1901-05-02

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Reid (Grenville)- asked :
1.	Who had the contract lor carrying the mails from the post office to and from the trains in the town of Woodstock, N.B., for the year ending 31st December, 1900?
2.	Did this service include the collecting of mail matter from the street boxes ?
3.	Who has the contract for these services at present?
4.	What is the cost of these services ?
5.	Were these services let to tender ?
Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1. Mr. P. W. Gliddon was the contractor for the railway station mail service at Woodstock, N.B., during the year ended 31st December, 1900.

2.	This service did not include the collecting of mail matter from the street boxes.
3.	Mr. Thomas Baker is the contractor for the railway station mail service, and Mr. C. D. Johnston is the contractor for the letter collecting service.
4.	$165 a year for the former service, and $104 a year for the latter 'service.
5.	These prices were fixed by tender in 1896.


LOWER ST. LAWRENCE NAVIGATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Hon. Mr. Prior-asked :
1.	Is the government aware that the inquiry in respect to' the St. Lawrence navigation instituted by the Montreal shipping interests is to be resumed on the 2nd of May next?
2.	Has the government been invited to join in such inquiry?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to join in such inquiry?
The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I practically answered that question yesterday. Yes is the answer to all three questions. I was fortunately able to intercept Col. Anderson, and he has gone down to the inquiry to-day.


PENSIONS FOR PERMANENT FORCE.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) moved :: That the House resolve itself into committee on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that pensions or gratuities may be granted to staff officers and officers and men of the permanent militia force, and to the widows and children of such officers, as follows :-
To an officer compulsorily retired, for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after twenty years' service, or retiring voluntarily after thirty-five years' service, a pension not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or appointment at the time of his retirement for each year of service; service beyond thirty-five years not being reckoned.
To an officer who retires voluntarily after twenty-five years, but less than thirty-five years' service, a pension 20 per cent less than is above provided for.
Towards making good the said pensions, 5 per cent to be deducted from the pay of officers.
To an officer retiring on account of infirmity, or reltlred ito promote efficiency or economy in the service, a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each year's service; if retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service. b To a non-commissioned officer or militiaman, if he has served fifteen but less than twenty-one years, a pension equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay for every year of service; for twenty-one and less than twenty-five years service, twenty-fiftieths, and in addition two-fiftieths for every year over twenty; for twenty-five years, thirty-fiftieths, and in addition one-fiftieth for every year over twenty-five ; not exceeding, however, two-thirds of his average annual pay exclusive of extra pay or allowances


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: during the three years preceding his retirement.	,	_	.
To the widow and children of an officer who had served twenty years and was at the time of his death on full pay or in receipt of pension, the following pension or allowance : in the ease of a colonel, $500 to the widow and $80 to each child; lieutenant-colonel, a pension of $450 to a widow and a yearly allowance of $80 to each child; major, $350 to widow and $70 to each child; captain, $250 to widow and $o5 to each child; lieutenant or second lieutenant, $200 to widow and $50 to each child; warrant officer, $100 to widow and $25 to each child ; the amount to children to be doubled if tbey are motherless and in need; no allowance to be granted to a son aged eighteen or a daughter aged twenty-one; and the total amount granted to the family of an officer in one year not to exceed the amount of the pension attached to his rank.
He said : Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be more convenient to make the explanation in reference to this resolution before going into committee, and I will, therefore, detain the House a few minutes while I do so. The resolution proposes, for the first time in Canada, to adopt the principle of pensions for the permanent force of this country. Let me, at the outset, explain that the resolution, or the Act to be founded upon it, only applies to the permanent force and to the permanent staff, not to the active militia in the ordinary sense of the word. I make this statement as I think there has been some misapprehension abroad with reference to it. I do not think, in view of what appeared to be the general feeling of the House, evinced on a recent occasion, when a similar discussion was brought up by my hon. friend from Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior), that there is any need of my delaying the House to argue as to the advisability, the necessity and justice of adopting the pension system for our permanent corps. I may, however, say, in passing, that in every country, as far as I know, which has men permanently employed in the defence of the country, there is a pension system, and although we are only adopting it very late in the day, I believe it is a sound principle, which the country at large will approve.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There are special reasons, too, why, I think, the pension system should be adopted for our permanent force which are stronger even than in the case of ordinary soldiers. As I have frequently pointed out to the House, the permanent force of Canada is not simply a force organized as a nucleus to the army for defensive purposes. but is the educating force, it is the military school which supplies the teaching of the active militia of the country, and, therefore, while it is important- that we should have in the permanent force the very best class of men which can be obtained, it is important, having secured them, that

we should retain them. One of our difficulties has been to retain good men ; the very great difficulty which affects the non-commissioned officers and men is that they are poorly paid, and not taken care of when they get old, and, therefore, they are not inclined to remain except temporarily in the force. It is of the utmost importance, in order that this force should fully carry out what is expected of it, that permanency should he one of its characteristics. Now we come to the provisions contained in the resolution itself. It is divided, I may say, into two parts, and, first, I will refer to that part of the Bill which I am to introduce which provides for a pension to the non-commissioned [DOT]officers and men. I may say, in regard to this, that we have simply adopted the pension law of the North-west mounted police, which has been in operation since, I think, the year 1889. As indicating what the charge will be upon the country resulting from the adoption of this law, I may say that the North-west Mounted Police Pension Act. although enacted in 18S9, has practically been in force for twenty-eight years, namely, from the date at which the police force was organized, and at this moment the only charge entailed upon the country as a result of the operation of that pension law is the sum of $1,800 a year. The police force has numbered during most of these years about as many ns the permanent force ; somewhere about 1,000- sometimes below, and, I think, sometimes above that number-and, as I say, the only charge in which the country is involved as a result of the operation of the North-west Mounted Police Pension Act is to-day only $1,800 a year.


Mr. SPROTJLE.: Do we take a percentage from their pay ?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No. I may explain that under this Bill it is not intended to take any percentage from the pay of the non-commissioned officers and men. There is no deduction from the pay of the North-west mounted police, and the pay of these soldiers is so small that I think it would not be fair to ask privates and non-commissioned officers to contribute in that way. Now, it has seemed to me that there could be no possible reason which moved parliament to grant a pension to the North-west mounted police force, which does not apply equally to the permanent force of this country. That being the case, if there were no stronger reasons, it seems to me that it is a simple act of justice to apply the same law to the permanent force as has been applied to the North-west mounted police. I have just pointed out that our doing so will entail upon the country only a very moderate expense indeed. In this connection, I will repeat what I said a moment ago : That it is important to the success of
the work of the permanent force, that there should be permanency. We have got to do one thing or the other; we have either got to give these men much larger pay than they receive now, or else we must do without good men. I think it would be better to give this pension rather than increase the pay. The men who have served for many years become old, and have found it absolutely impossible, because of the low pay they'received to save anything, so that they are turned out on the world late in life to earn their living without anything in hand. The Militia Department is asked every year to give employment to some of these men, and that we do as well as we can, but how much better it would be to provide a pension by which, when these men have served their full term, they will be able to have something to live upon during the declining years of their life. I may point out in this connection that they must serve twenty years before they are entitled to a pension, or if through any disability they are unable to serve twenty years, then after fifteen years they will receive a pension. The pension is one-fiftieth of their pay for every year they have served up to two-thirds of their total pay ; that is the maximum they can receive under this law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the other branch of this resolution which refers to officers, I desire to make this explanation. It has been said that this would involve a very serious charge upon the treasury. I am able to say that this is absolutely not the case. There will be no increased charge upon the treasury whatever, and I will point out how. At the present moment under the existing law, or under the existing order in council by which officers are retired from the service, any officer who has reached the age limit or is obliged to retire for other cause, receives on retirement, one-tenth of his pay for every year that he has served. To illustrate, suppose an officer has served twenty years, and suppose his pay was $2,000 a year, on retirement that officer would receive a gratuity equal to two years pay which would be $4,000. Without any desire to reflect upon the prudence of officers, I am bound to say that the experience of the department in reference to this method of treating them has been very unfortunate. We have had cases where officers have retired and have drawn large sums of money-some as high as $7,000 or $8,000-but from the very fact of their having lived for years without any experience in business, they have not been able to make the best use of the gratuity paid them. We find them coming back after a few years, perhaps after a few months, asking the Department of Militia, and asking the government to give them something to do, because they are again absolutely without means. I will not refer to anv cases by name, but I may say that

there are painful cases of this kind where officers who have commanded districts in this country are to-day asking us to give
them,	and are glad to get SI.25 a day to keep body and soul together, by taking care of a drill hall or doing some menial service of that kind. Now, that is not creditable to the country.
I propose then that this money which we have been paying under the order in council shall still be paid, but that it shall be paid in the form of an annuity. In other words, with that 10 per cent, for each year that the officer has served, instead of a gratuity, we shall buy for that officer an annuity. Well, Mr. Speaker, this would not be sufficient, and so I have decided to ask the officers themselves to contribute over and above this amount, a sufficient sum to give them a respectable retiring annuity. I may say that the amount which I am changing into the form of an annuity; the amount which we have been in the habit of giving for many years past would be enough to purchase one-half of a sufficient annuity. I have, after consulting on the matter with the superintendent of insurance, ascertained that a tax of 5 per cent upon the pay of the officers, added to that which they are already entitled to. and put into the consolidated fund, would at the rate of 34 per cent-I may say that the interest lias been computed at that low rate in all these calculations-at the rate of 3| per cent it would secure for these officers the pension which is mentioned in the resolution, and which I intend to incorporate in the Bill. I think,
then.	I have demonstrated that the proposal which I bring before the House, so far as the officers are concerned, does not involve an additional dollar of expense or taxation on the people of this country ; and therefore, although I would have been prepared to go further, I think no one in this House can object to the proposal.
The Bill which I intend to found on these resolutions has been drawn from several sources. The old Civil Service Superannuation Act has been used as a basis for that portion of the Bill which applies to tlie officers. I have already explained that that portion which applies to non-commissioned officers and men is a literal copy of the North-west Mounted Police Pension Act, which has been in force since 1889. That portion which applies to officers' wives and children is taken from the Royal Warrant for pay. The rate which we ask the officers to contribute, namely, 5 per cent, is a large rate, much larger than the civil service were asked to contribute under the old Civil1 Service Superannuation Act. But we had in view the fact that we intended to give not only officers but officers' wives the benefit of this law. and we felt that the officers, in view of that fact, would be willing to contribute the o per cent which we ask of them.


Mr. BORDEN (King's).: In conclusion, I have only to repeat what I said in opening, that I am confident that we are only dioing a simple act of justice, which ought to have been done long ago, and at the same time we are taking the very best means we could possibly take to ensure to this country a vast improvement in our permanent force; and. the money which we shall expend in this way will be trifling compared with the immense advantage to the country, because it will result in greater advantage from the expenditure which we are making annually not only on the permanent force, but on the active militia of the country. I have much pleasure in moving the House into committee on the resolution.


Mr. WALLACE.: So far as the proposals go, I think they will meet with the very j cordial approval of the members of this ! House. I would like, however, to call the minister's attention to the fact that as the resolutions read, they do not provide for those officers who have been retired-men who have been brigade majors, or who have occupied other high positions in the | service, and have been retired by the gov-| eminent when they have reached the age limit of sixty years or for some other reason. I would like to know whether the ; minister proposes in any way to provide for them.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE-[ FENCE. Those officers come under the I class to which I referred as having already j received the gratuity ; and, unless we make some special provision for them, they could | not be very well included, because they are | no longer in either of the classes referred ! to in the resolution, and have already been Paid the money to which they were entitled under the system which has been in force for a great many years.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Even so, the minister knows very well-because he has just told us that the gratuity they received has long since been spent, and that these men are to-day in necessitous circumstances; and I think it would be a reflection on this country if these men, who have devoted the best years of their lives to the service of their country at a small remuneration, were left in that position. I am told that there are about a dozen officers who would be thus included in the list. They have an equally strong claim with those "whom the minister proposes to provide for, and I would ask him to consider carefully their case. I do not suggest that the pension be made retroactive, because the gratuity which they receive, we will say. will do them up to the present time, but that it be made to date from the present time. I think the government could do no more meritorious act than to include these men in the prolusion they are making.


Edward Gawler Prior: Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed one or two words in reply to the hon. minister, in order to congratulate him on at last having brought down this most meritorious measure. I suppose that when the Bill comes before the House we shall have a better chance of discussing- the different clauses in it; but I would like to draw the hon. minister's attention to one or two matters. He has informed the House that it is not intended that the non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent corps should be called upon to contribute to any superannuation fund. I would ask him whether the officers of the Northwest mounted police pay anytning to the fund ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The officers of the North-west mounted police are urder the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Edward Gawler Prior: What percentage do they pay ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It was 3i per cent; but my hon. friend will remember that the Superannuation Act was repealed, and to-day they are paying 5 per cent, just as the civil servants are, which they receive back with interest as a gratuity.


Edward Gawler Prior: Well, it seems to me it is acting on a wrong principle to ask these officers to contribute anything. As the hon. gentleman says, the amount charged to the country for the pension fund of the non-commissioned officers and men of the North-west mounted police is the insignificant sum of $1,800 a year. It seems to me that Canada can well afford to stand any little expense which this pension Bill would entail upon the treasury. The number of men is very small, and even if they were asked to contribute anything the amount would be very little. It seems to me rather hard that officers in Canada should be asked to contribute to a fund of this kind when no other officers in the same positions, in any other part of the world, are called upon to do so. However, I suppose half a loaf is better than no bread. But I do hope that before this Bill passes, hon. gentlemen on both sides will see that it would be more creditable to Canada to have the clause struck out and a pension given, without asking either the officers or men to contribute anything.


Mr. CLARKE.: I would like to ask the minister for some information. I am not sure whether the hon. member for West York asked it or not, but if so, I did not catch the reply. I have received a communication from a gentleman who is a retired staff officer, and who says :
There are about a dozen retired staff officers now earning a precarious living the best way
possible in order to keep themselves out of the poorhouse.
And he wants to know whether it is intended in any way to consider the position of these gentlemen and include them in the gratuities proposed to be given.
I have also received a communication from an old friend of mine, who was in the militia force nearly thirty years, but has since been discharged. He gives me a record of the service he has done. He was in the Queen's Own, in the first and second Red river expeditions, in the North-west expedition of 1885, and in the permanent corp-And he asks, is it possible that men who have rendered services, as he has, extending over twenty-five or thirty years, but who are not now in the force, can come under this provision ?
I have another question to ask. There is this paragraph in the resolution :
To an officer who retired voluntarily after twenty-five years', but less than thirty-five years', service, a pension 20 per cent less than is above provided for.
Is it intended that officers who will come under the provisions of this resolution four or five years from now, will have a deduction made from their pension by reason of the fact that they will only have contributed this 5 per cent for a very short period ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) did inquire with reference to the first matter raised by my hon. friend and I replied that the officers referred to had already beeu provided for, so far as we were able, under existing regulations. That is to say, they had received their retiring gratuity of 10 per cenr of their pay for each year's service. I agree with the hon. member for West York that there are cases of extreme hardship which ought to be looked into, but I do not know whether such eases can be met in connection with this Bill. I have my doubts on that point, but I do think that special cases might be dealt with in a special way by a special proposal to parliament, and I will be prepared to look into that matter and make a proposal later on, if thought advisable.
With reference to the last question, which the hon. member for Toronto has put, regarding these officers who have paid into the fund for a year or two, or who have not paid at all, I may say that all officers will come under the operation of this Act the day it becomes law, and there is a provision by which, when a pension is paid there shall be a deduction made of 5 per cent from the pension payable, for the number of years those officers have not paid.


Mr. KATJLBACH.: I think the hon. minister deserves a great deal of credit for the manner in which he has shown his interest

in this particular service. The resolution is worthy of support. I wish the House to understand that while I am opposed to pensions and superannuations and that sort of thing, I think that this can he made an exception. Those who are to benefit are a class of people who receive very inadequate pay for the services they render, and who, therefore, are entitled to recognition in the way provided by this resolution. I do not believe that the expenditure will be at all serious, because there will be a call on the salaries of the officers each year of 5 per cent, and that will probably meet the calls to be made on the government for pensions or come very near meeting tjiem. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution most heartily, being convinced that it is in the interests of the country.


Edward Gawler Prior: Are the permanent corps mentioned as such in the Militia Act or included just in the ordinary active militia ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They are not mentioned in the Militia Act by that name. There is a provision in the Militia Act for the enrolling of 1,000 men for special service, but they are not called a permanent force. We have made that sufficiently clear in the Bill to cover any difficulties. The first clause fully sets out what the different names indicate.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: The pensions or gratuities are to be given to widows and children. I would like to have a definition of the term 'children.'


Tiie MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The Bill provides for all these details. I think the age is eighteen for a boy and twenty-one for a girl.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the House went into committee, I asked two or three questions of the hon. minister. He answered all but one of them-that with reference to non-commissioned officers and men who have served for many years, but are not now in active service. Is it possible in any way to have these men come under the provisions of this Act ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: When we come to consider the Bill, possibly something may be done, although, as I said in the case of the retired staff officers, it would probably be better to deal with such men as special eases. This Act will not cover such cases unless the men are now in the permanent force, either in connection with the stores or in some active branch of the permanent force.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will there be provision in the Bill authorizing the minister to deal with these special cases ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: 


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, how can they be dealt with ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: What I meant was that when we came to the consideration of the Bill, perhaps some amendment might be proposed.


Mr. FOWLER.: Are these pensions proportioned to the pay of officers ?	*


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Xes.


Mr. SCOTT.: I understand this pension scheme is based on the pension scheme of the North-west mounted police ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, for non-commissioned officers and men.


Thomas Walter Scott: I wish to point out what I consider a very serious flaw in the Northwest mounted police scheme. I would mention one particular case, that of Major Belcher, second in command of the Strathcona Horse. He served in the mounted police-


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) will excuse me, but the officers do not come under the Act that I have copied, but under the old civil service superannuation system. Consequently, remarks relating to the officers of the North-west mounted police do not apply in this case.


Thomas Walter Scott: I do not know whether we understand each other. Suppose a non-commissioned officer receives a commission, he stands to receive a pension counted only from the date of his commission. In the case of Major Belcher lie served for some twenty odd years as private and non-commissioned officer, and that period of his service is left out of consideration when his pension is counted.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am happy to be able to tell my hon. friend that we have improved on the North-west mounted police in that respect. We now allow privates or non-commissioned officers who become officers to count the time during which they served in the ranks or as non-commissioned officers.


George William Fowler: Supposing a man served ten years as a non-commissioned officer and ten years as an officer, would that count as ten years as officer at the same rank as at retirement ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.
Resolution reported.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) further to amend the Post Office Act (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), was read the second time, and considered in committee.
On section 1,
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the change affected by this amendment ?
Hon. ill'. SUTHERLAND. The only change is in the fourth line of the subsection following the words ' Postmaster General,' where the words ' whether such letter is addressed to a real or fictitious person or not,' are inserted. The [DOT] Bill was drafted by the Justice Department, and, comparing it with the Act, I 'notice that there seems to be some little change in the wording, but the changes do not affect the law except in the words I have quoted. In many cases the officers of the department render services in prosecutions for stealing registered letters and other misconduct ; and the question has been raised whether a post letter addressed to a fictitious person came under the Act. In a recent case in Quebec a convict is now serving a five years term in the penitentiary for stealing a letter, and this question was raised, and the judge in that case held-I think it was on appeal- that the interpretation we put upon it did apply to a fictitious person. We think it well to make it clear, because in many cases this point is being raised by the lawyers defending accused persons.


