1901-03-05

Mr.  D. C.@: FRASER (Guysborough) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 40) respecting the British Yukon Railway Company. He said : This is simply to enable the company to extend its line from White Horse to Dawson City. The length of its present line is 120 or 130 miles, all of which is in Canada except 16 miles.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Saskatchewan and Western Railway Company.-Mr. La-RiviSre.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Klondike Mines Survey Company.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 43) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Lodge.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Ottawa and Gatineau Railway Company, and to change its name to the Ottawa, Gatineau and Western Railway Company-Mr. Champagne by Mr. Ethier.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That for the remainder of the session Government Orders shall have precedence after questions on Thursdays.
He said : In making this motion, I may inform the House of the government business,
not only so far as it is already before the House, but so far as it is intended to bring in other business. There are on the Order paper two Bills to be introduced by the Solicitor General, one relating to the Franchise Act and one relating to the Elections Act. These Bills will be introduced, probably, tomorrow. Then, the Minister of the Interior contemplates introducing a Bill for the consolidating of the Indian Act. The Minister of Finance contemplates introducing the Bill, which was announced in the speech from the Throne, concerning the mint. A Bill will be introduced concerning the Alien Labour law. The day after to-morrow the Bill concerning the Alien Labour law will be introduced, and the other two probably in the course of a week. It is expected that supplementary estimates will be introduced not this week, but early next week.
I will not say that this is all the legislation to be introduced this session, but if there is more, it will be of a light character.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Can the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) give us any information as to when we may expect his budget speech ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Some day next _ week, but a more definite announcement will be made next Thursday.


Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: The business brought before the House so far has been very largely promoted by private members, members of the opposition. I think the government have had ample opportunity to forward their measures, and that they will still have, sufficient opportunity without at once taking one of the private members' days. We have not reached a point in the session-though I believe it is quite understood on both sides that we are to have a short session-for such a step. The government has not its business in such a form as to make such a step necessary. I think the government should not be in a hurry, considering that private members have been diligently bringing business before the House, and at this stage one of the days devoted for private members' business should not be taken.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I certainly must give the opposition credit for putting a great deal of matter on the Order paper. But, as to anything further than that, I cannot say that they have shown any remarkable diligence, for, day after day the same motions standing in the names of hon. gentlemen of the other side have been called and allowed to stand. However, I would not quarrel with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) on this subject. I do not believe I could change his opinion on this subject and I am sure he could not change mine. However, if my hon. friend will accept such an arrangement, I will agree not to take next

Thursday but the Thursday following. I ask to have the resolution amended to that effect.


Mr. WALLACE.: I do not agree with the Prime Minister. I think that kon. members on this side have been making it very interesting for the members of the government. However, I shall not oppose the motion as it is now proposed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I rise to a question of privilege. I find that in ' Hansard' of the first of March my name is recorded as having been paired against the motion introduced by the kon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Costigan). I desire to say that that pair was arranged for the original motion as introduced by that hon. gentleman, and not for the motion that was voted on by the House. Had I been in the House when the vote was taken I would have voted for the resolution as amended.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).: I desire to ask when I may expect the returns I moved for early in the session, one with reference to the cost of elevators in St. John and Halifax, and the other for certain information respecting immigration.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: , I desire to explain


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I shall be very glad to make immediate inquiries, and, if there is any information that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) has asked for and that has not been forthcoming, to supply it as speedily as possible.


Uriah Wilson: The resolution passed the House early in the session.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no doubt the matter is being attended to.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am in the same position as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson).


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have an answer from the Minister of Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) as to the return relating to immigration.



THE PACIFIC CABLE.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) moved that the House go into Sir WILFRID LAURTER.
committee to consider the following resolutions :
That whereas by ' The Pacific Cable Act, 1899,' His Excellency in Council is authorized to guarantee payment of five-eighteenths of the principal sum of £1,700,000 sterling, to be applied in establishing direct submarine telegraphic communication between Canada and Australasia ;
And whereas in lieu of said sum of £1,700,000 it is estimated that for the purpose aforesaid there will be required a sum not exceeding £2,000,000 sterling, which sum of £2,000,000 the government of the United Kingdom is willing to advance ;
1 * That the Governor in Council is authorized to guarantee payment of five-eighteenth parts of the principal and interest of and upon the securities to be issued by the government of the United Kingdom for raising the said sum, namely, £2,000,000 so to be advanced.
2. That section 3 of said Act be repealed.

Mr. Mulock.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: 
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: There is also a press clipping which has been placed in my hands, the meaning of which I do not quite understand. Possibly the hon. gentleman will be able to make perfectly clear to me what it does mean, if it is authentic. In the Canadian Gazette of the 22nd February, 1901, there is this reference to the scheme :
The Melbourne Argus says that the Victorian government is communicating with the governments of Queensland and New Zealand with a view of forwarding a combined message to the Pacific cable board suggesting a joint purse undertaking with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.
I will pass this clipping across so that the hon. gentleman may read it and may inform us what is the exact meaning and bearing of that reference, if it is authentic.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, I thought, in connection with the motion that is now before the committee, that we would have had some statement from the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) in regard to the general policy of the government in connection with the telegraph system of this country. I thought he would have come forward here to-day and made a proposal to nationalize the telegraph system of Canada, in connection with this cable scheme. It has been shown that a system of cables, even when state-owned, unless the land lines are controlled by the state, will accomplish very little good, and the proof of that is instanced in the case of the Mackay-Bennett cable across the Atlantic ocean. A company was organized with a large capital, and it succeeded in establishing a first-class cable system across the Atlantic, between Great Britain and the United States, but the men interested in it found that in order to make that cable system an effective one, they had to own and control land lines, and the ally of the Mackay-Bennett cable is the Postal Telegraph system of the United States, which had to be organized and capitalized and a great deal of money spent in connection with it. I would like to see this Pacific cable scheme go through. I am quite prepared, and I know my constituents are quite prepared, to vote our portion of the money, but while we are doing that, I think the announcement ought to be made that in order to realize the benefit of that cable system, we should have a nationalized telegraph system in Canada, and make one the complement of the other A very important deliverance on that line was contained in a letter which Sir Sandford Fleming read the other day in this city, at the meeting ot' the British Empire League. Sir Sandford Fleming, after a most careful study of the question, and no man either in the old land or in America, has given more consideration to this question, makes this statement :
In my open letters which have been published in England, Canada and Australia addressed to the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, the Hon. Wm. Mulock and the Rt. Hon. Lord Hopetoun, it is pointed out that by nationalizing our telegraph service by land and sea the charges on messages to 'and fi'om the most distant parts of the empire can be reduced to one-eighth or one-tenth the rates at present exacted.
Now, there is a most important statement, and I wish to call the attention of this House to the fact that a gentleman who is an expert in regard to telegraphic service, says that if you nationalize the cables and nationalize the land service telegraphs you will cut down the cost of cabling and of telegraphing to one-tenth of the rates we pay now. Just think of it ! It is practically saying that if you pay 25 cents for a message now, you will get a similar message transmitted for 21 cents. I do not know that we will come to such a low point as
that, but we will get a much better service than we have to-day at very much less money, if the cable and telegraph lines are nationalized. Sir Sandford Fleming has said it, and reports have been presented in Congress of the United States, and they all go to show that to be the fact. The land lines are nationalized in Great Britain and all over Europe ; we ought to be prepared to go at least as far as they have gone, and the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) ought to tell the country now that he has under consideration a proposition to nationalize the telegraph system of this country. What will be the cost of nationalizing the telegraph system of Canada and running it in connection with the post office, as is the case in Great Britain and in the Australian colonies ? It will cost a comparatively small amount of money, and what will be the result of it ? Cheap telegraphy removes a great deal of the trouble and inconvenience that are experienced by trade, by reason of distance and other conditions of that character, and if you have a national telegraph system in connection with the post office, you can run it cheaper than in any other way. In every little village you will he in a position to establish a post office and to pay a decent wage to a man who will conduct the post office, who will he an operator, and who will, if necessary, take charge of the telephone lines in that village. That will form a grand service, namely, the public will have the telephone, the telegraph and the post office, all in one building, and combining all those services under one man, to whom you will be able to pay a good salary and who will give good service. What can the telegraph lines do in the way of supplementing the service of the post office ? Trade will he largely increased and men will be able to do business in a country like Canada by telegraph instead of through the mails. If you can transmit twenty-live words for ten cents, look at the impetus that will be given to trade when a man can do all his correspondence, for instance, between Montreal and Vancouver, by telegraph. You cannot imagine how that will help business in this country. Take out of the way places, where there are only two or three mails in the week ; if you have a national telegraph system, bringing every little liamlet in the country into touch with the business centres, see what a convenience every business man in that hamlet will have People so situated will be in touch with everything outside and at a nominal cost The telegraph service of this country is the easiest thing of all to nationalize. We have heard a great deal about nationalizing the railways. That is a very expensive proposition, I have been told, but it is not sucli an expensive proposition to nationalize the telegraph lines.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How much would it cost ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.)


William Findlay Maclean: There are two ways in which you could do it. You could do it by duplicating the lines we have in Canada at probably less than $5,000,000-I am not speaking exactly as to that-or you could take over the lines that are in existence to-day, and there is a special provision in the Telegraph Act for that purpose.
There is another thing which I wish to urge as one of the great benefits that a national land and sea telegraph service renders to the public. We in this country, and all over the British Empire, are trying to build up an Imperial public opinion. We wish in Canada to think on all great public questions the same as they think in England or in Australia. There is only one way to create that great Imperial public opinion from one end of the empire to the other, and that is to have a national telegraph and cable system which will enable us to have the freest exchange of public opinion from oue end of the British dominions to the other. The news that we get in Canada from England comes to-day through American channels. The Canadian press at this moment is hardly able to pay the present toll rates, and to give that quality of news to the Canadian public which they desire, and which the Canadian public ought to get. But, if we had a national cable system with a nominal rate for press messages at night, when the cable is not busy, our people would know in the morning exactly what they think in England, exactly what they think in Australasia and South Africa, and that news would be transmitted daily at almost a nominal cost. At all events, it would come to us independent of the United States. I have watched this thing very closely. I have seen the class of news that comes to the Canadian papers by way of New York. It is not British opinion, it is not Imperial opinion, but it is British opinion changed, modified and distorted in order to suit the people of the United States. The Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) proposes to do what the other colonies have done ; he proposes to supplement what they have done, but he fails to do what they have done by nationalizing our land telegraph service in connection with this cable system. The hon. gentleman could well afford to take us into his confidence to-day and to, at least, tell us whether he is considering that proposition or not. Like everything else, when a national proposition comes before this country, we, unfortunately, take the worst end to begin with. I am in favour of this Pacific cable scheme, but I cannot help thinking that if we wanted to strike a first-class business proposition, it would be for Canada and Great Britain to lay down an Atlantic cable. There is any amount of business there, not for one but for five cables owned by Great Britain and Canada ; a cable that would pay a big dividend, and probably cut the present rates down to one-quarter. That is the 29J
cable I would like to see first laid and operated by the mother country and Canada. But, unfortunately, as I have said, when anything national is to be done, the hardest end, and the most expensive end, is first experimented on. In the ease of the Intercolonial Kailway, we commenced to build it at the end, and through the northern portion of New Brunswick, and in the province of Quebec, where there was very little traffic, and when we got it just to the point where the traffic originated we stopped there. That was an extravagant railway proposition for Canada. Sir, I want to see state ownership applied to railways and to telegraphs, at that point where there is lots of traffic for the line, whether it be a cable, a telegraph, or a railway. In' the present case we are asserting the principle of government ownership just where the conditions are least favourable. I am satisfied to take this meausre as it is to-day placed before us, but I hope the minister and the government will act in the light of the experience of the Mackay-Bennett cable, where they found their whole expense realized nothing until they established at great expense a system of land lines throughout the states. I say the government ought to tell us now whether they are going to have a really national system, which can only be achieved by their ownership of the land telegraph lines in Canada and a cable across the Atlantic. Let us have a state-owned cable from Great Britain to Canada ; a state telegraph system in Canada, across the continent to the Pacific ocean, and a state-owned cable across the Pacific ocean to Australasia with the land lines in Australia also forming a link, and then you will have a really national system. We would then have an Imperial telegraph system that will give to the public, according to Sir Sandford Fleming, a service costing about one-tenth of what it costs at present. I believe the statement of Sir Sandford Fleming is correct in that respect. I believe that the Postmaster General thinks it is correct, and if he does believe it, I hope he will move on these lines. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that in this proposition he is up against the greatest monopoly almost in the world to-day, viz., the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. This monopoly will cut the throat of this scheme if it can possibly do it. It may be a competitor with the Postmaster General in getting hold of the land telegraph lines in Canada. If that great company in London thought they could block this scheme, that is one of the first things they would try to accomplish. I do not say they can do so, but. at all events, at every point the Postmaster General will be met by that great corporation trying to block this proposition. In this proposal the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) has my entire sympathy, and I believe he has the sympathy of the whole of Canada. The government here is moving

on the same lines as the Imperial authorities and as the Australian authorities, but in one sense they are lacking, and that is, that they are not making provision for the nationalization of the land telegraph lines in Canada, and they are not making provision for a state-owned Atlantic cable between the mother land and Canada in connection with which there is the most money to be earned.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition called my attention to an item which appeared in the Canada Gazette, of February 21 last, containing a suggestion from the Melbourne Argus, that there was some idea afloat for the constitution of a joint court as between the Pacific cable commission and the Eastern Extension Company. There is no danger whatever of any such agreement as that. It can only be carried out with the consent of the Pacific Cable Commission and of the various governments concerned. I am quite satisfied that the commission which is sitting in London, and which is entrusted by the various governments with the carrying out of this scheme, would never dream of being parties to such an agreement except on the authority of their principals, the respective governments that have appointed them. You may be sure that the people of Canada will be taken into full confidence and consulted before any such arrangement as that is made.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition also asked me how this increase from $1,700,000 to $2,000,000 was arrived at. Since the Act of 1899 tenders were invited, but, as we know, it is one thing to estimate the cost and another to find out what the contractor will do the work for. in 1899, we proceeded upon the report of the Pacific Cable Commission, which, in 1894 and 1897, furnished the various governments with estimates.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Were not tenders asked ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, tenders were invited, and I have a list of the tenders here, if my hon. friend desires to see them. It was all done through the commission in England, and the various governments were consulted, and on the advice of all parties concerned, a contract was entered into which it was thought was the best to make, having reference to all the tenders. I will place that contract on the table.


John Graham Haggart: You misunderstand me. I believe the estimate of $1,700,000 was based on tenders received at that time.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: lion. Mr. HAGGART. What is the reason for the difference ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
William Findlay Maclean: You might give a squint.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that I can add anything further.


Mr. SPROTJLE.: Can the hon. gentleman tell us at what stage of progress this work is now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract calls for the completion of the work by the 31st of December, 1902. It is then to be in full working order.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: To whom has the contract been given for the construction of this work ? Is it not to the Eastern Extension Company, which has the rival lines to South Africa and Australia ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract is with the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, doing business at 38 Old Broad street, London, England.


William Findlay Maclean: Who is the president of that company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not the faintest idea.


Samuel Hughes: Is not that practically the same company as the Eastern Extension Company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know.


Samuel Hughes: I would call the minister's attention to that, and 1 think he should see that this line does not fail under the control of the Eastern Extension Company.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It cannot get under its control without the consent of the government.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I may inform the hon. gentleman that this is the company which laid the old Atlantic cable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that we have too large an interest in this undertaking to go on with such a very heavy expenditure without knowing whether or not the allegation just made is correct. If it be a fact that the Eastern Extension Cable Company have the contract to lay our cable, they certainly have in their hands great power to control its destinies in the future. I think that in the interest of Canada the hon. minister ought to be able to give us some further information in regard to that.


William Findlay Maclean: I might point out that this company is so strong that it not only controls the Eastern Extension Cable Company in the matter of cables, but it has cornered every steamship and factory that can be employed not only in the manufacture but in the laying of cables ; so that if we did not make a contract with them to-day, the probability is that we would not get a cable for years, until the factories could he got ready to produce the necessary material. There is a practical monopoly in both the manufacture and the laying of cables, and this company controls that monopoly. So that there is every reason why the minister in charge of the project should see that the interests of the country and the interests of the empire are protected. This great monopoly, as I told him before, will try at every stage to balk the building of this line and its completion within the proper time ; and I trust that the minister will tell ns that there is a
strong penalty clause in the contract for the completion of the work within the specified time. If there is not such a clause, this great monopoly will attempt to balk the line and do everything they can to prevent its realization.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I am very glad indeed that we can at last assure ourselves that the cable is a reality. I am sorry to learn that one of the colonies, New South Wales, thought fit to vary the terms under which the land lines should be worked after the agreement between the colonies and Great Britain had been signed. To some extent that may affect the working of the cable ; but it is well,. I think, that (lie matter, has been closed, and I should judge that after this no other colony will enter into an agreement with a rival company. which would render its own liability greater. With regard to the increased cost over the estimate, I think that is quite natural, because materials have advanced in price, rubber especially. With regard to letting the contract to a company which has more or less interest in the Eastern Extension Cable Company, I understand that that can hardly be helped, because that company has practically a monopoly of the work of laying cables, and if you advertised for tenders for the work, and that company did not get the contract, I dare say that it would advance the price of rubber and other materials to such an extent as to increase the cost of the cable by 40 per cent or 50 per cent. This is a construction company. I understand, and under their contract they must hand over the cable to the government. It is a very wealthy company. I do not see any ground for fear that the fact of their having the contract for laying the cable will give them any control over it afterwards. For my part. I am delighted at the prospect of having the Pacific cable laid within the period named.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a penalty clause in the contract ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract calls for payments as the cable is manufactured. It is to be made in three sections, and as it is made the government pays for it. There is a certain sum reserved. which is to be paid for the laying. So that it is like a contract for goods which are delivered and paid for as the work goes on.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a penalty for the performance of the work within the specified time ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think there is a penalty. I will send the contract to the hon. gentleman, so that he can see it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister should not ask us to go on with this unless there is a penalty provided for securing the completion of the contract within a certain time. I do not want to see the contract. The miriister ought to be in a position to tell us what it contains.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not draw the contract.
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (Price West, P.E.I.) In these days of steam and electricity, I am in favour of our keeping pace with the progress of other countries in these lines, and am therefore not opposed to the building of this Pacific cable telegraph line. But we ought to guard ourselves against anything in the shape of a monopoly. In Prince Edward Island we are suffering because of a monopoly established there some fifty years ago, when a small cable, nine miles in length, was laid between Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Cape Traverse, P.E.I., On every message which we send to any part of Canada outside of the island we have to pay twenty-five cents extra to this cable company for the transmission of the message over that short line. Last year this matter was discussed by the hon. the Minister of Marine, who stilted that there was no monopoly. I do not know what the hon. gentleman has done since then to have this matter ventilated, but at all events we are still under the -same old monopoly. What we object to is not so much the twenty-five cents we have to pay for the use of this cable, as to the fact that those people close their doors at eight o'clock in the evening and only open them at eight in the morning so that there is no telegraphic communication with the mainland during the night time whatever. And last year when our young men were away fighting in South Africa for the old empire, their friends in Prince Edward Island were unable to hear from them at times unless they got the news over this cable. I would press the necessity therefore on the hon. minister of guarding against anything in the shape of a monopoly in connection with this new cable scheme. I would ask also the hon. the Minister of Marine to tell us what has been done in the way of remedying this great evil in Prince Edward Island of which I complain, and under which the people there are labouring to-day. The people of Canada are paying this company a subsidy of $2,000 a year for this telegraphic communication, and you will understand that deprived, as we have been the present session. during some eight or ten days, of a mail service from Prince Edward Island, we should at least have the advantage of cheap telegraphic communication with that province. But instead we are taxed twenty-five cents each message for the use of that short cable. I would ask the hon. the Minister of Marine what he is doing to relieve Mr. MULOCK.
the people from this great monopoly and unjust tax.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: The subject of telegraphic communication with Prince Edward Island is somewhat alien to that now before the House, but I have no objection to saying that the opinion I gave last year, namely, that there is no monopoly in the present Anglo-American Cable Company between Prince Edward Island and the mainland I still entertain. The hon. gentleman seems to think that for some reason or other I have changed that opinion. I never have had any reason to change it. The present cable communication is maintained by the company, or its successor, which had the contract when we came into confederation in 1873. By the terms of confederation the Dominion was obliged to pay to that company the same yearly subvention that was paid by the island before confederation, and we have continued to do so ever since. The charges exacted by the Anglo-American Company upon the people of the island are, in my opinion, extortionate and excessive. I have never failed at any time to tell the Anglo-American Company that such is my opinion. I have been in communication with them for over twelve months, and there is a vast amount of correspondence, which I would be very happy, at the proper time, to lay before the House, my object being to have the charges which the company make against the people of the island, and those who have telegraphic communication with them, reduced to a reasonable amount. At present negotiations are going on with another large cable company, with the object of inducing it to extend a competitive line to Prince Edward Island, and in the present state of the negotiations I do not wish to say anything which would give rise to controversy. It may be that these negotiations will be successful, or they may not, but whatever can be done is being done by myself and my colleagues-to give the people of the island fair play in the matter of telegraphic communication. If, when the matter is fairly before the House, my hon. friend desires to discuss it, I will be happy to discuss it with him. but I do not think this is the proper time to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the hon. the minister is scarcely exercising business shrewdness in connection with this transaction. We are paying out a large sum of money in a haphazard way. We will imagine for the moment that it was desirable for the Dominion to build another railway as a competitor with the Canadian Pacific Railway, what would the people of Canada think if the government should give the building of that competing line to the Canadian Pacific Railway themselves, and make no provision as to when the contract should

be completed or the quality of tbe stuff put into tbe line. One could hardly call that shrewd business dealing. If the contract be given to the Eastern Cable Company, which will be the great competitor of this line, we will be committing the same mistake. True the line is to be finished in December, 1902, but there is no penalty attached to the non-fulfilment of that condition, and therefore the construction may go on indefinitely, and we will have no redress. It will be decidedly to the advantage of the Eastern Extension Cable Company to delay the construction, because every month's delay means a very substantial profit to them. I think there is scarcely sufficient information to justify paying out the money.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: Before this is passed, I may say that it might possibly have been better to have had a penalty in this contract, but the absence of a penalty would not prevent the recovery of damages. The company have contracted to do the work within a particular time, and will be liable in damages if they fail to do so ; but as the government is really a party to the contract-I observe that Bord Strathcona has executed it on the part of the Dominion-it might be well to consider the suggestion of the hon. member for West York.


William Findlay Maclean: That contract is not yet completed, it is subject to revision. There will be suggestions made in various parts of the empire. And I think that, before he authorizes anything further, the hon. minister should consult his co-contractors and have them unitedly insert a penalty clause. Tlie company may not be of such a character that you can recover from them. While the liability may be there, there may not be assets sufficient or of a character to indemnify this country if they do not perform. And even money will not pay for the inconvenience the empire may be put to in this matter. If it is not too late I make the suggestion now that the hon. gentleman should consult his co-signatories and have some provision made for the insertion of a penalty clause.


