1902-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 154) to amend the Naturalization Act, Chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Bill (No. 153) respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company.-Mr. Pringle.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright).: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to move, seconded by Mr. LaRivi&re, that the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to revise the official reports of debates of this House be adopted.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If my hon. friend (Mr. Champagne) will permit me, I would suggest as the House is very thin this morning, that this matter should be deferred until to-morrow.



RELIEF OF JAMES BROWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) for the relief of James Brown considered in committee and reported.
Mr.  E. F.@: CLARKE (West Toronto) moved the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Before this Bill is read the third time, Mr. Speaker, I desire, for more than the third time, to renew my protest against the method pursued by this parliament with regard to the granting of divorces. The system is one which, I believe, cannot be justified upon any principle of law or good sense. If a divorce is to be granted at all, it is, of course, to be granted for reasons- for reasons which the law will define. I do not believe that the parliament of Can-ana is the body that can properly deal with these reasons and render a decision upon them. The case before this House is one that I know nothing about; it is one that, I venture to say, not one member of this
House in ten has taken the trouble to examine. We are called upon to pass judgment in a case of the very greatest importance to the parties interested, and we do this, Sir, in a way that is nothing less than a travesty upon justice. If divorces are to be granted in this country, they should be granted by a properly constituted court, a court which shall take evidence and examine into the facts bearing upon the case, a court that shall render its judgment in accordance with the evidence. I repeat that, however it may be in the other branch of the Dominion legislature-where these cases may receive the consideration which they should receive-this case and cases of this character have not received and do not receive that degree of consideration here. The evidence is not published, The investigation is a sort of Star Chamber investigation; and I protest again, as I have often protested, that, if we are to grant divorces in Canada at all, if we are to recognize any cause as sufficient for granting a divorce, it is time that these matters should be placed in the hands of a proper legal tribunal.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) When the representatives from Nova Scotia first came to Ottawa after confederation, among the things that they found in existence were dual representation and the holding of elections in different parts of the country at times selected by the government. We had that changed. By the influence and example, I think, of the representatives from Nova Scotia, we had dual representation abolished and simultaneous polling adopted. But we found also a system of granting divorces which has continued to this day. a system which, in my opinion is a perfect disgrace to our legislation and practice. In Nova Scotia, divorce cases are referred to a judge of the Supreme Court. Each case is decided in a day, and not an item of the evidence in either side is published in the newspapers. But here a lot of low, nasty literature finds its way to the public. I remember one case which arose in a former parliament of which I was a member. A man from Hamilton sought a divorce and his Bill was passed in the Senate. The Bill came before this House in due course. But the wife was a relative of a member of this House, and this member commanded such influence with the vote of the people who are opposed to divorce altogether and others that the Bill was defeated in this House. The petitioner had to come back to parliament a second year, and this he did. I remember his name perfectly, but I do not care about mentioning it. Before the Bill , was presented a second time the man whose influence had secured its defeat died. On the second application, the Bill was passed. This is all very well where a man has enough money to bear the heavy expense of securing such legislation. But a poor man or a poor woman, as the ease may be, must

be subject to all the trouble attending an application, and yet never be able to get a divorce. People have often referred to the small number of divorces granted in Canada, but that is owing to the fact that a poor man or a poor woman cannot obtain one under the present system. I think there is perhaps nothing in the annals of our legislation in the Senate or the House of Commons that requires amending as much as the present system of granting divorce.
Motion agreed to ; Bill read the third time, and passed. ,


Mr. CLARKE moved :: That a message be sent to the Senate to return to that House the evidence, &c., taken before the Standing Committee ot the Senate, to whom was referred the Bill (D) No. 118, intitled : ' An Act for the relief of James Brown.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 151) to incorporate the Dyment Banking, Loan anu Savings Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
On the preamble.
Mr. LaRIYIEEE. I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to this word ' banking.' Is it usual to allow a private company other than a bank to use the words ' bank ' or ' banking ' ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: My bon. friend's remark is quite pertinent. I drew attention to that in the committee and objected to it, and it was agreed that the date should be changed. But, the Committee on Banking and Commerce lias no power to make the change, we can only do it here.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall I report the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This Bill, when before the committee on Banking and Commerce, was tlie subject of considerable discussion which touched not merely the Bill itself but the whole question of the restrictions and limitations which should be placed upon the operations of loan companies. There was some difference of opinion in the committee and it was thought that it might be necessary on another occasion to make some amendments to the general Act. and it was deemed wise that we should say that by consenting to the passage of this Bill through the House we would not in any way prejudice our right to deal with this question under the general Act, if it shall be deemed necessary to do so a year hence, or at any future time.* There are one or two questions relating to the power of investment of loan companies about which there


Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: seemed to be a difference of opinion in the committee. It was thought well to place some moderate limitations upon the proposals of this company and then leave the matter to be dealt with further under the general Act. Then, the point was taken that if we gave this company special powers under the Bill they might come back in the course of a year and say we have no right to interfere with them. It was agreed that I should state to the House that if we should desire to make a change in the general Act a year from now, or at any future time, we would not in any way be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill, but that this company would come under the operation of the general Act as it might he amended. That was agreed to by the promoters of the Bill and it was also agreed that I should make this statement to the House on behalf of the whole committee so that it might go on ' Hansard.'
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Would it not be better to have a clause to that effect put into the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it is necessary. We have the power to make the change and we will not save our power by putting a clause in the Bill. If you were to put this in the Bill in a special way we might thereby imply that we were limiting our right as respects other companies.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I think perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is right, but the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) takes an entirely different view. He thinks that notice should be given to investors that their interests may be effected from time to time by the Railway Act as it is amended.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The conditions may differ.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: The committee thought that a statement placed on 'Hansard ' would be sufficient.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) to incorporate the Bishop of Moosonee.-Mr. Clarke.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILMOT, by Mr. Ingram, asked :
1. Is the government aware that P. J. Venoit, the collector-' of customs at Bathurst, took an active pari in the elections of 1900, leaving his office for days at a time, and going out into

the country canvassing for ths Liberal candidate ?
2.	Did the government grant him leave of absence during the months of October and November, 1900 ?
3.	Did the government grant him leave of absence for any time between April 1st and April 10th of this year ; and if not, is the government aware that he was absent from his office several days between the 1st and 10th of April, 1902 ?
4.	If formulated charges are laid against Mr, P. J. Venoit for political partisanship, will the government grant an Investigation ; and if the charges are proved, will the government dismiss him ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. W. Paterson.)
1.	The answer to the first question is no.
2.	P. J. Yenoit, Collector of Customs at Bathurst, N.B., obtained the usual leave of absence for about one week in October, 1900, | on application to give evidence as a witness in a suit against the municipality of Gloucester. He did not obtain leave of absence in November, 1900.
3.	He did not obtain leave of absence in April, 1902, and the government is not aware that he was absent from his office several days between the 1st and 10th of April, 1902.
4.	If formulated charges are laid against this officer the government will see what action should be taken.