Robert Laird Borden: That is to say, the point has arisen in cases where letters have been posted for the purpose of securing evidence against a party suspected of having purloined a letter ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is not so much for the purpose" of getting evidence, as of finding out who are the thieves, and of pursuing the course of the missing registered letter.
On section 2,


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This is taking power to establish dead letter offices in the places mentioned in addition to those now having dead letter offices, namely, Montreal, Toronto, Victoria, Winnipeg, Halifax and Ottawa. We are taking power to establish, in addition, dead letter offices at St. John, Kingston, Hamilton, London, Vancouver and Dawson. I understand from the officers of the department that this system has worked very satisfactorily. It is being used now at some of these points with regard to newspapers, and it is found desirable to extend the system to the places named.


Mr. BRITTON.: Is it intended that these new dead letter offices shall be under the charge of the local officers, or will it be necessary to appoint new officers at these places ?
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND^ I do not think it will be necessary to increase tne staff. The same staff, probably, will do the work.
On section 3,


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This section gives the department power to make a contract for eight years, instead of four, for the carriage of mails. It has been found in many cases that the department could make a saving by making contracts for longer terms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would not that rule work both ways ? It might be found that you could make a more favourable contract for a shorter term ; for instance, at the end of four years you might be able to make a better contract than you did in the beginning of the four years term.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course, the department retains discretion to make the contract for the longer term. It is true this xirovision might work the other way, in some cases; but, we find at the present time that money would be saved by making the contracts for a longer term, there is no doubt about that. Any hon. gentleman can see that when a contractor has to provide one or more horses and vehicles to carry out a contract, the longer the term is the cheaper he is willing to take the contract for. If the term is short, he knows that it may not be renewed to him. and that if somebody else puts in a lower tender, he is likely to lose the contract, and to suffer loss on his investment in horses and vehicles, and so forth. But this is a discretionary power, and it would not always be wise to exercise it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the change being made on the advice of the executive officers of the Post Office Department ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Exclusively on their advice. This whole Bill was prepared by the department, and I am advised by the officers that it is desirable in the interest of economy.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I think the minister had better stick to the old law. This amendment gives power to the department to renew contracts without competition for eight years instead of four. Power of renewal after four years was enough.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: For any amount ?


John Graham Haggart: For any amount. For instance, $30,000 is now being paid on a contract for carrying mails to Kamloops, and there are some other large contracts in the North-west Territories. Parties may then come to the department and get a renewal for eight years without any competition I think the hon. gentleman has sufficient power already in letting contracts for four years.
4243


*COMMONS
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The old rule before the present government came into power was, I think, that a contract for $200 or less might be renewed for another four years, if performed satisfactorily. That is the system that now obtains throughout the country.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understood the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to say that under the old law you could renew for any amount.


John Graham Haggart: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am basing my statement upon information which I repeatedly heard from the Postmaster General, that if a contract was for $200 or under it might be renewed ; but if it was more than $200, it must be put up to tender again. But it came out that many contracts had been renewed that were over $200. The present Postmaster General took great credit to himself for having cancelled a number of contracts and relet them after advertisement, and he contended that a great saving had been effected by that system ; but, when supporting it by argument, he contended that the principle of renewing contracts was wrong, and, therefore, he had not followed it. What I want to draw attention to is the fact that the very same system is being followed to-day by the Postmaster General which he condemned in unstinted language only a few years ago. I do not want to be understood as condemning the system, because I have always thought that if the work was being satisfactorily performed at a reasonable price, it was a proper thing to renew the contract. But I find that the Postmaster General has now fallen into the old practice which he so vigorously condemned under his predecessor.
Now, he proposes to go very much farther, and without even inquiring as to how the work is being done from the beginning, to make a cpntract for eight years instead of four. I am not saying that it will be bad, or that it will be good, but I am inclined to think, that, in some respects, it would turn out badly because there is sometimes the habit amongst those who propose to send in tenders to come to an understanding between each other as to their tenders. Of course, X presume that under such circumstances, or in any circumstances, the department would still have the right to, at any time, cancel any of these contracts when it is shown that in the public interest, they should be cancelled and tenders invited again. I do not know whether this new system will be good or bad. It does not seem to me that the hon. acting minister has given us reasons sufficient to justify him in departing from the well understood principle that we followed so long. These reasons are quite insufficient to justify such a radical departure. If it was proposed to Mr. HAGGART.
extend the time from four years to six, rather than from four years to eight, I would think that it might be a move in the right direction.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the proposal to substitute the word ' eight ' for the word ' four ' is utterly unjustifiable. The hon. minister's statement to us was that this was something recommended by the officers of his department. Well, he has*, given no reason, as I understood him, except that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, I did.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The officers of his department may be quite willing to have a contract renewed for twenty years, so that they may be saved from any further trouble.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I gave another reason beside that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The very thing that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) has staked his existence upon and boasted of all through the country, is that he has cancelled contracts that were renewed without tender, and that he has thereby saved large sums of money to the country. What are we to say now ? He has got the contracts and he proposes not to renew them for four years, but to do that which has never been done before-to renew them for eight years. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) raises the question whether this word ' eight ' refers to the first letting of the contract, or to renewing it. Which is it ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: To the first letting only.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about the renewal ? When this renewal takes place, after another eight years, is it again renewed ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is rather a technical point. I will look into it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is vital to the Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will look into it, and see whether that will be the result of this amendment or not. It was not brought to my attention. I do not think that would be the effect. I think it says in the Act how long the renewal is for.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But the hon. minister is not able to say ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would not like to be certain about it. This is a legal point.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I presume that when a contract is let for eight years in the first instance the renewal will be for the same length of time. I am quite opposed to the' principle altogether. There is no reason why such should be done. It will practically mean that a person getting a contract will have it for sixteen years if the renewal
*

is for the same time. If the renewal he not for the same time, then it would be for twelve years at any rate. There is no doubt about that. Let us consider what would be the effect in the case of large contracts. There is a large contract on the Cariboo road from Ashcroft, B.C., northward. That contract was taken from the old contractors, tenders were submitted by certain gentlemen, and they are carrying it out. They can have it for twelve years at any rate without new tenders being invited.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Eight years.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Post Office Act says:
No contract shall be entered into for a longer term than four years, hut the Postmaster General may, In special cases, when, in his opinion, the service has been satisfactorily performed under an expiring contract, and on conditions advantageous to the public interest, renew the same with the same contractor for a further term not exceeding four years.
There is no limitation as to the amount to be paid. The Bill says :
Subsection 2 of section 61 of the Post Office Act is amended by the substitution of the word 'eight' for the word 'four' in the second line and in the sixth line of the said subsection.
The hon. acting Postmaster General was not quite sure. From what I have read he is quite sure. From that it can be renewed for eight years. The Act says, in the second line, ' four years,' but under this amendment it will read that:
No contract shall be entered into for a longer term than eight years.
The sixth line of the Act says that the Postmaster General may renew the contract for a further term not exceeding four years, but, by the amendment, the ' four ' is converted into an ' eight,' so that the renewal will be for eight years, and therefore, it is for sixteen years.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 can quite readily see that there are two sides to this question. There are no doubt many cases coming under the notice of the officers of the department in which they think it will be an advantage to make contracts for a longer time. I do not feel desirous of pressing the matter. I have no doubt that it might work out both ways. I would move that the clause be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. HACKETT.: I do not think that it makes very much difference whether it is four years or eight years with the present government. My own experience in Prince Edward Island is that I find that they cancel contracts which were entered into in good faith and give them to their friends. Now, what do they propose to do by this Bill ? They propose to appoint, under this government, a staff of practically permanent men for a term of eight years. Four years is long enough.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: That clause has been struck out.


Edward Hackett: I asked the acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), a few days ago, a question in connection with the carrying of the mails in Prince Edward Island. This is only a small contract, but it is the principle that we object to. The old contractor, Mr. ICehoe, happened to be a Conservative. He had been carrying the mails for four years with great acceptance, and performing his contract in good faith. He was requested by the post office inspector at Charlottetown, when the term had expired, to enter into an agreement for the next four years. He did that, and he also signed a bond. I know that he signed the bond, because I witnessed it. Acting in good faith with the government, having carried the mails for four years, and having signed a bond for four years more, he believed that he would be fully entitled to his rights under the contract. In a month or j so afterwards the Post Office Department cancelled that bond, and without inviting tenders, gave the contract to a friend of theirs, and gave him $15 a year more for the same work. The hon. acting Postmaster General shakes his head. He told me the other day, and I have it under my hand now, that the present contractor is receiving $15 a year more for carrying these mails than Mr. Kehoe did it for. How are you going to compensate Mr. Kehoe, who after having used his horses and his carriages and his harness and other appliances for these four years, believed he was entering into a contract with the government of Canada for four years more, and renewed a large part of these appliances. For mere party purposes you ruthlessly take away from him the rights he acquired under contract, and you give them to a follower of your own at a cost of $15 a year more for doing the same work. That is the way you are treating the people of Canada. This particular contract is a small one, but if you take $15 a year in connection with all the post offices over Canada, you will be wasting thousands and thousands of dollars of the money of the people. Without inviting public tenders, and after Mr. Kehoe had signed his bonds giving good security to go on with this business for four years, then for the sake of helping a party follower, you do Mr. Kehoe a great wrong. It is an outrage and a shame.
Section withdrawn.
On section 4,


John Graham Haggart: A number of these contracts have been cancelled by the department without assigning any reason whatever, and the Minister of Justice has refused the parties a fiat to bring their cases before the court. I always understood that the Act giving the Crown power to grant a fiat was virtually self-acting. Applica-

tions have been made in dozens of these cases where the contract has been cancelled, and the government have refused a flat to these parties who claimed that they have suffered damages. On -what grounds, I ask the minister, have these fiats been refused 1


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I must say that no such case has come under my notice since I have been in the department. My hon. friend must have been misinformed when he says that such cases exist. As to the clause which has just been dropped, I may say that, judging from the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hackett) and the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Haggart), it would seem that probably we had better be guided by the judgment of the officers of the department than by discussion here. It would appear from their observations that there are good reasons why it should be left to the discretion of the department as to the period for which a contract might be made. If that were the case, the grievances which the hon. gentleman says exist in his district probably would not exist. I shall make inquiries in the department about the matter to which the ex-Postmaster General has referred and give the information.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Can the minister tell the number of contracts cancelled each year during the last four or five years ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is not the point which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) brought up, but I will be glad to get that information.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that these petitions to which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has referred, were mentioned in the House last year. I moved for a return of all the papers, and afterwards the matter was discussed. The petitions, as I understand, have been for about two years before the Postmaster General, for the purpose of having him transmit them with his report to the proper officer. There were at least twenty of them, if I remember aright, and the point raised was whether under the terms of the contracts the Crown had a legal right to terminate them. I looked at the contracts, and it seemed to me from a hasty examination of the question that it was a perfectly proper case to submit to the Exchequer Court. I do think that it is a public scandal that petitions of right should lie for a year and a half or two years, without having any action taken upon them or any report made by the Postmaster General with respect to them. If the Crown had no legal right to cancel these contracts and the Postmaster General was wrong in doing so, then the Crown should accept responsibility for that and these men should not be kept waiting without an answer. It is a matter which well deserves the attention of the acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), and if the circumstances are Mr. HAGGART.
as I believe them to be, there should be no further delay whatever in giving these men a fiat if they ask for it.


Jabel Robinson: The charge which the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Hackett) has made against the Postmaster General certainly should be inquired into, and if what the hon. gentleman states be true, then a great injustice has been done. I did not think it possible that the government could be guilty of anything of the kind.


Mr. BOYD.: You haven't got your eyeteeth cut yet.


Jabel Robinson: If they are guilty they should make amends for it and see that it does not occur again. The idea of the Postmaster General cancelling the contract of a man who has given satisfaction for three or four years, without any other reason than that the contractor was not a party politician, is a disgrace to Canada. I do not think that the acting Postmaster General can be accused of this, because he has only taken the portfolio for a short time, but I hope he will inquire into it and never let the thing occur again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: Considering the number of grievances we hear from Prince Edward Island, it would appear that that island must be very badly governed. One day the grievance is against the Minister of Marine, next day against the Minister of Railways, next against the Postmaster General, and probably four or five days of the session have been devoted to Prince Edward Island. In the future, it would be better for us to set apart two or three days each session for the purpose of hearing the grievances of that island. I am happy to say that I belong to an island that is represented by as many members as come from ' the Island,' and that we have no grievances at all, so that in that respect we differ from Prince Edward Island. Now, where there are large contracts involving a large amount of money there is very keen competition, and very often the contractors take the work at a rather low price. In that case they fit themselves with carriages, horses, and drivers, and establish stations at different places ; and if the time were extended for four years longer they would have an opportunity, perhaps, of recouping themselves for some of the expenses they Incurred in the preparation. That is all I want to say on that subject, and I have my doubts about the government considering all the grievances which we hear from Prince Edward Island.


Edward Hackett: I have listened with some pleasure to the rebuke which has been administered to me by the hon. member for Victoria, Cape .Breton. He is almost paternal in this House, having been a mem-

ber of a former government; but I am here representing an intelligent body of people, and it is my right on the floor of parliament to advocate what is in the interests of the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman may sit down and imagine that he is beside the Bras d'Or Lakes; but he cannot say that a man who rises in this House and shows where the government are taking the money of this country and giving it to their favourites, is not doing right. I have shown, and the acting Postmaster General has not been able to refute it, that this small contract, amounting to $35 a year, was taken from a man who had entered into a bond to carry it four years longer, was cancelled and given to a favourite of the government at an advance of 40 per cent. Am I to be told by the hon. member for Victoria that I am to sit quietly and allow such an outrage to be committed on the people ? I admire the venerable gentleman, and the position he has held in the past, but he is not going to rebuke me or dictate what I am to do here as a representative of the people having equal rights with him. Mr. Kehoe, having carried the mails for four years to the satisfaction of the people, was asked by the post office inspector of Prince Edward Island if he would renew his contract for four years longer. He replied in the affirmative. A bond was sent to him; I witnessed it as a justice of the peace and saw it signed by two sureties for the sum of $35 a year for carrying the mails. A month afterwards or thereabouts the Postmaster General cancelled that contract and gave it to a friend of his own for $50 a year. Although the amount is small, it is the underlying principle of good faith on the part of the people of Canada that is important. If you do the same thing all over Canada, what is going to become of the people of Canada ? Where is this reckless extravagance, this corruption, this taking of the people's money for the purpose of gaining political support, going to end ? Sir, we want honest government in this country; we want justice and fair-play; and we are here, my hon. friend from Victoria, venerable as he is, and old as I am myself, to look after the interests of the people. We are veterans; we have fought our battles in the past in the interests of the country; but, Sir, I am not going to be admonished by him. I am his equal in every respect-at least, I feel that I am-and I am not going to have this rebuke administered to me on the floor of this House without resenting it.


William Ross: I am not going to reply to my hon. friend. I merely wish to say that I have not lived on the Bras d'Or Lake, but in the city of Halifax, for the last twenty-seven years; so that he is altogether mistaken as to my place of residence. The only other remark I intend to make is that I think there is no other man in this House who has occupied half the time that
has been occupied by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. There has not been a week since we came to this parliament in which he has not had a new grievance. I begin to think that the government is all right or that he is all wrong-either one or the other.


Edward Hackett: 1 know that the hon. gentleman does not desire to have the time of the House taken up in these discussions; but we are here for that purpose. What do the people send the members here for, but to discuss the affairs of the country ? The hon. gentleman may feel very secure; he would like to go back and draw his pension of $800 a year from the government. He may feel that he has nothing to do with the interests of his constituents, but they will hold him responsible for his conduct here. I tell you, Prince Edward Island, small as it is, is composed of an intelligent population; and although there are only two of us here from that pi'o-vince, we will take no back seats; and if the hon. gentleman thinks he is doing justice to his constituents by getting up here and interrupting me, he is very much mistaken.


William Ross: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that if he is as safe before his constituents as I am before mine, he will come back here at the next general election.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon.
gentleman has stated that this contract was renewed and cancelled. I, of course, cannot make a definite statement, because I have no information in regard to it. All I can say is that I will inquire. I have very grave doubts that the Postmaster General or the department would cancel any contract that had been made. One cannot help but feel that the credit of the country is pledged when a contract is signed, and it would only be for very good cause indeed, such as neglect of duty in carrying out the contract in some material way, that any such cancellation would take place. However, I will make inquiries as to what did take place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the acting Postmaster General promise that when he gets that information he will bring it down to the House ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Certainly. I do not think it would be the policy of the Postmaster General or the department to do any such thing.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I take this opportunity to bring to the notice of the acting Postmaster General a case in the county of Pictou which is a rather singular one, in which a contract which expired about the 1st of March has not been relet at all. It may be that the work of advertising and scanning the tenders is too severe for the

*department, or tliere may be some other reason why they do not care to renew the contract. It was taken at an exceedingly low price by the contractor who held it previously, and when it expired it was not advertised.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Does the bon. member remember the name ?


Adam Carr Bell: It was a contract for carrying- the mails from a station to River John and from River Joan to Hedge-ville-a double contract. When the contract expired, it was transferred to another Individual without tender at all, but the price was so exceedingly low that the new contractor has not accepted the contract, and for some months that very extraordinary state of affairs exists, that a contract is so favourable to the department that no other person can be got to take it at the same figure, and It is in abeyance. Possibly the reason why the hon. minister now wishes to let contracts for eight years, is to avoid the difficulty, labour and trouble involved in releting them. But I think really such an extraordinary case as this should receive the attention of the department. I brought this matter to the notice of the government some months ago, and no action has yet been taken.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In the Post Office Department many cases arise in which there is necessarily delay. Probably the one referred to is one that was brought to my attention a few days ago, in which the lowest tenderer was reported by the inspector as not being able to procure bonds.


Adam Carr Bell: No.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are several cases of that kind. When advertisements are published, low tenders are often put in by parties who are unable to furnish bonds. On the whole, I believe, after hearing the discussion here, we probably made a mistake in striking this out. It would no doubt avoid a great deal of expense if many of these contracts, which are let to responsible men at low figures, were made for longer terms. I have not interfered in any way with the conduct of affairs by the officials of the department, but in many cases we have to take the next lowest tenderer, if he is at all satisfactory and responsible.