Samuel Hughes: I would take the liberty of suggesting- while I do not think it possible to amend the contract, it being already signed-that it is, nevertheless, possible to exercise due precaution that the material of which the cable is made shall be the very best. During the recent South African war, almost weekly oue or other of the cables broke. If this Pacific cable breaks, it means at least two or three months and possibly more before it can be resurrected and put in working order. If the Eastern Extension Co. is the concern to manufacture the cable and if they have secured a monopoly of the construction of all the cables in the British Empire we must not treat them differently from any other
monopolists. If it is in the interest of their other lines that this cable should break periodically, we may reasonably expect that the cable will break. I would suggest that engineers should be appointed to see to it that both the manufacture of the cable and the laying of it should be properly done.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It lias taken many years for the various governments to arrive at the present stage in connection with this cable ; and it is to be borne in mind that, in, consequence of the long distances that separate these governments, it is not so easy as between man and man to debate and settle terms and embody them in a contract. In this particular instance, our cousins from the Antipodes have their delegates in London as we have also, while the representatives of the Imperial government are there, of course. These together constitute a board to which is entrusted the practical carrying out of this scheme ; and they have, in their wisdom, prepared this contract. I have no doubt, after supplying themselves with expert information as to the sufficiency of the specifications. The original specifications were prepared upon the advice of Lord Kelvin- such is the statement in the report of the Pacific Cable Commission of 1884 and 1887. I know of no higher authority on electrical matters than Lord Kelvin. We may assume from the composition of the board that the specifications are equal to the requirements of the occasion. With reference to the action of New South Wales, I may say that what they have agreed to is much less harmful than what was originally proposed. They originally proposed to grant these concessions at once, and that would have given the Eastern Extension Telegraph Co. many yea re of a start in gathering business throughout New South Wales. But, as the result of protests continued throughout many months, they finally yielded that point and the concessions to be granted to New South Wales cannot be enjoyed until the Pacific cable is an accomplished fact. Though, as I have said, they entered into that contract sixteen days after the contract for the construction, still, the negotiations leading up to it had been continued for a length of time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolutions reported and agreed to.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 45) to amend the Pacific Cable Act of 1899.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I merely brought it up because it says it is from an official source.']
Samuel Hughes: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that the notice of motion to be discussed to-day by the request of the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden, King's), who is ill, is held over. However, I will take the opportunity for calling the attention of the government and the House to a statement which appears in the London Times of February 22nd last:



Mr.   W.@: Redmond asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he could state how many men of the rank and file in South Africa are receiving in pay or in pay and allowances as much as five shillings a day, and to what regiments they belong.
Lord Stanley.	I am unable to give the details asked for. I may state that the Imperial Yeomanry, Imperial Bushmen and the majority of the colonial corps are paid at this rate. In . cases in which a lower rate of pay has been issued to colonials it has been supplemented by the different colonial governments.


Mr.   W.@: Redmond. Can the noble lord state why the colonial trcops are paid at a rate so much higher than that paid to the regular army? Would they not come otherwise?
I do not wish to discuss this matter, but I wish it placed on record so that the attention of the Minister of Militia and the government may be drawn to the fact that the English understanding of the matter is that all colonial troops have been paid at the rate of five shillings a day. We are aware that there is dissatisfaction existing among some of our Canadian soldiers because some have been paid up to five shillings a day, and others have not been paid up to that figure. I shall not discuss the question further than to say that when the first Canadian contingent went to South Africa, they went on the understanding that they were to get one shilling a day. It was not, as is suggested in this report, that they required high pay to induce them to go out and fight for the empire. I think, possibly, all round, it is a mistake if this pay has been increased in one case and not in another. It will give rise to general dissatisfaction. When I first brought up this point, I was clear in taking the ground that the various localities sending these troops should have nothing to do with paying them, that the Imperial authorities alone should have in their control all the payment of these contingents. I merely lay the matter before the First Minister in order that the question of equality of pay all round may come under the consideration of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Public Buildings-Ottawa Military Buildings-New store	 $25,000
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: The sum of $10,000 is asked to fit flip what is known as the Seybold Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
building. I have been obliged to rent that building for census purposes. There was uo other building available, and my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, came to me and said I must find a building. It has to be fitted up with a new heating system, we have to make partitions and build an elevator, and so on. and for these purposes the sum of $10,000 has been asked from me by the chief architect. We have rented it for three years, at the rate' of $3,500 per year. The chief architect, who has charge of that work, has looked all over the town, and cannot find a better building.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: That is a very large rent. What means were taken to see whether there were other buildings available ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect would naturally have charge of that kind of work, and lie looked all over the town. I may. say that I myself consulted real estate agents, and looked all over the town, and could find no other building.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What other offers were maue V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No other offer was made for that kind of building.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Was there any public notice given flint such rooms were desired ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we did not advertise, it would have been of no use, because the city is not very large.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I understand the hon. gentleman says that he and his chief official went privately through the town ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister and the chief architect, who both of them haye charge of that work, looked all over the town and could not find any other building.
Sir	CHARLES	HIBBERT	TUPPER.What	were the names of the	real estate
agents that the hon. gentleman consulted V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A number of them, I cannot remember their names. I know the chief architect told me he had looked all over the town and could not find anything better.
Sir	CHARLES	HIBBERT	TUPPER.
The hon. gentleman stated that real estate agents were consulted.
The	MINISTER	OF PUBLIC	WORKS.
If I remember right, I spoke to Taggart & Son, and I also asked several other people. I think I spoke to Abeam & Soper.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: If I understand the hon. gentleman, tills building, for which lie is paying $3,500 a year, was the only building available for the purpose in the city of Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I may say that I have also consulted with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, whose officers have also looked over the ground.


Mr. BENNETT.: Are any changes made in the building, and who is to pay for the repairs and for the changes, and what will be their extent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are going to make partitions and repairs, and this sum of money is asked precisely for that object. I was going to say that my colleague and his officials looked after other buildings, and, in point of fact, this was the only one they could find available for that purpose.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the amount required for making the repairs and alterations ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect is asking $10,000 for those purposes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the building in question is on the north-west corner of O'Connor and Sparks streets, a large three-storey stone building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


William Humphrey Bennett: 1 think it was formerly occupied as a wholesale house. Now, the minister comes down with a statement that seems rather large, that $10,000 is to be expended on this building in fitting it up for offices. May I ask the minister if he has a building which adjoins the Rideau Club, known as one of the Nagle buildings, and is now occupied by the Customs Department '? What is the lease of that building, and who paid for the repairs on that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister tells me that we are fiaying a rental of $1,800 for the building occupied by the Department of Customs. I just stated that this building on. Sparks street we had rented for three years ; we have got an option to keep the building.


David Wardrope Wallace: I should think so, for that rent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think my hon. friend could do any better. My officials and the officials of the Department of Agriculture have looked all over the ground themselves. We are free
to keep it for three years only, or to keep it for any length of time. The census work could not be postponed, and I had to find a building.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Does the hon. gentleman happen to know what that building cost a couple of years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not say.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The rent would pay for the building in four years.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the cost of the repairs on the Nagle building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed by the deputy minister that we spent about $5,000 on repairs.


William Humphrey Bennett: As 1 understand the Minister of Public Works has been making recently two deals in renting premises. The first one with which he seems to have started in is what is known as the Nagle building, adjoining the Rideau Club. I have heard it said in town that that property belonged to the estate of the lare Mr. Nagle. There are two buildings there, and if my recollection is correct, I heard that the two buildings were offered for sale for $12,000. Now, under the circumstances, it seems startling. Two buildings are offered for $12,000, and apparently there is very little difference between them in point of appearance, and I presume in point of value ; yet, in face of that, assuming, for the sake of argument, they are both of the same value, what do we find the minister has done ? He has taken a building that is offered for $0,000, and he has expended no less a sum than $5,000 upon it in repairs. He says he pays $1,800 rent for it, therefore lie is paying to the owners of the property the modest income of 30 per cent on what they purchased it for themselves. Then,' in addition to that, he has improved the building to the tune or $5,000. Now. if we are to judge other cases by this one- I do not know myself, I have heard no estimate of the value of the so-called Seybold building, but it is fair to assume there is an equally bad arrangement in the interests of the country. Now, if the minister, as he announces, is going to spend $10,000 in improving this Seybold building, I think, before the committee votes him that money, it would be well to consider whether that investment should be made. In the first place, if the sum of $10,000 was spent on this building in what is known as the third storey or the garret. There would be for all time to come in this property a large number of rooms which might serve the purpose of these census enumerators. It is well for the House to consider whether or

not this large investment should be made, of spending $10,000 on improvements, and then to pay this large rental, $3,500, for the next three years. I would ask the hon. minister to consider whether it would not be better to spend this large sum of $10,000 in improving the third storey of the building here, so that after it had been used by the census staff it might be available for other jjur-poses of a public nature.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Seybold building had been offered for $12,000 ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I said that the two Nagle buildings, near the Rideau Club, were sold at $12,000. The hon. minister is having the use of one of these buildings, and a fair price of that will be $6,000, yet on that building, which was offered for $6,000, the minister has expended $5,000. I think that is correct, according to his. statement, and it shows that on this $6,000 investment he is paying 30 per cent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect and the deputy minister tell me that they have never heard of any such offer as $12,000 for the building that was rented last year. But what has been done last year has been done last year. We are discussing an item of $10,000 to be spent on the Seybold building.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who owns the Seybold building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is owned by Mr. Seybold.


William Humphrey Bennett: Any others ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. minister know if it is owned by Messrs. Seybold & Russell, and that Mr. Russell is the collector at the port of Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All I know is that I have only to deal with Mr. Seybold. Last year we were short of space. I tried to buy the building, and Mr. Seybold asked $100,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: You did not give it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I did not give it. When I came back after the election, I found myself confronted with the fact that it was necessary to have a building for the census. I had no choice because that building was the only one available for that purpose. It was large enough, and it was the only one available.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I suppose Mr. Russell was the only one available for the collectorship of customs. I Mr. BENNETT.
understand that formerly Messrs. Seybold & Russell occupied this building. Mr. Russell gets out into tbe collectorship of customs. That was not put up to tender. I suppose he was the only suitable man for the position. Then Mr. Seybold is dealt with by way of this lease, and he has the only suitable building for the purpose, so that Messrs. Seybold & Russell have been singularly favoured. It may be, as the hon. gentleman says, necessary that all that should be done, but I am glad it does not happen every day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let us come straight to the point. We were short of a building. 1 am obliged to pay rentals that I should not be obliged to pay. There is only one way of avoiding it, and that is by erecting another building. We are short of buildings. The business is extending. We cannot take the census without having a large staff of officers, and we must locate them somewhere.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I do nothing more than express my amazement. It may be that it was possible, as the hon. minister says, for ills officers or himself to get a suitable office to accommodate the men who will be employed in this special work except under these extraordinary terms. They are most extraordinary. Whether the original cost of the building was what has been mentioned or not, the rental is enormous, although the hon. gentleman says that with all the efforts made by himself and his officers, he could get no other building that was suitable. There is this amount of $3,500 a year for three years, and there is this proposal to spend $10,000, or possibly more, on the building, all for the benefit of the owner of the property. It is an unusual and a most extraordinary transaction.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: Mr. Speaker. I may say that at the time the requirements In regard to the census were first brought up last fall, the Minister of Public Works (Him Mr. Tarte) was not in Ottawa. I consulted with the gentleman who is in charge of the census as to the requirements for the census work. I then asked him. in conjunction with the chief architect of the Public Works Department, to see if a place could be found in the city to suit these requirements. As my hon friend knows very well, there must be a large staff of clerks engaged in the tabulation of the returns of the census, and that work will last probably for two or three years. These people have to be accommodated in a convenient way, and together. You cannot scatter them in different buildings. The accommodation required was very difficult to find. As a matter of fact, after considerable investigation there were only two buildings to be found which were at all suitable. One was in some

91S
rooms in a building known as the Slater block on Sparks street, and the other was this Seybold building. The Seybold building was a very much more convenient chamber and more suitable for the work, and I therefore asked the hon. Minister of Public Works to try and secure that building on such terms as he could. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) spoke of the -aluo of the building and said that it was worth $12,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, it was another one.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, I beg the hon. gentleman's par Ion.
I went over that building completely, find I venture to say that the building alone, to say nothing at all about the land or its situation, or any adventitious value which may be attached to it, could not be erected for' less than $80,000.. to-day, in Ottawa. Of course, buildings of that class are difficult to find for this purpose, and oue must expect to pay a, little more than the ordinary rate of interest on the investment in the building. I think the rent required was not out of the way, in view of the circumstances. As to the improvements which are necessary and for which this vote is asked, no matter what building we might take, a large amount must be spent to provide the necessary accommodation, and to make it suitable for these men to work in. We cannot get, in a building erected for ordinary purposes, accommodation suitable for public offices and public work. A large portion of this expenditure will be incurred in providing heating apparatus in the building, which does not belong to the owners, and would not go back to the people who owned the building. It is necessary to heat it for those who will be employed there and a large portion of the expenditure will be for heating.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And to buy furniture.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, furniture and desks.


David Wardrope Wallace: We are getting a little more of this so-called information. The lion. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) tells us now that it was he who did the work of getting this building.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I did not say so.


David Wardrope Wallace: The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr Tarte) had just told us that he had scurried all over town examining other buildings. He added that his officers had done this and that so that if anything is wrong his officers can come in for a share of the blame. He was asked if he had consulted the real estate agents, but he rather scurried around that question. Why did he not consult those men
who carry on the real estate business and ascertain what suitable places there were available in Ottawa, so as to save himself from all this racing around the city that he had to do in order to secure this building, which we now learn was recommended by ' the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and which was right under their noses and before their very doors ? They are giving $3,500 rent for a building which was sold a few years ago, I am told, for $20,000 at a mortgage sale, and they are giving it to one of their political friends in accordance with the doctrine recently laid down by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon Sir Louis Davies), who told us that when any good thing was going, they were going to give it to their friends.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: So we will.


David Wardrope Wallace: They are very generous with their political friend, Mr. Seybold,^ iu this arrangement, and so they are carrying out the doctrine laid down by the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies). A few years ago, when the Langevin block was erected the officials did not half occupy the building.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh.


David Wardrope Wallace: The First Minister laughs.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, this is a free country.


David Wardrope Wallace: We then moved the Patent office into tine Langevin block and gave it four times as much space as it formerly occupied, hut since the Liberal government came into power they moved it out again, and they also moved out the Department of Indian Affairs, and yet they have not enough room for the scores of their political friends thev are appointing to office. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us that they are out every day hunting around Ottawa for buildings to rent in order to accommodate the friends of theirs they are crowding into office. This is the economical government that is doing this. I remember how they used to denounce the Conservatives for filling up the department with useless officials ; but now they are appointing double the number themselves. They are renting all the buildings around town for the accommodation of these useless public officials. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) laughs at that, but he will laugh at the wrong side of his mouth when he begins to explain this to the people of Canada.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very laughable, too.
Mr. WAloACE. Yes, it is very laughable to think that hundreds of thousands of dollars. the money of the people is being squandered on favourites of the government in

accordance with the doctrine laid down by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. They complained that the Conservatives appointed too many officials, but the Liberals have appointed scores and hundreds since they came into power, and the Minister of Public Works tells us that he is running around Ottawa looking for buildings to accommodate them. That is a nice condition of affairs, and the country will demand to know more about it than the ministers have yet deigned to explain.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) knows perfectly well that this building is for the accommodation of the census staff, which is not a permanent addition to the public service.


David Wardrope Wallace: They will be permanent for three years.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly, but the bon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) was a member of the Conservative government which took six years to finish the census which we hope to finish in three. The hon. gentleman, who was Controller of Customs, also knows well that accommodation was required for the statistical service which has been brought to Ottawa recently, but which formerly was conducted in different | parts of the country, and that staff is no addition to the public service.


David Wardrope Wallace: Indeed it is, and I give the minister notice that we will investigate it a little later on.
The MINISTER OB'1 AGRICULTURE. When the investigation comes, it will be' found that what I say is true.
Mr. MACLEAN, it is clear from the statements made by the ministers themselves that they are to-day paying more in the way of rental and for improvements on these rented buildings, than would meet the interest on the outlay for the erection of a first-class building which would belong to the government. As it is at present we are simply making improvements for the landlords. It is bad financing, and the government cannot justify this extravagance. If a building is needed to accommodate the public employees then the government should come forward with a proposition to erect, and that proposal would be more in the line of good financing.


Mr. POPE.: What about jobs for their friends ?


William Findlay Maclean: They would have more accommodation for their friends than they have to-day, and the country would still save money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In point of fact that may be true, but the census work had to be done and I could not help myself.


David Wardrope Wallace: 


Mr. TAYLOR.: The Minister of Agriculture stated that the last census took six years to complete. The census was taken in 1S91 and the general elections were held in 1890, five years afterwards. Was the census not completed when this government came into power?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were some of the census staff still in my office and I dismissed them.
Mr. TAYLOR, Were they still doing census work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were working still on census work, as far as I know. They were on the census staff and I suppose they were working at census work.


George Taylor: If the census work was not completed, why were they dismissed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because I closed it down.


George Taylor: If I remember correctly, every volume of the census returns was printed and published one or two years before the election. If it took six years to finish the census, that would bring it down to 1897. That statement can hardly be correct. Now, I will ask the minister where was the work of the 1891 census done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was done in the Langevin block-to a large extent; not altogether.


George Taylor: Yes, the entire census staff was accommodated in the Langevin block, and the Patent branch and the model room were in that building at the same time. When this government came into power they went to their friends and hired a building for the Patent office and the model room, and they left the upper flat of the Langevin block vacant. I ask the minister what takes the place of those departments in the Langevin block now ? How have they managed to fill it up, and to rent buildings from their friends besides. I think the work was completed in 1892 ; but what has been done in these two flats ? Have the departments over there increased the staff so much in four or five years that they hare filled up two flats of the Langevin block with new officials ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One of the great difficulties I have is to find enough room for the work performed by the different departments. I have been obliged during the last year or two to fit up the attic of the Langevin block for the Indian Department.


George Taylor: The Indian Department is in the Eastern block.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Part of it. It also occupies the whole upper

story of the Langevin block. If my bom friend will be kind enough to look over that building, he will And that there is no available room. My hon. friend is a reasonable man, and he knows that the business of this country has increased vastly. For instance, the business of the Department of the Interior has trebled. The business of the Department of Public Works has doubled. He kuows very well that a business man cannot do a business of $500,000 in the same building in which ten years before he was doing a business of only $25,000.


David Wardrope Wallace: Is that the difference between the past and the present ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not quite so much, but it is a vast difference, and that is why we have to have more officials and more room. It is no pleasure to me to rent offices in Ottawa.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: It seems to me that there is something in the nature of very bad management in this transaction. The minister says that he made an effort to buy the Seybold property, and got a price on it. He said he was asked $100,000 for the property, and did not take it. The people of Canada would have been better off if he had taken it. The government can borrow money at something under 3 per cent; but he is paying 31 per cent per annum on $100,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only for three years.


Adam Carr Bell: And in addition to that he is spending 34 per cent per annum for repairs and charges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And furniture.


Adam Carr Bell: So that for three years to come he is going to spend 7 per cent on $100,000, twice the amount it would cost the people of Canada if he had bought the property. But, surely it would not be necessary to pay $100,000 for it. The property was sold a short time ago for $20,000, and surely it would have been possible for the government to have taken possession of it under expropriation proceedings. Then it would have been the subject of arbitration, and would probably have been got for $30,000 or $40,000; and, besides, all the improvements made on it would have become the property of the people of Canada. If, as the hon. geutleman says, the government are pressed to find accommodation for the Increased number of public servants who are coming here, it strikes me that he should look a little further ahead, and realize what every member of parliament realizes before lie is here three months, namely, that the accommodation provided for parliament and the public officials is perfectly inadequate. He should not wait until real estate advances
to an extravagant figure. Intelligent management on the part of the Minister of Public Works would have dictated that he should have advised his colleagues to proceed at once to secure such real estate within the neighbourhood of the public buildings as would give the government of Canada accommodation not only for the present but for the future. I should think a scheme which would involve the purchase of the whole block between Metcalfe and O'Connor streets and Wellington and Sparks streets would be a capital investment. The minister would deserve more commendation if, instead of pursuing a piecemeal policy, involving vast expense to the country, he would formulate some proper business-like scheme which would give to parliament and the officials the accommodation they must have, not only for the present, but for years to come.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid that the same practice obtains in some of the departments as we find about this House. During the last few years, since hon. gentlemen opposite came into office, we find in every portion of this building, both downstairs and upstairs, where rooms were available a few years ago for the use of members, there are none available to-day. What has become of them ? They have been taken for the accommodation of the additional employees engaged by the party for the time being in power, until we find all the rooms practically occupied by a few officials. I presume it is the same in the different departments, and thus we find the government renting buildings here and there and filling them up with the army which they are employing to do the work of the country. I wonder what will be the case when we get through with taking the census. It will be an interesting sight to see what accommodation will have to be provided for that army in the work to be done a few months hence. I think it is time we called a halt. Members of parliament find it difficult to get a seat anywhere around here to do their private work. Rooms which were available a short time ago are not available to-day. They are taken up by the Speaker of the House or the Deputy Speaker or by some employees, and members of parliament who come to do the business of the country are told, You have no interest in these rooms or control over them; they belong to us. They are controlled by the Speaker, or the Sergeant-at-arms, or some other official, and we are denied the use of these rooms-for the business we are called here to do. A few years ago the members of the opposition had seven rooms; but three of them were taken away this year, and were given either to the friends of ministers, or to some employees. We had formerly a large general room downstairs, which was at one time used as a drinking room; but we cannot use it any longer. If a member wants to bring a private secretary here to

(lo any work, he lias no place to go. Sometimes lie is told to go to the library, and the library people tell us, You have no right to bring these people here. And there is no place else to take them. I think that the same thing is going on with regard to other departments. They are being filled up by a large army of employees, friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, whom they are pensioning on the country for many years to come. Hence comes the necessity for renting other buildings and paying very high rents-rents out of all proportion to the value of the buildings. If it is necessary that we should have these buildings, they can he purchased for a very moderate sum. Instead of renting them at the figures we are doing, we should rather buy them and save paying such large rents.
But I am told that we do not need them at all, and I presume, if ordinary economy were exercised, they would not be required. The country has not developed to such an extent in the meantime, and the work of the department has not developed to such an extent that we should require to rent new buildings for the public service.


William Humphrey Bennett: In view of the highhanded manner in which the hon. minister acted in the past when he rented the Nagle building, we ought to know what he is doing at present. Iu that case the Minister of Public Works rented a building which was sold for .$(5,000, and after spending $5,000 on it in repairs, he paid a rental of $1,800 per year. It is true that that matter is not under discussion, but in the item before the House the minister is paying $3,500 a year for a building and spending $10,000 on it for repairs, and that building was sold a few years ago for $20,000. Capitalizing the rent paid, that would mean that this building' is to-day worth over $60,000, and yet it was sold at public auction for $20,000.
What are the facts ? A few years ago, when the census was taken and when all the public officials were occupying the present building, there was still ample room for the census staff, and to-day the Minister of Agriculture has rooms rented on Sparks street, to which he has transferred a number of the patent officials and the models, so that there is more room to-day in the Lange-vin block than there was ten years ago. It is nothing short of an outrage to ask us to pay $3,500 a year for the next three years for this building and spend $10,000 in repairing it. and if this vote passes, every bit of repairs done will be done by day labour and not by contract under competition, just as the hon. minister has work done from time to time on other public buildings. The hon. gentleman has been deliciousi.v frank to-day, and the reason we have not far to seek. He has been thwarted in his idea. He never wanted to rent a building, but wanted to build another large departmental block, and now that he has been foiled in that design by his colleagues, the House is Mr. SPROULE.
getting the benefit of his revenge in all these details which he has given.
The MINISTER ' OF AGRICULTURE. The hon. gentleman has re-stated that this building is worth about $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I ventured no such opinion, but I said it was sold at public auction for $20,000.


