robert Laird Borden: I have some matters to bring up when the post office items come on.


Hon.   A@: There will be supplementary estimates for next year, on which any discussion that the hon. gentleman may have can come up. This is only one item to clean up next year's supplemental estimates.
Post Office-To complete payments for post office service to June 30, 1901, $125,000.


Hon.   A@: I asked the officers of the department to make up a careful estimate of what would be required to meet the expenditures of next year, and these amounts are made up particularly on account of the increased services on the different railroads, especially in British Columbia, Alanitoba aud the North-west. The railway mail service is increased $53,000 over the estimates made : extra expenditure for ordinary land conveyances, $40,000 ; increased expenditure for mail bags, owing to general expansion of the business, $12,000 : stationery, &e., $20.000: and the item of $500 for telegrams, incurred particularly cabling in connection with the Pacific cable and South African business.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this effect the question we had up early in the session, as to the general results of the post office administration during the past year ?


Hon.   A@: It would, to some extent. Perhaps it would be more satisfactory if I laid on the Table an estimate made by the officers-you cannot give a complete return of the receipts until the completion of the year.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to bring the statement down to the latest date it is possible to furnish it for ?


Hon.   A@: Yes.

Post Office-To provide for payment of mileage to railway mail clerks who were on duty in South Africa from July 1, 1900, to the date on which they returned to duty in their several districts :-
J.	Lallier, July 1, 1900, to Feb. 24, 1901.. $184 08
T. B. Bedell,	"	19,	1901..	247	10K.	A. Murray,	"	28,	1901..	160	89R. Johnston,	"	17,	1901..	324	75


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it was pretty well understood in the House that men in the service would be allowed their salaries while away in South Africa, and most of the departments have been able to pay, because they had taken a vote. But these gentlemen are paid partly by mileage, and the Auditor General would not pay without a special vote. This is estimated on the average of what they earned in the previous years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think we have done a fair day's work, and that even according to the Mulock Act, we have earned our money.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What government business will be taken up on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Private Bills will occupy probably most of the time. If time allows, some of the government Bills on the paper will be taken up, and then supply.


Frederick William Borden: What supply ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall go right on with the supplementary estimates and clean them up. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is able to be here, we shall take his estimates, which, when concluded, will nearly clean up the main estimates.


Edward Gawler Prior: Will the government bring down the railroad subsidies at the beginning of next week ? The right hon. Prime Minister promised that all documents will be down by that time.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Some time during the week, the Prime Minister said.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 6, 1901.