Adam Carr Bell: In this case, although the contract had expired, tenders were not called for, and the contract was given to a friend of the government without tenders, but the price was so low that the friends of the government would not take it. I am sure that the acting minister will see the necessity of doing something in this matter. He would be perfectly justified in giving the contract without tender for an additional term of four years to the original contractor,1 who was the best man in the neighbourhood, who can secure bonds to any amount, Mr. BELL (Pictou).
and who took the work at so low a price that it cannot be let to any one else at the same figure.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman will send me a note, I will see what I can do in the matter.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I wish to call attention to a similar case in West York and ask the hon. minister to give it the same attention. I refer to the contract for carrying the mails to Carrville and Sherwood. I will give the hon. minister a memo, and will expect the information to be brought down. My information is that tenders were called for, that the lowest tender was not accepted, and a higher rate paid another party, although the lowest tenderer had given ample security and was thoroughly responsible.
Mr. KADLnACH. I wish to draw attention to a ease in my county similar to that mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). A contract was entered into by a party some years ago. It expired and tenders were called for and submitted to the department. How many I do not know, but I know of two that were submitted. The party who made the lowest tender, though not a friend of mine politically, was instructed to enter on the work at once, as the lowest tenderer, which he did, and carried the mails for some short time. The service was from my own town to the railway station. After having performed the service a few days, it is supposed that remonstrances were made to the department for having given this contract to the lowest tenderer, and lie got notice that he was recalled, and his services not required. The other party, whose tender was higher, is now doing the work.
I would like to- know why such a course was adopted. If there is any principle in such matters, I want to see it carried out. I wish the hon. minister to understand that the party who is now doing the work, and who was the highest tenderer, is a friend of mine, whereas the party who was the lowest tenderer and from whom the work was taken, after it had been given to him, is not a friend of mine and never was. I am simply drawing attention to this in order that we may know whether the government is acting on anv principle, and if so that principle should be carried out strictly to the letter.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are to be the duties of these porters ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: At present, in many cases, several days in the week, especially when the mails are leaving large cities, there is much more mail matter than the mail messenger can attend to, and an extra mail messenger has to be put on the ear. Under the law he is entitled to his mileage. We thought that a class of employees, styied

train porters, might do this work satisfactorily and a very considerable saving effected. That is the only object.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The porters do not get any mileage.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No, they have a fixed salary. As these porters will have to be competent officials and pass the civil service examination, I thought that after a certain service they should be entitled to promotion to the position of mail clerk. It is only proper to encourage young men by giving them some prospect of advancement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will they do exactly the same duties as the mail clerk ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Hardly the same. The mail clerk is responsible for the distribution of the letters. When we have to send a railway messenger with the regular mail clerk, his principal duty is to handle the mail. He does not distribute letters, or make reports, but principally does manual labour. So that it is principally manual labour, the handling of parcels and bags. The only employee in the service for this purpose is a mail messenger, who receives a much larger salary than these men would, and also draws his mileage.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) kindly make inquiry of his officials with regard to the matter I have been complaining of-the mail service between Lunenburg and the railway station ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If my hon. friend will be kind enough to give me a memorandum of the matter, I shall be glad to get the information for him. So far as I am concerned, and I am sure, so far as the department is concerned, the only anxiety is to get the best service at the most reasonable rate. It is foolish to think that we can distinguish, or ought to distinguish, between these various mail contractors and others politically, or in any such fashion. The hon. gentleman will find that these matters, as a rule, are left to the inspectors, and that their recommendations are usually carried out. It may be that the inspectors or officers have made mistakes, or have not used the best judgment. But, I think that, on the whole, the service has been very satisfactorily carried out. and without any particular political influence.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. minister will see that I am not offering any undue criticism. The only thing is, that if the department is establishing a principle, I want to see that principle carried out to the letter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of these railway porters will be required ? And how will they be provided for ? I suppose they will be provided for in the supplementary estimates, as I think there is no item in the main estimates.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The number will probably be four or five, perhaps half a dozen. Of course, a vote will be taken in the estimates to provide for them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What pay do the men who transfer the mail to the station and handle bags at the post office receive now on entering the service ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think they are paid $400 a year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I observe that subsection 2 of this section provides that appointees to this class must have passed the preliminary examination. Are appointments being made now to the post office service of persons who have not passed this examination ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 understand there are no appointments to the railway mail service-


Edward Frederick Clarke: But, I am speaking of porters and letter carriers-are they required to pass the preliminary examination ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I believe so. They could not be retained in the service otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Evidently the aim is to promote these young men to be railway mail clerks, because it is provided that any train porter who has had three years' service as such and who has passed the qualifying civil service examination, and also such examination in duties as the Postmaster General prescribes, shall be eligible for appointment to the rank of railway mail clerk. I take it, that it is supposed that as railway porters they would be learning the business. So, I suppose, they will be expected to do a good deal more than the mere manual labour of handling the mail bags, for they could not learn much of the business if confined to that alone.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This amendment was made at my own suggestion, in looking over the Act with the officer. At present, if a young man has passed the qualification examination, he is made a mail clerk without any experience. Appointments to the position of train porters are confined to young men of from eighteen to twenty-four years of age. In such a position he would naturally gain some experience. If they have shown themselves steady and well qualified, and passed the qualifying examination, I thought it omy fair that they should not be debarred from receiving an appointment. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will agree that that is quite right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not raising any objection to it. I should think the service of train porter would be the best school in which to learn the duties of mail clerk. But, it seemed to me, that when the minister spoke of their work being merely that of

handling mail bags, that would be a poor introduction to the duties of the mail clerk.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: A clever young man, who is associated with the mail clerk, would naturally be given wrork to do that would give him an opportunity to improve himself in the service. Such a man passing the qualifying examination would naturally prove himself a very good mail clerk indeed.
Bill reported.


SALARIES OF JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the salary of the senior judge of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) read the second time and agreed to.
Resolution respecting the judges of provincial courts (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) read the second time and agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 33) respecting Victoria Day.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: A gentleman has telegraphed to me suggesting that instead of fixing the day on the 24th of May, it should be made the fourth Monday in May, so that it will always come on the same day of the week. I mention this for the consideration of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If there is anything in the idea of making the holiday at all, we had better stick to the 24th.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). I dare say that may be better. His idea was still to call it Victoria Day, but to have a particular Monday in May always observed.
On section 3,	.
The PRIME MINISTER moved that paragraph 36 of section 7 of the Interpretation Act be hereby amended by inserting after the word ' Sovereign,' in the seventh line, the words ' Victoria Day.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved that subsection 2 of section 14 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1900, is amended by adding to the days to be observed in the several provinces as legal holidays or non-juridical days, * Victoria Day.'
Robert Laird Borden: The only objection to putting that amendment in this particular place is that it might be misleading to any one looking at the Bills of Exchange Act, unless there is something in the title of this Act to attract attention. Any person desiring, for the purpose of bills of exchange. to know what are legal holidays, might be misled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 doubt it, because the Act will be widely known as Victoria Day. I think the Act will have some publicity in that respect, and, moreover, we contemplate an early consolidation, including this statute.


Robert Laird Borden: That will answer the objection if, when that consolidation takes place, this will receive its proper place in that Act.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that the best designation that could be given to the day ? We have always called it Queen's Birthday.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Queen's Birthday was the holiday according to the Interpretation Act. Now the birthday of the Sovereign is the 9th of November.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I meant whether Victoria Day is the best designation to be given to the holiday. What about Queen Victoria holiday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think Victoria Day is quite enough, everybody will understand it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We always knew it by the name of Queen's Birthday.


Mr. FRASER.: We do not generally keep a birthday after death.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). We could not adopt the phrase ' Queen's Birthday,' because that might be understood to be the birthday of Queen Alexandra. The expression would be misleading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend's proposition was to call it Queen Victoria Day.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: She is not Queen now.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Is it proposed to have the celebration of Victoria Day take the place of the celebration of . the birthday of the Sovereign ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it is an additional holiday.


Bennett Rosamond: If you are going to celebrate the birthday of the present Sovereign it will come very close to Thanksgiving Day.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I trust we are not laying the foundation for future efforts in this direction. There may be a time coming when we will have no day to work in.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-NOTICE OF MOTION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['The Election Bill and the Franchise Bill and possibly some of the minor Bills on the Order paper -then Supply. As the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is not ready to go on with Railways to-morrow, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will probably take his estimates and then the supplementary estimates, if there is time.\nMotion agreed to ; and House adjourned ai 12.35 a.m. Friday.', 'Fbiday. May 3. 1901.']
Mr. TAYLOR.: I had intended, before you left the Chair, to say a few words on a sub-

ject of which I have given notice ; but as there are a good many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who are absent today and who desire to be present when that subject comes up, X will defer making any remarks to-day, but I will take an opportunity of making the statement I intend to make when the House is moved into Supply on Tuesday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Sault Ste. Marie Canal-To deepen and widen entrances, &c., $100,000.
['I had intended, before you left the Chair, to say a few words on a sub-\n\nject of which I have given notice ; but as there are a good many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who are absent today and who desire to be present when that subject comes up, X will defer making any remarks to-day, but I will take an opportunity of making the statement I intend to make when the House is moved into Supply on Tuesday next.']
John Graham Haggart: Before the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) proceeds with the explanation of this item there were some documents that he brought down to the House and which he got back again some way or other into his possession. We would like to have them again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: What were they ?


John Graham Haggart: There is the correspondence in reference to the locomotive works at Kingston.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that came back again, I have not had personally any of the papers that I gave to the hon. gentleman yesterday.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. gentleman asked to see them and I sent them over.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There were one or two contracts which the hon. gentleman sent over, but I returned them. This vote is for the purpose of commencing the deepening and widening of the entrances of the canal at Sault Ste. Marie. We want to get more water than we have now. We have only 20 feet 3 inches, at low water on mitre sill.


John Graham Haggart: Have you not more than 20 feet 3 inches ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, not at	low water.


John Graham Haggart: I think we made it a foot deeper than the American canal and the American canal is 20 feet 3 inches.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, we made it precisely the same as the American canal.


John Graham Haggart: The new lock may be the same, but I think, in the old lock, it is a foot deeper.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, I do not think so. We have 22 feet in the prism of the canal. At the upper entrance, however, ' there is only 134
18 feet and in that respect we are inferior to the American canal. We have 18 feet 0 inches at the lower entrance and 18 feet at the upper. The American lock at the entrance is 22 feet. We propose to deepen our entrance and give as deep water as they have at the American lock. In a general way our estimate is that it will cost $450,000.


John Graham Haggart: What will the upper end cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Both the upper and the lower ends will cost $450,000.


John Graham Haggart: You have not the estimated cost for each end separately ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have got it separately.


John Graham Haggart: Who has the contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For the work at the lower entrance the contract was let to	Bowman & Porter.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: When was the contract let ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The contract has only been executed. I was going to say it was only executed two or three days ago. I find that is has only gone out two or three days ago, and 1 am told it has not yet been returned. Tenders have been lying in the department for some little time. The delay has arisen from the contractors not having made the required deposits, but, they have made it recently, within ten days, or a fortnight.


John Graham Haggart: Were they the lowest tenderers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, there was a lower tenderer.


John Graham Haggart: Who was it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 cannot give the hon. gentleman the name of the lower tenderer at this moment, but, when the tenders came before us, we found that there had been a misapprehension upon the part of the lower tenderer as to the meaning of the specifications. There was some confusion with regard to the language of the specifications. One of the engineers at the Soo had interpreted the specifications differently from what the chief engineer regarded as the proper interpretation and it was clear that the other party had tendered upon the information which he had received from the engineer. The engineer gave us evidence upon that. There was no very great difference between them, somewhere less than $20,000, or thereabouts, figured out on the schedule rates. Upon a reference of the



matter to the law department we concluded that we could not properly forfeit the deposit which was made by the other tenderer. The contract, therefore, was not undertaken by him but was awarded to the next lower tenderer, a gentleman by the name of Bowman.


John Graham Haggart: You do not know who the lower tenderer was ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot tell my hon. friend. We will remember it to morrow.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister must know that in an important matter like this he should have a list of the tenderers, and where the lowest lias not been accepted, the reasons given for the nonacceptance should be ready and furnished to the committee when the item is being considered. Will the minister take a note of that and after dinner he will be able, perhaps, to furnish the information. What are the quantities at the upper and lower entrances to be excavated ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The matter received very careful consideration, the whole of the facts were submitted to council, and the conclusion arrived at was that we could not enforce the tender as against the lower tenderer and under the circumstances we had to give it to the other man.


John Graham Haggart: What are the quantities at the upper and lower entrances?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About 70,000 cubic yards at the lower entrance, and about 80,000 at the upper. I cannot give it exactly.


John Graham Haggart: What is the price per yard ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Three dollars.


John Dowsley Reid: It is the one contract for the upper and the lower entrance?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there will be new tenders called for the upper entrance.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not called for the tenders yet, we have only awarded the lower entrance.


John Graham Haggart: There was an appropriation of $40,000 last year for this, and the contract was only let a few days ago. How was that $40,000 expended ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was not expended on this work.


John Graham Haggart: But it is described in the estimates in the same way.


Mr. BLAIR.: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was not for this work, and if it was, there was nothing done under it.


John Graham Haggart: How misleading that is to the public. ' To deepen and widen entrance Sault Ste. Marie, appropriation
1900-	1901, $40,000 ; amount to be voted for
1901-	2, $100,000,' and the minister seems to say that the $40,000 was expended for some other purpose.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would be used for dredging; it would not be used for this purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it says for the same purpose in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The $40,000 was under the same heading last year, and it was used for taking off some of the shoals at the entrance. It was not for the work we are now doing of widening and deepening.


John Graham Haggart: Well, tell us how it was expended.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was for dredging.


John Graham Haggart: Was that dredging by contract ?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Who had the contract, and what was the price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was about $3 a yard.


John Dowsley Reid: I see in the Auditor General's Report that Hickler Bros, had a contract for deepening the channel at the lower entrance, and they were paid $3 a yard for 10,598 yards.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, these were the people.


John Dowsley Reid: Was that at the same place ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was the same entrance.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the money they got last year come out of the $40,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It must have been rock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We contracted with them to remove certain shoals. I take it that it would be rock or largely so.


John Graham Haggart: Were these loose stones calculated at $3 a yard ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The character of the works was

rock and boulders. They did not get paid for anything below the grade. They were not doing the same work that we are providing for here.


John Dowsley Reid: Are Hickler Bros, through with their contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand the minister correctly, it was a contract to take down to the old grade. Is it the old or the' new grade ?
lion fund for that period. Upon inquiry he was informed that it was because he had voted for the late Dr. Bergin in the election of 1S96. He then made application to Mr. J. T. Suetsinger, who was the representative of Cornwall and Stormont from 1896 to 1900. Mr. Snetsinger assured him that he had nothing whatever to do with his being deprived of his superannuation allowance, and rested the matter entirely on the Minister of Railways and Canals. On July 19, after the matter had been discussed repeatedly, Mr. Snetsinger wrote a letter to Mr. Shields, in which he said :


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand that the grade as left under the Ryan contract was eighteen feet six inches. They took down these shoals at this particular point, which was immediately in the channel, to twenty-two feet, I think.


John Graham Haggart: The old contract was for the reduction of the prism from eighteen feet six inches to the prism which you propose at present, and the amount of money you are taking now is for the purpose of extending that prism both above and below.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: And both were let
by contract, and. except in this particular instance, the minister gave to the lowest tenderer, and he has promised to bring down the two tenders, and the reason for not accepting the lower tender.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Y'es, these are the facts as I understand them.
Trent Canal-Construction, $475,000.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I would ask the permission of the minister to bring up a matter here in connection with the Cornwall canal, as I may not be present when that item is reached. In 1897 there was a gentleman named Timothy Shields, who had been in the employment of the government for a period of twenty-eight years. On the 12th of April he received a communication from the Department of Railways and Canals to the effect that his services were dispensed with, and on the 19th of April he made the usual application for superannuation, and in reply received a letter from the Department of Railways and Canals stating that the question of his superannuation allowance would come up for consideration at a later date. Subsequently he received a notice that he was deprived entirely of superannuation. He was at a loss to understand why that should be the case, he having served for twenty-eight years in the Department of Railways and Canals, and having contributed to the superannua-1344
I regret it as much as any one that you have not had your matter settled in some way. Not only your own matter, but several matters as well as yours, should have been settled on.
Then he winds up his letter by stating :
Mr. Scott and myself have been urging your matter, and have no intention of allowing the matter to drop.
When I was elected to represent Cornwall and Stormont, Mr. Shields, whom I have known for many years, came to me and stated his grievance. I then made inquiry from the department in the town of Cornwall at the head of the Cornwall canal, and I found that Mr. Shields was one of the best officials who had ever been connected with the Cornwall canal, and that he had always given entire satisfaction, and could not have been dismissed because he was not a thoroughly competent official. I found that subsequently, notwithstanding this letter of Mr. Snetsinger, some influence had been brought to bear upon the department by some gentlemen who were active partisans in Cornwall and Stormont. Sir. Shields has brought this matter to the attention of tlie government on several occasions. I have a number of letters, but I do not think I should read them to the House, as many of them are marked private. But there is a letter here which is not marked private, written by one of the ministers of the Crown, in which he assures Mr. Shields that the mistake will be rectified. I may say that when I came here I saw the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who treated me most courteously and listened to the case most attentively. I know that the time of all the ministers is very much occupied, aud that it is impossible for them to discuss these matters at any length. I endeavoured to present the matter in as fair a manner as possible, and the hon. minister then told me that it would receive consideration. That was in the month of February. I have on several occasions since called his attention to this case, which I considered to be one of very great hardship, and I feel that if the hon. ministers had been aware of the circumstances, they never for one moment would have advised the Treasury Board to deprive this man of the superannuation to which he is justly entitled. I

may say that I consulted his physician a short time ago in reference to an accident which Mr. Shields sustained a few months prior to his dismissal, and his physician told me that his certificate is on record in one of the departments here to the effect that this man will never he competent to do any hard manual labour. He received that accident in the discharge of his duties, which were of a very onerous nature. During the winter months he had to get the depth of the water, and in order to do that, I am told that he had to go down a very steep decline, which was constantly covered with ice; and during the winter prior to his dismissal, he slipped and had a very serious fall, the result of which has been that he has not been able to do one day's work since his dismissal in 1897. I say without fear of contradiction that this man Timothy Shields was never an active partisan in any sense of the word, although I do say that if he had been an active partisan, while the department might have seen fit to dismiss him, they should not have deprived him of his superannuation allowance. But I am aware of the fact when L say that he nas never taken an active part in politics. For a lifetime he was a personal friend of the late Dr. Bergin, and I understand that in 1S96 he did support Dr. Bergin, much to the annoyance of those who were opposing Dr. Bergin at that time. I feel that it is only necessary to call the attention of the hou. ministers to this man's case, and they will deal justly with it. I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals now if he is prepared to recommend that the superannuation allowance be granted to Mr. Shields, who is verging on sixty years of age, and who, unless he receives it, will not be able to earn his living ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no complaint to make of the manner in which the hon. gentleman has presented this case to me committee, although there are some important facts which have arisen in connection with it with which he is not familiar. Before mentioning these, however, let me point out to the hon. gentleman that it does not at all follow, because superannuation has not been allowed to Mr. Shields, that the minister has either not recommended it or has declined to favour it. These questions invariably are dealt with by the Treasury Board. This case, if my memory serves me as to the facts, is a somewhat peculiar one. Mr. Shields was in the service of the department, and for reasons of his own chose to withdraw from the service and seek employment elsewhere.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: No, not at all. The first intimation Mr. Shields ever received that his services were not required was in April, 1897, when he received this letter, signed Tom S. Rubidge, superintending engineer.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Had he prior to that left the service ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: He had never left the service in the whole period of twenty-eight years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then I am confusing another case with the one which the hon. gentleman has in his mind. I had one or two conversations with him in a general way, in which I stated, as he has said, that I would be very glad indeed to have the matter reconsidered by the Treasury Board ; but since then we have been so much engrossed with our parliamentary work that it has been impossible to get meetings of the Treasury Board to take up any question about which there is any doubt at all ; so that there has been no occasion since then on which I could have the Treasury Board take this matter up. I have been very much impressed with the facts of the case as presented by the hon. gentleman, and even where there were circumstances existing such as I was attaching to this case, I would still think it was a matter that might very properly be looked into and favourably considered. I am by no means prejudiced against the application, and it will be considered, however it may be dealt with at the earliest opportunity when the Treasury Board is in a position to deal with these matters.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I wrote to Mr. J. D. Snetsiuger, ex-member for Cornwall and Stormont, in reference to this matter. He called on me in Ottawa, and said he thought an injustice had been done to Mr. Shields, and would see the minister with reference to the matter. Since then I have received a letter from Mr. Shields to the effect that Mr. Snetsinger had called on him and told him that he had brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways, and hoped it would be put right. I am not asking for any haste in the matter. But, four years have passed since this man was dismissed, and to-day he has no means, and is not able to earn a livelihood. All I ask is, that the Treasury Board should, at its earliest opportunity, take this up and do common justice to this man.