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: I would like to know on what occasion that was and how much mortgage was assumed at the time by the purchaser. If the hon. gentleman will undertake to get any valuator in Ottawa to value that building alone, without the land, as it stands, at less than $50,000, I would be very much surprised.


David Wardrope Wallace: Did the government take any such precaution V


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware that they did. That is a matter which concerns the Public Works Department. The hon. gentleman went on to make other statements which were wider of the mark than many others. He said that the Minister of Agriculture had moved a lot of his staff down to another building in Sparks street with a lot of models. There is not a member of the staff iu that building.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why does the hon. gentleman allow all those beautiful models to be unprotected by his staff ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a caretaker there from the Department of Public Works who keeps that room as he used to do the room in the Langevin block when the models were there. As soon as we get possession of the Seybold building, that room can be given up and the rent saved and we can deduct the rent of that room and the room adjoining, occupied by the Public Works Department, from the rent of the Seybold building.
As to the work in the Langevin block, the hon. gentleman does not understand what occurred after the fire in what is known as our western departmental building. At the time there was a large number of clerks in the public service, accommodated in the attic of the western block. We all know the deplorable loss that we suffered from that fire. We found that the attic was practically a fire-trap and that it would not be proper to allow public records and papers and men engaged in public works to continue in such rooms. The same condition was found to exist in the attic of the eastern block, where a large number of clerks of the Interior DeI ailment were accommodated in a way in which it was a shame that men engaged in the public service should be kept. Valued records of the Interior Department were stored in that attic, and had a fire started it would have been practically impossible to save them. We would lose records that

could not be replaced, valuable interests in the North-west Territories would be injured, and endless litigation would follow. The result was that the Interior Department was moved bodily to the Langevin block. The rooms formerly occupied by the models were placed at the disposal of that department and the rooms oil the floor below. In my own Department of Agriculture, the number of employees has, to a certain extent, increased in consequence of the largely increased work done, and I was obliged to take for that work the rooms formerly occupied by the census staff. To-day in the Langevin block there is no accommodation for the census staff, and consequently the Minister of Public Works has to look about for a building in which to do that work. The Patent Office also has increased in the number of employees, in consequence of the large increase of applications for patents and of an effort on my part to overtake the arrears in the applications for patents which were before the department when we came to office. The Interior Department has also largely increased and requires greater accommodation. The result is that every room and every space for a desk in the Langevin block was occupied before the work of the census began. Until the Seybold building is ready for occupation, it is impossible to carry on the work of preparing for the census except under extreme disadvantage. Hon. gentlemen opposite have talked about the erection of a new departmental building. It is possible that it would be wise to construct such a building. But everybody knows perfectly well that the work of construction would occupy at least two years. Meanwhile, the day for the census is fixed, the work must go on, and the clerks who are to do the work must be accommodated. Therefore, the lion. Minister of Public Works, instead of undertaking the construction of a building, buying a suitable building, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) rented a building until such time as a decision as to a new public building can be come to. I venture to say that it is not fair to make comparison as between the new work carried on by the customs in the Nagle building or the work of the census, and the Work being done when the present government came into office.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has, I hope to his own satisfaction, shown, first, that a census is going to be taken, and, next, that it is desirable that a census should be taken, let us discuss the question of this building. 1 would like to ask the Minister of Public-Works how it is Intended to expend this $10.000-by his favourite method of day's work or by tender and contract i


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The money will be spent in buying furniture and in making necessary repairs. And
these repairs, as every one knows who is familiar with these matters, cannot be done otherwise than by day's labour. My hon. friend has just alluded to the western block. He reproached me with having built that by day's labour. I did it that way, and I employed union men, and for that I was congratulated by all the union men in Canada. I say without hesitation that, when you can find good foremen, work carried on by day's labour is cheaper and better than that done by public tender and contract. I am surprised that my hon. friend would even suggest that, for repairs of this kind, tenders should be asked for. There is a partition to be put here, a door to be cut there, and so on. Where is the sensible man who will say that such work can be done by tender and contract ? My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that I am very anxious to erect a new building. I have no anxiety about it ; but it is quite evident that some accommodation must be provided. I know very well that when I shall come and ask for money to put up a new building, I shall be strongly opposed, and accused of wanting to spend money lavishly. But now I am told that because I want to rent a building, I am spending the money foolishly. My hon. friends on the other side are very hard to please. I have not pleased them in the past, and I am afraid I shall not succeed much better in the future. But I rely on this-that the sensible men of the country will not take much stock in the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Humphrey Bennett: In Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We shall see in a short time whether Ontario will take stock in them or not. Ontario needs only to be talked to a little in order to understand. I have great confidence in Ontario.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: But Ontario has not much confidence in the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for Pictou should not speak of a province lacking confidence in me. The hon. gentleman's own province ha:s no confidence in him. He has barely secured his own election. But I have been elected in my own province, and I am here not alone, but some of us are here with a pretty strong backing. Let the hon. gentleman be a little more careful.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What about Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ontario is all right. The hon. gentleman and some of his friends have succeeded in making Ontario wrong. But I am glad to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. leader of the oppositon (Mr. Borden,

Halifax) of repudiating them. They have appealed to passion and to racial prejudice. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has not done so. I say that sensible men cannot take much stock in the position assumed to-day by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for Bast Simcoe has moved a motion to strike out from the estimates $10,000 that I have agreed to pay to provide means for carrying on the census work of this country. Now, the rental may be a little high. I do not believe it is too high. But, suppose it is, am I going to close the doors of the building upon the staff of the lion. Minister of Agriculture and scatter them to the winds so that no work can be carried on ? My hon. friend has taken an untenable position, and I think if he were a little older and a little wiser, he would not insist upon a vote. I have no more to say except this-that my long experience, both in the press gallery and in this House, leads me to believe that a party does not gain much by such tactics as those of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) is resorting to.
Mr. TAYLOIt. The hon. Minister of Public Works and the hon. Minister of Agriculture speak as though tnis census work had come up suddenly. These hon. gentlemen have been in power since 1896. They knew that the census was to be taken iu 1901. Why in the world was not some provision made a year of two ago ? Why leave the providing of rooms until the day they want to use them, and then go to a political friend and pay two or three prices for accommodation ? The hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte), a few moments ago, tried to make the House believe that he had gone to every agent and every landlord in the city inquiring for rooms. But when asked to give the names of the parties applied to, he could not give any. This is a case like that of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) stating the other night that every dollar voted-and it is no wonder the opposition protest-is handed out to political friends to pay for goods and services at double prices.
Item voted : Yeas 90, Nays 50.
Slides and Booms-St. Maurice District-
Increased facilities for descent of timber on the St. Maurice river	 $50,000
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC 'WORKS. This sum of money is asked to provide improvements for the descent of timber on the St. Maurice river. These works were begun in 1852, and since that time there has been growing up a magnificent succession of industries, among which I may mention the well known Grande Mere Mills, which this year we expect will consume about 2,000,000 logs. Those works are productive works, that is they yield more than it costs to maintain them. This year we expect to derive a revenue of about $30,000 from these works.


Mr. TARTE.: 


Charles Hibbert Tupper: And to spend how much ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is only part of the money that will be necessary. The money we will have to spend this year will be over $100,000. These works have cost the country up to date about half a million dollars. In 1899, there was a damaging Hood that carried away a large number of logs, and it is to avoid a recurrence of such an accident that this sum of money is necessary.
Paris Exhibition, $30,000; Buffalo Exhibition, $30,000; total	 $60,000


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This first item of $30,000 is to close up the accounts in connection with the Paris exhibition. The time has come now when the exhibition accounts can be completely closed up and the work practically completed, provided this money is voted. I may expiain the need of this money by saying that last year I asked an amount that I thought would be necessary for the Paris exhibition, basing my request to the House on a statement which I received from Paris of the expected requirements. I took that request to mean from the date tlxat it was sent to me, but I found afterwards that the commissioners intended it to mean from the 1st of July. Therefore, I made an error of something like $25,000, in the request which I put before the House last session for what I considered necessary to complete the work at the Paris exhibition. A few items have come up since then, amounting to a few thousand dollars beyond what I had expected, and the result is to-day that I am obliged to ask for $30,000 to close the account of the Paris exhibition. I should be glad to give the committee any information they may desire with reference to the Paris exhibition. I will only say just now that from the reports that have been received in this country of the results of that exhibition, the flattering accounts which have come in, not only from all over Canada, but from the press of the world, and from the utterances of a large number of people who visited that exhibition, I feel satisfied that the Canadian exhibit there was worthy of the country, and it has accomplished, in spreading the reputation of Canada as a productive and industrial country, much more than could have been expected from the amount of money there expended I feel extremely gratified at the results of the Paris exhibition, which was conducted unler the management of gentlemen who have shown themselves to be eminently qualified for that work, the whole under the presidency of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. CLARKE.: How much has been spent up to date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not at the moment a statement of

the actual expenses up to date, but the total expenditure covered by this vote and all previous votes will he $315,000. Before this I had a vote of $285,000, and this $30,000, making $315,000, I am satisfied from the estimates laid before the department by the commissioner now in charge will cover all the expense.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would like to ask if this is the only detail we are to get concerning this item, a mere request for another $30,000?


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: I am perfectly willing to give all the Information that the committee require. I will give full details of the expenditure.


David Wardrope Wallace: How much did the commissioner receive for his expenses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Which commissioner ?


David Wardrope Wallace: The hon. Minister of Public Works. I suppose he was the one in charge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The chief commissioner, Hon. Mr. Tavte, received an advance of $3,000 when going to Paris, and $3,000 more was later sent forward, making a total of $6,000 for the commissioner's work.


David Wardrope Wallace: How long was he away ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: About five months.


David Wardrope Wallace: Did his salary as minister go on while he was acting as commissioner ?
The B1INISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Yes, certainly.


David Wardrope Wallace: And he got all these thousands of dollars while his salary was accruing ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He got no salary as commissioner to Paris.


David Wardrope Wallace: No, but he got $6,000 all the same.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, that was placed at his credit.


David Wardrope Wallace: How many other commissioners were there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was originally a board of eight commissioners, four being officers of various departments and four being appointed specially to this work. Three of these special commissioners went over to Paris. Prof. Robertson, who is one of the officers, was 30
obliged to make a trip there for a few weeks, Prof. Saunders went there to represent Canada at agricultural conventions, and Mr. Gourdeau, the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was in Paris the most of the time, I think, all the time from the opening of the exposition. The hon. Minister of Public Works was away from Canada about five months.


David Wardrope Wallace: Are we to be furnished with all the details of the expenditure of these commissioners and the chief commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The details will appear in the accounts of the commission. I have not them available here now.


David Wardrope Wallace: Are they in the Auditor General's Report ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are, up to the 30th June.


David Wardrope Wallace: That does not cover the interesting part of the accounts.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They will appear in the Auditor General's Report for next year.


David Wardrope Wallace: Then, we will have the pleasure of waiting a year.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Deferred pleasure ; that is all.


David Wardrope Wallace: We must have the particulars of all the bills that make up this expenditure of $315,000. How much did the building cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The building cost $87,600, and we received back $10,600 which we had paid to the Imperial commission for accommodation in the Imperial space. They charged us that, but they returned us the amount I have stated. Our share of the cost of the colonial building, which was to embrace the colonies of the empire, was $76,958, practically $77,000.


David Wardrope Wallace: That was for space ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For the Canadian share of the colonial building.


David Wardrope Wallace: That is in addition to the $87,000 for the Canadian building ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, no ; there was no Canadian building. There was a British colonial building, for which we had to pay our share, and our share amounted to the sum of $77,000 in round figures.


David Wardrope Wallace: A gentleman who is quite competent to judge, I should say, told



me that he saw the Canadian building at Paris, and he estimated that he could put up that building for $10,000 and make a profit on it at that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sorry for that gentleman's judgment.


David Wardrope Wallace: I can say to the hon. minister that if he knew that gentleman as he is known in the city of Toronto, he would have a good deal of respect for his judgment. That is his statement about this building. Every statement I have heard is to the same effect, that the moneys which it had been rumoured were paid for that building were exorbitant. We have the statement of a total expenditure of $315,000 and the disbursement of it. The chief commissioner, while drawing his salary as Minister of Public Works in Canada, and performing none of the duties of the Minister of Public Works for all these five months in the year, was drawing $6,000 of our money, and if the newspaper reports were correct, he was spending a large portion of his time in England, where the duties, I presume, of chief commissioner at the Paris Exposition, would not call him. I would like to know if the minister would read to us the details of the whole expenditure so that we may have them before us. We are entitled to that before we vote any more money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Allow me to explain, Sir.


David Wardrope Wallace: I would like to have the explanation of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman have the kindness to hear me ?


David Wardrope Wallace: We will listen to any information that is given.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must do so. The hon. gentleman stated somewhere during the last campaign that I had spent $100,000 in erecting this building, which, he has repeated to-day, could be erected for $10,000. I had nothing whatever to do with this building. When I reached Paris the building was up.


Rufus Henry Pope: Or it never would have been.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The building was up. The hon. Minister of Agriculture had arranged with the Imperial government that Canada would form part of the colonial exhibit. The charge of the building had been entrusted to a Royal Committee in England. Then, I say, when I reached Paris the building was up. I must immediately say that the building was not creditable to us. It was nobody's fault except the fault of the Royal Committee. Not one single member of the committee had crossed the channel and gone to Paris.


David Wardrope Wallace: I immediately sent for the architect and I asked him where the specifications were. I could not get hold of them, and I only saw them a few days before I left. I asked him whether there were any specifications and whether they had been followed. I took him around the building and he was obliged to admit and recognize that the specifications had not been followed. I asked him whether he had given notice to the Royal Committee, and he said : * No, I did not give notice.' I immediately communicated with my colleague and with Lord Strathcona, and we did with a bad job the best we could. To say that the building is only worth $10,000 is, if I may be permitted without offence to say, stating something which is ridiculous.


Robert Laird Borden: How much would you say it would be worth ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would say between $40,000 and $45,000. I visited the building with one of my colleagues. One of my colleagues was in France and that same gentleman, no doubt that the hon. gentleman alludes to, a big contractor, was with me. Several Canadians came there and admitted that the building was not creditable to us. It proves that at the next exhibition we should go on our own hook. When my colleague went to London all the colonies had undertaken to take part in the exhibition. It came out that only Western Australia and Canada took part in 'the exhibition. Practically we were alone, because Western Australia is a pretty small colony and had only an exhibit of gold. When I reached Paris we could not even get admission to the exhibition grounds without going to the English officers and asking for tickets. My hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) reproaches me with having gone to England. Well, I have gone there and I will go again I hope, and I went there on that occasion in connection with the exhibition. I felt that Canada as the independent nation we are, as a selfgoverning country, was entitled to have a proper standing at Paris. I went to the Royal Committee and represented to them that I would not stay in Paris unless I were credited directly to the French authorities. I did not care for myself. It was easy for me to have a personal standing in Paris, for I have relations there, but I made up my mind that I was doing my duty towards Canada in insisting that Canada should be properly represented. The Royal Committee did not seem to understand me, and then I prepared a memorandum that was forwarded through Lord Strathcona to Mr. Chamberlain, and it is my duty and pleasure and pride to say that forty-eight hours after Mr. Chamberlain read my statement I was directly accredited to the French authorities. I went to England for that very purpose on two occasions. My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) believes

that I have spent a great deal of money. Well, X have spent $6,000 of the money of the people of this country. Will you permit me to state here that I should have spent a great deal more. Forty-two nations were represented in Paris, and I am sure that I am the commissioner who spent the least ol' all those. There were smaller nations whose commissioners spent a great deal more money than I did. I do not of course compare my position to that of the English commissioner, but I am sure that Col. Jenkin has spent in entertaining and advertising his country a larger sum of money than some hon. gentlemen imagine. Those who have been a minister, those who have travelled; those who know what a nation is; those who know what a great exhibition is, will not reproach me with having spent too much money. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have spent a very large sum of money which I have not the means to stand. I judge from reading the debates in the House (I trust that I may say it without offence to anybody), that the position was not stated as it should have been stated. I wrote to some friends of mine on the other side of the House begging them not to make such statements as were made. An ex-minister of the Crown whom I am sorry not to see here stated in the House that we should not have spent more than $25,000 on the Paris exhibition. We have spent about $300,000, and we obtained the grandest advertisement that Canada ever obtained on the European continent. Our exhibit was a most creditable one, and if the building -with which we had nothing to do-was not creditable, the exhibit was most creditable to us, and I must compliment my hon. colleague and friend (Hon. Mr. Fisher) and his officers on the splendid showing they have made on behalf of Canada. I may say that all the staff in Paris did their duty thoroughly and faithfully. As far as I am concerned myself, X have done my best to advertise Canada in France, and in Belgium, and everywhere I was able to speak. If an account of my speeches is asked for at a latter period I shall be most delighted to give it to the House, but we are discussing a financial question just now. I have no hesitation is saying that no expenditure of money will bring to us better results than the money that was spent on the Paris exhibition.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Has the Minister of Agriculture made any provision in the supplementary estimates for the exhibition at Glasgow next summer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: How much?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell off-hand, but I trust sufficient to make a very creditable display.
30i


Jabel Robinson: Is any provision made for the exhibition at Buffalo?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There will be in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made some remarks in the House last year with reference to the Paris exhibition, and I do not know that we could have a better opportunity than this of getting explanation from the minister on what seemed to me then to be improper conduct on his part. I refer to the reception to President Loubet. The president as the representative of France visited the exhibition, and I presume expected to be received by Col. Jekyll, the representative of the British Empire in his department. That would appear to be proper, but the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) contended that it should take place in the building belonging to Canada, and that as he was there to represent a portion of the British Empire, an independent country, that the reception should take place in the Canada department. If it did not take place there, in a somewhat peevish way the minister declared that he would close the Canadian exhibit. In my judgment such conduct on his part was very improper and some explanation should be made by the minister regarding it. I have no doubt that he will give an explanation that may put a different face on it from that conveyed by the information we got from the press of this country. As to the exhibition itself, I have a letter from a friend who was in Paris, and he does not seem to have quite as high an opinion as to the value of that exhibition as the Minister of Public Works has. He speaks of it in some respects as being creditable, and other respects he thought it was not a fair representation of Canada. He says :
As to the exhibits here, they were not what they ought to have been. I have seen better individual exhibits at provincial fairs in my own country. It was ahead of Australia and perhaps India, hut it could not touch Mexico either for design of the pavilion or beauty of arrangement. It was all right in one thing, that it did not go in_for a foolish display of niclcnacks, to the detriment of industrial exhibits. Compared to the arrangement and character of the Russian exhibit, it was very poor, as outside of the exhibits purely and simply, no information was given regarding the country either as regards colonization or industrial purposes. All Canada wants for success to-day is capital, and there is plenty of it lying idle here awaiting favourable opportunity of investment, but the details of mining and other wealth of the country were altogether too meagre to attract the attention of any capitalists. There was a large amount of space taken up with a lot of trash, such as exercise books for school children of ten or twelve years of age, and you will no doubt know what kind of an exhihit that would be. Such things as this made the exhihit look rather childish, in my judgment. The rest of the ex-

Mbit represented the industries of Canada well enough. Had the arrangements been better, and had more information been given, and also had the materials of which the exhibit consisted been of a higher class, it would have been much better. The art , exhibit was simply ridiculous.
I am not one of those who feel inclined to criticise very severely the amount of money spent by the minister, because while he was there, I am bound to believe that he was trying to do the best he could for his country, and a man in that position cannot be niggardly. Therefore, if there was more spent by him than we might think necessary, we must make allowances. Some of those who visited the exhibition say that it was a comparative failure, while others say that it was a great success. X have given that as the evidence of a Canadian who was living there and going in and out day after day.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how it happened that there was no proper supervision over the construction of this building. I understand from the Minister of Public Works that he regarded the building as unsuitable, as not built according to the specifications, and as worth very much less than we paid for it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will give the hon. gentleman full explanations after recess.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The MINISTER OF 'PUBLIC WORKS. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has rendered a great service to me in asking me to explain the incident of the visit of President Loubet. One morning I read in the Paris newspapers that the president was going to visit the exhibits of the foreign colonies. I had not been notified, although I had been directly accredited to the French authorities. I made preparations. To understand the matter properly, it is necessary to know that there were three main doors to the colonial pavilion on the Avenue d'lena. In that pavilion Canada had, of course, the largest place. If I remember rightly, Canada had 90 per cent of the space, and paid 90 per cent or thereabouts of the cost. Then, there was Western Australia, and the little island of Mauritius. I made preparations to receive M. Loubet by our main door. In this country, we are in the habit of receiving by our main door, not by our kitchen door. But I found that the British understrappers, who had managed to log-roll in London, had arranged for President Loubet to come in, not by the main door of the building, the Canadian door, but simply by one of the small doors, and only to pass through a small section of Mr. SPROULE.
the Canadian exhibit. He would simply go into our kitchen and see the stove exhibit, and a small corner of the Canadian exhibit. I felt that it was my duty to Canada not to allow British understrappers to slight us in that way; and if any hon. gentleman from the other side of the House had been there representing this country, he would have done just what I did. I am glad to say that there were present, when that incident happened, not only French Canadians, but a large number of English Canadians, and they all sided with me to a man. As I say, preparations had been mads. A band of music had been engaged. There were three or four hundred Canadians of all creeds and races there to receive M. Loubet and the distinguished people who were accompanying him. When I learned that we were going to be slighted in that way, I said to one of those English officers that I would rather close all the doors of the colonial building than submit to such an insult. My hon. friend from Grey is altogether wrong when he is under the impression that M. Loubet's visit was intended for the British pavilion. It was intended for the foreign colonies. The British pavilion was on the Avenue des Nations, on the other side of the Seine, while the colonial, or rather the Canadian building, was on Trocadero square-two different places altogether. Mr. Crozier, chief of the protocol, was informed of the incident, and as soon as he learned that such a trick had been attempted upon the president, he changed all the arrangements on the spot, and the president came into our exhibition by our main door. An explanation was given a couple of days afterwards to the English newspaper men who were in Paris, and I may say that they all congratulated me on the firm stand I took. Now, my hon. friend from Grey is altogether wrongly informed when he states that the exhibition was not a credit to us. As a commercial exhibition, I make bold to say that it was the most complete on the ground. There were European nations which had bigger exhibitions, which had art exhibitions ; but, as a commercial exhibition, the Canadian one was a very great success indeed. The number of prizes or medals it secured is the best evidence of that fact. The exhibition of grain, of lumber, of minerals and of fruit was very fine. I do not know that I need say anything more, except to add that the Canadian commissioners and staff at Paris did their duty faithfully towards this country. We had a little trouble and a great deal of work. As has been truly said, the building was not what it should have been, and we were obliged to spend some money in decorating it, but when we had covered our sheds with drapery and other decorations, it looked very presentable.
I must take strong exception to what has been said by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) concerning the educa-