John Graham Haggart: This seems a case of great hardship. A party appointed by order in council twenty-two years ago, paying in to the superannuation fund during all these years, is dismissed, without reason or trial, in April, 1897. His case has been brought again and again before the government, and they have taken no action. The hon. minister tells my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont that he is going to get the Treasury Board to reconsider the matter. Has the hon. minister considered that the Treasury Board would have no power to do anything, that having once

acted there is iio power left in the government or Treasury Board or council to reverse their act ? They will require to bring down an amount to this House, and have it voted to that individual. If the facts are as stated by my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont, there is no recourse left the government but to put an item in the estimates. Cases of that kind occurred when I was a member of the government, and once the Treasury Board gives a decision it has no power to reverse it. I hope the minister will, when the item of the Cornwall canal comes up, lay on the Table the memorandum on which the council acted, and the order in council.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The matter came before the Treasury Board at my instance, and was disposed of after full consideration. I do not quite agree with the hon. gentleman that the Treasury Board could not reverse its decision. I could well imagine that it would be necessary to ask parliament for a vote in order to cover the time that has already elapsed, but, surely the Treasury Board is not bound to adhere to its decision, if it should afterwards come to the conclusion that the first decision was arrived at in error.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I remember very well the circumstances of the dismissal of this man. He was dismissed on information we had at that time, and which, if true, was quite sufficient to warrant his dismissal. I should be sorry, however, that this man should have suffered any injustice, and after what we hare heard in the House, his case will be investigated. My hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) may be right in his contention, but the whole matter will be looked into.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are proposing to spend this year upon the Peterborough Lake division $70,000, which I included in this vote. We also include $174,000 to be spent on the Simcoe Lake division.


John Graham Haggart: What is the policy of the government with reference to this particular work ? A deputation visited the hon. minister, and according to the newspaper reports, he said that the government had no intention of completing either end at present-that the entrance into the Bay of Quints was not to be proceeded with at present, nor the work from Lake Simcoe into the Georgian Bay, but that the policy of the government was, in the meantime, to make ready for the purpose of utilization of the stretch which is at present under contract between Lake Simcoe and the neighbourhood of Peterborough.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That substantially is correct, so far as our purpose is concerned, but, I did
not say that we had come to any conclusion not to build either end. We have come to the conclusion that for the present we would ask parliament to vote only what will be necessary to complete the contract now in hand. As to the future, I am not prepared to -speak. The question of the lower end of the canal involves the determination of a controversy between people in different sections-Port Hope at one end and the mouth of the river at the other-as to which would be the best point for the terminus of the canal. Some engineering investigations have been made of the Port Hope route, but we have not decided either to accept or reject that route, and the matter is left open in the meantime. Nor am I dealing with the Georgian Bay end-that is another question to be taken up later. We propose to complete this work so far as we have it under contract, and I am sure that when completed it will be a very considerable convenience to the people living along the route.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature ot the work under contract at the upper end ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Ditching and the construction of the locks along the route. Five or six locks are under contract in the two sections.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. minister tell us what stretches of navigation there are, the depth of water, and the expected cost of the work when completed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The cost of the work will depend somewhat on the route chosen, and somewhat on the connection with Georgian Bay. There are various propositions that have to be determined upon before we could give an engineering estimate as to what the cost would be. As to the work now going on, we estimate that its completion will involve something like $1,000,000. I do not know whether I have answered all the hon. gentleman's questions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has not given us any information as to the stretches of water opened up or to the depth.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Six feet is the proposed depth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hardly expected that the government would incur an expenditure of from a half to a quarter of a million dollars a year without having reached some conclusion during the six years they have been in office, as to what they have been trying to do and to where the outlet of the canal will be, both at the lower and at the upper end. They must surely have reached some decision, otherwise it seems they are carrying on an expensive work in an entirely aimless way.
4267	COMMONS	4268


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One would naturally suppose that it was important to decide these questions before entering upon the work at all, but the work was not proceeded with in a manner which would suggest that there was any firm determination to complete it within the life of any person now living. The hon. gentleman knows the circumstances under which the work came into our hands. We have endeavoured, as rapidly as we thought the country ought to be committed to it, to prosecute this work, carrying out the contracts that were made and entering into fresh contracts, so that there might be a continuous stretch of navigable water between points where traffic might be expected to.arise. As to what the ultimate route shall be, that is a matter we have not felt called upon to determine with any very great haste. Whatever is being done will be a very necessary and very useful part of the canal when it is completed. We are not doing anything that would not be done if the canal shall be continued mainly by the river, or anything that would not be necessary if we took another route to utilize Rice lake and made Port Hope the outlet. Therefore, we are not throwing away the public money nor wasting any energy on the work- unless my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is prepared to say that it was a mistake to have entered upon the undertaking at all, and I do not understand him to take that position.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the criticism directed against this work by the hon. gentleman's friends some years ago, contending that this was an unwise and useless expenditure and that there ought to be some definite information given, I should have thought that they, by this time, would have reached some definite eon-elusion as to what they aimed at. We voted for this purpose last year $320,000, and we are asked to vote this year $475,000. So far as the hon. gentleman gives us any information, this is being spent without auy definite aim or business plan as to what is to be accomplished in the end. The government should be able to give some information besides asking us to vote over a quarter of a mililon year after year, to be spent regardless of what may be decided upon in the future.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not regardless of the future, but having that always in view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has given us no information as to the plan or as to whether he has a plan, what stretches of water are to be utilized, and so on. All he tells us is that we are working between the two ends and spending this money.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mr. SPROULE.
Sproule) suggest that this work should not have been started where it was ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not suggesting that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman was satisfied with the initial steps that were taken, I cannot see on what ground he can complain of our completing that section which we found in process of construction-and very slow construction-when we took office. He knows very well that the section between Peterborough and Lake Simcoe was looked upon as a section that would undoubtedly be completed in time. We have not yet completed that section, but we are proceeding. What we are doing is entirely in line wTith the policy, so far as it could be judged from the work performed, which prevailed in the department when I entered. We are completing to Lake Simcoe, and when we get there we will have, as the hon. gentleman knows, all the stretches of lakes and rivers which lie between that point and Peterborough open to navigation. The hon. gentleman knows, if he is not doing other than asking a question for the sake of asking it, perfectly well that we are connecting Balsam Lake and Simcoe Lake with this work. There are a number of lakes along the route, for instance, Sturgeon Lake; Lovesick Lake and Stony Lake.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Public Works Chargeable to Capital-Public buildings, $75,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This sum is asked for to build a residence for the commissioner at Dawson, and an administrative one to serve for public offices. A building for a court house is now under way in Dawson. The building now serving as a post office, the upper storey of it, is also used as a telegraph office. This $75,000 is needed to go on with the work which is practically now under way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that the house for the gold commissioner, and for the purposes of a government office, was built last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we are now renting premises for the residence of the commissioner, and at very high prices, too. The building that was erected last year was completed on the 1st of January. It is now occupied as customs house, Crown lands office, registrar's office, and telegraph office, as well as the post office. But this is only a temporary arrangement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this $75,000 for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to complete the court house which is being erected now, and an administration building, in which the House of Assembly or Council, if you prefer to call it, will be located.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are these buildings expected to cost when they are finished ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The post office already built has cost, I am informed, in the neighbourhood of $50,000. We intend to erect a court house which will cost about $40,000. Plans have been prepared for a building for the House of Assembly and for public offices which is estimated to cost about $70,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought he had his residence in a public building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we are renting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of the cost comes out of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $12,000 is estimated to be taken out of this vote for the court house and the rest for the administration building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is only $12,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the rest will be used for the erection of the administration building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This makes an amount of $180,000, but it seems to me that you have mixed up the cost of the buildings that you are already occupying, because you are building a post office twice over.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I am not mixed up at all. The post office is completed, and has been completed since the first of January.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of this vote is required for that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not ask anything for that building. What I am asking money for is for a court house, for an administration building and for a residential building for the commissioner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the hon. minister tell us what buildings the government have rented there now, and what the amount of the rent per month is ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very much afraid that I have not the list of the buildings that we are renting now. It was given last year, I am told by the deputy minister and is in * Hansard,' but, I will gladly bring it down again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But, you have finished your large building which is occupied by
the post office and other branches of the service.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WuitKS.
I am very much afraid that I have not made myself understood. I have said that the post office which has been completed for post office work is temporarily occupied by other officers for which the administration building will have to be erected, and I am asking for money for that building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the post office is temporarily occupied by other officers for which we were obliged to pay rent before that rent must be saved now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I want to ascertain is how many of these branches are obliged to occupy buildings not owned by the government and the rent we are paying.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say, but I will bring down that information with pleasure. Mr. Fuller, who is our architect there, reports that the completion of the post office building saves us $2,025 per month.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the only saving of rent you are making ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this year; $24,000 a year is a pretty large amount of money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that is only for the use of the jDost office. I understand that several other branches are temporarily occupying this building and while they are occupying it, it must prevent the necessity of paying out rent for other offices.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman may rest assured that we are not paying rentals where we are not obliged to. The completion of the post office building, where some offices are located now, effects a pretty large saving, $2,000 a month, because all the offices were scattered right and left. We have saved that large amount of money since the 1st of January.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not pretending to say that the minister is paying out rent that he could avoid paying out, but what I am endeavouring to do is to ascertain -what the saving is in the heavy expenditures we had last year for rent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just stated that we are saving $2,000 a month.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is for the post office, but the hon. minister says there are other branches occupying temporarily this building. There must be a saving of rent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are saving $2,000 a month by the erec-

tion of the post office which is used to-day by some other officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That includes other offices as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly. I will bring down the information if my hon. friend wants it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like if the hon. minister would give a list of the buildings rented, because, speaking- from memory, the rental that we were paying last year was extravagantly high, and we voted a very considerable sum to erect a building to avoid the necessity of paying this rent in future. If we were able to get the information as to what saving had been effected, what buildings we are paying rent for and the amount of rent we are paying, then, we would know whether it is the part of wisdom to expend these large sums of money or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend may be very sure that we cannot do without these buildings. We are paying, as he says very properly, very high rents. This building, which has not cost much money-I expected it would cost more-is now saving us a great deal. I have stated that we are saving $2,000 a month rental by the erection of this one building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are these buildings put up-by contract or day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have an architect there who is an old employee of the department. Tenders were asked for by the then acting Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Mulock). The tenders were so high that my hon. friend made up his mind that he could not accept them. The plans were changed and we went on by day labour. I was not here then and I am personally not guilty of that change although the work has been carried out cheaper than it could otherwise have been.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was the architect ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fuller, a son of the old architect who erected this very building in which we are. He is a capable, safe and sober man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman will give the information later on I would be very glad.
The MINISTER OF ruBLIC WORKS. Certainly, with pleasure, I will bring it down to-morrow.
Telegraph Line-Quesnelle to Atlin, B.C., $30,000.


George Taylor: I understood the hon. Minister of Public Works to say that similar items under this head would be in the Mr. TARTE.
supplementary estimates. As he knows we are now investigating the accounts of Mr. W. G. Charleson before the Public Accounts Committee, and we want to get the result of the investigation with the evidence reported to the House before we discuss Mr. W. G. Charleson, but, in connection with this, I want to say a few words in reference to Mr. J. B. Charleson. I find the accounts of Mr. Charleson in the Auditor General's Report at B-59.	I see
that $48,015.19 was drawn by Mr. J. B. Charleson. I find that Mr. Charleson has employed a Mr. Tachd and that be has also employed Mr. J. E. Gobeil. Mr. Gobeil, as I find in the Auditor General's Report for 1897, was employed in the Public Works Hepartment for 3GG days, to the 30th of June, at $2 a day. I understand Mr. Charleson has employed this young man, who is a married man and that he is paying him $2,100 a year. He took him out of the Public Works Department where he was getting $2 a day and gave him $2,100 a year. On the 10th of March, he advanced Mr. Gobeil $1,500, again on the 10th of March, $400, on the 8th of May, $200, on the 11th of May, $100, on the 3rd of June, $200, on the 23rd of June, $100, on the 24th of June, $500; advanced in Ottawa on power of attorney given to Mrs. J. E. Gobeil $50 per month for March, April, May, June and July, $250, making a total of $3,250. Now, Mr. Gobeil's account for that money is in this way. It says amount of account $1,477.24, and I turn to the account and 1 find the first item is preliminary expenses preparing to accompany Mr. Charleson to the Yukon as per account attached $105.50. I turn up the items of that account and here they are :
Department of Public Works, Ottawa,


To J.: Gobeil, Dr.
March 8th.-Set of rough woollen clothes, $25; set of knickerbockers, $20; pair of knickerbockers, $7; moving house furniture on account of giving up house, packing and so forth, $21 ; storage, $24; sundry other expenses, including cab-hire, $8.50; total, $105.50.
That is the first item in this account of $1,477.24. Now, I want to read these accounts to show how the balance of that was accounted for and taken out of this money that be drew. I bare given you the items for $105.50, and here are the following items :
Cabs, $3.75, expressage, department to depot, house to depot, &c., $9.50; cab to Gatineau and return, $3.50; cabs in city, $3.25; tickets to Vancouver, Mr. Charleson and self, $146; stateroom to Winnipeg, $30; ten second-class tickets to Vancouver, with berths, $690; fare and puil-man to Vancouver (Mr. Gilchen), $93; one second-class ticket (Mr. Champagon), $61; one tourist berth to Winnipeg, $4.50; cars, messengers, packing, &c., $9.25; two meals, dining-car, Charleson and self, $1.50; waiter, 50c.; six meals dining-car-Charleson $2.75, self $3-$5.75 ; leather tags for trunks (Mr. Charleson), $1; telegrams, $3.90; meals, dining-car (Charleson and self),

$4.75; waiter, 50c.; six meals, dining-car (Charle-son and self), $5.25; porter, $1.50 ; telegrams, $4.20; messenger, 50c.; cab in Winnipeg, $1.50; do., $1; postage stamps, $5; hotel bill (Mr. Char-leson), $2.50; hotel bill (J. E. Gobeil), $1.50 ; telegrams, $5.35; typewriting, $8.80; messengers, $1.50; cab, $2; state-room to Vancouver from Winnipeg (Charleson and self), $46; four meals in dining-car (Charleson and self), $3; six meals on dining-car, $6; telegrams, $3.35; waiter, $1; three meals at Field, $2.25; do. in dining-car, $2.50; papers, 50c.; two meals dining-car (Mr. Charleson and self), $1.75; porter, $2.50; attendance at Vancouver Hotel, $1.50; cab, $2; shirt for self, $2-$4; telegrams, $7.40; do., $2.50; messenger, aligning typewriter, porter, $5.50; shirt for Mr. Charleson, $1.50; cab, $1.50; telegram, $1.40 ; cabs, $2.75-$4.15; stationery, $6.35; four fares and state-room Vancouver to Victoria,$23; porter, 50c.; steward, 75c.; lunch, 50c-$1.75; shirt for Mr. Charleson, $2; cab, $1.50-$3.50; telegrams, $2.65; Hotel ' Driard,' Mr. Charleson and self, $12.75; porter, cab, $2.50; telegrams in Victoria, $5.25; berths to Vancouver, $6; telegrams, $9.86; stamps, porter, $3; covering three trunks, $22; one Stetson hat for self, $6.50; one leather leggings, $3.50; reimbursed Hudon for express, Ottawa, $1.50; repairing broken typewriter case, $3.50; telegrams, $5.98; carters in Skagway, $2.25; eight meals in Skagway, $3.75; one pair of gloves, $2; one meal for self, 50c.; Gagnon for medicine, $1-$1.50; two meals, breakfast and dinner, $1; express, $1-$2; driver from Log Cabin to Bennett, $1; sundry expenses, Ottawa to Bennett, B.C., from 11th March to 2nd April, 1899, $30.50; total, $1,477.24.
That makes a total of $1,474.24 that he puts in on account of this $3,500, and there are three other small accounts, amounting to about $800, and then he credits himself with his salary at $175 a month, making the one account balance the other. I. want to ask the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) if he is going to take a man out of the Public Works Department who is earning $2 a day and appoint him at a salary of $2,100 a year ; I want to know, in addition to that, if he is going to pay for packing up his household furniture and moving it, paying for his clothes, pay for his knickerbockers, pay for his Stetson hats, and pay for every other luxury for himself and Mr. Charleson. Is that the way the money of the people of this country is to be wasted ? All these items I have quoted I have taken from the public accounts. The Prime Minister promised that he would run the business of this country on economical lines, and I want to know if he thinks it economical to clothe this man, to feed him, to let him travel as the Prime Minister himself should, in a stateroom, and buy a Stetson hat for $6.50, and gloves at $2 a pair. These figures have come before the minister, and have been audited and passed by him, and the money paid out. Let me ask him if all the other expenditures in connection with building this telegraph line are on the same extravagant scale as this ? Later on we will have a good deal to say about the accounts of W. G. Charleson. who sold goods to his father. .T. B. Charleson. for the government. The accounts of Mr. Tach6, who went up
there, are on the same extravagant scale. He not only charges his clothing, but he goes into a barber shop and gets his hair cut and a shave, and he charges it in his bill to the government. When we are pay-iug men large salaries, cannot they buy their own clothing and pay for their own shaving ? It is an outrage to have the money of the people squandered in that way. I could read more details of the same kind from these accounts, but I will not weary the House.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


George Taylor: Of course, my hon. friends over there are perfectly satisfied that it is all right, and so they say ' hear, hear.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What page of the Auditor General's Report?


George Taylor: Y-59. It gives the details of the expenditure of this $48,000. There is one item in this account that struck me as very peculiar, and that is where Mr. Tache charged the government for having his hair cut and a shave, in addition to charging them for his hats and shirts and gloves. Mr. Tachg is an engineer, but Mr. uobeil was working in the department, not even a civil servant, only a temporary drawing $2 a day, and when Mr. Charleson wants him for a special purpose, he gets a salary of $2,100, and all these expenses. He, at least, should have bought- his own shirts and gloves and Stetson hats, and travel as an ordinary passenger would in a pullman car, not hiring a stateroom for himself and Mr. Charleson.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not quite sure that the House and the country will be as much horrified as my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is, and I hope that on reflection the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) will find that he has gone a little too far. What are the facts ? Mr. Charleson was instructed by the Department of Public Works to go into the wilderness to build that telegraph line. The policy of the different departments in the past, and our policy in this case, has been to allow the superior officers to buy clothing which they would not have been obliged to buy if they had stayed here.


George Taylor: Do they not wear shirts here ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, they would use shirts here which would not be quite so rough. However, I think the country will understand very well that when men start for the wilderness they should be allowed some little latitude ; and, whether rightly or wrongly, the department allowed them to buy for their work there certain clothing and other things which they would not have used here. They bougnt two or three shirts for four or five dollars all told. Our surplus will not be eaten up by that amount of money.


John Graham Haggart: What about the silk hat ? Would It be needed in the woods?


George Taylor: A Stetson hat for $6.50.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know whether that is a silk hat or not. My hon. friend is surprised and scandalized at the fact that Mr. Goheil went there at an increased salary. When he was in the Department of Public Works he was earning $900 a year. He is a stenographer and typewriter : and being a strong and healthy man, Mr. Charleson picked him up in the office to take him with him. and naturally his salary was increased, as were the salaries of all others who went on that expedition. I do not know any officer in the department who would have gone into the wilderness and exposed his life for the same salary that he was getting here. The hon. gentleman believes that Mr. Charleson and Mr. Goheil should not have travelled in a state-room ; hut I believe I can find reasons for it. No doubt Mr. Charleson wished to take advantage of his time in the car to organize his work and prepare his plans, and how could that be done in an open car ? He simply did what any minister or business man would do when he has his secretary with him. The hon. gentleman has read a list of things that were bought by Mr. Charleson and charged to the $3,009 that was advanced to Mr. Goheil to pay the expenses of the people who were going there. In that list he has found three guns. I suppose the hon. gentleman would go there with sticks.


George Taylor: I did not read anything about guns.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If he did not read about guns, I must apologize. However, I think the accounts he has read are vei'y easy to explain. The House, I am sure, understands that when those men went there, they had to be equipped and clothed in a proper way. As I shall have to ask for a pretty large amount of money in the supplementary estimates, it might be better for me to make my statement as to [DOT] the expenditure on the line after the inquiry is completed. Still, I am ready to answer now any question that may be asked me.


George Taylor: When Mr. Gobeil was hired for $2,100 a year, he was keeping house; and lie makes a charge of $21 for moving furniture, packing, &c., on account of giving up house, and a charge of $24 for storing his furniture.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that he lias struck out that amount. Of course, I cannot be supposed to control these small expenditures. although I am responsible for them : and if that expenditure has been allowed, I do not think it should be allowed.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's Report does not show any credit on account Mr. TARTE.
of its having been struck out. Mr. J. B. Charleson approved of the account, and gave him credit on it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never claimed J. B. Charleson to be an infallible man. As to the charge for storage, I quite admit that it is wrong. I have not seen It before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does seem passing strange that if you take men from the ordinary walks of life and give them employment under the government, they at once become so dignified and important that only the most expensive style of living and travelling is suitable for them. Whether it is a man going to the Yukon or an immigration agent or a civil servant travelling through the country, they seem to be imbued with the idea that they must travel in state. I was going through the country with one of the immigration agents, and a first-class car was not good enough for him; nothing but a Fullmnn car would do. We have expenditures for meals, cabs, tips, and one thing after another, a dollar here and 75 cents or 50 cents there-50 cents as a tip to a waiter. I do not think this is right or that the country will endorse it. I would be sorry to deprive these people of any of the comforts or necessaries of life ; but in looking at many of these accounts, one cannot refrain from the belief that they are extravagant to the greatest degree. Their life insurance is charged to the country. In many cases there are charges for ordinary clothing. I could understand that in going to this severe climate of the Yukon country, a man would have to get many articles of apparel which he would not require down here, and there might be some reason for his charging them, but there can be none for charging silk hats at $6.50, and kid gloves. It looks as if these gentlemen were making extravagant expenditure for the purpose of not returning any of the money and making the account balance up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may be something in what my hon. friend has just said. I have found on some occasions that my employees travelled more luxuriously than I did. But in this ease I do not see any ground for serious reproach. The charge is a cow-boy hat, and not a silk hat.


Mr. CLANCY.: I think there is an increase of $1,100 to Mr. Tachfi. What is that for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Tachfi is a permanent employee of the department, earning $1,700 a year, but when we asked him to go out there we agreed to pay him $1,100 additional per year as long as he stayed there. When he returns, he will go back to his former salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see a reduction in the item for the line from Quesnel to Atlin. Is that nearly completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We expect to complete it by the 1st July next. I have received a telegram from Mr. Charleson, informing me that some of his party had gone over the gap, and that the distance is what he estimated, about 50 miles. The line between Dawson and Ashcroft is 1,896 miles in length. We also have built a line from Dawson to Port Egbert on the American line, 90 miles. When our American friends have completed their line from Cape Nome to Port Egbert, we will be in communication with the whole American system, and expect very good results. So far, on the 650 miles from Dawson to Port Bennett and Atlin, our earnings have reached the amount of $107,000 in the last fifteen months, which gives a clear profit of about $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the charge per message ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifty cents per 100 miles for ten words. Of course we have local rates which my hon. friend will find on page 40 of the Public Works Report, and of these rates nobody has complained. When this line is completed and the branch lines we are building between Fort Fraser and Benson bridge, about 200 miles, and from Fort Simpson to Hazelton, we will have a vast system of telegraph which we hope will be very profitable. Just to show what we have done, we have built about 34 stations and refuge houses from Quesnel to Dawson. I think this line has been built to great advantage. I do not say that everything has been done as we would have done it ourselves; but, taking into account the difficulties of isolation and so on, I think there is not much in the work upon which to base a criticism of the department. I do not claim credit to myself for I was away nearly all the time. Speaking without party bias, I think that Mr. Charleson, who has been very much accused, has done a work that will redound to his credit. He built the line between Bennett and Dawson, 650 miles, in five months, and he has built it well. I do not believe that the expenditure has been exaggerated.


George Taylor: We do not know what it is yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may be some amounts totalling, perhaps, $15,000 or $20,000, that are not settled yet, but we know pretty well where we stand.


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) may know, but the House or the country does not know how much money has been spent by Mr. Charleson for the work that he has done. We know only what has appeared in the Auditor General's Report for last year. When we see the Auditor General's next report, a year from now, there may be a revelation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the supplementary estimates are under discussion, I shall be glad to give all the information as to the expenditure. I will have careful statements prepared which I will lay on the Table of the House.


George Taylor: I understood the hon. minister to say that Mr. Tachfi was drawing $1,700 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When he left-yes. That is what he was drawing as a permanent employee, and we agreed to pay him $1,100 a year additional, or a total of $2,800, while he was out there.
Mr. TAY'LOR. And did the minister agree also to furnish him with board ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we agreed that the different officers should be lodged and boarded.


George Taylor: Besides this $2,800 salary?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Taylor: And did he agree to furnish him such items as this ?
Department of Public Works :
Dr. to J. C. Tache.
Bennett, B.C., March 6, 1899.-Carter to Hull and Gatineau and return, $4; lunch, 50c. March 8 : shirts and boots, $6. March 10 : pocket-book, $2. March 11 : carter, $4. March 15 : valise, $2.50. March 18 : Shirts, $2; hats and caps, $4. March 22 : shirts and collars, $3. March 25 : tobacco, $2; washing, $2. March 31 : snow glass, $3; developing plate, $2.50-
I suppose he was taking snap shots on the way.
-April 3 : two pairs of stockings, $1.50; two felt soles, 50c. April 10 : tobacco, $1.50. April 14 : washing, $2.15. May 2 : washing, $2.60. July 4 : hair cut and shaving, $2.
This is all approved by J. B. Charleson, superintendent of Yukon improvements. The hon. minister not merely raises this man's salary $1,100, but furnishes him with board, and also buys valises for his clothes, pocket-books to carry his money, tobacco, and so on, and pays for his washing and shaving and hair-cutting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I mav sav that when we increased Mr. Tach6's salary by $1,100, I did not expect he was going to charge us with hair-cutting.


George Taylor: He charged the country, not the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I mean that. I am very much afraid that Mr. Tache had contracted pretty bad habits under the former government-he is an old employee.


George Taylor: That is the story with everybody that does wrong.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Joking aside, I think some of these items should not have been charged. These, of course, are very small amounts, and it is easily to be understood that the minister cannot control them. There is no doubt something in what the hon. gentleman said -some of these employees when they travel, travel better than their minister. And I am afraid Mr. TachG has done that, for charging hair-cutting is going a little too far. I do not charge my hair-cutting. As to charges for clothing, I am responsible; 1 allowed these officers, who went out there, to charge the rough clothing that they would not have needed here. They have gone further than that, I am afraid. On the whole, perhaps, there is not much to be found fault with.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman would like it, I will read him the whole of these items. There is one account with a total of $640, made up of such items as this, and another of $626, approved by J. B. Charleson, this trusted officer of the hon. minister. And if the money is slipping away In little amounts like that, what is happening in the case of such men as Mr. Rochester, the friend of Mr. Charleson, who had the contract for getting out telegraph poles, and who certifies his own accounts-he and Mr. Charleson together.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly prepared to disapprove of what deserves disapproval, but I am not prepared to follow my hon. friend altogether. If Mr. Tach6 has charged a trifle that he should not have charged, he is wrong. But it is not proof that Mr. Oharle-son has acted wrongly. Nothing has been established againsc him.


George Taylor: We have not had a chance.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has had every opportunity of proving it if Mr. Charleson has acted wrongly, but he has not done so yet. Of course these small things are inevitable in a large administration. It is out of the question to escape little difficulties of this kind, In the best administered departments accidents like that will happen. My hon. friend has a large business, I understand. Has he not had occasion to scale down accounts that were charged against him ? It happens every day. I go into my son's office, and I find perhaps they have five, six or ten travellers, and they often make charges that should not be made. It happens in every firm.


George Taylor: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why say that ?


George Taylor: Because they say it, I have seen the accounts. He is the superintendent, and every account passes through

his bauds, and be approves of it. Tne minister says tbe opposition bad every opportunity to investigate tbe accounts. The fact is that on each occasion tbe last two years be lias slipxied away from Ottawa just before tbe meeting. We have this year tbe minister's promise that next year Mr. Charleson will be here, and we intend to bold him to tbe promise; we will have all tbe accounts for tbe past two or three years, and we will have them investigated. But until that time the minister has no right to say that tbe opposition have had every opportunity to investigate J. B. Cliarleson's accounts. We are now investigating W. G. Oharleson's accounts, but J. B. Charleson's we don't intend to touch until next session.


Tbe MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to ask whether tbe bon. gentleman is fair or not. .1. B. Charleson has been charged with tbe building of the telegraph line in the Yukon. He started that work two years ago. Last fall when winter began there was a gap of fifty or sixty miles to be built. The Bennett branch had been begun, and plans had been prepared for the Hazelton branch. Now, what would the House have said if, instead of sending Mr. Charleson back to his work, I had kept him here waiting the good pleasure of my hon. friend ? The country would have said that I was a little fool.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year when the order went out to Mr. Charleson, he was here, he was seen the next day in the Russell, and the excuse came back that they could not serve him with the notice, although it was left in his department, and he immediately skipped out to the Yukon. The same thing happened this year again, and that looks suspicious.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not here last year, but this year I was here, and I say that the hon. member for East Grey would have done what I did myself. That line had to be completed, and I would have acted very foolishly indeed if I had kept Mr. Charleson here There would have been no sense in it. Now as to Mr. Glichen, he is our permanent storekeeper at Bennett. Would it have been reasonable for me to call him down here at this season of the year ? It would not have been possible for him to come except at great inconvenience. The same thing may be said of Mr. Rochester. The hon. gentleman says he has no chance to investigate Mr. Charleson's accounts because Mr. Charleson is away. I think the hon. gentleman would have a still better chance when Mr. Charleson is away, because he would have still greater liberty in investigating his accounts when Mr. Charleson was not here to defend himself. But he will be here next year, because the line will be completed by the beginning of July. I trust we will all meet here again
next year. I do not say that Mr. Charleson may not have made a mistake. I am prepared to say just now that it was a mistake for Mr. Charleson to put his name to accounts for goods sold by his son. I grant that, but there is only one case of goods, only one instance, so far as we have been able to find, in which Mr. Charleson's name is alone. It was a case of wire to which his name alone was attached. The wire has been sent, we will produce the bills of lading. But, Mr. Charleson is guilty of having a son.


George Taylor: That is out of order.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will not say it again. Mr. Charleson is guilty of having a couple of sons and of loving them. I must remind the committee that these purchases of goods that have been made in Mr. Charleson's store have not always been made by him. They have scarcely ever been made by him. The officers of the Public Works Department have bought at Mr. Charleson's store here more than the old man has done himself. I do not mean to say anything in an offensive way, but there is a kind of free masonry amongst these public employees. They like to encourage each other. They are under no obligation to buy at Charleson's. I do not see why they have bought more there than anywhere else. Mr. Charleson's name was on the patronage list as other names are. Mr. TaehO bought goods there, I suppose because he was going out west, and the old man was out also.


George Taylor: Perhaps there was a rake-off.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A rake-off ?


George Taylor: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If there was any rake-off I want to know it; that is all. If my hon. friend knows it, let him say so, and any one who is guilty will be called to account. I will dismiss any man who has taken a rake-off.


George Taylor: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I shall. If any public employee got any commission I want to know it. His head will come off. The hon. gentleman should not say things of that kind unless he has the proof. Before he produces the proof he has no right to do so.


George Taylor: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the vouchers are here now.


George Taylor: We have not been able to get them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are all before the Public Accounts Committee now.


George Taylor: We go through the Auditor General's Report, and we cannot examine the accounts in detail, because the Auditor General has not received the vouchers. What is the good of getting accounts unless we get the vouchers V We want Mr. Charleson here to be examined.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The vouchers are before the committee now. What has happened is this : I had a capable chief accountant in the person of Mr. Dionne. He died, and I promoted Mr. Kingston. We did not replace Mr. Kingston. The Auditor General told me, after my return from the other side, that our accountant's branch was not strong enough. We had not enough men there. The business of the Public Works Department has increased vastly. Instead of dealing with $2,000,000, or $2,500,000, we are now dealing with $G,-000,000 or $0,500,000 a year. As far as the accountant's branch is concerned, it is not strong enough, and we could not get all the vouchers in time. We have them all here now. I am sorry that they have come late, but it is nobody's fault.


James Clancy: The line between Bennett and Dawson has been completed for some considerable time, I understand, and I also understand that the line from Atlin to Ques-nelle, and as far as Ashcroft, is also pretty well completed. It would be well for the committee to be in possession of some definite knowledge as to the cost of this line. Will the hon. gentleman be able, later on, to give the committee the cost of the poles, of wire, of side blocks, and of the work of construction, giving each separately ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give it now; if not, if he will give it later on it will be very valuable information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not give the details of the expenditure to-night, the cost of wire, and so on, but all that can be found before the Public Accounts Committee, because all the vouchers are there. As to the total cost of the line, I can give that now. I will give the details with pleasure later on.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question in regard to what are called river improvements, vdiich Mr. Tachc has under his control, and* for which there is a vote of $40,000. Is that work pretty well completed, and did the hon. gentleman exhaust the vote given last year ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to ask the hon. minister a question about the telegraph Mr. TAYLOR.
business. I understood him to say that the rate was 50 cents for ten words per 100 miles. That would make the cost of a message passing over the line, which is 1,850 miles long, $9 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I was giving that rate for the Bennett and Dawson line. It will be less than that when the line is completed. What I want to convey is this : We charge that much now, and if the hon. gentleman looks at page 40 of the Public Works Report, he will understand the whole thing. We are charging now 50 cents per 100 miles on the Dawson and Bennett line, which means that a telegram of ten words will cost about $3.75 from Vancouver.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the length of that line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 650 miles. As to the other line, when it is completed, we will have to adopt a special rate, which we have not yet determined.


James Clancy: What is the rate for each additional word above ten words ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between Dawson and Bennett it is 15 cents per additional word.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if, when this line is completed, he believes it wall be a financial success. Will it pay the government, or the country, to construct this line from a financial standpoint ? We remember very well that the government, two years ago, undertook the construction of this public work, and that a private corporation, which had taken steps towards the construction of a telegraph line over the same route, was set aside, in fact, pushed aside. I fail to see that the government would have any special object in undertaking this as a. government work, unless it was going to be for the benefit of the country. Why should we set aside a private corporation unless some financial benefit was going to accrue to the country by undertaking it as a public work ? I would like to know, since the work has gone so far. whether the hon. minister believes that a very large profit will accrue to the country from the construction of this work by government money, instead of allowing it to be constructed by private capital.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far this line has been a very well-paying affair. Up to the 1st of January last our revenue has been $107,712.28. and our expenditure has been $57,415.40, making a total profit of about $50,000.


James Clancy: How much capital invested ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cost of that line has been $178,820.33.

If the balance of the line pays as well as this part has done we will have a pretty good investment indeed.


James Clancy: Does the minister expect the balance of the line will pay as well ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, I expect that the line will pay fairly well, but I would not like to make any prophecy just now.


John Graham Haggart: At what does the minister estimate the total cost of all these telegraph lines ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimated cost is as follows : Bennett to Dawson, G54 miles, $178,820.33 ; Dawson and Fort Egbert, 901 miles, $20,000 ; Ques-nelle line, $401,281 ; Manson Creek branch, $73,000 ; Fort Simpson and Hazleton, $40,000 ; total, about $773,000. I may say here that the average cost of the line built has been about the same as calculated by Mr. Hosmer when he was president and manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway telegraph lines. I have a letter in my possession in which he estimated that the average cost of the line would be $340 a mile and the average cost of our line has been $379.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total mileage ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total mileage would be 2,0381 miles. I may add that Mr. Hosmer wrote me a standing offer, if I may call it so, in which he said that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be ready to take up our line and pay us an interest of 4 per cent on the cost of the work. I expect we will do better and I am not prepared to rent the line.


John Graham Haggart: What is the estimated annual cost of the whole line for servants and keeping in repairs and everything else ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not like to pledge myself to any definite figure. Last year we spent $57,000 for 18 months, but I received a telegram a few weeks ago from Mr. Crease, our manager, in which he says he expects to spend about $7,000 less than in the past.


John Graham Haggart: It is, only on 000 miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is on 054 miles and then the 90 miles to Atlin. Of course we will have to spend a good deal more on the whole line, but I cannot pledge myself to any definite figure.


James Clancy: Does that include buildings and equipments, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, nearly all the buildings are up. We have 34 stations and refuge houses on the Quesnelle and Atlin line and we have as many as are necessary on the other lines.


James Clancy: I suppose these will be replaced by better and more durable buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe the buildings are fairly good. We do not contemplate erecting any better buildings now.


James Clancy: Under what circumstances did Mr. Hosmer write the letter he referred to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Hosmer was urging us to build the line and he wrote us one letter if not two, but I have one before me in which he gives these figures. I think Mr. Richardson had been sent out by the Canadian Pacific Railway to ascertain the cost of the line, and it was on that information that Mr. Hosmer gave the figures.


James Clancy: Was Mr. Hosmer an intending contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no, it is Mr. Charles R. Hosmer, who was manager and president of the Canadian Pacific Railway telegraph lines.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the government first announced the telegraph tolls that were to be charged, they were considered rather high, but it was said by those who are familiar with the country and its difficulties, that they might be considered very moderate. In view of the fact that the minister has intimated that he had an offer from the Canadian Pacific Railway for the line and that he may contemplate disposing of it in some way, I would like to remind him that in the judgment of a good many people the present charges for telegrams are very high, and that they might be reduced in the near future so that the public could reap the full benefit of the very large expenditure we have made. That view of the case should not be lost sight of. The cost of the line does not appear to be so extravagant, but it does seem to me that no private concern should be allowed to get hold of the line and to maintain the present high charges. If that were done they would have a very good investment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to understand the opinion of the members on this point. When this line is completed we will have expended about three-quarters of a million dollars. Does the country expect that we should try to make a profit out of it, or only to meet our expenditure. I would like very much to hear the opinion of the House on that point. It is not a party question at all, and I would be very glad to receive any suggestion on that point from hon. members on either side of the House. By charging more we could make a certain amoupt of money ; but if the department is expected to pay only the

working expenses and the cost of repairs, we can charge less.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that where lines of this nature must come into competition with investments of private capital, the rates for messages should he sufficient not only to pay the wear and tear and the cost of keeping up the line, but a reasonable interest on the money invested as well. I do not think that would be unreasonable to expect. If these lines did not come, into competition with private capital, I would be disposed to say, make the messages as cheap as possible, so as to pay only the expenses of repairing the line and keeping it up. With wise and economical management, I think a great reduction could be made in the rates.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I feel myself that we have derived a little too much benefit from the last eighteen months' operations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, I think you have.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps we were anxious to show good financial results. But I may say we have not received a single complaint of the rates. People out there pay cheerfully. We have not determined at all on the rates we are going to charge when the line is completed.