tional exhibit. Our educational exhibit was a great credit to us. The province of Ontario, perhaps, did not do as well as she should have done, but all the other provinces had very nice exhibits, and I think the installation of our educational exhibit was one of the best, if not the best, in the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That only shows the different impression created on different minds. We have the view of the hon. gentleman who was there to superintend, and who naturally would give as favourable a report as possible, but I have simply given the view of an independent Canadian who went over the exhibit.
I brought to the attention of the House to-night this matter of the reception of President Loubet, because, as represented to us by the press, it certainly bore a very different appearance from what the hon. minister has given us to-night. I brought it to the hon. gentleman's attention for two reasons- not because I was uninformed with regard to it, because I read a lengthy explanation of the hon. gentleman, which satisfied me in a measure that he was perhaps not as much to blame as represented. But my principal object was to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of giving the House an explanation which would remove the impression in the public mind created by the accounts in the press. As we understood the reports then, it was the duty of Dr. Jekyll, who was the representative of the Imperial parliament, to receive President Loubet, but the hon. minister told us differently, and I am not going to say that there was not good reason for his conduct. But it did seem somewhat out of keeping with the dignity of the situation and what might be expected from a minister of the Crown in a British colony, to use the representative of the British Empire in that way. The hon. gentleman spoke of Dr. Jekyll as the British understrapper.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I never mentioned Col. Jekyll's name-far from it-I am glad to say that he behaved towards us very nicely indeed, but he came very late, and there were other people before he came to whom I could not pay the same compliment. Col. Jekyll behaved towards us like a gentleman and a friend, and on the very occasion of President Loubet's visit he was by my side and was very glad to be with us. But he came to Paris about the same time as I did myself, and the wrong that had been committed towards us was then done. If the commissioners who had been before in Paris, were on the floor of this parliament, without any distinction of origin or creed, they would tell stories that would induce the press on both sides to make up their minds that when Canada again took part in any exhibition anywhere, we should go on our own hook. And I may add that the commissioners at
the Paris exhibition in 1878 told me the same story. We were simply looked down upon and treated, not as representing a selfgoverning nation, but to a certain extent as inferiors. Within my hearing is one of the commissioners, and if he were free to speak he would say something that would astonish you more than anything I have said.
I exonerate completely Col. Jekyll from any blame. When he came to Paris he did his best to help us, and did help us very materially indeed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I came to the conclusion I did from the speech of the hon. gentleman when he said the British understrapper did so and so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Understrappers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the difficulty was with the representative of the British Empire through whom officially any arrangement should be made. I am glad the hon. minister made the explanation because his remarks seemed to reflect in an unkindly manner on the representative of the British Empire. As to the wisdom or otherwise of our taking part in an exhibition of that nature, independent entirely of the British Empire, I am not going to criticise, because I am not in a position to judge. But it seems to me that as long as we are a colonial dependency of the British Empire, it would not be inappropriate if we were in some way or other under the wing of the empire to which we belong, when making a display in a great country like France.
I have given the impression of a Canadian who visited the exhibition. "Where he thought it was defective was largely in the fact that although we had exhibits of our mines, there was, comparatively speaking, no information to be had with regard to our mining laws and the condition of things in this country. In many departments he said the exhibition was a success. He spoke of our fruits being very fine and serials, but that, in his judgment, in some other lines it was very poor, and he spoke especially of the exhibit of educational books for children and the art department as being very poor. I am not giving my own Impression but only those of one who went there on a visit.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not mean to say that Canada should be altogether independent of England. I did not mean anything of the kind. But we are a self-governing colony, we are making our own tariff, for instance, quite independent of England. An exhibition is a question of business and not of foreign policy, just as when we are making our own laws. And in that Paris exhibition, our interests in some lines conflicted with those of British exhibitors. We were large exhibitors in agricultural implements, and so was England. We were large exhibitors in cotton,

and so was England. Before I reached Parisian arrangement had been made that sixty judges altogether would be given for the British Empire, including her colonies. We were occupying 44,000 feet of the ground in the British Empire, and the British Empire itself was occupying 200,000 feet, so that we were entitled to have about one-fifth of the judges in number. I found that we had only four. I said that that was wrong and insisted strenuously ou being given more.
Arrangements were made. It was agreed between the English and the French authorities, as I say, that sixty judges should be given for the whole British Empire. Of that number, the British Commission in London had given only four judges to Canada. Was that reasonable, was that fair, especially when we had interests conflicting with those of the British exhibitor ? In questions of business the Englishman does not care much whether you are an English Canadian or a French Canadian-if he has to fight against you he does it ; if he can carry the medals and prizes against you he does it. I insisted strongly on a change, and, with the help of-Lord Strathcona and Mr. Chamberlain, I gained some small points. The correspondence asked for by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) will show the strenuous efforts wie made to secure, not justice, but a small share of justice. We did not get the number of judges we should have got. But the thing turned out right.
I represented to Colonel Jekyl that if the Canadians did not get the prizes to which they were entitled, there would be great disappointment and resentment in Canada. He helped me to the best of his ability. I give these explanations at some length because I feel that this is not a party question. There will be other exhibitions. My hon. friends opposite may then have crossed the floor. If so, they will find themselves sometime in the same position that we were In ; and I beg of them, as I beg of my friends on this side, to take the stand, once for all, that we are a self-governing country; and, in matters of business let us stand by Canada-Canada before all. That does not prevent us from being good, loyal subjects of the King. But we have business of our own, we have a realm of our own, and let us try to exploit it to the best of our ability.


Mr. HACKETT.: I have been much pleased to find that, at the Paris exposition the province of Prince Edward Island was among the foremost in taking prizes. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that for oysters, one of the products of Prince Edward Island, we were awarded first prize. Those who love to partake of the luscious bivalve will be pleased to know that at that great exhibition. where the province was brought into competition with the whole world, it won first prize. But we have in Prince Edward Island other products besides oysters. We Mr. TARTE.
produced there an individual who was elected to the legislature a little over a year ago to oppose the local government. His name is Pineau. He was a Conservative and was elected by the Conservative people of Prince county. The local government was in extremis, and if Mr. Pineau got in, it was believed they would have to resign. But what do we find ? The Minister of Public Works states that he was in need of help in Paris. If he had taken Mr. Pineau with him he would have had all the help he required. Mr. Pineau was approached by an agent of the government, Dr. Wickham, in Tignisli, the district in which he was elected. This gentleman went to Mr. Pineau and said : If you will support the local government, or if you will leave the province and go to Paris as commissioner of the Dominion government you will be paid a salary of $5 a day and $5 a day expenses. Mr. Pineau came to Ottawa. Would not you consider it a singular proceeding for a man elected by the independent people of Prince county to oppose the party to which the hon. Minister of Public Works belonged should come here and remain for a week in the very shadow of this building in conference with the hon. gentleman or his agents ? He was. purchased by the government, and that fact remains a stain, a blot, upon our history. But Mr. Pineau did not take the trip to Paris, Mr. Wise, a member of the local legislature upon whom the party of hon. gentlemen opposite were depending for support, opposed the local government, and it was found that the presence of Mr. Pineau in the legislature was necessary and it was-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never saw the man.


Edward Hackett: He was here for a week, and I am told on the best authority that he was in close communication with the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Tarte's) private secretary. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) will say that he never saw him. Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) will say that he never saw him. But the -fact is that Mr. Pineau was waiting here in Ottawa for instructions to go to Paris under the Minister of Public Works. This, I say, is a blot upon our history. When the electors vote for a man, they wish to have him as their representative and not to have him bribed by a hostile government needing his support. While I am proud of one product of Prince Edward Island, the oyster, I am ashamed of the product of Pineau, and I am especially ashamed that I supported the man who came here and sold his support to the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sorry the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) hais given us such a picture of his own province. I confess it is new to me, because

I did not suppose that Prince Edward Island put forth such a product as he speaks of.
I was quite prepared to hear that that province had taken the prize in oysters, because I had the pleasure on many occasions of partaking of those oysters. But, as to the other, the hon. gentleman has surely jumped at a conclusion. I dare say Mr. Pineau was here, but I do not know it. So far as I know, no member of the government saw him here. The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Hac-kett's) friends may have seen him. As minister in charge of the Paris exposition, 1 can tell the hon. gentleman and the House and Prince Edward Island, and the country at large that I never saw Mr. Pineau, never had any communication with him directly or indirectly ; Mr. Pineau did not go to Paris in connection with the Paris exposition, and the hon. gentleman will search in vain in the accounts of the Paris exposition for one cent paid in any way to Mr. Pineau. I trust that this statement is sufficiently categorical to convince the hon. gentleman that, whatever the Conservative electors in Prince Edward Island may choose, they do not choose a man that this government tries to buy or buys in any shape or way. One or two questions were asked me before recess, to which I take great pleasure in replying. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax! asked for explanations in connection with the building in Paris. That building was entirely managed by the Imperial Commission, and the Canadian Commission had neither part nor lot in the contract for its construction of any connection with it.
When the invitation to Canada came to us to participate in the Paris exhibition, it came through the Imperial authorities, as was natural that it should, coming from a foreign country. We were informed that they would be pleased if we would take part as a colony of Great Britain, and that they would make the arrangements necessary to secure a proper opportunity for the various British colonies to be represented at Paris. Those communications indicated to us the steps which the Imperial commission had taken for this object. They informed us that the building would be prepared under their control and management for the products of the colony, and that that building would have to be submitted to the French authorities for acceptance. They asked us if we would take part in an exhibition in that building, and if we would pay our proportion of the cost pro rata to the space occupied. As the minister in charge of these things, after consultation with my colleagues^ and discussion with gentlemen in Canada who had taken some part in former exhibitions. that was agreed to. Lord Strath-cona. the High Commissioner of Canada in London, was appointed as our representative on the colonial committee of the Imperial commission, and all the work in connection with the Imperial commission was
done through Lord Strathcona. Plans of that building came out here, the estimates having been prepared in London, and we were informed that that was what had been arranged for us, and we had either to accept that or refuse to take part in the exhibition.
It happened that summer that I was in England on other business, and I attended one or two meetings of the colonial committee with Lord Strathcona. I made some suggestion in regard to the details and plan of the building, which were taken into consideration and some of them accepted. But on the general question of the plans of that building, its construction, its cost and everything connected with its management, we had practically no word to say. At that time it was expected and intended that Cape Colony, with the various Australian colonies and New Zealand, would take part in the exhibition. We were informed that one-third of the whole space of that building would be at our disposal. We protested energetically that that was not sufficient to a proper representation of Canada at such a great exhibition as that in Paris. From time to time various of the Australian and Crown colonies decided they would not take part, and as they so decided we were asked if we would take the space which had been accorded to them. Finally, the result came about that we had over eighty per cent of the space in that building accorded to us. We took this, not because we desired to do so, but because we found that the Canadian exhibitors, commercial men, manufacturers, agriculturists, men engaged in forest industries, and the lumber trade of this country, were demanding more space than we had at our disposal ; and therefore, we felt it was necessary to have larger space than was at first accorded to us. We, therefore, took the opportunities that were presented to us, and whenever the Imperial authorities informed us that more space was available, we seized upon it greedily in order to satisfy the claims and demands of the Canadian exhibitors who wished to exhibit at Paris.
Hon. gentlemen, therefore, will see that so far as we were concerned, so far as my own management of the department was concerned, so far as the management of our commercial interests was concerned, we had practically nothing whatever to do with the construction or the cost of that building. I may say that when one of the commissioners first went over to Paris and saw the building. he protested against its method of construction, and against the quality of the building. Afterwards, when my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, went over there, he again protested to the Imperial commissioners as to the quality of the building. I am satisfied from what I know, and from the reports given to me since, that that building was not up to the mark, that it was not worth the price that was paid for it ; and I withheld for a long time the final payment, because I believed Canada was

not fairly charged with the amount which the Imperial commissioners asked from us. But after the Minister of Public Works reached Paris and had discussed these questions with Mr. Jekyll and other Imperial commissioners, and with Sir Montague Ommany, Under Secretary for the Colonies, who came over to Paris to look into this matter, and after the Minister of Public Works had gone to London and consulted with Lord Strathcona, the chairman of the colonial committee of the Imperial commission, and after this whole question had been thoroughly discussed, we received a letter from the Imperial authorities stating that as the architect had signed the reports upon the building and had accepted the building, as the contractor had the certificates of the architect for the building and for its construction, we practically had no recourse ; the Imperial authorities distinctly informed us that we had no recourse, and they called upon us to foot the bill. I may say that so far as I saw, we had no recourse. I protested to Lord Strathcona, and asked him to protest to the Imperial authorities in his capacity as chairman of the colonial committee. He did so, and I have in my department to-day a letter from Lord Strathcona, in which he strongly urged me, and advised me, in his capacity as a member of the Imperial commission, and as representing Canada on that commission, to pay the bill and settle the matter, because he could see that we had no recourse, and no other alternative.
That is the position of affairs to-day. I regret extremely to have to say that that building was not commensurate with the demands of Canada for the products which were put into it, and I have no doubt whatever that the inferior character of the building militated considerably against the success of our exhibition there. But when my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Public Works, went over to Paris, seeing the inferior quality of the building, seeing there was danger that our exhibits would not be properly presented, and would not look well in that building, he undertook to make some decorations in the interior of the building, and he so far succeeded, with the co-operation of the other commissioners and of our staff there, as to make the building inside a creditable one, and fit for the splendid exhibit which the people of Canada put into it. This added somewhat unexpectedly, but reasonably, I think, to the cost we were put to in regard to this exhibition. I do not think that I need say any more in regard to the building.


Mr. CLANCY.: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that question, would he say upon whom the duty devolved to look after the character of the building ? In other words, whose duty was it to see that a suitable building should be provided for Canada, for Mr. FISHER.	1
which we had to pay a certain portion of the cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The colonial committee of the Imperial commission. on which our representative was Lord Strathcona.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand there were specifications sent out here.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Plans, but no specifications.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if Canada was going to pay a proportion of the cost of this building, why did not the hon. gentleman see that specifications were produced, so that we might know what we were going to pay for. I would also like to ask the hon. gentleman whether, when it was suggested that we should pay a portion of the cost of this building, any estimate was furnished to him as to what the building would cost ? I am not prepared at present to concur in the view that there should be no recourse. I cannot understand how this business has been transacted so that we pay double what this building is worth, and have no recourse against any one. There must be fault somewhere, and I want to find out where it is.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that the whole question lay in the hands of the Imperial commission. We were invited to take part in the exhibition by the Imperial commission. We did not stand as an independent country ; we had to deal with the Parisian authorities through the Imperial commission. When we were invited to attend the Paris exhibition, a request was made that we should deal with the Parisian authorities. That was refused by them and refused by the Imperial authorities, who desired that the British Empire should stand together and act as one empire in connection with the Paris exhibition. The Imperial commission appointed a special committee known as the colonial committee, to deal with colonial exhibits. These were the conditions upon which we should take part in the exhibition. We had to accept or reject them. We might have said that we did not wish to make an exhibit at the Paris exhibition. An estimate was made of the cost in regard to the building. The first letter I had said that it would not exceed 10s. per square foot, and that the cost of administration would not exceed 5s. per square foot. Later on it cost more, and before the final acceptance of the contract the price was stated at 12s. 6d. per square foot. As a matter of fact, the final cost went a little over that even. I can assure the hon. gentleman that in this matter the whole affair was in the hands of the Imperial committee, that we had practically no control, except that we had the right to refuse to go to Paris at all, and the idea we had at

the time the Imperial committee undertook this was that we could safely and satisfactorily entrust to such a committee, composed of the leading men of the empire and representatives of the colonies, whose chairman was Lord Strathcona, the construction and management of such a building, and that our interests would be carefully safeguarded. When that was agreed to and when we accepted that position, we were satisfied that the colonial building was to be for the whole of the British colonies and that we would have about one-third of the space in it, and be obliged to pay only for one-third of the cost. As time went on we accepted further responsibility by taking more space. We were driven to that by the demands of intending exhibitors who desired to show Canadian products in the building, and a refusal to accept their products would have entailed an enormous amount of disappointment to the people who wished to make these exhibits and great loss would have resulted to the Dominion of Canada had not these exhibits gone to Paris. Under these circumstances I cannot see, myself, as the minister in charge of this department, how the government of Canada was in any way responsible for that building. We had to take our share of it as it was given to us by the Imperial commission, and the Imperial commission did all the work.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not at all the question of the empire standing together, so far as I understand it; it is a question of the administration of the hon. gentleman's department. The hon. Minister of Public Works very plainly stated to us, only five minutes ago, that matters of this kind are matters of business.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are, I think. Are they not ?


Robert Laird Borden: They are matters of business. I agree with the hon. gentleman, and I am quoting him as against his colleague, who seems to think that it is not a matter of business but a matter of keeping the empire together.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not a bit of it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman's explanation is satisfactory. He seems to think that this was a trifling matter because it involved only one-third of the cost of the building, but it is a very considerable sum of money- $25,000 or $30,000. What I venture to suggest is that it would have been a proper thing for him to have proper specifications and an estimate made as a business matter for the purpose of finding out what kind of a building we were going to pay for and how much we were going to pay for it


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We had that information, and if the building had been up to the contract and specifications there would have been no fault found.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good ; then, I do not understand how the hon. gentleman expects the committee to believe that there is no recourse. Here are the contractors and here is the architect, here are the specifications and you would expect the architect to proceed according to these. There is the contract to do certain work up to a certain standard and for a certain sum of money. We have the safeguard of responsible contractor's and the safeguard of an architect. Some one must be responsible for seeing that the building would be erected in accordance with the specifications. Either the contractors are liable, or if the contractors have been relieved by any unjustifiable action of the architect, the architect is liable, and I suppose he is a responsible man. How then could the hon. gentleman expect us to understand that there is no recourse against any one ? I do not understand it. If the Imperial commission was the body that dealt with these contractors, have they not a valid claim against the contractors V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not say they have not.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has said that there is no recourse.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I say that we have no recourse.


Robert Laird Borden: We have recourse directly or indirectly.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We may have recourse against the Imperial commission.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know if the hon. gentleman has asked the Imperial commission or the Imperial government to take action against the contractors ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Through Lord Strathcona, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If so, has any action been taken ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They declined to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, it would be extremely satisfactory to the committee to have their reply placed upon the Table of the House, so that we could understand it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have Lord Strathcona's letter.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be satisfactory to know why it is that when
the commission made a satisfactory contract with certain contractors to do a certain work, and when that work was super-

vised by an architect, that the work d,one is not up to the value which it should have been, according to the kon. Minister of Public Works, by about one-half? Why is it that, under such idircumstances, the Imperial commission should decline to take action against the contractors V It seems to me that the hon. gentleman should give us some better explanation than merely stating that he has asked them to do this and that they have declined to do it. For what reason have they not taken action against these people, if the facts are as the hon. gentleman states them ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking from memory, I may say that the letter in which Lord Strathcona communicates this decision, stated that the Imperial committee found that the architect whom they had employed had given his certificate to the contractors, and that consequently they did not feel that they had any recourse against the contractors.


Robert Laird Borden: But, they have recourse against the architect if he is found to have acted improperly. Under t'he circumstances disclosed to this committee hy the hon. Minister of Public Woi'ks, 1 venture to think that they would have a perfect recourse against the architect. 1 would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) wihat is the meaning of the item which i find in the Auditor General's Report, page D-12, and which states that the government has paid this architect-I do not know whether this architect had anything to do with this building or mot-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-three hundred and sixty dollars on account of fees, and $30.12 for a trip to Baden, Switzerland.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the same architect.


Robert Laird Borden: What architect is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will explain that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is another matter altogether.


Robert Laird Borden: We will deal with that presently in order that we may close this matter first.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well.


Robert Laird Borden: If the architect passed this building, which the hon. Minister of Public Works says is worth only half the money which it cost, he must be liable for his dereliction of duty in doing that, and if the contractors are not liable the architect is. If we cannot have recourse against one we must have recourse against Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the other, because it is not possible that the money of this country shall be paid out for a default of that kind and no ome be responsible for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to this architect, I may explain that when I reached Paris the inside of the building looked like a barn. I thought it was my duty towards the exhibitors and towards Canada to give the building a better appearance, and with the consent of my co-commissioners we engaged a young Canadian, who has been studying in Paris during the last five or six years, and he rendered us very valuable services, and we paid him that sum of money and something more.


Robert Laird Borden: Then this vote is for the purpose of assisting to hide the shame ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) had been there he would have done just as I did.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He would have done better, perhaps, but he would have proceeded on the same lines. As soon as I reached Paris I protested to the Royal Committee in the strongest terms, and that correspondence will be brought down. I represented to them that this Canadian building could not possibly be according to the specifications, but I could not get hold of these specifications until a couple of weeks before I left. No member of the Royal Committee had visited Paris, and the architect, who was the architect of all the other colonial buildings, was left to carry out the work alone.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. minister know his name ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was Mr. Clowes. I do not see what more could be done by us to protect Canadian interests. The architect had given his certificate, but it was actually raining in the building. I was afraid it would fall on our heads, and we made them strengthen it, and we succeeded at least in preventing the rain from destroying the exhibits. To achieve even that required a good deal of energy. The Canadian government is not to blame in this matter, except that from the start we should have made up our minds to erect our own buildings. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that the French authorities declined to deal with Canada. I am bound to say that on that point my hon. colleague lias not been rightly informed. This is not a party or a government question, and as I have been there I know what took place. The French authorities allowed nations who are less independent commercially than we are, to exhibit on their own hook. Egypt exhibited on her

own liook, and Egypt is not quite as independent as we are. Bulgaria, which is under the thumb of Russia, had an exhibit of her own. If the French authorities alone were concerned we would have been allowed to exhibit as a self-governing nation, because the French authorities realize, as we realize ourselves, that we are a self-governing people. However, I can quite understand the strong desire of the British authorities that the whole empire should stand together at the Paris exposition, and it is to that desire that the Canadian government yielded. Whether we have been right or wrong it is for the Canadian people to judge. Speaking from the experience I acquired in Paris, I say without hesitation that we made a mistake. We meant well, but it would have been better for the British Empire had we exhibited independently as a self-governing colony. We would have been under the wing of the British Empire just as well, but we would have had more prestige ; we would have had more latitude ; we would have had a better social standing, if I may say so. The word ' colony' is not understood on the continent of Europe as it is understood in the British Empire. The word 'colony' in Europe means a subordinate body. As a matter of fact, I do not know that any country other than England has under her wing a single self-governing colony. I had to explain over and over again, every time I had an opportunity of speaking, that we were a self-governing country, because we are not as well known on the other side as some of our friends think we are. It is for these reasons that, perhaps, we have made a mistake, a well-meant mistake, in not exhibiting on our own account as a self-governing country. I cannot repeat too often that an exhibition is a question of business and that there are no foreign relations involved in it.


Robert Laird Borden: No one pretends for a moment that there is the slightest objection to erecting this building in connection with the other colonies or with the Imperial government. That is not the question. We are delighted to join with the other colonies and with the British government in the erection of the building, but the point is that in doing that we should use ordinary business methods. We should have had estimates and specifications, and, if we find the building has cost more than it is worth, as the Minister of Public Works states


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That cannot be denied.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case we Should be in a position to seek recourse against the person responsible. That is the only point there is about it. All I desire to ascertain is, that the Department of Agriculture, which has charge of that duty, has taken the necessary means towards that
end. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture would venture to deny that some one must be responsible for damages on account of this default. If an architect leaves a building as described by the Minister of Public Works, with the rain coming through the roof, he must be responsible. I do not know whether the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) himself indulged in this pastime with his subordinates, of bailing out the water with buckets and covering up the exhibits when it rained


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That had to be done.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of Agriculture desires the House to believe that an architect who is guilty of leaving a building in that condition is not to be responsible to any person for his default.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman seems to suggest that there is some hesitation on the part of the commission to have recourse against this architect. I cannot believe that that commission would have any hesitation about proceeding against that architect unless there is some reason that has not yet been disclosed to this House. The hon. gentleman having referred to the letter from Lord Stratheona. I was anxious that he should lay that letter on the Table in order that the House might judge as to the reasons which have been advanced for this course, which seems to me somewhat singular.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sure that the leader of the opposition has not the slightest desire to misrepresent me.


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I had no desire to say that nobody had recourse against this architect. What I did say was that he had no recourse against the architect. The Dominion of Canada had no buildings erected there. We were a part of the British Empire invited by the Imperial Commission to take part in that exhibition.