George Taylor: I want to read to the hon. minister a letter which is published in the Auditor General's Report, at page V-341. in which the Auditor General calls attention to the slipshod manner in which these accounts were kept out there in the Yukon. It was written on December 13, 1900, when the Auditor General's Report ought to have been in the printer's hands. It is addressed to the deputy minister, and is as follows:-
Audit Office, Ottawa, Dec. 13, 1900.
Sir,-Let me call your attention to the large amounts of cash received by Mr. J. B. Charle-son in 1898-1900, for which we have not received accounts, namely :-
Public buildings, Yukon district.. $ 4,300 00
Bennett-Dawson telegraph line .. 43,615 39
Quesnel-Atlin telegraph line	 1,000 00
Lewes and Yukon rivers	 47,710 86

In an interview which I had about two weeks ago with yourself and the accountant, Mr. Kingston said that some of these vouchers had reached him, though in an incomplete state; but that he had not then time to examine them (as required by the Audit Act) before transmitting them to this office.
I also understood that you were to ask Mr. Charleson (who had returned to Ottawa) to call at the Audit Office and give whatever information he could; and that you were to telegraph to Vancouver to bring Mr. Hardy, who had acted as Mr. Charleson's accountant. I have seen neither of these gentlemen; please let me know when I may expect them.
As was done under similar circumstances last year, I have sent the manuscript of my report Mr TARTE.
to the Queen's Printer, having entered opposite the above-mentioned advances a reference to ' J. B. Charleson's Expenditure-Account at the end of Public Works Expenditure,' on the chance that the necessary materials will arrive in time to prepare such an account.
I hope that this will be the case, as otherwise I shall be obliged to make the requisite explanations in my report to free me from any share of responsibility for the delay.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
J. L. McDOUGALL, A.G. The Deputy Minister, Public Works Dept.
Then there is this foot-note :
Note.-Vouchers covering a large portion ef the expenditure between March and October, 1899, were supplied to this office on December 21, 1900.-J. L. McD.
Accounts over a year old had not yet come in ; and where are the accounts since October, 1899 ? They ought to be detailed in the Auditor General's Report.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, The hon. gentleman knows very well that all those accounts have been brought down.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman knows nothing of the kind, and the minister does not know. The hon. minister cannot present them either here or in the Public Accounts Committee. There is not a member on this side of the House who has seen them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the accounts which the Auditor General has seen are brought down. They were late, of course, and I have given the reasons why they were late. Mr. Charleson was out there, and the accounts could not be sent in the regular way. Mr. Hardy, the' accountant, has been here and has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and he has been kept here when he should be out there. I do not see that there is any reason at all for complaint. My hon. friend knows that it is impossible to expect that things will be done as regularly in that part of the country as they are done here in Ottawa. All these accounts are down now.
Telegraph Line-Dawson to Fort Egbert, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is going on with that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That line covers 90} miles between Dawson and the American frontier. When the American government shall have completed its line from Cape Nome to Fort Egbert, we shall be in communication with the American system. The Americans could not complete their line last year, because their wires and other supplies were lost on a boat which sank ; but they are building it now. We built that line from Dawson to Port Egbert after communicating with Major General Greeley of the American army, who called our attention to the great advantages for the two countries of having our lines connected together at that place.


John Graham Haggart: When do the Americans expect to have their line from Cape Nome to Egbert completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They had built 15 to 20 miles, when they met with that accident. A barge load of wires and other supplies sank, but they are now working on the line, and expect to complete it this year.
Trail roads and bridges, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are roads from Dawson to different points. Some were built under the control of Mr. Ogilvie, for which we have paid. Many of them have been built under the control of Mr. Tachfi himself, with the consent of the Yukon council. It is most important that we should build more roads as quickly as possible, and I intend asking a large amount in the supplementaries.
Lewes and Yukon rivers improvements, including allowance of $1,100 per annum to superintending engineer J. G. TaehS, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $40,000.


James Clancy: How much work has yet to be done iu the river improvement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Tachd reports that it will be necessary to spend between $30,000 and $40,000 in building improvements on the Lewes and Yukon rivers. Some pretty large works have already been done, and we have received from Major Bond, agent of the underwriters at Montreal, a flattering letter, in which he says that the works are very useful indeed. This will complete the work.


James Clancy: What works other than telegraph lines are under Mr. Charleson ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only the telegraph lines. I asked him to look about and see if there was anything he could report, but he is only in charge of the telegraph lines, and has his hands full.


James Clancy: Has there not been some sort of joint control by Mr. Charleson over the river improvements as well as the telegraphs?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When Mr. Charleson first left, we thought it would be better to have all the works under his control, but later we found that, on account of the distances and the different kinds of work, it would be better to divide it up. Mr. Tachg was instructed to supervise the river and lake improvements, and Mr. Charleson was given control of the telegraph lines. Mr. Fuller has control of the public buildings.


James Clancy: How long were the public buildings and river improvements under Mr. Charleson's control ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Charleson practically never exercised 135
any control except over the telegraph lines, as it was found impracticable that he could also direct the other services.


James Clancy: From whom does Air. Fuller receive his instructions ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He receives all his instructions from the department.


Air. INGRAM.: I find by the Auditor General's Report that that officer complains that Air. Hardy, though accountant for Mr. Charleson, has given no explanation of the moneys expended by Air. Charleson. I would like to know if the Auditor General has had satisfaction from Air. Hardy with regard to this matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly he has. Air. Hardy was away when the Auditor General wrote. Since then he has come back ar.d has been m Ottawa for four or five months. All the vouchers had been placed in the Auditor General's hands, and Air. Hardy has beeu before the Public Accounts Committee-I believe he is under examination now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether it is proper to refer to the matter, it not being now before the committee, but in connection with Mr. Hardy's evidence it struck me as unbusinesslike that Air. Rochester, who went up to look after the accounts in the interest of the government, at a certain time becomes a sub-contractor under Air. Charleson, yet goes on keeping these accounts in which he himself is interested, as a large share of the money goes to him. But there is nothing to show when Air. Rochester ceased to be a civil servant and became a sub-contractor. The work seems to have been carried on in the most unbusinesslike way, and it was impossible to get a clear and definite understanding of the real relationship between the officer who was employed to spend all this money and this book-keeper who afterwards became a subcontractor.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may be*a little irregular to refer to this matter, but as my hon. friend (Air. Sproule) has called attention to it, I may explain what happened. Air. Rochester left here as an employee of the Public Works Department. having the position of foreman and book-keeper. He was an experienced man and was chosen by Air. Charleson himself. He opened the books and kept them well. The books are here now and are before the Public Accounts Committee. They have gone throtigh the hands of the Auditor General and are public property. They are very well kept. At a given day, Air. Charleson made a contract with Air. Rochester for poles. Whether is was well or not, whether it was prudent or not, I am not prepared to say, but Air. Charleson gave this contract.



Mr. Rochester agreeing to keep the accounts at night without pay. I got that information from Air. Charleson, for I asked him to explain why he had given this contract to Mr. Rochester. He said that he thought it was beneficial to the department to give him that contract. Air. Hardy swore that Air. Rochester was the only one that could keep the books.


George Taylor: Then why did not Air. Charleson keep him at it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Whether it was prudent or not to give that contract the future will prove. It has not been shown yet that anything wrong was done.


James Clancy: I can tell the hon. gentleman that the books are far from being well kept. He has never looked through the books, for he is too good an accountant to make such a statement if he had examined them. I do not care to comment on this matter at the present time, but I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to send the statement abroad that the books were well kept. I am not speaking of the general outcome of this work, but simply of the way the books were kept.
The A1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I am not an expert accountant; but I heard Mr. Reid and Air. Hardy, two able men, state under oath that the books were well kept.


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Air. Reid said that things were in good shape. However, that will be looked into later on. If it is shown that there is anything wrong, we will know what to do. But, so far, nothing wrong has been proven. Whether Mr. Charleson acted wisely in giving the contract to one who was an employee under him I do not say. I do not say that I would have done it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he ask the hon. minister's consent before doing it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC .WORKS.: He did not. He could not do it as a matter of fact, for there was no communication. Whether I was right or wrong, I gave Air. Charleson carte blanche. I hope he has not abused my confidence. We were obliged to give him carte blanche, for we could not control him at that distance. We gave' him instructions, as the House has already heard. He may have made some mistakes, but let not hon. gentlemen opposite be too severe. He has acted under difficult circumstances and has accomplished a great work indeed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to be .severe, but when the hon. gentleman says that these books were well kept, I will ask him, if that is the case, why the books do not show at what time the contract given to


Mr. TARTE.: Air. Rochester was entered into, and what date Air. Rochester ceased to be an employee of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have all that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The books do not show it. I listened to the witness before the committee and he could not tell us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be an easy thing to find out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister regard it as a proper thing that a man who is keeping books as between the government and Air. Charleson should be at the same time a sub-contractor under Air. Charleson and looking to him for favours or concessions ? And does he think it a proper thing to take Air. Rochester's services in keeping the books for nothing ? If he kept them properly, why should he not be paid for his work ? These two officers seem to work too much into each others hands. If I were a contractor under Air. Charleson and wished to get the best out of him I could in the shape of favours and high prices, and if 1 were keeping the books showing the transactions between Air. Charleson and the government, I should have it in my power, without much difficulty, to make the accounts show very much in his favour and show that everything was done right. On the other hand, I might be getting great favours from the man with whom I am contracting because of the power I have of playing again into his hands when I am keeping the accounts between him and the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Rochester got the contracts for poles, for which he was paid $2 and $2.25. Air. Rochester had no control over the money. He was keeping the books, but he could not steal any money.
Air. "PROULE. WTas it not in Air. Charle-son's power to give him a higher or a lower price for those poles in consideration of his doing something for him ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He was the only authority up there who could fix the price ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The price was already fixed. The poles were counted by Mr. Richardson, not by Air. Charleson, and the money was paid to Air. Rochester after the poles were counted. The fact that Air. Rochester was keeping the books could not in any way lead to any dishonesty. The money could not be stolen, even had these men a desire to steal, whieh they had not. Air. Rochester was getting so much per pole. The poles were counted by Air. Richardson, and on the certificate of that counting Mr. Rochester was paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were they counted before they were put up or after ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think they were counted before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told there is quite a discrepancy between the count before they were put up and the count after they were put up.


John Graham Haggart: The most objectionable part of the transaction is this : Here is a party who goes out there for the purpose of building a telegraph line. He has absolute disposal of the money, no certificate is required except from himself. The department is not responsible at all for the expenditure ; that is one objection. No certificate from the officers of the department here is required to show that the goods were of a fair price, or that they were required. The certificates even for the goods purchased for the use of this party out in the Yukon pass under the nose of the department in the city of Ottawa. I saw a certificate with my own eyes signed by parties out there, passing the nose of the Public AVorks Department here, where the goods ought to have been certified to. It is suspicious that a hardware store was started in the city of Ottawa about the time this party gets his credit out there. The goods are purchased from the hardware store and pass under the nose of the department here, who ought to be responsible for every expenditure. There ought to be a certificate from the department here as to the necessity of the goods and the value of the goods. They go from here out to British Columbia, and tlfere Mr. Charleson has absolute disposal of this money. There is no officer out there to certify as to the necessity or value of the goods.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: There is something true and something which is inaccurate in what the hon. gentleman has said. It is true that the ordinary officers of the department did not certify to a certain quantity of the goods which were purchased here. But, Mr. Charleson was instructed to conduct a special work. We gave him a staff, and on that staff was a young engineer of great ability, Mr. Boyer, an honourable, upright young man, as all his family are. He belongs to one of the best families in Montreal, and I am sure he Is a sterling young man. It is he who certified to nearly all these accounts. 1 trust in him implicitly, he would not steal a cent from anybody. He is an honourable and able young man. who will climb up the hill. Now, that young gentleman has certified to the accounts in nearly every case. The other officer who certified to the accounts is Mr. Tache. My hon. friend knows him well, and his family. He has been employed here for twenty years. He has certified to nearly all the accounts for the goods that have been purchased from Air. Charleson. Air.
TackS and Air. Boyer are the two men who have certified to nearly all these accounts. The only account that has been certified by Mr. J. B. Charleson alone is the account for $2,500 worth of wire. As I have already said, the wire has not been eaten up, it has been placed on poles there. Well, as I said before, the great trouble is that Air. Charleson has a son who has a store here, and that my officers bought a good deal there. But, I must remind the committee that a large amount of the goods purchased at the young man's store were purchased after tenders. Nearly all the wire, for instance, has been supplied after tender. Now, there were only $06,000 spent by Air. Charleson under the circumstances the hon. gentleman has alluded to. All the other expenditure that has been made since has been controlled by Air. Hardy, as well as by Air. Charleson himself. Perhaps we should have started out in the beginning to do as we did later on, perhaps we should have sent Air. Hardy immediately, but we were in a great hurry. Air. Charleson started to go up there, and I say that not one dollar of this $66,000 will be proved to have been expended wrongfully. All the vouchers are down here. One of the ablest men in the department of the Auditor General has gone through all those accounts, and he has stated under oath that everything was all right.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman refer now to Air. Reid ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do.


James Clancy: Well, now my hon. friend has gone a long way. I think he is putting Air. Reid in a very awkward position. Air. Reid stated that he was only there a very short time, that he had not time to thoroughly examine the accounts, but that so far as he had examined them he had found them all right. He never made even a report and he did not bring a figure to the department so far as he was able to state in evidence, yet, the hon. gentleman says that an experienced officer of the Auditor General's Department has gone through the accounts and made a very careful examination of them, upon which he has made his statement to the committee. Surely the hon. gentleman will modify his statement.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am just going to read Mr. Reid's letter.


James Clancy: Never mind Air. Reid's letter: we will take his evidence.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall mind it. Air. Reid went through these accounts; he spent a month at them, and he did so at whose instance ? It was Mr. Charleson himself who asked him to do him the favour of going through these accounts. He did so, and he wrote in the books that are public property a certificate

to the effect tlmt lie had examined the accounts and thnt he had found them all right. But, 1 wanted more than that and he wrote me, on the 25th of April of this year what I am going to read :
Auditor General's Office, April 25, 1901.
Sir,-Mr. Hardy, of your department, informs me that you are desirous of having a copy of a certain certificate that I gave Mr. J. B. Char-leson at Bennett in the month of October, 1899, in connection with the expenditure by him in the Yukon territory. On October 24th, 1899, I stopped working at the books and accounts, and entered the following certificate in the ledger
' Examined and found correct. (Sgd.) J. W. Reid.'
This certificate covered all entries up to and including October 11th, 1899. At the same time I gave Mr. Charleson a certificate on a sheet of note paper. Of this certificate I did not keep a copy, but, to the best of my recollection, it was to the effect that I had examined the books of Mr. Charleson and had checked over all the entries, comparing them with the vouchers and books of original entry, that I had checked over the vouchers and pay-lists themselves and found them correct. These are probably not the exact words used, but the meaning was to that effect.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
Since then the accounts that Mr. Reid has examined have been brought down. My hon. friends have had every opportunity, and they will have every opportunity of looking at them. If there is anything wrong let them show it. Since then Mr. Hardy, who kept the accounts of Mr. Charleson, lias been examined. He is the property of the House to-day, if I may say so. So. I think that everything considered, it is rather surprising that more irregularities have not taken place.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ob.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is surprising that men, isolated as they were, have been able to keep such exact account of the large transactions they were carrying on under most difficult circumstances. They were isolated, they could not take advice from anybody, they had to carry on the works, and they had to buy supplies where they could get them. It is most unfair to say that they bought everything from Mr. Charleson. Nearly all the supplies that Mr. Charleson has bought were bought after tenders were asked.


James Clancy: What was tendered for outside of wire ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The greater part of the provisions were supplied by tender. I quite grant that some were taken in without tender, but later on, tenders were asked. The Messrs. Kelly, of Vancouver, were found to be the lowest tenderers, and they were given the contract under which they are now going on.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman produce these tenders ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are now before the House.


James Clancy: I have never seen them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, there are a lot of vouchers, tenders and papers of all kinds which my hon. friend, with all his courage, 1 am sure, will not go through.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman, if he will take the course that has been followed on this side of the House, will not come to conclusions. I have not said one word reaching a conclusion from anything I have seen so far. I do not believe the hon. gentleman is justified in stating broadly what he has said. I think it is only fair to all parties concerned not to come to any hasty conclusion, and I have therefore refrained from making any comment so far, but I am afraid the hon. gentleman has gone a long way to give an unreserved certificate of character to Mr. Charleson. The hon. gentleman has gone very much farther perhaps than he is conscious of. I have been listening to him, and I have been quite appalled at the energy of the hon. gentleman who has always the happy manner of turning things in a way, by some sleight of hand, that deceives the sight, and sometimes deceives the senses. If I had not some slight knowledge of the matter, I would feel completely subdued by the statement of the hon. gentleman, but having some slight knowledge that I do not care to discuss now, I must rebel against the hon. gentleman's statement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe thnt any dishonest action has been committed. There may have been mistakes. I do not deny that there have been mistakes made. I do not want to go any farther.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister answered the questions I put to him by stating that he had certificates. He gave a certificate of character to this Mr. Boyer, an engineer who was up there. I have no knowledge of this young gentleman, but I have no doubt this certificate of character was deserved. Tliei'e are three prerequisites to a certificate-necessity of the goods, reception of them, and price. Mr. Boyer has not certified to the price being correct and fair.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe that Mr. Boyer has certified to [DOT]the price of a certain quantity of goods.


John Graham Haggart: Those purchased up there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Did he certify as 1 to the value being fair ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, in many cases lie did. Mr. Tachd has done the same thing.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think so. However, we will see again.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman think now that this is a valuable certificate ? The hon. gentleman has been in business a long time, and is perhaps remotely connected with business now. If the hon. gentleman sent a buyer out to buy paper for the very powerful newspaper which the hon. gentleman conducted in the past, and . does now in some sense, would the hon. gentleman consider a certificate from a person, employed by him to look after his business, who, only, to his own knowledge, and in the face of the party from whom he purchased, declared that he sold large quantities of paper at retail prices, a valuable and proper certificate ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not understand the hon. gentleman's question.


James Clancy: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must admit in all frankness that some of these goods should have been bought perhaps at wholesale prices. The custom we followed in this has always been followed by the Department of Public Works.


James Clancy: Then it is a veiy bad one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a bad one and I found it so little worthy of commendation that I have changed it now.


James Clancy: It is a pretty late repentance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is never too late to repent. The hon. gentleman will find by looking at the records of the department in the past that the officers on this occasion simply followed the custom which existed. I have changed that. The Department of Public Works will in future have a purchasing agent as all big firms have, and I hope to be able to accomplish a good deal of saving in that way. If my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is
ever Minister of Public Works or Minister
of Railways and Canals-


James Clancy: Not much chance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes, it will come some of these days. There might be worse men in that position, and when the hon. gentleman is minister he will find that it takes some time before the minister knows his trade very well. The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Ilaggart) is a clever man and a sound businessman and a man of long experience, and he has been caught badly some times.
I do not say that in any offensive way. On this occasion we have not been caught badly, some of these goods might have been bought at wholesale prices, but it was only a trifle after all compared to the cost of the work. We have spent about three quarters of a million and nearly all the goods have been bought at wholesale prices or by tender. Some of the goods bought from Mr. Charleson might have been bought at reduced prices. I grant that, but it is not a large sum of money. I would be glad of course if they had been bought at wholesale prices. But let the House understand we were in a very great hurry. Everybody was talking Yukon then; everybody thought there were millions within their reach. We started that telegraph line pretty fast and perhaps a few hundred dollars might have been saved. I will go over those accounts with very great care when I have a little more time, but I make bold to say that out of Charleson's accounts my hon. friend will not find there has been an overcharge of $500 in the whole thing.


James Clancy: Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe there is more than that, but suppose on a large amount of money like three quarters of a million, there might have been an accident, and we might have saved, say $1,000, I hope I will not be hanged for that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: We will let you off.


John Graham Haggart: Men have been hanged for a great deal less.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friends opposite laugh ; I suppose they believe I have done worse than that.


George Taylor: The Minister of Public Works says that he followed the system he found in vogue but he cannot possibly verify that statement. He cannot find from the Auditor General's Report or anywhere else that under the Conservative regime the officer of any department established his son in business, went immediately to his son to purchase all his supplies, approved of the accounts himself and paid for them; in one day purchased $4,000 worth of goods.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not himself, Tachfs did.


George Taylor: Approved of them; paid for them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not himself.


George Taylor: He gave his own cheque for the goods the next day.


John Graham Haggart: Before they were shipped.