Robert Laird Borden: What I understood the hon. minister to say was that Lord Stratheona said there was no recourse.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What Lord Stratheona said was that the Imperial committee were not in a position to take action aainst the contractors, because they had the certificate of the architect. No doubt the hon. gentleman would say that the Imperial committee should take action against the architect. I presume he is right as a lawyer to say so. So far as I know, the Imperial committee did not take any such action, but they did require from me the payment of our share of the

cost of the building. I have the letter, which I shall be only too glad to lay on the Table for the information of the hon. gentleman, because I am sure he will understand that I am not wishing to misrepresent the facts at all; but I do not wish it to go abroad that I am giving the opinion that the Imperial committee had no recourse 'against either the contractor or the architect. What I say is that the Dominion government had no recourse except to pay for our share of the building, which was the condition on which we accepted.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask at what stage had the building arrived when the Canadian commissioner first protested ? Also, at what stage had the building arrived when the Minister of Public Works raised a protest. I understood from the Minister of Agriculture that protests had been raised on two different occasions by the two gentlemen to whom I have referred.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The first protest I think was verbal on the part of one of the commissioners, who saw the Imperial agents on the subject. I could not tell the hon. gentleman at what stage the building had arrived. It was a few weeks or perhaps a month before the opening of the exhibition. The Minister of Public Works did not reach Paris until just before the opening of the exhibition.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). The building was then completed 7


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Nearly completed.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I reached Paris on the 117th of March, and, if I remember rightly, I went to the building the very day after I arrived. I had with me Mr. Clowes and Mr. Humphrey, one of the contractors, and I told them at once that, although I was not an expert, I had enough experience to be sure that no architect would specify such a building; and I protested immediately afterwards to Lord Strathcona. We several times obliged Messrs. Humphrey & Company to improve the building, and make it as good as it was possible to make it.


David Wardrope Wallace: It is a good thing that this House and this country are not often treated to the spectacle which we have here to-night-two ministers acknowledging to the grossest negligence and incapacity in the management of their departments.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Nothing of the kind.


David Wardrope Wallace: They shake their heads. What was the speech of the Minister of Public Works ? Was it not confession from beginning to end that everything had gone wrong ? Our money was voted by the parliament of Canada two years ago.


Mr. FISHER.: The Minister of Agriculture came here and asked parliament for $175,000 for the Paris exposition. That was after careful estimates and calculations of the space that would be required, and he pledged himself to the House and the country that nothing would be left undone to see that the money was carefully and economically expended, that good value would be obtained for it, and that competent men would be got to administer it. What do we find to-day ? $140,000 is required in addition to the $175,000, which we were assured would be all that would be required; $140,000, and more than that absolutely thrown away without any beneficial results for the people of Canada. It is a confession of incompetence from start to finish. \\ nat did the Minister of Public Works tell us a moment ago? He admitted that all was wrong, but he said the Canadian government were not to blame. He has a habit, which we have seen a hundred times in this House, if anything goes right, to claim credit for the genius and the admirable management of the Minister of Public Works, whereas if anything goes wrong, he says, It is my staff-I will cut their heads off. I think we have had enough of that sort of thing. He told us that in his opinion the building was worth $40,000 or $50,000. I do not know where he got the experience to be a competent judge. For myself, with the greatest deference to him, I refuse to acknowledge his judgment in the matter at all, especially as his interests 'all go to make the value of the building as great as possible. A gentleman in Toronto, capable and competent, said he could put up that building for $10,000, and I will take his opinion a hundred times over on that matter before the opinion of the Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman says the Canadian government are not to blame. Who is to blame ? We voted the money, and the Minister of Agriculture gave us the assurance that it would be economically, carefully, and wisely expended. He told us of his plans and schemes. Where are those plans and schemes to-day ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: All carried out.


David Wardrope Wallace: All scattered to the four winds of heaven-nothing carried out. Like all the plans and schemes which the Minister of Agriculture has presented to the House in times past, they have been an utter failure. Now, I am a little mystified about this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Wardrope Wallace: Hon. gentlemen opposite say ' hear, hear.' They are mystified also. First, one minister went over, then another, then a whole army of ministers crossed the Atlantic, and visited Paris, and took in the exhibition, and viewed the buildings, and enjoyed themselves, all at

the public expense. I say we are mystified, and the ministers themselves are unable to give the particulars. To get out of it, they say this is not a party question. What is it ? The party on this side of the House had nothing to do with the expenditure of these thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars. AM we did was to vote the money, and we did it with fear and trembling, because we knew it would not be put to a good and proper use; and our fears have been verified. Why, I read in the Auditor General's Report this item ; Payments to Colonial commission on account of space, &c., $87,600. This is only on account. Is that for the building that was erected jointly by the Canadian and by the other British governments ? I would like to ask that question of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Public Works, or anybody that happens to know it.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: That was for the Royal commission, for the building and the space in the Imperial space in the main building, both included. Out of that we received back $10,641 from the Imperial commission as they had made a mistake in charging us for space included in their own allotment.


David Wardrope Wallace: I am delighted to know that we got $10,000 back. But this is only a payment on account and we have no information as to the total amount. Is this the total ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


David Wardrope Wallace: It is satisfactory to find that we paid only $87,000 for nothing and got back $10,000 of it.
There is another item here. I see that one H. Pabre had appartments fixed up for him, I presume in this building. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No.


David Wardrope Wallace: Where ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In
the city of Paris, rue Jerome.


David Wardrope Wallace: Then the government of this country, without an appropriation from parliament for that purpose-


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No.


David Wardrope Wallace: There was nothing said, when the government asked the vote of $175,000, about $7,641 being paid to fix up the appartments of Mr. Pabre in the city of Paris. Why should that be charged against the Paris exhibition ? This was not in the exhibition at all but miles away in the city of Paris. It was the residence of Mr. Hector Pabre. The minister has told us so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not tell you anything of the kind.


David Wardrope Wallace: Did the bon. gentleman not say it was in the city of Paris ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but I did not say it was the residence of Mr. Pabre.


David Wardrope Wallace: What residence was it ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: It
was the offices and not the residences.


David Wardrope Wallace: I must say that the offices are delightful and beautiful to behold-something that would charm the eye and please all the senses. In the office there is an ante chamber and to furnish that chamber with Wilton carpets and chairs- two at $27 each-and a letter box $19.30, and a lot of other things, cost $186. Then there is the reading room, laid also with Wilton carpets at an expense of $99.97, a table $57.90, book-case $86.85, desk $13.50, two arm chairs $57.90, six other ordinary common chairs $81.06. The total for the reading room is $419.75. This is just a common every day office.
Then you come to the rotunda and veranda: Wilton carpet $52.83 ; curtains and poles $26.63; window blinds, $26.05; table, $28.95; three chairs, $40.54 ; large sofa, $86.85 ; three easy chairs, $86.85, and sundry other things on the rotunda and veranda, making a total of only $367.42.
Then we come to room No. 1 and there we find a Wilton rug, $19.30 ; curtains and other hangings, $19.30 ; window blinds, $10.62, one sofa, $28.95 and one $19.30 ; easy chair, $18.34 ; two office chairs, $13.52 ; walnut cabinet, $11.58 ; office table, $19.30, and so on, and that room only cost $203.63.
These are the poorly furnished shed offices of Mr. Fabre in Paris. Then we come to room No. 2: Wilton carpet, $66.17; two sets window hangings, $48.25 ; two pairs curtains, $5.79 ; blinds, $11.58 ; mantel decoration, $4.83; sofa, $57.90; office chair, $15.44 ; two easy chairs, $57.90 ; two chairs, $27.02 ; desk, $96.50 and wardrobe, $33.81. This room only cost $424. This is one of the commoner rooms apparently required for offices in the city of Paris. I would like to know what return we get for the moneys spent.
Then we come to room No. 3 : Wilton carpet, $56.62; window hangings, $19.30; blinds, $4.83 ; mantel decorations, $4.83 ; desk, $19.30 ; book-case, $31.84 ; office chairs, $12.55 ; sofa, $48.25 ; easy chair, $27.02 ; two chairs, $27.02. Total for that room only $254.45.	.
Then we come to room No. 4, and I think that when the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Agriculture were around they must have been entertained in room No. 4 :	Wilton carpet, $93.23 ; two sets
window hangings, $61.76; two pairs curtains, $5.79 ; blinds, $9.65 ; four double portieres, $115.80 ; mantel ornaments, $4.83 ; table, $11.58 ; desk, $96.50 ; book-case, $67.55 ;

table, $19.30 ; office chair, $14.48 ; two chairs, $27.02 ; drawing-room furniture one set : Sofa, two easy chairs and four 'Other chairs, $347.40-making a total for the drawing-room of only $874.89.
Then we come to room No. 5 : Wilton carpet, $54.43 ; window hangings, $19.30 ; blinds, $4.83-a good many blinds-


An hon. MEMBER.: Pull down the blinds.


David Wardrope Wallace: I suppose that is what the hon. minister would like-to pull down the veil of oblivion over all these entertaining items. Mantel decorations, $4.83 ; one blind, $7.72; desk, $96.50; mahogany, $38.60; office chair, $14.47-in all, $388.32.
Room No. 6 and other rooms follow and a number of other items. And in addition to all the items 1 have read, and deducting $1,300 or $1,400 for Insurance, and so on, we still have $3,000 and more for furnishings in addition to the items 1 have read.
Where did they put the $3,000 additional furniture ? Under what authority did they act ? When did parliament give them power to make these expenditures ? Was this expenditure part of the programme the Minister of Agriculture had in mind when he asked us for $175,000, and told us what he was going to do to make an exhibit worthy of the Dominion ? Now we find the money squandered, we find that the ministers have helped themselves liberally, and no account given, of course. They say : You cannot entertain in <i way to show Canada off in the best light without spending money. Why, Mr. Chairman, when we looked at the newspapers of that time; we saw telegrams : ' Mr. Tarte is in London ; '
' Mr. Tarte left for London to-night ' ; ' Mr. Tarte has been in London for some days.' And there were significant stories as to the business that took him so frequently to London. Another question-this furniture, which has been charged at $7,641-where is that furniture now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is there in the office.


David Wardrope Wallace: What office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Fabre's office in Paris.


David Wardrope Wallace: This was bought and charged to the Paris exposition, and it remains there now that the Paris exposition is over. Is that furniture needed there-$7,641 worth ? If so, what did Mr. Fabre do before it arrived ? Did he sit up all night in a chair ? Of course, the government did not get those rooms for nothing. What was the rental of them ? I do not see it charged in the account. Was that part of the $109,000 for the particulars of which, the First Minister tells us, we shall have to wait another year ? Is it proposed that the furniture shall remain there, and that this great mansion is to be rented at a high


David Wardrope Wallace: rental, like the old Seybold building here ? The government must give us further particulars. They pretended to make a clean breast of all they knew. They told only what they could not avoid telling. We must have an explanation of this $87,000, less the $10,000, which we have been told has been returned, for that building, which was worth $40,000 or $50,000 according to the Minister of Public Works, but which was not worth more than a quarter of the money according to more competent authority. We want to know what was done with the money of the people of Canada that the Minister of Agriculture, with his usual incapacity, pledged himself two years ago, would be administered economically, which promise he has been utterly powerless to carry out. I would like to ask another question-there are a lot of names here, headed by the Minister of Public Works as chief commissioner, and these other commissioners also spent large amounts of money. I would like to know who was Jas. Jardine, one of the commissioners.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We produce him-he is here.


David Wardrope Wallace: What did he do, I would like to know ? When this building was found to be only a worthless barn that did not even keep out the rain from heaven, was there nobody of all these commissioners who could look at it with the eagle eye of the Minister of Public Works and know that the roof would leak, and that it was an improper building to hold the exhibits of Canada ? Now, Mr. Chairman, we shall have to have these two ministers give us a little more information about the way the $315,000 of the people of Canada was squandered.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I always like to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace). He is unique. In my long experience I have never met such a character as he. It takes a man of some ability to make a speech such as the one he has just delivered-ability of a certain order which, perhaps, not many people would like to possess. If the hon. gentleman knew a little more of the world, the world that was in Paris, and is to be found at any exhibition of this kind, he, even he, would not have ventured to say what he has said to-night. Canada is a great country, and her people would not like her to appear in the eyes of the world as a beggarly country. There were many eminent people from all parts of the world in Paris. All the nations represented in Paris had their buildings and offices, ' appartements,' to use the French word, which. I believe, is English also. England had large space in all the buildings, and besides that, in Avenue de la Bourdonais, Col. Jekyll had appartements much larger than the Canadian ones. We took advantage of the Canadian agency in

Paris, which is located at 10 Rue de Rome. It was furnished with decency, as Canada has to be treated everywhere, so that we might be able to receive people who called upon us. I was there most of the time receiving people from all parts of the world, including, of course, the Canadians who visited Paris-1 am glad to say we saw thousands and thousands of them. The Canadians who came to Paris had a right to be received somewhere, had a right to have rooms where they could read or write or transact business. I wish the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) had gone to Paris. He would have seen that all the nations spent vast amounts of money in entertaining. I am sorry that I ever accepted the position of Canadian commissioner in Paris, and I will tell you why. We were invited everywhere, entertained everywhere, but. with the limited amount of money I had at my disposal, we were not able to do honour to this country as we should have been able to do. We can be reproached for nothing except that we did not know what was going to take place in Paris. Instead of spending what we have spent, we should have spent a good deal more. Think of what that exhibition has done to advertise Canada. There are even in this country business firms who spend $500,000 a year in advertising. I know a firm in Canada in which one of our senators is interested, which spent last year $1,000,000 in advertising. The Paris exhibition was a great advertisement for Canada. Was it not reasonable, was it not decent, was it not our duty to have rooms there furnished in a decent manner to receive the visitors who were calling for information ? The furniture that was purchased is the property of this country ; and if the hon. gentleman ever goes to Paris-I wish to God he would go sometimes, because he would learn a little refinement, which he so sorely needs.


David Wardrope Wallace: He will take no lessons in that from the Minister of Public Works, nor in integrity either.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think any lesson I would give him would be altogether lost. I have not the slightest intention to teach him any lesson. But this I must resent-when I hear a man who was nearly becoming a minister speak as he does to-night, I say that the country should not stand it. He has said things which I would characterize, if the word was parliamentary, as being a disgrace to this Canadian parliament. We are not such a small country after all that other nations should look upon us as not understanding our duty. The hon. gentleman has again referred to my London trips. I did go to London on several occasions. If I understood him right he has spoken about 1 ominous stories' as to what led me to London. I do not like to have any misunderstanding, I like plain language. If the hon. gentleman has heard any 'ominous stories' let him tell
those stories in the House. This is the proper place.


David Wardrope Wallace: I will do it at the proper time, never fear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The proper time is now.


David Wardrope Wallace: I am the judge of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let the hon. gentleman speak out-speak now. I have nothing to hide either in my public life or in my private life. If the hon. gentleman has anything to say, let him say it now. I know one gentleman who, last year, was villain enough to circulate stories in this parliament. He is no more a member of the House, and he won't come back here for some time. Let us have plain speaking between members of the House. Sir, the hon. gentleman has spoken of my commissioners, he has slighted one of them, Mr. Jardine. Mr. Jardine is not here. He has been a most painstaking commissioner in Paris. There was abundance of work for all of them, and they have performed their work successfully and zealously. I am glad on this occasion to bear testimony to the success and energy with which they performed all their duties.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I feel proud that Canada took so honourable a position at the Paris exhibition, and that even the province of Prince Edward Island made a creditable show of its products. But we are very sorry that such an enterprise as the Paris exhibition should have been prostituted to such political debauchery as the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) has brought to the notice of the House to-night. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would have been a good thing if the roof of that building had fallen in on some of them, rather than that such disclosures should have been made to the people of this country. Now, what are the facts in this connection ? The Minister of Agriculture treated the affair in a light manner. I have before me the declaration of a respectable gentleman, made in regard to this Pineau matter, and I am going to read it to the House, because it is well that the House should have a true understanding of the state of the case :
I, William Callaghan, of Ebbsfleet, Prince county, province of Prince Edward Island, do solemnly declare that on or about February 9 last, Henry J. Pineau, M.L.A., of Ebbsfleet, called on me and said that he wished to speak to me on an important matter, and wanted my advice. He stated to me that he was approached by Dr. Wickham, of Tignish, and was offered, if he would accept, that he- (Mr. Pineau) could get the appointment of commissioner to the Paris exposition with the pay of $5 per day and all expenses. He further stated that Dr. Wickham told him he would have to go to Charlottetown to see Premier Farquharson, who would direct him to the Deputy Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, for further instructions. I told him he was adopting a dangerous course, and better mind what he was about, and go to Tig-

nish and see his friends, which he promised to do. He said it would be a great thing for him to see his own country-Prance. I afterwards saw Mr. Pineau. He told me that he had a letter in his pocket, and his appointment was all right, to date from April 15 to December 1, 1900.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM CALLAGHAN.
Declared before me at Ebbsfleet, Prince county, province of Prince Edward Island, this 28th day of May, A.D. 1900.


CHARLES DALTON,
[Stage Direction]
J.P. for Prince County.
Now, we have also another declaration to the same effect, and then we have the following letter from Mr. Pineau himself :
Ottawa, March 8, 1900.
Mr.   J@: Shea,
Dear Sir,-I now take the pleasure of writing you a few lines to let you know that I am in Ottawa at present, and I must also tell you that it is a fine place. I have seen a good deal already. I must also tell you that I have been well received by the government here, and I am weighting for orders to go on which I think will be to-morrow or next day I was all over and Seen all the House of Parliament the House of Commons and the Senate Chamber and I must say it is a fine Place to see. it is no wonder that they are so Keen to get here, you keep my C.M.B.A dewes paid up I will send you money in a few days the 10 lb. twine I got from you you can get it Back you can also get your men Boarded at our place if you want and See that they have what they want. You give them what is right for Boarding them I Know you will do that you can tell them at Home if you See them that you got a letter from me I Suppose Some people are very mad at^rne for doing what I have done I Could not Help Myself it is what every man is doing looking out for himself not more at Present I Remain yours truly
I will write you in a few days and will give you more in detail


HENRY J. PINEAU.
[Stage Direction]
Now, there is a letter of the gentleman himself, and you have the sworn affidavits of two reliable persons. The history of the matter is simply this. The government of Prince Edward Island had lost the confidence of the people, and in consequence a number of by-elections. There was a byelection to be held in the first district of Prince and the life of the Farquharson administration depended upon winning that seat.^ They lost the seat, but the Dominion elections were coming on, and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, 1 presume, was very anxious to keep the local government in power on the island so as to give him a little prestige. So negotiations were entered into, and they sent this Dr. Wickman to this man Pineau, who was financially embarrassed at the time, and the result was that they got him spirited away to Ottawa. Nobody knew that he was coming up, but they got him here. He was in communication with the government, and it does not matter whether or not the hon.
Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Minister of Agriculture or the hon. Minister of Public Works gets up and says : I did not know he was here. I did not see him. That has nothing to do with the case providing he was seen by the Deputy Minister of Public Works or by any member who was authorized to approach him. This shows that the deed was perpetrated and that the government had a hand in that transaction. Will these hon. gentlemen get up and declare before the committee that they knew of no man from Prince Edward Island being up here


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Who was seeking a position of some emolument in order to be paid for some deed he was doing on the island ? I think the matter should not be treated so lightly, and I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Minister of Public Works should get up and tell how much of this money credited to the Paris exhibition was paid for the people of Canada, and how they excuse the expenditure of $312,000 for advertising Canada and doing other things when we know that they were prostituting the money of the people of this country to the uses of political debauchery. I think the expenditure needs more explanation than the hon. Minister of Agriculture has given to the committee.


Mr. KENDALL.: Mr. Chairman, since you have allowed a little extraneous matter to be thrown into the discussion, I would ask for time to throw a little extraneous matter back in reply. The hon. member from the western part of Prince Edward Island (Mr. Haekett) has referred to Mr. Pineau, you may be surprised to know that I also know a little about Mr. Pineau. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite would like to know how we got the information we have. I am sorry I cannot take them into my confidence. However, I am willing to deal with a few occurrences. It is stated that Pineau came to Ottawa. I do not know whether that is so or not. It was actually stated that he came under the malign influence of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), or of his private secretary.' I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am informed on what I consider indisputable evidence that in the interest of hon. gentlemen opposite that hon. gentlemen opposite sent a spy, a detective, after this man Pineau to Boston.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: This I do know that a man went down and met Pineau after rather a difficult hunt, and he said, so I am informed: Pineau, you want money. You have been brought under the influence of the Liberals, but we have as much money as they have, and we can furnish you with what is necessary for you to go back to Prince Edward Island, and put yourself right with your own party. Now, let me say that I know that an
9G1

agent was in direct communication witli a gentleman who is a very prominent factor in the Conservative party, who was so important a man in the Conservative party that he was selected to play a very important part in the late elections.


Edward Hackett: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) knows very little about the matter. Where does he get his information ? Who was the spy he spoke about ? Surely the hon. gentleman was not the spy himself ? Did he go to Boston himself ? He was in the pay of the government, he was supporting them, and while he was working in connection with the bait freezers was he hunting up Pineal! at the same time ? Pineau was paid as my hon. friend says. All I have to say is that we in Prince county, a little over a year ago, elected Pineau to go to the legislature of Prince Edward Island to oppose the Farquliarson government, and, that fresh from the people, he was seduced from his allegiance and taken away and bribed by the present government to support their friends in Prince Edward Island. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) knows very well about the case. He says that Pineau was approached by a Conservative who said that we had as much money as the other side, and that we were going to buy him to support us. Why should we, the people who elected Pineau, be obliged to buy him? He was elected by the free votes of Prince county. This man was debauched. He was brought here by the government, and was held in the shadow of these buildings for a week, and told that he would be sent to Paris. My hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Defurgey) has read to the committee a letter sent to a friend in Prince Edward Island. He has also read a declaration made by a reputable gentleman in West Prince, who swore to the statement made by Pineau that he was to go to Charlottetown to Mr. Farquliarson, and that he would be directed by him to the Deputy Minister of Public Works in Ottawa. That statement has not been refuted by any evidence on the other side. It is a blot upon the fair fame of the country that we should have a government that would buy a man like this. If the government cannot hold power by the intelligent votes of the electors of this country they have no right to hold power at all, and when we find that this government is assisting a local government to maintain power it is a shame and a disgrace that should not be upheld by the people of this country. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) may think that lie is entitled to some consideration in this House. If he has been going around hunting Pineau, if he has been the spy, he should be condemned. The Auditor General's Koport shows that he has received thousands of dollars of the people's money in connection with these bait freezers. Is he the man who, 31
through Dr. Wickham, approached Pineau, and if we believe his statement we must believe that he followed him to Boston with the bait in his pocket, and gave it to him to support the local government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am authorized by the Deputy Minister of Public Works who is now on the floor of parliament to say that he does not know Pineau, and that he has never seen him, and I am adding on my owrn behalf that I would like to know where Pineau is now.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I may say in reply to the hon. member from West Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Hackett), that I do not think he is serious when he asks if I was the spy employed by the Conservative party to hunt up Pineau. In the second place, I tell him that the man who was employed in that work undertook to carry a constituency in this country with no other qualification than his bank account, and later, if necessary, we can demonstrate this.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your attention, for a moment, to the fact that the last speaker (Mr. Kendall) is scarcely a disinterested witness in this House. The Auditor General's Report contains a record of the hon. gentleman's transactions.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Read it.