George Taylor: Before they were shipped and never asked for a cash discount, and paid for them at from 25 to 50 per cent more than they could have been bought for in Ottawa at wholesale prices. If the Minister of Public Works can find from the Auditor General's Report where any minister of the late government allowed anything of that kind to be done, 1 will resign my seat in the House. Mr. Cliarlesou with a few friends goes and purchases a stock at 00 cents on the dollar, retails at wholesale prices, and last year the government paid $48,000 to Cliarleson's sou. Some of these accounts were paid without having been certitied by any one but Charleson himself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is only one.


George Taylor: Only one that we have found as yet. The Minister of Public Works has read a letter from Mr. Reid, of the Auditor General's Department, and he says that Mr. Reid audited these accounts. M ell, Mr. Iteid saw the accounts just as we have seen them, but he did not go into details and he simply saw that the figures were added up correctly. Anything that Mr. Charleson approved of whether it came from the sou or elsewhere passed, and the Auditor General's officer simply saw that the calculation of the figures was correct. The letter read by the minister proves nothing so far as proper investigation into the purchase is concerned. Why every one in the country knows that these prices were extravagant, every one knows that the price of United States oakum is $5.50 a bale, and yet Charleson charged $8 a bale for dozens and dozens of bales of it. The government paid Charleson 10 cents a piece for stovepipes, and the hou. member for Toronto can tell the House that he will sell them for 0 cents. You can buy them anywhere, put together and rivetted three for a quarter, and yet Charleson was paid 10 cents a piece for them, done up in freight form and knock-down state and the government had to pay for rolling them up and delivering them. Charleson admitted the fact that he sold them singly for 10 cents already. That is the way the money of the people has been squandered by Mr. Charleson of the Public Works Department purchasing from his son. Mr. Charleson


George Taylor: bought a stock for 60 cents on the dollar, established his son in the business and not only the Public Works Department, but every other department of government rushed to him for supplies and paid him retail prices amounting to $47,000 in all last year, a great deal more the year before, and this year probably more. When did the minister change the system; when did the minister appoint a purchasing officer; it is only within the last few days when the revelations came out in the committee and opened the eyes of the people, and when he was probably told by his colleagues that these things would have to stop.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC' WORKS. Let the hou. gentleman allow me to settle my accounts with my colleagues. I can take care of myself and they can take care of themselves. There is not much fear on that account. The question is not whether Mr. Charleson has sold much or little ; the question is whether he has sold at unfair prices. I grant that retail prices have been charged in some cases ; but, in many cases he has charged us less than retail prices. My hon. friend is eloquent on figures, but he exaggerates when he says that goods have been sold by Mr. Charleson at from 25 per cent to 50 per cent too much. The hon. gentleman cannot show that there has been in Mr. Charleson's sales $500 of overcharges. I have stated elsewhere, as I state here, that if any serious overcharges has been made by Mr. Charleson against the Department of Public Works, I will make him reimburse ; I will take good care that he pays the money back. But, my hon. friend has the vouchers, and we will go over all these accounts, if not this year, next year ; and I make bold to say that he will not prove what he has said to-night.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would have been better to have taken the precaution that Mr. Charleson did not overcharge than to say that he will make him reimburse now that he has overcharged ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have known a great many people to be wise after the fact, as my hon. friend is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ex-MInister of Railways says there are three requisites in purchasing goods : first, that they are needed ; second, that they are purchased at a reasonable price ; third, that they have been delivered. The Minister of Public Works says that a government officer certified that these goods were received, that they were needed, and that they were purchased at a reasonable price. Now. as an example. I will take the item of 96 pairs of climbing spurs. They cost $2.35 a pair, according to the sworn evidence of the men who made them ; but, Mr. Charleson sold them to the Department of Public Works for $4.50 a pair. These goods cost Mr. Charleson $224,

and he made a profit on them of $200.40. Does the hon. minister say that the party who purchased these goods was a compete.it judge of their value, and that there was not an overcharge ? I give that merely as one example of the charges that were made, and I think we may judge a great many of them by that one.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad my hon. friend has called attention to these climbing spurs, because the evidence given by Mr. Latour is misleading. The account for climbing spurs ordered direct from Mr. Latour by Mr. Charleson will be found in the public accounts next year. The spurs which Mr. Charleson got from Mr. Latour he sold to us for $3. The other ones were ordered from Ah earn & Soper, and they were bought by Mr. Charleson for $3.80, and he sold them to us for $4.50. Mr. Ahearn has told us under oath that he sells them retail at the latter price. But, suppose there was a little overcharge. The Public Works Department, some months before, bought climbing spurs from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is supposed to sell at reasonable prices, at $5 a pair; so that, we thought we were within the mark when we paid 50 cents a pair less to Mr. Charleson. These are the facts. Where is the business man who has not paid too much at times for goods ? I know not one who has not made some little mistakes. We have not been overcharged to any great extent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is the sworn evidence of the man who made them, that he supplied them at $2.35, and would have supplied them to the government at the same price ; and there is the Auditor General's Report, which shows what Mr. Charleson was paid for them.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman intends to adopt a different system for the purchase of supplies in the future. Let me give him my advice in the matter. If he would follow the precedent set by the Railway Department when under my control, of not buying a locomotive or a freight car or even a paint brush or a pound of nails, without giving a chance to the whole public to tender, he would save himself much adverse criticism. If he intends adopting a new system, let him adopt that which is in vogue In Great Britain. There they have a book with every article that can be possibly required, entered in it, with the price opposite each, and let him ask the public to tender for these particular articles, as they are required, and state at how much per cent under or over the prices quoted in this book they will sell them at. Otherwise no matter whether the minister purchase below the market price or not, he will always leave himself open to the accusation of favouritism. The country supposed that it had the government completely under control when
parliament passed an Act prescribing that for any articles over a certain amount there should be open competition. Let this be extended to the smallest article. The minister may make some friends by purchasing from them at retail price, but for every one friend he will make ten enemies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite true.


John Graham Haggart: It is high time every party in the country should combine for the purpose of putting an end to such favouritism as has been practiced a number of years in giving out these contracts.
Mr. TAYLOR, The hon. minister said that I was in the habit| of exaggerating, and I presume he draws that conclusion because, in criticising the estimates not long ago, I referred to a purchase, entered on page O- 34 of the Auditor General's Report, of 514 gallons of boiled oil at 87 cents, and the hon. member for Wellington said he had sold similar oil in the month of .Tune. This oil bought by the government was supplied between the 1st July, 1899, and the 30th June, 1900. I know that there was a corner just before the adoption of the tariff in Canadian oil, but I have in my hand an invoice of oil, purchased on the 13tli October, 1899, at 87 cents. And I have an invoice of 15 barrels of the best boiled oil bought on the 13th October, 1899, from J. Waterson, Montreal, at 494 cents.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It cannot be the same kind of oil.


George Taylor: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has just said that a friend of his paid 81 cents.


George Taylor: Yes, but this last purchase was on the 13th October, 1899. On the 1st August, 1900, I have an invoice of 10 barrels at 76 cents ; and on the 1st of October, 10 barrels at 79 cents. Yet during the whole year the government paid for about 15 barrels purchased from Edward Cavanagh, Montreal, 87 cents. There was a jump in the price of oil at the time my friend sold, but the government could have got from him at 80 cents, instead of paying 87 cents. Here is an invoice from Thompson & Company dated 1st October, 1900, at 79 cents ; and' from the Canadian Paint Company, dated 1st August, 1900, at 76 cents. There are not two qualities of boiled oil. It is the same all the world over.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These goods were bought under the control of Mr. James Howden, who has been in the department the last twenty years. I shall call his attention to the statement. If he has paid 89 cents for oil which he could have bought for 49 cents, he should be dismissed immediately, but he has not done

that. Mr. Howden is a very honest and capable man, and it is impossible that he should have paid 89 cents for ail *worth only 49 cents.


George Taylor: Mr. Howden will tell the hon. gentleman that boiled oil is the same the world over. The hon. gentleman no doubt asked Mr. Howden to send invitations only to certain parties.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not by any means.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman authorize Mr. Howden or anybody else under him to go to Conservative storekeepers and buy from them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are sufficient Liberal traders in the country to sell boiled oil at a reasonable price. I knew James Howden when I was in the Conservative camp


James Clancy: When you were right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I was right then, and I am still right. I know that Mr. Howden bought in Sore] on the same system that was inaugurated when he was there. In my Conservative days we bought from our Conservative friends. Even the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) purchased from a list-


John Graham Haggart: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes. I was in the camp long enough to know that it was done that way. It is no use-let us be candid. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in office they purchased from their friends, and they had competition as we have competition amongst our friends. In Montreal we purchase from our Liberal friends ns much as we can, but we purchase a good deal from our Conservative friends also. If there is a Conservative manufacturer of a certain thing which a Liberal does not make, I buy from him-I do not buy outside of Canada.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Public Works -Chargeable to Collection of Revenue-Telegraph Lines, Quesnelle-Atlin-Working expenses, $40,000.
Telegraph Lines, Yukon District-Working expenses inclusive of repairs, salary of accountant and living expenses, $47,000.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly the statement that the minister made, his receipts were $107,000-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: And working expenses $57,000, so that he had made a profit in eighteen months of $57,000. But if the expenses are to be $87,500 a year, and his receipts not more than at present, his profits will not be much.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. This year I hope to save some money.


James Clancy: Will this $47,500 for telegraph lines in the Y'ukon district cover the whole expenses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. There remains only one item that I myself asked to have allowed to stand.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Public Works -Chargeable to Income-Rents, fuel, lighting, &e., public buildings, $46,500.


John Graham Haggart: The minister was to give some information on this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, unless the House agrees to pass the item, in which case I will pledge myself to give the explanation at some future time.


John Graham Haggart: Then, we can adjourn now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Give me a chance on my estimates.


John Graham Haggart: If we are not going to adjourn, we will take the explanation of the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that this item is divided as follows:- Rents and repairs, $25,000 ; fuel, light and water, $34,500; janitors, watchmen and charwomen, $22,500. I see that the rents are divided as follows Rent for the commissioner, $3,000 ; Crown timber and land registrar's office, twelve months at $750 a month, $9,000; rent of house for the commissioner, twelve months, at $250 a month, $3,000 ; house for gold commissioner and officials, twelve months, at $250 a month, $3,000 ; cabin, legal adviser, twelve months, at $65 a month, $780 ; Hunker, rent of mining recorder's office, $300 ; Sulphur, rent of mining recorder's office, $300; repairs to buildings, &c., throughout the district, $5,020. Total, $25,000 : fuel, $17,500 ; light, $15,000 ; water, $2,000 : janitors and watchmen, $20,000-


John Graham Haggart: That must be a mistake.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was the item I did not understand. I may explain that the Department of Public Works have not had much to do with this business. The organization was made by the commissioners, and we have simply been called upon to pay-that is the whole thing in two words. In future a better organization will be made there. We pay janitors as high as $100 a month. Prices fire very high there. There is an additional item of $2,500 for charwomen and washing for buildings.


John Graham Haggart: That is a monstrous total to pay for janitors and watchmen.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of the Interior have sent in the accounts and we have paid them. Of course, the whole thing was in embryo-


Mr. WILSON.: Should not somebody representing the Department of the Interior be here to explain the matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the accounts have been sent in in due form-there is not a dollar of this money that has been paid without being certified.


George Taylor: Certified by whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By Mr. Ogilvie, the commissioner. Of course, we are only beginning there


John Graham Haggart: I hope you are ending.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of Public Works has had nothing to do with this except to pay. But, in future, we shall certainly control that expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister is a man of good resolutions.


John Graham Haggart: If the Minister of Railways and Canals is going on with his estimates, I may say there are several of my friends on this side who are interested in the Trent canal. We might go on with that and then adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We must certainly proceed with the business. Yesterday we were happy to adjourn at six o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: It is after eleven o'clock now. We did not get to bed this morning until six o'clock. I propose, then, that we keep one of these items to allow of a future discussion, and we will go through the rest of the canal items to-night.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is an item in the supplementaries of this year upon which we can have a discussion.
Trent Canal-Construction, $475,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before six o'clock, I asked the minister for some information, and he made reply that he did not know what more information I required, unless my object was simply to ask questions. I want him to understand that I am not here for that purpose, but I am here to perform the proper and legitimate duties of an opposition ; I want to know why the money is being spent, bow it is being spent, and what progress is being made. When I asked the minister if this was being done upon any different plan from that pursued by the late government, his reply was that it was carried out on the plan of his predecessors. I reminded him that that plan had been condemned by the Liberal opposition, and asked him if he had adopted another plan, and he gave me the answer I have referred to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman rose in his place and asked me if I would state all the lakes and rivers and routes through which this canal would pass, after he had been sitting in this House for many years, and supporting a government in making grant after grant for the construction of the Trent Valley canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I never asked such a question, and ' Hansard ' will not show it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understood the bon. gentleman to ask that question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can only say that the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I did uot want such information, 1 only wanted to know where the work was being done, and if the government had come to any conclusion as to the plan they were going to follow. He says I always endorsed that when I was on the government side of the House. But, I never did endorse it, because at different times I said I regarded as questionable wisdom the expenditure of so large a sum of money upon this canal. I am not here either to condemn or endorse it to-day, I am only asking for information.
Soulanges Canal-Construction and equipment,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The contractors nave about completed their contracts, with the exception of sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. In addition to that, the electric company are supplying us with electrical appliances for the work, and the final estimates are nearing completion. There remain to be built canal toll offices, workshops, some spare gates, and we expect to provide some spare machinery. We estimate that we will require $100,000 to cover all these purposes. I may add that this sum is in addition to the $200,000 which will be in the supplementary estimates.


John Graham Haggart: The items the minister has mentioned seem to be small ones, but it would be 'far more satisfactory if he would give us the estimated cost of each item for which he asks us to appropriate money. Otherwise we give the minister absolute disposition of the money, which he may use for any other purpose he pleases, unless he is bound by a specific statement in the committee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As I understand the hon. gentleman, he suggests that it is desirable we should make an entirely new departure in respect to these votes for the canal on capital account. I would consider the suggestion. but I have not anticipated that it would be necessary to depart so radically from the course of procedure which lias always hitherto prevailed.


John Graham Haggart: You are not asking for a vote for specific purposes ?


Tile MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: No, $100,000 for
tlie Soulanges canal. How do we know what it is for ? He says it is for piers, for final estimates, and everything else. I think the minister should give us an estimate for each one of these things.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not got the details of the prices, only the totals.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman not been furnished with the prices ? I think the question is a very reasonable one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can give the hon. gentleman something more about it now. We are asking for $300,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is in the supplementary estimates 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: I thought you had a separate estimate for the gas buoys in the St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I have not.


John Graham Haggart: I thought you took a separate vote last year for those gas buoys 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had for the upper waters, for the river stretches, of the St. Lawrence.


John Graham Haggart: The river stretches are under the Marine and Fisheries Department, are they not 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: I thought your jurisdiction commenced at the upper rocks near the Galops rapids 7
The MINISTER OF RAILAA'AYS AND CANALS. No, these gas buoys were got for the river stretches last year.


John Graham Haggart: All this work is done by tender and open competition, 1 suppose 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: AA'ell, I do not know about tnat. There are the gates. We have a man by the name of Miller who does that work.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose, as to .the gates, you will have a man manufacturing gates 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have an electrician in charge of the electrical work, and a good deal of the work will be done by our own people. Supplies for the electrical work are under contract.


John Graham Haggart: But, they put in the whole plant free and erect it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will endeavour to get the ordinary supplies for the canal under tender and contract.


John Graham Haggart: The buildings will be erected by tender and contract 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART  .@: And the gates and such work will be done by your own workmen 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not want to subscribe to so broad a statement, but I think the hon. gentleman will accept my assurance that we will do the work by tender and contract wherever it can be done to the best advantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice an item in the papers to-day that four locks on the Welland canal have been carried away. Has the hon. gentleman any information in regard to that 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Four gates and one lock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, four gates. Will the hon. minister give any information as to how long navigation will be blocked 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Our expectation was that the gates would have been in place to-day. But I understand now that it may be the end of the week before they will be in place. We expect word in the morning. The engineer's impression, when the word first came, was that we would have the gates in place this afternoon.


Uriah Wilson: Will the vessel responsible for the breakage have to pay the cost 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not yet had a formal report as to the facts, and I could not an-


John Graham Haggart: swer the question definitely. I think the people who are using the canal will subscribe to the statement that whenever they are liable they are held liable. They are not relieved.
Lake St. Louis-Hydrographic survey of lake,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This survey was commenced in 1890. The lower half of the lake lias been surveyed and we hope that the upper half will be surveyed during next season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was any work done last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, nothing was done last year. It was commenced in 1890.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. Who is the officer in charge of the hydrographic survey ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The name of the engineer in charge is Papineau, I think. That is the name, to the best of my recollection.
Lake St. Francis-Removing shoals, $15,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are several shoals here. There is the Hamilton Island shoal, near the Middle Ground, the Highlander, the Horseback and the Clark's Island shoals. These are four shoals the removal of which will tend to straighten and improve the channel. As the expense is not very considerable and a^ there is a loud outcry that our channel should be made as perfect as possible, we propose to remove these four shoals during the coming season.


James Clancy: Will this meet the whole cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I thought this was let by contract to the Weddell firm, of Belleville ? When did the department discover that these shoals were there and that this work had to be done ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not included in the Weddell contract. I did not make the Weddell contract.


John Graham Haggart: I know ; I outdo it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman is familiar with the locality he will know that these shoals are there, and if he made the Weddell contract, I think he will be better able to answer the question that he has put to me than I am.


John Graham Haggart: Will this finish it?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is the estimate of the total cost.


Byron Moffatt Britton: What is the policy of the government with regard to this ? It would seem as if the dredging of shoals would belong to the Public Works Department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a possible conflict of jurisdiction. There may possibly be grounds for saying that some of the work which' is done by this department might fail within what would seem to be the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department, and there may be an equally strong case made out in favour of the Railway Department carrying out works which are under the Public Works Department. There has been no distinct line of demarcation since the departments were separated. This work, however, will properly fall under the Department of Railways and Canals, because it has always exercised jurisdiction over this part of the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What depth of water will you have when these shoals are dredged ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Sixteen feet clear.
Cornwall canal enlargement, $110,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are claims arising in connection with 2, 3 and 4 of the Sheik's Island section, for which I am advised $10,000 should be provided.


John Graham Haggart: Who is the contractor ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Wm. Davis & Sons. The upper entrance will require $20,000 for widening and straightening. That is the Weddell Dredging Company's work. The enlargement of the regulating weir on the old lock 17, will require $10,000 ; that work has yet to be let. The widening and straightening of the channel near the upper dam is estimated to cost $70,000, total $110,000.


John Graham Haggart: How do you distinguish between the entrance and the upper dam; they are practically the same place ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. We intend to get a straight headway by the removal of this bend which the hon. gentleman probably knows. We treat that as a separate work, and estimate it at $70,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is that under contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not yet.


John Graham Haggart: The minister promised the member for Cornwall (Mr. COMMONS
Pringle) that he would furnish the papers in connection with the dismissal of a lock-master on the Cornwall canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I gave instructions to the secretary of the department to have the necessary papers copied, and I expect we will have them to-morrow.
Farran's Point Canal enlargement, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to complete the old south pier and furnish a pair of gates for the old lock.


John Graham Haggart: What are you using the old lock for now 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is always desirable to have a spare pair of gates.


John Graham Haggart: That is well enough, hut is this for the old lock or the new one 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For the sake of a trifling expenditure it would not be well to allow the old lock to fall into decay. We cannot tell what may happen.


John Graham Haggart: But you have a new system of navigation altogether.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have new locks at Lachine, but you wisely maintain the old ones.


John Graham Haggart: You had better get some other example than Lachine.


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


John Graham Haggart: Yes, and on the Welland, but not on the Lachine.
Rapide Plat canal, $75,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The upper entrance is to be widened, straightened and extended at a cost of $70,000, and there is some other straightening and widening to be done.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART  .@: Will that finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Galops canal, $330,000.


John Graham Haggart: Details of that, please.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Iroquois section requires $40,000, with possible claims to the amount of $25,000. The Cardinal section will require $300,000. the upper entrance will require $50,000-totalling $420,000. We estimate it will take $80,000 odd to complete, amounting on the whole to $503,000.


John Graham Haggart: We are asking for $330,000 in this vote; we ask in the supplementaries for 1901-2 for $00,000. which will leave about $80,000 to provide for another year.


John Graham Haggart: Any portion of this to be applied to the Gilbert dredging in the Galops 7
The MINISTER OF RAILWAY'S AND CANALS. No.


John Graham Haggart: Is there an end to that 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to say, but we are not proceeding with it now.
North Channel-Forming, $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: Does this finish the work 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for the completion.


John Graham Haggart: Do you think it will ever be used after it is finished 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman will find that no portion of the whole route will be more popular than that North Channel. I make that statement from what little I gather, and I will ask the hon. gentleman, if we are both alive two or three years hence, to call my attention to the subject if I am wrong.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the hon. gentleman has taken his opinion from the engineer in charge. I have no doubt he was a strong advocate of that expenditure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And I am very strongly impressed by the opinion.


John Graham Haggart: I have no doubt of that. He always impressed that on me, and described the twists and turns of the channel. I never could see the advantage of it, but I hope it will be a success.
St. Lawrence River and Canals

Surveying, buoying, &c., $47,000.


John Graham Haggart: What are the details of that 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is pretty difficult to furnish any details of an item of that kind. The surveys are to be made between Prescott and'Coteau Landing.


James Clancy: What will the surveying cost 7


Tiie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: T have not the division of the cost as between the surveying and the gas buoys.


James Clancy: How many gas buoys will be put in 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have twenty-five or twenty-six gas and other buoys, and this vote is for the surveying of the route and the placing of the buoys.


James Clancy: Who is furnishing the gas buoys ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These are buoys which we have on hand, which we got before. The arrangements were made the year before last, if I mistake not. We got them from the only concern that manufactures them. I could not tell the hon. gentleman now the name of the firm.


John Graham Haggart: Do you remember the agent's name ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I explained last year, and the hon. gentleman recollects, that they came through young Courtney, who was the agent last year.
Welland Canal-To remodel the regulating weirs, valves and gates of old look at Port Col-borne, $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: What remodelling are you going to do at Port Colborne V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are going to let in more water, so as to increase the supply. The regulating weirs are going to be enlarged.


John Graham Haggart: For the mills below, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For mills and for all purposes. We shall have quite an addition to the water power.
Welland Canal-To execute heavy repairs, $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the repairs to be made are other than those which were made just before the last election, as described by an hon. member-thirty or forty men going up and down the canal and doing nothing but picking dandelions. Those were light repairs ; these are heavy.
Lachine Canal-To renew masonry wall, basin No. 2, $5,000.	.


John Graham Haggart: Are the locks from the river into the Lachine canal completed, that is, to enable ocean-going vessels to go up a certain distance, and what is the size of the locks ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is referring to a large vote for a new lock?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not in these estimates ; it will be in the supplementaries.


John Graham Haggart: The reason I ask the hon. gentleman is this. If ever the
Georgian Bay canal is built, the Lachine canal will be part of it, and he should see that that lock is of a sufficient size to be utilized as part of that canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have that in our minds. When the first plans for the mouth of the Lachine canal were designed, they were for a shorter lock than they are now designed for, and we felt what the hon. member has very fairly stated, that if the Georgian Bay canal should be constructed, all the locks on the Lachine canal would require to be very much longer than they are at present, because steamers of 500 feet in length, and' perhaps longer, would require to pass through them. We are not going to lose sight of that fact when the new locks are designed.
To rebuild dam at Peterborough, $12,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the matter with the dam at Peterborough ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The engineer reports that it is a very old dam and is liable to break at any time and to repair it would practically mean to rebuild it.


John Graham Haggart: Is the hydraulic lift, which is being built near the dam. nearly finished ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand that the lift will be ready as soon as we have our masonry and other work ready to receive it. It is under contract and is being constructed by the Dominion Bridge Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the length ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The tanks are 120 to 125 feet long, and the length will be G3 feet, and the height of the lift 50 feet.
Surveys and Inspections-Canals, $3,000.


Edward Hackett: Has the hon. minister received a petition from the people of O'Leary and the West Point, asking for a railway from O'Leary to the west shore of Prince Edward Island. A few days ago the minister said he had received no such communication. This part of the province is very much in need of railway accommodation. It is only about twelve miles from O'Leary station to the west shore, and when you are building a line of railway over seventy miles from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour, it is only fair that you should do something for the people of that section, more especially as the coast is an iron-bound one and there are no harbour facilities. I trust that the hon. minister will see that that section of the country and especiallv that branch railway from O'Leary station to the west shore, shall | be surveyed.

431G


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would give me great pleasure to accede to the wishes of my hon. friend, but I cannot promise him the survey of another branch railway this year. I may look into the subject a little later.


Edward Hackett: Has the hon. gentleman ordered a second train to be put on from Summerside to Tignisb, for which the people of Charlottetown and Summerside are asking.	,


The MINISTER OF RAIL MAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman yesterday asked me if I had received a petition. I had not received it at that time, but it reached me this morning. I am now getting an opinion from the officers of the department with respect to the matter, and I hope to be able to come to some conclusion tomorrow.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Being that we are discussing the subject of railways, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer some few remarks in connection with the Nova Scotia Southern Railway and the extending of that road from New Germany to Halifax by way of connecting the town of Shelburne with the city of Halifax via Caledonia, Fleasant River, New Germany, Foster Settlement and New Ross. It is a well known fact that a subsidy was granted some years ago by the late Conservative government toward the construction of this road-the Nova Scotia Southern-between New Germany and Shelburne, connecting with the Central Railway at New Germany; that a large amount of money has been expended on construction, in labour and material, from New Germany westwards, toward Shelburne, through Ohio, Hemford, Pleasant River, Caledonia and Brookfield, cut stone having been employed for bridges, culverts, and abutments; that a large bridge with cut stone piers from base to top, spanning the La Have river has been built; that the road bed had been well cared for on a solid base over a large portion of the road between New Germany and Caledonia the road has been graded, and the sleepers piled ready to be laid down, awaiting the laying of rails; that a large sum of money, or sums of money are due to workmen, traders and others, as also to those who furnished the sleepers; that the road is thickly settled by a thrifty, intelligent, and industrious people, and the lands for farming purposes of a first-class character-Northern Queen's, part of the constituency my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) represents certainly not excepted-with the country from one end to the other abounding in valuable timber and mineral deposits, with lakes and streams well supplied with fish to attract tourists and sporting men. Last year a request was made by the people of Northern Queen's. Pleasant River, Hamford, Ohio, New Germany, Forter Set-


Edward Hackett: tlement and New Ross, to have the road extended from New Germany via Foster Settlement and New Ross to Halifax, connecting with Chester Basin, Chester and Hubbart's Cove, with a view to a market for their products, they being deprived of a market owing to the impassible condition of their carriage roads and no money to keep them up, as well as the distance to market too great. They contended that if the railway known as the Nova Scotia Southern or Hervey road, so-called, were built, extending to Halifax, they would find a market either at the western extremity- the Sherburne end-by boat to Boston, or at the eastern extremity or Halifax end, at Halifax by boats to Europe. This argument being so reasonable I had no hesitation in presenting their request to the gov- . ernment last year, and pressing the claim most earnestly, but unfortunately failed to have the government consent to a grant for more than twenty miles, with the usual subsidy of $3,200 per mile, as appeared in estimates last year, which would only carry it from New Germany to New Ross. However, a promise was made to me when the resolution was discussed in the House that it would be continued further at another time, which caused me to feel satisfied.
I have asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways by letter this session to meet this request this year, that is to grant a subsidy for the unsubsidized portion east of New Germany, so as to cover the entire route from Shelburne to Halifax via New Germany, Foster Settlement and New Ross, connecting with Chester Basin, -Chester and Hubbard's Cove, making it from Halifax to Shelburne by this route an international line, a distance of about 120 miles having a connection by a line of steamers between Shelburne and Boston, thus giving an excellent market as I stated, at either ends for all marketable articles, the farmer, the miner, the mechanic, the manufacturer, the fisherman, or the lumberman may have to sell, as well as the speediest, the safest, the shortest and the best road as an international road from Halifax to Boston, it being calculated to be five hours shorter from Halifax to Boston than by any other route. The advantage in the construction of this road is, that it will cost little for bridging as there are few rivers of any considerable size to cross, and the lands over which the road passes is a sort of plateau requiring few bridges and only small cuttings. By the way, I am instructed to say there will be no charge upon the people of the municipality of Lunenburg, and I think I am safe in saying North Queen's, for right of way, as the owners have expressed a desire to give the lands over which the road will pass free of charge, so different from the experience Lunenburg county has had for right of way, and terminals, of the Central Railway from Lunenburg to the Annapolis county boundary for which the people were taxed most unequally, as well as unjustly.

Now, I am constrained to say that 1 consider the counties of Lunenburg, Queen's and Shelburne are entitled to certain rights, and as well as the government of Canada has extended and still is extending lasting privileges, advantages and benefits in the way of railway facilities to counties in the eastern part of . Nova Scotia, and has made them part of the government system of railways in Canada. I feel I am not asking too much when I solicit on behalf of these counties I have named west of Halifax that they have like privileges extended to them to complete the road as referred to as a government road, under the control and management of the government of Canada from Halifax to Shelburne via Hubbard's Cove, Chester, Chester Basin, New Ross, Foster Settlement, New Germany, Ohio, Pleasant River and Caledonia direct to Shelburne, with communication to Port Midway, Liverpool and Lockeport, feeling that it is due to the people of the respective places through which the proposed railway would pass, locked up as they are at present in those beautiful farming districts for want of a road to get to a market.
In addition to this proposed road being an international one, with a line of steamers from Shelburne to Boston, it will also be a colonization road, as the young men who have in the past from these places been populating the United States for want of employment denied them at home, will be induced to settle on these lands, and make comfortable homes for themselves, and become good citizens as well as developing the various and rich resources of this part of the province to an incalculable degree.
I sincerely hope and trust that the Minister of Railways and the government will consider this matter on its merits, as well as the strong and reasonable arguments adduced by me, and decide favourably, which will be to the great advantage of these poor people who have spent their time, their strength and their means in completing an immense amount of construction work, and providing sleepers awaiting the laying of the rails, for which they are not paid, and thus no longer delay this matter, or keep them in a state of suspense. Let the government quickly, and as a patriotic government should do, mete out to those people the Just measure of their deserts, and submit to the House, this session, a resolution making this a government road, and embracing in the same proposal, an amount sufficient to complete the entire work from Halifax to Shelburne via New Ross and New Germany. By so doing they will take the first step toward making this section of country, with its rich farming lands, minerals, and forest, second to none in any part of this Dominion.
In this connection, I feel, when making this appeal, I have not portrayed this picture in too glowing colours, still I trust sufficiently so, as to induce the Minister of
Railways and the government, to meet the wishes and expectations of this long suffering and oppressed people, and I repeat I hope a l'fcsomuon as referred to. will be submitted to parliament this session, and I will assure hon. gentlemen opposite that it will meet with the hearty approval of members of the Conservative party on this side of the House, without a dissentient voice.
1 again repeat, I hope the Minister of Railways and the government will meet the wishes of the people I have referred to.
Now, with regard to the South Shore Railway, referred to by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), in ' Hansard ' of the 22nd of March, I desire to offer a word by way of correction. The hon. gentleman put the following question : ' Does the member for Lunenburg favour the granting of a subsidy for the South Shore Railway?' to which I replied: 'If they will give us the central route, and that also I wiil be greatly pleased.' Now, I find I am reported in ' Hansard ' as having said ' central road.' which I beg to say is an error, as I said ' route,' meaning when I said the 1 central route,' that it should apply to the roads known as the Nova Scotia Southern, or that commonly called the Hervey Road, running through the centre of the country, and extending from New Germany via New Ross to Halifax. .


John Graham Haggart: How is this increase of $5,000 made up ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is an amount for an assistant for the inspecting engineer. Our staff is wholly inadequate to inspecting the subsidized railways.


John Graham Haggart: Who do you intend to appoint ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not yet considered the question of the appointment. The salary is $1,500. Then we propose to employ two more clerks in the department at $650 each. We are allowing for the French translator an increase of $60, that is Mrs. Boulay. We propose to allow an increase to the chief messenger, Mr. Chandler.


John Graham Haggart: I think he should be put on the permanent list, he has been there long enough. He is a good man.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, he is a very good man. There have been two vacancies among the
Salaries of engineers, draughtsmen, extra clerks and messengers, as below. The salaries herein mentioned may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. One at $2,800, one at $2,600, one at $2,400, two at $1,900, one at $1,800, one at $1,500, one at $1,200, one at $800, four at $700, two at $650, three at $600, one at $jj^0, three at $500, one at $400, one at $300; total, $25,540.
431!)

messengers in the ordinary civil service which have to he filled. I am taking an appropriation for an assistant law clerk. The amount of work which is being done now is beyond the capacity of the one we have. I intend giving $1,200. The hours of the law clerk at present are long, from early morning till late at night, every night, and it is impossible for him to get through his work. These are all the additions that are proposed. Now that we have finished number 142, I would like to go on with numbers 264 to 268 inclusive.


John Graham Haggart: No, we have to have all the information down before we can discuss these.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has been party to an understanding that we will have a debate on the supplementaries.


John Graham Haggart: No, I would like the information down to-morrow or next day. We want to have it two or three days before, all the information which was promised on the main estimates, that is with reference to the number of rails taken off the Drummond road and taken over to the Prince Edward Island Railway, the correspondence about Point Ldvis, and all the other correspondence that I asked for in debate.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is all being prepared. I want to make a statement myself, and we can do it on the supplementary estimates for maintenance and operation of the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: It is now tw|Jve o'clock, and it is time to adjourn.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have said to the hon. gentleman that we will furnish him with the information. We cannot furnish it all at once. Our staff is fairly overwhelmed with work. We will give it to the hon. gentleman in ample time. When the supplementary vote comes up for the operating expenses of the Intercolonial Railway he will have the whole of it.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister generally brings down that information when he presents the vote. I propose that we shall get the information to-morrow or the next day. The items from 264 to 26S are merely formal votes.	,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will bring the answers to the questions the hon. gentleman has asked two or three days in advance. I will bring most of the information to-morrow ; I cannot be quite sure I will have it all. I will procure it ns rapidly'as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One of the objectionable features of allowing a large item pass and
having the discussion on small Items afterwards is, that if we object to some features of the expenditure, it will be said : The item passed, and there was not a word said about it. It is true that you did object to the small items, but here are several millions passed without a word of criticism. It is important that we should make our criticisms upon the items when they are passed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would be extremely sorry if anything should happen that would restrict the hon. gentleman's privilege of criticism. I would be the very last one to place any obstacle in the way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying that the hon. gentleman desires to try to restrict criticism, but I am only speaking of the criticism of a large item like this on a small item in another part of the estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, every item is a pretty large one. I am quite sure that the suggestion I am going to make will meet with approval. It is not a matter of very great importance whether this item passes tonight or does not. We can allow the item of $4,100,000 to stand, and let the other small sums, which are purely formal, be put through. Let us understand that we shall take this Intercolonial Railway item in the main estimates together with the Intercolonial Railway item in the supplementary estimates of the same character, and have the discussion then.


John Graham Haggart: I would like the Intercolonial Railway item in the main estimates to come up before the item in the supplementary estimates, because I want a lot of information in respect to the receipts and expenditures of the road, and the manner of charging the expenditure to capital and current account. I want a statement of the receipts and expenditures up to the first of the mouth. The department has to furnish it to the Finance Minister to be put in his ten days' statement. I wish a statement of the canal collections and of the railway collections. And I wish to have them separately in order to discuss them fully.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope the hon. gentleman will not fail to discuss the matter very fully.


John Graham Haggart: I give notice to the hon. gentleman that I intend to move a motion on going into supply, and that we will likely have a full dress debate.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will be exceedingly pleased to be present when the hon. gentleman delivers his full dress speech. I have not had an opportunity of hearing the hon. gentleman under such favourable conditions. What do I understand the hon. gentleman desires ?


Andrew George Blair: 


John Graham Haggart: I shall ask for a good many things, which 1 shall suggest when this item for this service comes up, and which the hon. minister will, perhaps, be able to furnish in detail when he comes to the supplementary estimates. I have a memorandum, which I have not here at present, of all the statements that I require.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman states that he has some objection to this large item for the Intercolonial Railway in the main estimates and the item in the supplementary estimates being taken up together ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the objection ?


John Graham Haggart: There is no objection, except that I wish to have a slight discussion for information on the debate of the item of $4,100,000. Perhaps there may be a day intervene between them, so that when the item comes up for discussion, he will be able to furnish the Information on the supplementary item. The supplementary estimates will not be discussed until some days after the main estimates are passed. I suppose the iion. gentleman will take this up to-morrow, and It will not take me long to make a statement in reference to the information I want. I suppose that a few days will intervene before the supplementary estimates are considered at all, and that he will be able to furnish the information on the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I understand the hon. gentleman, he is presenting the alluring prospect of two full dress debates.


John Graham Haggart: Not two. One is for the purpose of getting all the information that the hon. gentleman is possessed of, or, after making inquiry, can get himself possessed of.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sure I am making a real serious effort to understand the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: If you require to make a serious effort to understand the hon. gentleman, perhaps you had better wait for the discussion of the item to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will let the item of $4,100,000 stand, and then we can dispose of the other small items.
Rental to Grand Trank Railway, $140,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that we will be in a position to ask any question in regard to this matter, and as to how it is panning out, when the other item is under discussion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.
Canals-Repairs and operating expenses, $616,630.


John Graham Haggart: There is an increase of $20,000. How does that come about ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This increase, I understand, is largely in repairs. The staff will account for $2,500 or $2,000 of the difference. The balance is made up in the amount we have to expend in necessary repairs.


John Graham Haggart: Who are the members of the staff that represent the $2,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are adding to the staff necessarily. We will have the Soulanges canal in full operation this year and we are having some of the locks on the Trent canal put in operation. I will withdraw my statement in regard to the Trent canal. There is a small increase on the Trent, but it does not account for the difference. There is a difference of $200 on the Trent canal and $1,000 of a difference at Sault Ste. Marie. There is $700 difference on the Rideau canal.


John Graham Haggart: A $1,000 difference at the Sault; to whom does that go ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is $00 to the electrician and machinist. We are increasing the wages of the men from $45 to $50 a month, which will amount to about $1,200. There are reductions in some of the items.


John Graham Haggart: That is the additional amount on the Soulanges canal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The contingencies and all including electrical supplies for this year would be $28,000 compared with $21,800 for the current year. There are $2,000 for electrical supplies which we did not have last year, and $2,179 for contingencies as compared with $1,492 last year. We have 24 lockmen this year compared with 10 last year, accounting for $5,000 increase. Their wages are the same as last year, namely, $1.25 per day. There is an increase from l4 to 10 in the other service making a difference of $1,500.


John Graham Haggart: It is not a very satisfactory explanation but I suppose it is all we can get to-night.
Some resolutions reported.


FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 131) respecting the judges of provincial courts.-The Solicitor General.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the
John Graham Haggart: What business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Election Bill and the Franchise Bill and possibly some of the minor Bills on the Order paper -then Supply. As the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is not ready to go on with Railways to-morrow, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will probably take his estimates and then the supplementary estimates, if there is time.
Motion agreed to ; and House adjourned ai 12.35 a.m. Friday.

Fbiday. May 3. 1901.