James Clancy: I am going to read it for the benefit of the hon. gentleman, and, perhaps he will not be quite so fresh when I have done.
Mr. DEPUTY Sr-eAKER. I would ask hon. gentlemen to keep as near the discussion of the item under the consideration of the committee as possible. I think we have been wandering away from the point under discussion. I would appeal to hon. gentlemen to keep within a reasonable limit of the question before us.


James Clancy: I bow with great pleasure to your ruling, but I would like to know if you have laid down one set of rules for some gentlemen


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. CLANCY-I am asking a very proper question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James Clancy: I said I bowed to the hon. gentleman's ruling, and then I have a right to ask his reasons for that ruling.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I had no special reference to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) more than to any other member. We have been wandering away from the question before the committee, and I would appeal to members on both sides to keep as near to the discussion as possible. That Is my ruling.


David Wardrope Wallace: A reference to Pineau who was engaged to go to Paris, is quite within the question.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: He was not engaged.


David Wardrope Wallace: We will not be diverted from doing our duty in having a thorough investigation.


James Clancy: I desire to say that I am going to submit to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. gentleman who took his seat a moment ago cau find protection under it.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I desire to say once more that Mr. Pineau was not directly or indirectly-


David Henderson: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture is discussing Mr. Pineau, which he has no right to do under your ruling. Now, I will ask the Minister of Agriculture to sit down until we get the Chairman's ruling.


Peter Macdonald: My ruling in regard to Mr. Pineau is that we have heard just enough of Mr. Pineau.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. Tlie hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) with the Auditor General's Report in his hand, was preparing to criticise items of expenditure in connection with the Paris exposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I understood.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not for hon. gentlemen to say ' No, no,' when they do not know what book he had in his hand. Was not the hon. gentleman for Bothwell quite in order in discussing, the Paris exposition ?


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman from Bothwell stated that he was going to quote some figures in reference to another subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He did not say it was another subject.


Peter Macdonald: That is what I understood, and when I noticed that we were wandering outside the discussion before the committee, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) saw that I was right and the excuse he made was that I allowed others to do so, and then he like a gentleman sat down and waived his contention.


James Clancy: I did not state what subject I was about to deal with, and so the hon. gentleman is entirely in the dark.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
have heard enough of Mr. Pineau, and I will say nothing further on the subject. There are, however, matters connected with the Paris exposition of which I wish to speak. The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) quoted certain individuals who apparently have been to Paris and have expressed their opinion against the good name of the Canadian exhibit. I was surprised to hear such expression of opinion, because during last summer when I was unfortunately prevented by pressure of other business from going to Paris. I took every possible means of seeking information from Canadians who had been to Paris, and I watched the press carefully to see what opinions were published in regard to the Canadian exhibit. I was extremely gratified to find from private individuals occupying high positions in this country and abroad, from gentlemen intimately connected with the party opposed to us politically, as well as from those who are entirely indifferent to politics ; a universal consensus of opinion that the Canadian exhibit at Paris was a credit to Canada, and that it was a surprise to people from other countries who previously did not understand or appreciate the material and industrial progress of our country during the last few years. I felt that the Canadian exhibit at Paris was costing a considerable amount of money, and that if it did not fulfil its object, this would have been an unjustifiable and extravagant expenditure. I felt myself to a large extent responsible for that expenditure, but from the knowledge that has come to me, I have no hesitation in justifying before the House and before the people, that expenditure, and, Sir, had we spent much more I would have been ready to justify it, because of the vast beneficial results achieved for Canada. I have heard encomiums from Canadians who have gone to Paris, and from foreigners who were sent by their various governments to examine into the economic condition of their rivals in the great commercial markets of the world. I have the testimony here that our Canadian exhibit was one of the most successful in its economic aspects of all the exhibits at the Paris exhibition. In the gathering together of the exhibits, the Canadian commssioners adopted the view that we should not make a flash exhibit of pastimes and side shows to attract the ordinary vulgar crowd for amusement sake, but that we should make an exhibit of the economic products of Canada, so that those who wanted to buy raw material or manufactured products would be lead to make inquiries in Canada for commercial purposes, and to place orders here which would redound to our profit commercially. That was the object with which the exhibits were gathered together, and that object I commended. I took upon myself as Minister

of Agriculture to see that in four great classes the department over which I have the honour to preside, should he worthily represented. We collected an agricultural exhibit, a horticultural exhibit, a mineral exhibit, and an exhibit of forestry, and of fishery and game products, and we put these exhibits collectively before the world, and I am proud to know that as a result every one of these exhibits obtained the grand prix, the highest award possible at the Paris exposition.
In addition to that, we provided the facilities by which the Canadian exhibitors were enabled to go to Paris and exhibit in ordinary competition. We paid the cost of transporting the exhibits to Paris. We paid the expenses of the commissioners, who devoted nearly a year to the preparation of the exhibit, who went through the length and breadth of this country, giving information to the industrial classes, to the agricultural classes, to those engaged in mining, in the fisheries and in forest work ; and by these means we were able to stimulate the people of Canada to make a creditable exhibit. I found, what was a matter of extreme gratification to me, as I am sure it must be to all Canadians, that when our commissioners first went through Canada and asked the people to prepare exhibits for the Paris exhibition, they were told on all sides : We are so busy with the ordinary affairs of commerce, our workshops are so
busy with orders ahead that we can hardly meet these orders, and we cannot afford the time to prepare exhibits for the Paris exhibition. This was a condition of affairs in which we might well rejoice, a condition which had come about within two or three years, but which unfortunately had been unknown in Canada for many years before this government came into power. That was the condition of the industries of the country under this administration in the year 1899-1900 ; but by reason of the value which the Paris exhibition would be to the industries of the country, and by reason of the urgent solicitations of the commissioners, Canada did for the first time in her history make a creditable display of her industrial products and show the world that in many classes of manufacturing she could take a proud position in competition with the other nations of the world. This was a contrast to what she had done a few years before in the Columbian exhibition at Chicago, where every Canadian had to hang his head in shame at the miserably inadequate display which Canadian industries made there. But we were determined to show that Canada could take a position in the industrial world of which she need not be ashamed ; and the result has fully justified our confidence. I have the long list of awards which were given to the Canadian exhibits at Paris, and I will read it to the House :
Awards to Canadian Exhibitors.

1
3
4 6 7 9
12
14 10 17 20 21 22 28
30
32
33 35
39
41
Exhibit	Grand Prizes.	Gold Medals.	Silver Medals.	^ *[DOT] Bronze Medals.	Honour- able Mentions.3	2	3	71	1	1	1	5	i	1	i1	1	2	l	1	i1	3	1	2	1	i1	2	3	i2	x	1	r4	i	2	1	1	2	4	41	1	2	2	l	5	6	l.	1	5	4	1	3	Non-edible agricultural products	2	
31i

Awards to Canadian Exhibitors-Concluded.
Class Number.	Exhibit.	Grand Prizes.	Gold Medals.	Silver Medals.	Bronze Medals.	Honour- able Mentions.12	Honey	1	43	Horticultural appliances	1	2	44	Kitchen garden plants	i	45	Fruit	io	2G	8	49	Forestry appliances 	1	50	Forest products	i	9	52	Products' of hunting	2	n	2	353	Fishing appliances and products	1	1	1	55	Appliances, manufacture food products	i	56	Farinaceous food products.... 	1	1	58	Preserved food products	1	2	59	Sugar and confectionery	l	2	4	61	Syrups and liquors	1	2	63	Minerals	6	13	11	8	464	Metallurgy	3	3	65	Metal working	2	2	166	1	4	163	Wall papers	2	69	2	2	172	Pottery	1	74	i	1	3	178	1	79	9	1	80	1	i	1	82	i	1	]	83	Silk fabrics	i	84	Lace and embroidery	1	85	Tailoring and dressmaking	9	86	Clothing trades	4	6	1	87	1	2	288	Manufacture of paper	i	2	89	Leather and skins	1	1	i	90	Perfumery 	1	i	191	Manufacture of tobacco	1	92	1	i	93	i	95	[DOT]Jewellery	i	98	Fancy articles, brushes, etc	1	99	India-rubbei products	1	1	100	Toys	9	109	Provident institutions	
...	1	1	112	Public charitable relief	2	
Total, 394 awards, including		41	136	117	70	30
Although this is an extraordinary showing, I have still to make an explanation to show that it is more important than at first glance it might appear to be. A large number of these Grand Prix and gold medals were given for what are known as collective exhibits. In other countries these collective exhibits were not so largely made use of; but our competitors were individual exhibitors and in that way they got a much larger number of prizes. For instance, our fruits were collective exhibits, made either by provinces or by the Dominion, and these collective exhibits could only obtain one Grand Prix for each exhibit. We could have divided each of these collective exhibits over and over again, and in that way have got a Grand Prix for every portion of that exhibit. And I will venture to say, in connection with the fruit exhibit at Paris, that a totally new conception has come into the minds of the people of the continent of Europe as to Canada; that is, for the first time in many generations, the old story of Canada being a few acres of snow has been absolutely and for ever set at rest, and to-day Canada is known to be a land flowing with milk and honey, and the people of that portion of Europe appreciate this country at its true worth.
I have here another statement which I would like to refer to ; for while this statement of our success is absolute, there is a comparison of which we may well feel proud. I have here a comparative list of the awards granted to the Canadian exhibit and those granted to the mother country. In many of these things we would naturally


Sydney Arthur Fisher: come to the front; but I would be rather surprised to find Canada coming to the front in competition with the old land in certain products which for centuries she has been working up. Take, for instance, books and binding. Great Britain received ten awards, but Canada received five, almost half as many or more in that highly finished product as the mother country was able to secure.
Take musical instruments, Great Britain received three awards but Canada received six, or this young country had doubled the success of the mother land in this line.
Again, in general machinery, in which the old land has for centuries been the leading country in the world. Great Britain received eleven awards and we received three, and that, I think, is a most creditable showing for Canada in this, to her, comparatively new field. '
In carriages and vehicles, the mother land received five awards and Canada eleven, one of which was a grand prix, and there was no such award given Great Britain.
In agricultural implements, in which the mother land entered into keen competition, Great Britain received twenty four awards and Canada twelve.
In horticulture, with the gardens and the soil of England close at hand, right at the doors of Paris, while our products had to come over 3,000 miles, Great Britain received two awards and we three.
In fruits we received altogether 109 awards, and our fruit had to come over 3,000 miles before they could enter into the competition.
In minerals-and I understood an hon. gentleman opposite to say a little while ago that in that line Canada was not properly represented in mineral display

Canada received forty-two awards and the British Isles only fourteen. In other words, we trebled their success.
In hunting apparatus, we received six awards against Great Britain's eleven, and in the clothing trade we received eleven against her twenty. In the manufacture of paper, we received three against Great Britain's four, and in leather manufacture and skins we had three awards against Great Britain's four.
Altogether Great Britain received 853 awards, and we received 394, or very nearly half as many. I venture to say that this is a showing of which every Canadian should be proud, and of which I certainly, ns the minister responsible for the collection of the exhibits and their display in Paris, am proud and have no hesitation in putting before the country without fear of criticism.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman a list of the prizes taken at the Chicago exhibition. He made some unfavourable comments on our exhibit there, and I presume he will read to the House, to be fair, a list of the prizes taken by us at that exhibition.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not the list. I was not responsible for that exhibition.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman is responsible for the statement he has made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I know as much about the Chicago exhibition as the hon. gentleman. In certain lines, Canada made a remarkable success, but in the industrial lines, nobody will dispute the fact that Canada's exhibit at Chicago gave to the world the idea that she had no manufacture worthy of the name. In her natural products, she made a splendid showing. And again dn Paris, she made a very gratifying display, but what I want to emphasize' is the fact that in this Paris exhibition, for the first time in the history of Canadian exhibits at any international or foreign exhibition, Canada came to the front as an industrial and manufacturing country.


George Taylor: Thanks to the National Policy.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman and his friends know well that in 1896 the people of Canada were tired of their administration of the National Policy and expelled them from the government benches, and the wisdom of the people is shown in the fact that four years later, under the wise policy of a Liberal administration, our industries had advanced iu leaps and bounds and we made an exhibit at Paris which has opened the eyes of the world.
Hon. gentlemen opposite find fault with the way in which the money was spent in the Paris exhibition. But the reason is not far to seek. They remember the good old days when they were able to reward their own friends by their lavish expenditure at the exhibition in Chicago, and cannot conceal their chagrin at the fact that these matters are now in the hands of other men who are able to use them to better advantage to the country.
These hon. gentlemen have read letters criticising Canada's exhibit. Let me read a statement which I am sure these hon. gentlemen must admit comes from an unprejudiced source :
It will be surprising if this show in Paris does not draw world-wide attention to Canada's mining.
I think the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) took some exception to our exhibit in that line.


David Wardrope Wallace: I made no reference to our mineral exhibit.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Then it must be the hon. gentleman's understudy, the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule). I sometimes mix the one with the other.

And the enormous possibilities in the investment of capital. There is no display of mineral wealth from any country represented in the Paris exhibition except the United States which can for a moment compare with that of Canada, and certainly never before has so large, varied and rich a show of mineral from any single colony been seen in any international exhibit.
The same article goes on to say :
In the little space allowed to Canada, the Commissioners have visibly displayed raw material as most likely to attract attention to the immense forest wealth of Canada ... It would be difficult for England to make a better show of elementary and intermediate education, and in some respects Canada puts the old country to shame.
A little while ago some hon. gentlemen on the other side said our educational exhibit was not worthy of the country, but as a matter of fact, in primary education, Great Britain received only 33 awards and Canada 18, and Canada got high awards for her primary, intermediate and university exhibits. Now here is another extract:
In some departments Britain was foremost, but generally speaking she has allowed it to appear that France, Germany and America are the three great commercial countries and that France is the great colonizer. Canada, however, has put her best foot foremost, and with that loyalty to the empire and the interests of her own people which distinguishes her in these days among the younger nations, she has set up at the Trocadero a show of her industries and boundless resources which will advertise her throughout the world. Her corner of the exhibition is at all times one of the liveliest of the whole show and in proportion to its size perhaps attracts more real business than any other.
That is taken from the Mail and Empire of August 29, sent by its special correspondent at the Paris exhibition. There is another thing I would like to put before the House :
A comparative estimate of the value of Canada's exhibit can only be formed after seeing the products and industries of other countries.
A comparative estimate of the value of Canada's exhibit can be formed only after seeing the products and industries of the other countries. It is gratifying to be able to state that from a commercial point of view, our Dominion leads the whole exposition. This is a testimony of many competent judges, including a number of Frenchmen. We have not the rich and artistic products which dazzle the eyes in the pavilions of the foreign powers, but we have a greater number and variety of useful manufactures than any other country. The number of grand prix which have fallen to our share will be a surprise to many. We have already won the highest awards in forestry, fish and game, agriculture, canoes and minerals, and it is more than likely that the grand prix will also be given to our bicycles and agricultural implements, which are in the annex at Vincennes. That article is from the Montreal Daily Star of July 21, 1900-again a moment of clear vision accorded to the blind. The Montreal Gazette of August 25 says :
Cold storage good


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes twit me a little with the failure of cold storage, but the Montreal Gazette says my exhibit in Paris was an excellent one.
A large stand, showing Canadian apples, &e., gathered last fall and preserved in the cold storage, attracted great attention. Cold storage is not familiar yet to the crowds, who would * hardly credit that the fine specimens of apples were not wax imitations. Had the French commissioners granted sufficient room, it was the intention of the Canadian commissioners to make cold storage a very prominent exhibit. As it is, all that is to be seen of this marvellous invention is in a little out of the way cellar, where the Linde British Refrigeration Co., of London and Montreal have their system in operation.
And then he goes on to describe the exhibit we have there. Now, let us take extracts from other papers. I have here a statement from the Manitoba Free Press, with the testimony of a prominent citizen of Winnipeg, Dr. McArthur. I do not know the gentleman, but he says :
Canada had the finest display of natural products. Canada had the only cold storage exhibit on the grounds and it excited a great deal of interest.
Here is a statement from a French newspaper, which, to save the nerves of hon. gentlemen opposite, I will not read. But here are one or two statements which I will take almost at haphazard from a large number. I find, from gentlemen who have had experience in exhibition work, and who have no connection with Canada or the Canadian commission in any shape or way. For instance, Mr. B. I. Bose, commissioner for British India, our rivals in the exhibition, occupying the adjoining building to us, and naturally desirous to putting forward their claims, says :-
With over twenty-live years' experience of international exhibitions, I can without hesitation testify that Canada's representation at Paris this year is the best and most perfect that the Dominion has ever made and I believe will result in a great increase of her trade. The elaborate statistical and other works (printed, in both French and English) dealing with the products and resources of the country compare most favourably with those of all other countries and reflect the greatest credit on the government of the Dominion.
(Signed) B. I. ROSE, Commissioner for British India. Here is a gentleman who is engaged in trade in England, and whose business is especially interesting to us, because he is interested in the produce trade-Mr. Walter Stark :
I have been exceedingly pleased in looking over Canada's exhibits, and must say it does both the producers, and those who have been responsible for display, very much credit. Such a splendid display of Canada's products must be an eye opener to Europe and should be of great service to the Dominion.
Here is a French gentleman of special qualifications as a representative of the Chambre

de Commerce de Lyons, and I am afraid, even though it grates on the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite, I shall have to read it :
Paris, October, 1900.
Having been intrusted by the Chamber of Commerce, of Lyons, to gather the elements of a collection of samples, in connection with the industrial and agricultural production of Canada,
I have received from Mr. Auguste Dupuis, the secretary of the Canadian section at the Paris Exposition, all desirable data and information. The Chamber of Commerce, of Lyons, would receive with acknowledgments any collection it would please the Dominion government to send them.
(Signed) F. VERTAN.
So, here we have an anticipation on the part of a French gentleman, representing the Chambre de Commerce de Lyons, of a large augmentation of the trade between Canada and France in consequence of the exhibition. Here is another gentleman from France, who was particularly authorized to study the products of foreign countries, and especially of colonies, for the purpose of helping the French government in the development of their colony in Algiers :
Mr. Amedee Rebattu, lumber merchant, from Bone (Algeria), a member of the statistical committee of the ' Algerian Statistical Union ' and a member of the jury (class 90) at the exhibition of 1900, asks for information concerning the use and manufacture of cold storage appliances for the preservation of fruit.
He came to us for information and specimens in regard to cold storage. Here is another gentleman, the assistant commissioner general of Great Britain :
Paris, Nov. 29, 1900.
X am delighted to be afforded this opportunity of placing upon record my admiration for the successful manner in which the work of the Canadian section of the Paris exhibition has been carried out.
The installation of the exhibits, combined the most remarkable illustrations of the industrial wealth and progress of the Dominion with general artistic effect which it would be difficult to surpass, whilst the courtesy and experience of the organizers naturally contributed in the highest degree to the success of the'section.
(Signed) EDMUND R. SPEARMAN
Assistant commissioner general of Great Britain.


Samuel Hughes: To whom is that letter addressed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These were expressions written in a Canadian book at the Canadian exhibit at Paris. And Col. Herbert Jekyll says :
Paris, Nov. 29, 1900.
I have much pleasure in bearing witness to the admirable display made by Canada at the exhibition. In spite of the limited space which it was possible to place at the disposal of the Dominion, the exhibition was so well organized and arranged, that it afforded a good representation of the resources of the country and reflected the greatest credit on the able officials who were charged with its installation and administration.
(Sgd.) HERBERT JEKYLL, Commissioner General of Great Britain,
Secretary of the Royal Commission. And here is another I would like to lay before the committee, a representative of Belgium, a gentleman specially qualified to give an opinion :
In the magnificent show of Canada's industries and products at the Trocadero, I was enabled to see a striking corroboration of what I had previously read in magazines and other publications. I am delighted to have this opportunity of testifying to the same.
(Signed) LTE. ROLUI,
15 rue des Augustins, Bruxelles.
In charge of the information service for the export of agricultural products from Belgium.
Now, the hon. gentleman opposite has spoken about a certain individual whom they have quoted. I have also here quotations of certain individuals whose names I think will be acceptable even to hon. gentlemen opposite. Here is one :
My friends and I are greatly pleased with the Canadian exhibit and I, who with dear love remember my old home, rejoice to realize my country's improvement, development and increasing prosperity.
(Signed)


MACDONALD N. EARNSCLIFFE.
[Stage Direction]
Here is another :
The thoroughly practical character of the exhibit combined with effective and tasteful arrangement (which is in itself a work of business capacity) cannot fail to strike the observer with highly favourable impressions.
In my own case these impressions are of course made peculiarly agreeable, because of the many pleasant associations awakened by renewed acquaintance with typical products of the country which must hold a firm place in the regard of those who have partaken of the hospitality of * Our Lady of the Sunshine.' [DOT]
(Signed) ABERDEEN.
Here is another :
I am delighted to be afforded this opportunity of congratulating our brethren of Canada upon their magnificent and most interesting industrial and agricultural exhibit.
(Signed) A. GOUBARD, Member of the Rouen Chamber of Commerce.
Here are several others from Canada, but I will not read them because they are largely a repetition of each other. But, I want to read this one signed by a gentleman who was one of the committee on food products:
The fruit exhibit is admirable and defies description. I shall be delighted to know the names and addresses of the various fruit producers and to represent some of them in Paris. Being an agent for food products, I could easily place those products on the market, and especially canned fruit in the natural state, such as peaches, plums, raspberries and apricots.
(Signed) E. CERF, Agent for food products.
[Stage Direction]
I will give this one :
I have visited most parts of the world, and I believe the Canadian display of fruit at Paris exhibition is the finest I have seen.
(Signed)
CHEVALIER KENN DE HOVGERWOERD, Consul General in Turkey, Persia, Arabia,
Siam, etc., Les Sources, Champagne, Seine-et-Oise, France.
And this one :
Being a manufacturer of preserves, am highly pleased with Canadian show of fruit. Shall at any time be pleased to receive lists, &c.
(Sig.) S. G. CANNING,
Birmingham, England.
And this one :
I am surprised at the great variety of fruits and qualities. No one certainly who had not visited Canada would dream of the variety and beauty.
(Signed) ANTOINE MONFERRAT, Alexandria, Egypt.
Here is another gentleman from Redhill, England, who says :
Absolutely the best show of fruit in the exhibition, which is a great and pleasant surprise to find.
I think I have read enough to convince bon. gentlemen opposite even, it they are open to conviction at all, that an unprejudiced opinion of this exhibit was that it was extremely creditable to Canada, and greatly extended the reputation of Canada abroad.
James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman say how many newspaper correspondents were paid by the government during the Paris exposition, and who they were ?
The MINISTER OP AGRICULT URF I did not pay anybody whose opinions I have read. I think there were one or two gentlemen connected with the press who were attached to the exhibition commission. They were there only for a short time, and were employed to give information about Canada, for which they were especially well equipped. I did not pay the Star, I did not pay the Mail and Empire, I did not pay the Montreal Gazette, I did not pay the Baroness Macdonald, or any of these other people whose opinions I have quoted.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. I asked how many newspaper correspondents, apart from those whose opinions the hon. gentleman has been reading to boom himself, were paid by the department for their services during the exhibition ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I have told the hon. gentleman that I think two gentlemen connected with the press were employed.


James Clancy: Who were they ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: One of them was a gentleman from the city of Quebec, Mr. A. Girard, who received a small sum of money to go over there and Mr. FISHER.
write to the Canadian papers an account of the exhibit, and write about to the foreign press. The other gentleman was Mr. Wilkinson, from British Columbia.


James Clancy: Did any of these articles emanate from Mr. Girard?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Not one of them, unless possibly the Mail and Empire and the Star may have employed him. But certainly he did not write any of the opinions that I have just read.


Robert Laird Borden: To what Canadian newspapers did he contribute ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: To Le Soleil of Quebec, and two or three others. I have not quoted the opinion of a single one of these papers. I have not quoted the opinion of a paper in Canada except of the three that I have mentioned, the Mail and Empire, the Star and the Gazette.


Samuel Hughes: I notice in connection with the Paris exhibition, under the auspices of my good friend who, like myself is a temperance man sworn not to touch, taste or handle, an account for 40 gallons of alcohol at $1.90 a gallon. Was this for the use of those red parlors ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: That alcohol was bought for the purpose of preserving fruit. And here I would like to mention, since the hon. gentleman has brought the subject forward, that one of the most effective and remarkable exhibits in the Paris exhibition was the fruit exhibit. We were able, by reason of the excellent management of Prof. Saunders, of the Experimental Farm, who had charge of that particular exhibit, to collect in the autumn of 1899, fruit from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The fruit was carefully collected by chosen agents throughout the orchards of Canada, and sent into cold storage in the city of Montreal in the autumn of 1899. It was kept in Montreal until the spring of 1900, it was then picked over again, packed and sent over in our cold storage departments on the steamers to Liverpool. It was sent by express from Liverpool to Paris, and put into our cold storage chambers in the Paris exhibition. That fruit was able to go out, after a passage from British Columbia, of over G.000 miles, to Paris, in our cold storage arrangements, to come into competition with the fresh fruits of Europe, to beat them and to obtain the highest awards which were granted to any fruit on exhibition at Paris. During the summer of 1900 we again collected fresh fruit in Canada and again sent specimens of the large fruit of all the provinces in the Dominion. Again we were able to come into competition with the fresh fruits of Prance, Germany, England, Belgium and all the European countries,

sent straight from their own orchards by express only a few days' journey to Paris, and again Canada succeeded in beating the world and getting a larger number of awards than was given to any other country for fresh fruits. This is remarkable testimony not only to the quality of the fruit production of Canada, but to the perfection of the cold storage transportation facilities which were provided by the government for the benefit of the producers in Canada in puting their wares on the foreign markets. I do not know if there is any particular necessity for my saying anything more on these matters. If particular information is desired, I shall be glad to give all I have at my disposal. I will say this, however, that in connection with this exhibition, in connection with all the expenditure in regard to it, with every item and every detail, I am perfectly willing that the truth should be known that hon. gentlemen opposite should sift it to the bottom. I am satisfied, and know that in the hands of the commissioners who had it in charge, appointed by this government, the expenditure has been absolutely and entirely proper, correct, pure and free from any scandal whatever, and I will challenge an inquiry on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, by themselves, or in any way they can conduct it, to find out if there is anything different from what I say.


Robert Laird Borden: It is almost impossible to get the hon. gentleman's estimates through, because he insists upon talking so much about matters that have really very little to do with them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is very unpalatable.


Robert Laird Borden: And he takes up the time of the committee very unnecessarily. I trust he will not read very much more French while the hon. Minister of Public Works is in his seat, because, at the time, I saw the expression of agony on that hon. gentleman's face. He has a very sensitive ear and I think in justice to that hon. gentleman the hon. Minister of Agriculture should not repeat that performance. The hon. gentleman seems to want to introduce a sort of budget speecli into the discussion of his estimates. He seems to think that we should consider the history of this country in regard to protection and free trade during the past twenty-five or thirty years, and that for tlie purpose of glorifying himself a little it is desirable that he should go into matters of that kind. Does not the hon. gentleman know that the industries of which he has spoken with so much pride, and of which we are also proud, were fostered by the policy introduced by the Liberal-Conservative party


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oil. oh.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-while lie and his friends were running around the country
talking about commercial union, free trade as it is in England and unrestricted reciprocity? Does the hon. gentleman think that a discussion in respect to these matters is really necessary for the purpose of getting his estimates through ? Why is it that he introduces controversial subjects that have nothing to do with the question before the House, not pretending to give explanations to the House of the estimates which we are now endeavouring to pass? I will not assist the hon. gentleman in obstructing his own estimates by dwelling further upon that.
I will leave it at that and let his remarks go for what they are worth. It is perfectly clear, however, from what the hon. Minister of Agriculture has said, that the hon. Minister of Public Works was not required in Paris at all. The hon. gentleman has explained to us that he did it all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not go to Paris.


Robert Laird Borden: I feel inclined to move to strike out of these estimates the sum of $0,000 for the hon. Minister of Public Works, because it is perfectly plain that the hon. Minister of Public Works was merely the fifth wheel to the coach. The hon. Minister of Agriculture has done the whole of this, and he is the man who alone should be recognized in regard to it. This is the only case in the history of this government during the past four years in which the hon. Minister of Public Works has been compelled to sit in the background. I am firmly convinced that the country will recognize that on this one occasion at least the hon. Minister of Public Works is completely overshadowed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Now, apart from matters of this kind, which really have not very much to do with what we are dealing with, but which were introduced unnecessarily altogether by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to be trying to get his estimates passed, I desire to ask him a few questions which have really something to do with the matter under consideration. I notice that there are a great many people mentioned on pages D-10, 11 and up to 14, of the Auditor General's Report, to whom sums of money have been paid for travelling expenses and services. I will point out to the hon. Minister of Agriculture who they are, as we require from him some explanation in regard to them. In the first place, there is Miss Mary Barry, D-10, to whom $1,069 has been paid. Then, on page D-11 there is Mrs. Dandurand-I do not know if my French is much better than that of my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher)


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is good.


Robert Laird Borden: -to whom $1,420 has been paid. Then, there is Mr. Dupuis, page D-11, to whom $2,486.24 has been paid;

Mr. Faribault, a very worthy and competent gentleman, whom I personally know, from the Geological Survey, $732.02 ; Miss Anna Galbraith, secretary, $560.85 ; Mr. A. H. Gillmor, $2,034.72 ; Mr. P. H. Gillmor, assistant commissioner, $591.48 ; Mr. A. Girard, to whom the hon. gentleman has referred, $200 ; Col. Gourdeau, the worthy Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, $1,380.50 ; Henri Hains, D-12, $078.90 ; Mr. Andrew Halkett, $700.67 ; Mr. Robert Hamilton, $1,904.65 ; Mr. W. H. Hay, of the Experimental Farm, $950.35 ; Mr. James G. Jardine, $4,199.42. Then, I may observe in passing, that Mr. Lancefleld's studio in Ottawa has been paid $20 for three copies of enlarged photographs of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. J. I. Tarte and Hon. S. Fisher.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is too dear.


Robert Laird Borden: It is dear ? Does the hon. gentleman think it is not a good photograph ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid not.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust the minister's features have not been delineated before the nations of the world in such a way as not to do him complete justice. Then, there is Miss Eva LeBouthillier to whom the sum of $582 has been paid ; Mr. A. P. Low, of the Geological Survey, to whom $258 has been paid ; Mr. J. Mar-chand, architect, Paris, to whom $390.12 has been paid. I think the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte.) has explained that that was necessary on account of the disgraceful condition of the building on his arrival. Then there is Mr. J. M. Macoun to whom the sum of $1,489.79 has been paid ; Mr. W. A. McKinnon to whom $839.56 has been paid ; Mr. J. X. Perrault, commissioner, to whom the sum of $4,126.24 has been paid ; Mr. W. D. Scott, commissioner, to whom $4,297.06 has been paid ; Mr. R. P. Small to whom $822.70 has been paid ; Mr. Angus R. Stuart to whom $478.50 has been paid; Mr. J. O. Turcotte to whom $1,153.56 has been paid ; Miss E. L. Turcotte to whom $276 has been paid ; Mr. J. W. Comeau to whom $755.53 has been paid ; Mr. L. A. Cusson to whom $1,790.96 has been paid ; Miss P. Cusson to whom $318.20 has been paid ; Mr. A. D. Verrault to whom $288.65 has been paid ; Mr. C. W. Willdmott to whom $648.48 has been paid. Of course so far as the gentlemen who are employed on the Experimental Farm, or in the Geological Survey who are In the service of the government and whom we know, we understand they have the qualifications necessary for the work which they undertook to perform. But with regal'd to the others whom we do not know,
I desire that the hon. gentleman shall explain what was the nature of their previous Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
employment, if any ; what qualifications, if any, they had for the work to be performed in Paris. With respect to each of them, including the officials of the government, I desire to know what the special duties of each of these persons was in connection with the exhibition in Paris. I venture to think that possibly some of the time which the minister (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is devoting to other subjects might have been more profitably employed in giving us this information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall be very glad to give the hon. gentleman all the information he desires in regard to these matters. Miss Mary Barry translated the Woman's Hand-book, and she has an allowance for a certain number of days and her expenses over that. Miss Barry was appointed as an assistant to the honorary lady commissioner. MiSs Barry is well known in the province of Quebec as a journalist and as a writer. Her acquaintance with literature and with the Dominion of Canada qualified her eminently to appear in Paris. She has great facility in both the English and the French languages, and she was well qualified to represent Canada in those conventions which the women of the world held in Paris to discuss those things which are of special interest to the fair sex.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the minister to state whether this lady, as well as the other officials, while employed in connection with the exhibition, were engaged in any other occupations such as writing for newspapers for which any of them have received remuneration in addition to that which they may have received from the government of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Miss Barry was one of several of the staff who were asked by me to contribute to Canadian papers, articles 5" connection with what was going on at Paris in connection with the Pains exhibition. I told Miss Barry that she must not receive any other remuneration for work of that kind, and as far as I know neither she nor any other member of the. staff did receive any remuneration from any outside souree. I cannot tell what their private arrangements may have been, but their instructions were that they should not do so. Miss Barry was appointed as an assistant to Madame Danduraud, the lady commissioner to represent Canada at these gatherings of the women of the world which took place in Paris. I may say that several organizations of the ladies of this country requested that at Paris the women of Canada should be recognized and represented. I believe it was in the interest of Canada that this should be done, and therefore I took upon myself to recommend the appointment of the honorary lady commissioner Madame Danduraud, who is

well known in literary circles in Canada for her writings on many subjects, was chosen, and she represented Canada most worthily. She is a lady of not only high social position in Canada, but of literary accomplishments as well, and possessed of what the French call esprit, which we can hardly translate, and which I would not like to translate in connection with a lady.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt Mm a moment. Miss Barry has been allowed living allowance, and that is now a system which is carried on all through the service. It is a system which has created a breach between the Auditor General and the government of the day. I do not believe that those in the service of the government should in any sense receive mean or beggarly treatment in relation to their expenses, and I can quite understand that in certain cases it might not be wise that the accounts of persons occupying certain positions should be published to the world. I wish to point out this case, because it is becoming the habit of this government to allow living expenses which are equivalent to part of a salary. I see that Miss Barry is allowed the maximum of $6 a day. While she no doubt occupied an important position, I do not understand that she occupied a position justifying that allowance. Under the former government all accounts were rendered, and hon. gentlemen opposite were manly and courageous enough to criticise them, even to the pay of bootblacks and other incidental expenses which are no doubt included in these living allowances, and they were spread all over ail the backwoods of Canada in order to discredit the government. Whether these expenses were excessive or not may be open to debate; but the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite have covered them up in living allowances is something that cannot be condoned. I think this committee should lay down a rule by which every person in the service not occupying a responsible position should render an account, so that this House might see it. I would ask the minister why if6 a day was allowed to Miss Barry as a living allowance ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is in error. The $8 covered both salary and living expenses. It was allowed to all below the rank of commissioner, except the labourers, who were employed there and paid by the day. A large number of employees were paid at the uniform rate of $6 a day, which covered all they received during the time they were in Paris. Besides that, their actual transportation charges from here to Paris and back were paid. The commissioners went into this matter very thoroughly before fixing the remuneration. In most cases the employees protested against it; but it was felt that it would be a fair return for their labour in a foreign country, where, of
course, they would be under unusual expenses. Everybody knows that on the occasion of a great exhibition like that, the cost of living is greatly increased, and we could not expect them to live in Paris as economically as in Ottawa or elsewhere in Canada. In a rough awy, I may say, this $6 a day was thought to be about equally divided between living allowance and salary. The ordinary living allowance made by the government to people of that class while travelling abroad is, I understand, $5 a day. That was before the present arrangement was made with the Auditor General by which actual disbursements were charged. But in this case the Auditor General has gone over all these accounts, and has accepted this arrangement as being a satisfactory one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice on D-12 of the Auditor General's Report that H. C. Knowl-ton was paid $1,115.48. Will the minister be good enough to tell us who he is, where he is from, aud what he was employed at ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With pleasure. Perhaps I had better continue the list which the hon. leader of the opposition gave. Mr. Cusson was one of the secretaries. We first appointed Mr. Dupuis, whose experience in connection witli exhibitions is well known. He was the commissioner for the province of Quebec at the Jamaica exhibition some years ago, and made a most valuable report on that exhibition. I, therefore, felt that he was a man well qualified for this position, and asked him to assume the position of secretary to the commission. He did the preliminary work here, but when the commissioners had to go to Paris and begin to receive the exhibits there, we had to send somebody over with them. As Mr. Dupuis' work was not finished here, we employed Mr. Cusson to go to Paris. Mr. Dupuis remained here till his work here was finished; then he went to Paris, and Mr. Cusson returned home. Mr. Faribault is a member of the staff of the Geological Survey. He went to Paris in connection with the exhibit prepared under the direction of the late lamented Dr. G. M. Dawson, whose death the other day is such a great loss to this whole Dominion, aud especially to the department of which he was the brilliant head, and in which he has given so much excellent and invaluable work to the Dominion of Canada. Speaking as one who has come largely into contact with his work in connection with this Paris exhibtion, I may say that if Canada made the splendid record she did with her mineral exhibit, it was largely due to the experience and wide knowledge exercised by Dr. Dawson in the preparation and management of that exhibit. Mr. Gillmor was one of the commissioners who was asked to go from the maritime provinces. During the earlier part of his commissionership he was unfortunately laid

up at home, and was not able to travel about and secure exhibits from the maritime provinces ; but he asked that his son, Mr. P. H. Gillmor, might do that worn while he was laid up, and the payments made to him are payments which would have been made to the commissioner if he had not been confined to his bed.


Samuel Hughes: In what position was Mr. A. H. Gillmor before he was appointed commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: His name is well known in this House, and in the whole Dominion of Canada. I need not give the record of the former member for Charlotte county, and now senator of the Dominion. Col. Gourdeau is the well known deputy minister of the Marine and Fisheries Department. I do not know that we could have chosen a man better qualified to prepare the marine and fisheries exhibit than Col. Gourdeau. Mr. Gelinas, whose name was brought forward, is the private secretary of the hon. Minister of Public Works, and he was taken over in that capacity. Andrew Halkett is an official of the Marine and Fisheries Department, an expert in mounting fish and game, who went over to see that the exhibits were properly mounted and displayed. Robert Hamilton is a well-known fruit-grower of the province of Quebec, coming from the town of St. Andrews, in the county of Ar-genteuil. He is one of the best known writers on fruit-growing in the Dominion of Canada. He went in charge of the fruitgrowing exhibit. When he was obliged to return to Canada, Mr. A. McD. Allan, one of the best known fruit-growers in Ontario, went over in his place. Mr. W. H. Hay is the accountant of the Experimental Farm. Those gentlemen who know the exhibits made by the Experimental Farm at the exhibitions at Ottawa, Toronto, and other places, know his work. He is an expert in agricultural exhibits, in decoration, and in working up specimens of grain and fruit and other things into an artistic display which will attract attention. Mr. Jardine was one of the commissioners appointed from the province of Ontario, and spent a large amount of time and money travelling about to secure exhibits.


Samuel Hughes: What were his personal qualifications ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He has a large acquaintance with business in Toronto and formerly in Montreal, and had been in the leather and boot and shoe trade.


James Clancy: What class of exhibits was he expected to select ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He did not select the exhibits but went to the manufacturers and gave them the in-Mr. FISHER.
formation necessary, and afterwards in Paris he was in charge of the manufactured exhibits and did other general work as a commissioner.


James Clancy: He was selected to take a sort of holiday trip.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On the contrary, he was one of the hardest working men during the last year and a half that lived in Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: Upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember exactly, but I think I consulted my colleagues from Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Jardine has been a very active politician in Ontario-part and parcel of the machine moving from one riding to another.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not know that he was an active politician, but that would be no disability.


William Humphrey Bennett: Many gentlemen here can testify that he was used in the by-elections in Ontario to work the machine. As far as the statement of the minister that he was in the boot and shoe business is concerned, that is a little off colour.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That statement is the exact truth. I do not know whether Mr. Jardiue was active in politics or not, but I have heard that he met the hon. gentleman on the public platform and took the change out of him. That would not be a disability in my opinion.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Jardine is now on the floor of the House, and I presume he communicated to the hon. gentleman the statement just made. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that if Mr. Jardine told him that he ever met me on the public platform, lie made a statement that is utterly and deliberatively false and maliciously untrue, and that the company which that man consorted in the elections was not the company to be found on the public platform, but of a vastly different nature.


Mr. McGOWAN.: He went through Wellington riding aud kept track of the machine there.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Along with Cap Sullivan.


Peter Macdonald: I must call the hon. gentleman to order. We are not discussing the character of Mr. Jardine or of Cap Sullivan. The hon. member for Wellington introduced the name of Cap Sullivan.


John McGowan: I did not say anything about Cap Sullivan.


Peter Macdonald: I understood the hon. gentleman to have done so. Hon. gentlemen have no right to discuss the characters of men not mentioned in the item before the House.


David Wardrope Wallace: Are we to understand that we can discuss as long as we please the antecedents and the qualifications of Mr. Jardine, but if we connect his name with Mr. Sullivan, then we must stop. But, Mr. Sullivan may be somewhat of a divine, and the presence of Mr. Jardine in company with Mr. Sullivan might be a testimonial as to the holiness of Mr. Jardine's character. Therefore I must protest against the ruling that we are not to bring in the name of the Evangelist Sullivan in connection with that of Mr. Jardine. If Mr. Jardine, who is accused of doing shady things, can prove that he is a friend and colleague aud ally of Cap Sullivan, the Evangelist, that in itself might dispose of the accusation.


James Clancy: I think it would be unfair to attack a man who is not in this House to defend himself. But it is quite as unseemly to import here a man whose name appears in the public accounts in order that he may protect and coach the minister. No more unseemly thing has ever happened in this House. I do not kuow anything about Mr. Jardine, but it is reported that he has taken very active part in the elections.
Man after man in Canada, good officials, have been dismissed, their moneys that were paid into the public treasury taken from them, faith not kept with them-and for what V Because it has been charged, but never proved in a single instance, that they had taken part in elections. Yet, a gentleman is on the floor of this House this evening, prompting the minister, who has earned his position by political activity -as has been stated uublushingly by the Minister of Agriculture that that was his special qualification to be appointed to this office. If we hope to get these estimates through, and I do for one, we must not have the unseemly conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. We have a good deal too much of this by-play. The hon. gentleman has done a good deal of acting, a good deal too much, for it was bad acting. His deportment has not contributed very much, I will not say to increase his reputation, but to maintain the traditions of the high place he occupies. The hon. gentleman challenges any on this side to bring forward a single administrative act that was not clean or that will not bear the search-light of inquiry. And yet he declares, backed up by the Minister of Public Works, that there was an open swindle upon the people of Canada, and that nobody is responsible for it. No hon. minister can shelter himself behind the High Commissioner. If the hon. minister is in a position in .which he has no redress, it must be because he failed to take the necessary precautions that should
le taken by one acting for the country in a case of that kind. But the hon. gentleman came here with a statement that he has been told by the High Commissioner to pay the bill, and say nothing about it. Why ? Is it because there is a reflection upon the High Commissioner as a member of the Imperial commission ? I will not reflect upon Lord Strathcona, but, as the hon. leader of the opposition says, this is a matter of business concerning which the people's representatives should know the facts. If there are reasons why we should pay the bill and ask no questions, the hon. minister should be able to give those reasons.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentlemen opposite have asked with regard to a number of others than those I have already mentioned


James Clancy: Before the hon. minister proceeds, I will ask him to explain why it was that no action was taken beyond the writing of the letter of Lord Strathcona, of which he speaks, to inquire into that swindle and to get the reparation to which Canada is entitled.
I he MINISTER OF AGRlOLx,.. RE. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was probably absent from the Chamber when I answered that question, when asked by the leader of the opposition. I explained that the control of the building was in the hands of the Imperial commission, on which Lord Strathcona was our representative. They felt that we ought to pay, and insisted on our paying. We could look to them, but we have no recourse elsewhere. We had undertaken to make an exhibit at Paris under the condition, which was stated in the first place, that we should deal through the Imperial authorities. When my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Public Works went to France, he succeeded in obtaining for us a superior position to that which had been accorded before, and this fact, I have uo doubt contributed largely to the success of our exhibit. I would have been glad could that have been the case from the commencement; but it was not. The building referred to was not a Canadian, but a Colonial building, in which we had only part of the space; and we and the other colonies entrusted the management of the building entirely to the Imperial commission, through whom we did all our work.


James Clancy: I was in when the hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) made his previous statement, and he has told me nothing new. But when this swindle was discovered- and that is a mild term to apply to it-was there any correspondence to show that the High Commissioner, who was one of the Imperial commissioners, protested or made this a subject of inquiry into the fraud perpetrated upon Canada ? If there is any

point of that kind on which the hon. gentleman has correspondence or is prepared to make an authoritative statement, we would like to hear from him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has already been informed that the hon. Minister of Public Works, when he went to Paris, protested


James Clancy: Permit me-I am asking if the High Commissioner representing Canada protested against Canada being compelled to pay an undue sum for services she did not receive, and If the High Commissioner, both as High Commissioner for Canada and as a member of the Imperial commission, endeavoured to make this a subject of inquiry.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps I can give a word of explanation. As my hon. friend and colleague said, I protested as soon as I found that the specifications had not been followed. The architect admitted that they had not been followed. With that admission I immediately wrote to Lord Stratlicona, and after negotiating, Sir Montague Ommany, Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, came to Paris. We discussed the question. I represented that the building was not worth what was contracted for. After giving all the attention we could to the question, Sir Montague Ommany, who is a lawyer and a man of long experience, said that we were altogether without any recourse because the architect had given certificates to Messrs. Humphreys & Co., the builders. We withheld for some time a larger amount of money than was agreed for, so as to oblige the builders to make repairs if any accident happened.


James Clancy: I understand it was the High Commissioner's special business as representing Canada, and one in a position to examine, to know whether the architect was justified in giving the contractor a certificate. Again, I ask the question if the hon. gentleman is aware that the High Commissioner made any attempt to make this a subject of inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure that the High Commissioner used his best endeavours to settle that difllculty. But it was found that the architect had given certificates against which we could not rebel. My colleague had nothing to do but to pay it. The bottom of the whole difficulty lay in the fact that we were not masters of the situation, the Royal Commission were the masters of the situation. Mr. Clewes, the architect, was recommended to Lord Strathcona as a reliable man, and he was very much surprised, and the Royal Commission were very much surprised, when they found that the building was not what it should have been.


James Clancy: 


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman aware by personal knowledge that the High Commissioner, at any stage, protested or made this a subject of inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, he did.


James Clancy: By correspondence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I know he has communicated with my colleague, and I will produce the correspondence in a day or two, all that is in my hands.


James Clancy: And the correspondence, as I understand, will show that the High Commissioner not only entered his protest but also made it a subject of inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, so much so that Sir Montague Om-maney came to Paris on purpose to investigate the difficulty.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman a report of the investigation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. Sir Montague Ommaney did not make a written report, as he was not bound to do so. The Royal Commission were the masters of the situation, we complained, but more than that we could not do. The building was nearly completed when I reached Paris, and I was astonished at the character of the building. I called the attention of Mr. Clewes and of the contractors to the state of the building, and I forced from Mr. Clewes the admission that the specification had not been followed. He said that he vainly endeavoured to oblige Humphries & Co. to carry out their work in the way it should be done. Then I asked him if he had notified the Royal Commission, and he said that he had not. Then I told him that he had not done his duty, and I wrote to Lord Strathcona and to the Royal Commission stating all these facts. My letters will be found in the correspondence that will be brought down. Lord Strathcona then interfered and Sir Montague Ommaney came to Paris.


James Clancy: At whose instance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was sent by the Royal Commission. I made a mistake when I said that he was a lawyer, he is an engineer, as he told me himself. Sir .Montague told me that from a legal standpoint our hands were tied, that we could not do anything, that the architect had got several letters that were binding. The architect was responsible to the Royal Commission, he was not appointed by us.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the hon. gentleman found the building unsatisfactory and not what was required, why did he pay the money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not pay the money. The Imperial government had exacted from this government that we should take part in the exhibition in a certain way. In pursuance of the agreement that was made between the Imperial government and ourselves, the building in Paris was erected without our having any control over it. Indeed, incredible as it may appear, the contractors were left In possession of the building during the whole time of the exhibition, we could not even get possession of the building. I had never before read of specifications or a contract like that, but we could do nothing, we could not close the doors, and we had to go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it not show all through a want of business intelligence and attention? We have already voted $315,000 for the Paris exhibition, and it will probably reach a good deal higher sum. Now, the country expects the ministers in charge to look after these things, to look after the expenditure of that money and to get full value for it. Yet they are obliged to come here and, in a humiliating way, admit that we did not get value for the money, that we in fact had been swindled, and they say nobody is to blame.
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
I did not say that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whom should we hold responsible for it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
The Royal Commission is responsible for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do we not hold responsible the ministers of the Crown under whose charge the money is spent ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.The Imperial government insisted on my hon. friend giving to them the control of the erection of the building. Was it possible for the Minister of Agriculture to foresee that the Royal Commission would commit a blunder like this ? I could not believe my eyes when I saw the building, I could not believe that such a contract could have been given. The Royal Commission trusted their	architect, he	was the
architect not only for our building but for all the Imperial and colonial buildings. I do not want to make any accusation against him, but it seems to me clear that as soon as he found out that he could not bring Messrs. Humphrey & Co. to alter the contract, he should have notified the Royal Commission in London, which he did not do. He admitted to me that he did not do anything of the kind. He was wrong there, but it is for the Royal Commission to deal with him, we are helpless.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But will not the country hold responsible for it the minister of the [DOT]Crown under whom the money was paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The country will hold us responsible to this extent, that we should not have given over the entire control to the Imperial authorities. We are a self-governing country, and we should have gone there and conducted our own business in our own way. We have given up the control of our own building, and to that extent we are guilty. I think it is a fault that we should not be accused of after all.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the architect ever give an explanation why he passed that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I could not get any satisfactory explanation from him.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems almost incredible that he should have done that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is just as well that this parliament should know all about it. There is nothing to hide.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am just stating the facts as I know them. The building is not what it should have been, and there has been a miscarriage of justice somewhere. More than that I do not know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is quite clear that the Imperial Commission trusted the architect, that the architect did not do his duty, that we trusted the Imperial Commission, and that we paid our money and got no return for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Do not say that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does that correspond with the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture a few minutes ago, that the most conclusive inquiry could be made and that nothing would be found wrong ? And now, we are told that the correspondence, which has not been placed on the Table of the House although it ought to be in the possession of the committee, to enable it to go into this inquiry, has been carried on between the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the High Commissioner, and between the hon. minister and some one else. All this is withheld from the House, although the papers should have been put upon the Table of the House before this inquiry commenced. Certainly the House is entitled to these papers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the motion for the papers was only passed the day before yesterday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. minister knew that this estimate was coming up today. and how is the committee intelligently to deal with it in the absence of this cor-

respondeuce ? It could not be expected to do it. The lion. Minister of Agriculture has been justifying himself in regard to everything that has been done, and the whole tenor of his remarks seems to be very much as if he said : Thank God, I am not like other men. The hon. Minister of Agriculture did everything right. He read us certificates of character, and when we asked him whom these statements were from, we found that they were from his own guests, who were invited to write their autographs in his album, with a little puff, after they had probably been wined and entertained. They were written at his request, and in addition, the puffery bureau, like that which has been established in Ottawa, supplied complimentary allusions to himself, and these puffs were sent all over the counry. He says that Miss Barry was one of those so employed. He says: We allowed her to write certain papers, she was under our care, receiving our money. As a consequence she would not be likely to write in a critical strain. In my judgment, we could not expect anything from these persons which would enable us to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether matters were well conducted or otherwise. The hon. Minister of Agriculture referred to a letter which I read from a gentleman who was in Paris, and he said that it was not in accordance practically with the truth. Well, at least, it was from an independent source, it was from a party who had no interest in either belittling the Canadian exhibit on the one side or of eulogizing it on the other. It is evidence from an independent source, and I need only mention the fact that where there was a creditable exhibit lie said so and made full acknowledgment of the merits of those features of the exhibit which were deserving. I instanced the mineral display, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture told us how many diplomas and awards had been obtained in that line. The gentleman whom I quoted did not complain in regard to that. He said that there was a fairly good display of minerals, but there was no person in connection with it to give that information which should have been available so as to induce capitalists to come to Canada and invest their money in mines. We have no evidence that any such information was given, but the minister says : See the magnificent' results we have achieved ! What results did he give us ? Did he tell us how many orders had been given to Canada for goods as the result of the exhibits, or how much had been sold on account of the display we made ? Not at all ; he did not say a word about that, but he went on to read the certificates of character which had come from this questionable source. If the hon. gentleman had told us that a great many orders had been given for the manufactured articles or the raw products of Canada, I would have said that the information was much more valu-
.Mr. SPROULE.
able than that which he gave us. These complimentary puffs are all right, but they have been well paid for, and the people of the country will know how to appreciate the importance of them. But, there is the undeniable fact that Canada's money has been squandered without any adequate return, and that the ministers admit. They found a building unsuitable for the requirements, but the money had to be paid for it. That is the sum and substance of it.


James Clancy: I do not propose to detain the committee further than to make a remark in regard to the responsibility of ministers, and of the government, in regard to this transaction. Surely, neither the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte), nor the government of which he is such a distinguished member, can hope to escape that proper ministerial responsibility that attaches to every act and transaction, no matter how remotely they should be connected with it. In the first place the hon. gentleman gives as an excuse and as a reason that it was a mistake to surrender entirely this whole matter into the hands of the Imperial Commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why did he do it ?


James Clancy: That is a matter that involves responsibility, but 1 am not going to discuss that phase of it. The point I desire to make is, that when they surrendered this matter entirely into the hands of the Imperial commissioners, they did it knowing perfectly well that Canada had a representative who was also a member of the Imperial Commission. Now, the government of the day is responsible for every act that the representative of Canada does, either as a member of the Imperial Commission, or as High Commissioner, and the hon. gentleman has as much responsibility as if he did it himself, if it were done through the High Commissioner of Canada, especially as High Commissioner, or as a member of the Imperial Commission. But the hon. gentleman says that there was an inquiry that a Mr. So-and-so came to Paris after this matter had been stirred up, and that the Imperial commissioners, including the representative of Canada, all agreed that nothing could be done. It was the business of the government of Canada, through the Imperial Commission and the High Commissioner, to have made an inquiry and to have punished the offenders. There is absolutely no escape from the ministerial responsibility that attaches to the hon. gentleman and the government of which he is a member. It is perfectly idle for the minister to say it was a mistake to place the authority there. The hon. gentleman knew that he must have trusted some person, and he is responsible for having misplaced his trust.


William Humphrey Bennett: The country will not be surprised at this vast unpardonable expenditure, because it was expected that the Paris exposition would be a grand carnival for a number of the Liberals and their

friends. I think the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) was too generous in excusing his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, nor does the fault lie altogether on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture, but must be shared in by the Postmaster General, who forced him to appoint this Mr. Jardine, who is utterly unfit for the position of commissioner. I think it is time now for the Minister of Agriculture, in view of my denial, should retract his statement as to the castigation this Mr. Jardine gave me on the public platform, because if that statement does not emanate from his own fertile brain-and that is quite a strain on his brain power-it must be traced to this Mr. Jardine. Who is this Mr. Jardine anyway ? Neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Public Works knew anything about his fitness for the job, because he was forced on them by the Postmaster General. The minister told us that Mr. Jardine was selected for his knowledge of trade and commerce. Well, I have the public accounts of the province of Ontario before me, and year after year this gentleman who is so well versed in trade and commerce, occupied the position of what is called a sessional clerk in Toronto, which up there is a happy medium between a page boy and something else. It is a notorious fact that this gentleman for years has been figuring in the Ontario public accounts as a second edition of W. T. R. Preston, the local government hack, and on page after page of the public accounts appears the name of ' Jardine,'
' Jardine,' ' Jardine,' the very same gentleman who figured as a commissioner at Paris.


An hon. MEMBER.: Sardine.


William Humphrey Bennett: An hon. gentleman suggests ' sardine,' and he may have been that too, because I have known him to be in a pretty close box several times. I do not know who authorized this vast expenditure for furniture in Paris, but I am bound to say it was not the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I had nothing to do with that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I now ask the Minister of Agriculture if it was he who authorized this huge expenditure for furniture.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: When I was in Paris the Canadian commissioner, Mr. Pabre, showed me his office, and I found it to be utterly inadequate for what I was sure would be the demands upon it for the exhibition. I authorized Mr. Pabre to secure another office and to furnish it, and he did so. He sent in the accounts and I was told by the commissioners that these accounts were correct, and that the goods were delivered in the manner in which the accounts showed they were.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the purchases were made upon the recommendation of Mr. Fabre, then Mr. Fabre got too large a limit altogether. To pay $80 each for sofas and $27 each for chairs is an indecent expenditure of the public money. We have the startling admission made to-night that	the government spent $315,000
upon the exhibition, with the result that from the very day of the opening Canada was black-eyed as to the exhibit she made, and to-night both of the ministers who went to Paris at the expense of the country, are forced to admit that thousands of dollars of this expenditure were entirely uncalled for. Let this be a warning. The Buffalo exhibition is coming on next year, and it is to be hoped that Canada will have a 'proper exhibition there, and that due economy will be practised. If not, the blame will be upon the head of the Minister of Agriculture much more than in the present case. Once again I repeat that the minister made a great mistake when he appointed this Mr. Jardine, who was utterly unfitted for the position he occupied. Just as Mr. Preston of Ontario was dumped on the Minister of the Interior, so Mr. Jardine was dumped on the Minister of Agriculture, and both ministers are entitled to sympathy. I suppose that after all that has been said this item might as well pass.


James Clancy: Does Mr. Pabre occupy these six rooms at the present time ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fabre is occupying the same rooms that he and I occupied during the Paris exhibition. They are just comfortable rooms and no more. I know that the expenditure on the furniture may look a little high, but during the exhibition we had to put on airs a little.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is it necessary to keep up all that style now when the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not there to represent Canada ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: When one has fallen into decent habits it is difficult to get out of them. The rooms are still there and the furniture is there. The price was a little high, I grant, but at the same time we received thousands and thousands of callers in these rooms, and two or three thousand dollars more or less in a great advertisement of this kind does not amount to much after all. My persanal opinion, apart from all party feeling, is, that the rooms were furnished in a proper way and only in a proper way.


Mr. BARKER.: Was that furniture made in Canada.?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely not.


Samuel Barker: Why not ?


Samuel Hughes: It was made in ' gay Paree.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Speaking of furniture, I think we ought to be able to establish a large market for our furniture in France. I know that orders have already been placed as a result of the exhibition.


Robert Laird Borden: If we had sent *our own furniture there, would it not have been an excellent advertisement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I wish we had done so. I wish we had done what Australia did. They found their building in the same inferior condition as ours, and they imported wood from Western Australia, and rebuilt the entire inside of the building. We talk about spending money for Canada, but the small colony of 'Western Australia with a population of 150,000 people spent a vast sum of money in rebuilding their building. They imported their own architect, their lumber and their furniture, and if I had been there two months before, I think I would have asked my colleague to do the same thing. But it was too late when I arrived there, and we did the best we could. In my opinion we should give more attention to that Paris agency. I believe we could establish a large trade with France and Belgium in fruit, timber, furniture, pulp, paper and other articles. So far we have not perhaps given the Paris agency all the attention we should give it. This exhibition has been a great advertisement for Canada. The Massey-Harris Company will tell you that they are to-day selling agricultural implements in France to the value of millions of francs. I say again, if we only follow up that Paris exhibition, there is a great opening for us. It seems to me lion, gentlemen are going a little too far in criticising my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture for things for which after all he is not responsible.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to ask the Minister of Interior if he intends to keep up the magnificent apartments in the city of Paris for the immigration agent there. It seems to me that for all the people we are getting from France, it is hardly worth while to maintain that agency; the money could be better spent in other places. It is certainly not necessary to keep up those extravagant apartments simply for an immigration agent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far this House has voted only $2,500 a year for the Paris agency. It is not enough. My hon. friend is altogether mistaken in his views. There is no use of being so much afraid of France ; it is not a bad country.	[DOT]


Uriah Wilson: I am not afraid of France, but how many immigrants a year are we getting from there ? This gentleman has been there for many years at a very large outlay, and what has lie done for his money?


Samuel Hughes: If you are going to establish an agency there for trade and commerce, that is another tiling^ but if you are simply going to have him as an immigrant agent, it is not necessary to give him such extravagant quarters.


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Agriculture did not answer the question of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as to what Mr. H. O. ICnowiton had done for the $1,115.45 which was paid to him; also what his occupation was, and where he lived.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was answering all these question when I was interrupted. Mr. ICnowiton lives in my own county. He is a fruit-grower, a business man and a farmer. I appointed him on the Paris staff in consequence of the excellent work which I found he had done at the Omaha exhibition the year before.


George Taylor: You sent him to Omaha the year before ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did. I appointed one man from my county on the whole staff in connection with the Paris exhibition.


George Taylor: Then I see on page D- 13, of the Auditor General's Report that $3,000 was paid to J. I. Tarte on account of travelling expenses. I would like to know what trips he made for the $3,000, and what he was paid besides for living expenses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Minister of Public Works was paid altogether $0,000 for his trip and expenses in connection with the Paris exhibition. The $3,000 which is put down for travelling expenses ought to be for general expenses, as should the other amount which is given for living expenses. There was no requirement that part should be paid for travelling and part for living.


James Clancy: My hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) asked the Minister of Public Works if it was the intention of the government that Mr. Fabre should retain the large office which was obtained for the Paris exhibition, which was probably quite a proper thing to do. His duties in connection with the exhibition have now entirely ceased, and my hon. friend asked if it was the intention that he should still retain those offices, seeing that his duties will be now entirely different from those for which the offices were obtained. I have some hesitation in asking this question, because the hon. Minister of Public Works intimated that if a gentleman from this side of the House asked a question of that kind, he was striking at France. The sooner the hon. gentleman drops that kind of language the better for the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was joking, as my kon. friend knows.


James Clancy: I am afraid the hon. gentleman's remarks do not go to the country as a joke; but even as a joke, they are not very happy, in view of a good many things which I do not care to resuscitate or discuss to-night. I ask the hon. gentleman to answer that question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fabre is in the same rooms which he occupied during the exhibition. These rooms are one story higher than those he occupied under the late administration for years. There are only two rooms additional. It was found necessary for the exhibition to have the higher flat because there were two rooms additional.


Uriah Wilson: The rent and taxes are over $1,300 a year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But the apartments are in a fine location.


Uriah Wilson: It is money spent for nothing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman should weigh a little more carefully his words. The thousands of English and French Canadians who visit Paris every year will tell him that that agency has been most useful. I admit that we have not received from France as many immigrants as we should like, but we have spent very little money there. This House has voted every year only $2,000, and the vote was originated by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


James Clancy: Is it the intention to keep on these apartments ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That I do not know. This question will have to be decided later.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman should know, because he is the one who suggested the leasing of them.
The minister of public works.
No, I am not. When I reached Paris I found the rooms occupied and furnished. I simply took possession of one of them.


Uriah Wilson: The Minister of the Interior brought down a return showing that from France and Belgium we only got 483 immigrants, and it does not show how many stayed here. In view of that fact, these seem very extravagant offices.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I had with me two days ago the representative of a large French syndicate, who have settled in the Yukon, and are conducting large operations there. How have we attracted these men to this country ? By advertising this country and by having an agency in Paris. There is a large amount of French and Belgium capital that could 324
be brought here, and French, English, Belgium and German money is good money.


George Taylor: Were the travelling expenses of the Hon. S. A. Fisher, $526 on page D-5, in conection with the Paris exhibition ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, they are not.


James Clancy: Is Mrs. Turcotte, who had $276 for living allowance, employed in any other capacity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: She was employed two or three years in the Railway Department and came to my department in 1899 as a typewriter and to prepare the index of my private correspondence. I took her to Paris with my private secretary, Mr. Haines, in the same capacity as that in which she was working with me in Ottawa, namely, as a typewriter and stenographer.


James Clancy: Was she a permanent employee ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, she was not.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman got through the explanation of the duties of the different persons which I asked him to give.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I got down as far as Col. Gour-deau when I was interrupted. Miss LeBou-thillier was one of the ladies with Miss Galbraith, sent out in charge of the ladies' room and as typewriters to the commissioners. Mr. A. P. Lowe is one of the officers of the Geological Survey. He was on leave of absence in Europe and went to Paris in the place of Mr. Fallardeau, who was returning here. Mr. Macoun is an officer of the Geological Survey and well known for his scientific attainments, and especially his knowledge in connection with forestry. He took charge of the forestry exhibit in Paris. Mr. McKenna was employed under Prof. Robertson to take charge of the food products exhibit in connection with the cold storage. Mr. Perrault is the commissioner appointed from the province of Quebec. He was the first to go over to Paris to receive the goods sent from here. Mr. Scott, another commissioner, was a resident of Winnipeg and represented specially the west. He had been for a number of years representative of Manitoba in Toronto, specially engaged in showing the products and exhibits of Manitoba in the Ontario local exhibitions. I found him a most efficient business-like commissioner, and have appointed him in charge of the Glasgow exhibition. Mr. J. Otis Turcotte is a gentleman from Quebec recommended by Mr. Parent, at the request of Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, to be the chief of the caretakers and the employees there, to keep their time and

see that they kept the building and exhibits in proper order. Mr. Perrault is a well-known fruit-grower from the village Des Aulnats, employed by Mr. Dupuis, and he had charge of the fruit exhibit. Mr. Wil-mot, of the Geological Survey, had special qualifications for the setting up of the exhibits. He packed the geological exhibits and unpacked and set them up. Mr. Small went over to set up the honey and maple sugar exhibits. The honey had to be all taken and worked over before being exhibited. It was prepared a year before and was crystallized and not in fit condition to be exhibited. Anybody who understands the exhibiting of honey products knows that they have to be prepared immediately before being put on exhibition in warm weather. Mr. Small was an expert in bee culture, and he went to look after that exhibit. Mr. Angus R. Stuart, went from British Columbia practically as the representative of that province. He has been living there a good many years and is well known in connection with newspaper work there and was engaged somewhat in mining. He was recommended to me by my late colleague in the House, Mr. Bostock, as a gentleman well acquainted with the industry and resources of British Columbia. He was found very satisfactory, and I have appointed him to the Glasgow staff for the coming season.


Robert Laird Borden: And as to Mrs. Turcotte ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mrs. Turcotte is stenographer and typewriter, and went in that capacity.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an item in the Auditor General's Report, page D-14:
' Services and expenses re women's department, $1,749.41.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was largely expenses in connection with the preparation of the women's book, a publication prepared and compiled by a number of ladies well known in connection with the charitable and other work done by the Women's Council, and other women's work done in the country.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as that work in Canada was concerned, it was entirely voluntary, was it not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were some travelling expenses, printing, typewriting and editorial work. Allowances were also made to quite a number of the ladies who were not in a position, owing to financial circumstances, to devote their time to the work gratuitously. Much of the work was gratuitously done, and the general management was gratuitous.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding fault with the gratuities to the ladies, but, speaking under correction, the work in my own province was done gratuitously.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say who received gratuities or who did not. A good deal of the work was done by Miss Wilson, who is secretary to the Women's Council, and who acted aa editor and compiler. She was paid for her services.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: The hon. minister stated that the work done by Mr. Stuart was satisfactory. I am sorry to say that Mr. Stuart did not seem to think that the action of the hon. minister's colleague (the Minister of Public Works) was very satisfactory to him. I remember that a few months ago Mr. Stuart complained very bitterly about the treatment he received from the Minister of Public Works, stating to friends, and also to correspondents, that he had been behaved to most shabbily, and asked to do work derogatory to a man in his position. Does the hon. gentleman know of any complaints of Mr. Stuart, or was there any truth in the statements made to me ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was just saying to my colleague that I never had more trouble with a staff than with this one in Paris. A good many of the employees, not all, but a certain number, seemed to think that they nad gone to Paris on a holiday.


George Taylor: Correct.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is not correct; because there was a great deal of work to do. I do not wish to apply these remarks to Mr. Stuart. I do not remember treating him or any other employee in an improper way. I made them work as I worked myself. I know some of them did not like it, and I was obliged to send some of them home. I felt that Canada had a right to be represented by men who would keep sober and work, and would be on the spot when explanations were asked for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Stuart certainly made no complaint to me, when I saw him on his return ; he expressed himself as well pleased, and was extremely glad to get the appointment to go to Glasgow.


David Henderson: I desire to ask the minister a question with reference to an article appearing in to-day's Montreall Gazette, which reads :
The Hon. Sidney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, is having a unique map of the province of Quebec prepared for the Pan-American exposition. It will contain the physical features, forests, possible canoe trips, routes by the early missionaries, and by Champlain, and by other early French explorers, Hudson Bay forts, ancient Indian village sites, modern Indian reserves, regions of fish and game preserves-
-and so on. Is it the intention that Quebec shall be the only province mapped out in

that way for the Buffalo exposition, or may we expect that for the whole Dominion we shall have similar information furnished '!
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, I have been requested, in connection with the ethnological exhibit at Buffalo, to assist to the extent of preparing a map for Quebec, as the Ontario government is preparing a map for that province in the same way. No arrangements have yet been made, and 1 have not given any orders in regard to the matter.


David Henderson: I certainly think that what is done for one province ought to be done for another.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.
Edward Gawler Prior: I wish to draw the attention of the government to an item which appears in the government's organ, the Globe, of Toronto :
It is learned to-night from an official source that the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall have consented to go as far as Vancouver, but their trip west must necessarily be hurried, as their Royal Highnesses will he able to spend only a month in Canada.
The item says that their Highnesses will go as far as Vancouver. It is noticeable that the press all over this country, when speaking of British Columbia, always mention Vancouver as the most westerly city of the Dominion I wish to say that there is another city further west than Vancouver and of just as much importance, and more, for it is the capital of British Columbia and the seat of the greatest wealth by far of any city in the province. But it was not that point I rose to speak about. I desire to ask whether the government have any official information as to whether their Royal Highnesses had agreed to go to the Pacific coast or not, and whether they would go to Victoria.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would prefer that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior) should put that question to-morrow, when the Prime Minister is in his place.


Edward Gawler Prior: I merely brought it up because it says it is from an official source.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 6, 1901.