Mr ROSAMOND asked :: 1.	How much yarn has been admitted duty free under Order in Council, No. 1149 B., file No. 52658 ?
2.	What regulations has the Minister of Customs issued to the end that yarn, so admitted duty free is exclusively used for the purpose for which it is permitted free entry ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. W. Paterson.)
The quantity of yarn admitted free of duty under Order in Council as per memo. No. 1.149 B., file 52,658, since the 1st July last to 1st of April, 1902. amounted to 114,945 pounds, valued at $39,108.
The regulations issued by the Department of Customs respecting the free entry of Botany yarn are as follows :-
Department of Customs,
Ottawa, July 2, i901.
Botany Yarn. (Classification and Samples.) File 52658.
Referring to memo. 1149b., for the free entry of Botany Yarn, It is to he noted that such free entry is to be allowed only for the said yarn under the following circumstances, viz.: -
' Botany Yarn, single, in numbers 30 and finer, on mule cops, dry spun on what is known ns the French or Belgian system, not doubled or twisted, in white only, when imported by
manufacturers of cashmere socks and stockings, to be used exclusively for the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.'
Collectors will observe that ' mule cops ' are closed at one end and that yarn under the Bradford system is spun with oil, while under the French or Belgian system it is spun dry, without oil.
Representative samples of each importation of Botany Yarn admitted free are to be selected personally by the custom officers, from the body of the package, and are to be forwarded to the Department of Customs for decision as to their tariff status.
A certificate is required on the face of each entry, from the Collector of Customs, that to his own knowledge the importer is a manufacturer of cashmere socks and stockings.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 155) to amend the Railway Act. He said : Notice of this Bill appears on the order paper, but at the moment when the orders were called, I did not have the draft of the Bill in my hand. This Bill is introduced for the purpose of making a small amendment to the general Railway Act to relieve certain sections or clauses of some ambiguity that seems to have arisen in respect to them. Under the law, as it stands at present, it has been recently interpreted by the courts that the powers of expropriation for the purpose of running a spur line from an existing railway to a gravel pit cannot be exercised, if, perchance, there should be a river or lake, or anything of that kind, intervening between the point at which they can carry the railway nearest to the gravel pit and to the gravel pit itself. It has been differently understood and it was not until recent questions had arisen that the point was brought to the attention of the department.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved :: That the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
' That it is expedient to amend the law respecting the coasting trade of Canada, and to exclude a l'oreign-built British ship from that trade unless it has obtained a license, which the Minister of Customs may grant, upon the payment of a duty of twenty-five (25) per cent ad valorem on the fair market value of the ship.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved :: Resolution respecting the taxation of Chinese immigrants. (The Minister of Trade and Commerce) read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE introduced Bill (No. 156) concerning the taxation of Chinese immigrants.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorised by parliament by any Act heretofore passed, the Governor in Council be authorised to raise by way of loan :-
(a.) Such sum or sums of money, slot to exceed in the whole, the sum of fifteen million dollars, as may be required for the purpose of paying the floating indebtedness of Canada, and of meeting any expenditure authorized by the parliament of Canada ;-and
(b.) Such sum or sums of money as may be required from time to time, over and above any available sinking funds, to pay and discharge the Funded Debt of Canada, or any portion thereof, as the sjyne matures and becomes payable either in England or in Canada ;	[DOT]
Such sums to be raised in accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the public debt and the raising of loans authorized by parliament, and the sums so raised to form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada ; the rate of interest to be paid on any such loans not to exceed three and one-half per cent per annum.-The Min^ ister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This is the resolution respecting the raising of money by way of loan, which the House will remember I announced in the budget speech. Our last loan Bill was passed in the year 1897, and was for $15,000,000, which is the smallest amount that has been taken for many years in a loan BUI. The outstanding borrowing powers at that date, including the $15,000,000, amounted to about $23,500,000. Out of that, we raised a loan of something less than $10,000,000 (two million pounds sterling) in 1897. We have a current floating indebtedness, as stated to the House, of about $6,000,000, and our savings bank 'borrowings, which are regarded in the light of a loan, have increased to 'the extent of about nine and a half million dollars. The net result of these and some other operations is, that our borrowing powers unused are now reduced to a very small figure, being on the 30th day of April, about $2,329,000. It is of course necessary that there should be a borrowing power available to the government from time to time. We have had no loan Bill since 1897, and we have been engaged in very large operations. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: to go into the market for a loan during the current calendar year. The conditions of the money market are not too favourable, and they are likely to be better after the close of the war. However, that is a question which would be determined entirely by the state of the money market; as to- whether or not we shall continue to float temporary loans, or whether we shall place a public loan on the market. There is another clause in the Bill which gives us power to renew loans falling due. In that case there is no new obligation, but merely the power to renew such portions of these loans as may be necessary, after taking account of the available sinking funds.


John Graham Haggart: What amount of loans are failing due, and at what interest ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are all set forth year by year in the public accounts, and a statement of those falling due within the next few years was made in the budget speech.


John Graham Haggart: Very well.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I did not gather in what way the borrowing power under the Act of 1897 has been nearly all exhausted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
John Graham Haggart: When you borrow money from the savings banks, have you to get authority under a loan Act ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think probably without a special Loan Act we could do it; but in stating to ithe House from time to time, the amount of our borrowings we have always included the savings bank deposits. We look upon the amount so taken as a public loan, and it is referred to in the Audit Act as one of the methods by which we may raise money.


Robert Laird Borden: Where was the temporary loan of $6,000,000 raised ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Bank of Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: At what rate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 3-J per cent, and I think there was a small portion of it which bore a shade above that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At whait ralte of interest was the last loan ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Robert Laird Borden: When you effect a temporary loan of that character for what period does it usually run ? In the present case i,s it for a definite period, or is it on demand, or is it renewable ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is sometimes for a fixed period of a year, but in the recent case it was only for six months. Owing to the state of the money market the banks preferred a short period of six months, and .they gave a better rate than for a year. That, of course, was advantageous to us, because it is renewable and the conditions may be better later.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is the interest payable on these temporary loans ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have an annual appropriation which covers general interest as well as the specified bonds.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How frequently is interest paid ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is practically a discount; you discount Treasury Bills.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is practically paid in advance.
Resolution reported ; read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to Introduce Bill (No. 157) authorizing the raising toy way of loan of certain sums of money for the public service.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901 (the Minister of Agriculture) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
change in the law is effected, and for what reason this amendment is introduced.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: There is practically no change in the intention of the law. There was some confusion found in the enforcement of the Act as to the definition of the term ' packer,' a doubt arising as to whether it referred to the person on whose behalf the fruit was packed or the individual labourer who packed the fruit. The change makes It clear that It is the person on whose behalf the fruit is packed who is responsible fo;- the packing. Then, it has been found in practice that the trade wisli to adopt a standard of marks, and in this Bill we provide for marks of two different kinds-one set being XXX, XX and X ; the other being No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. The reason the alternative is given is that in the maritime provinces the X marks are used, while in Ontario the numbers are used. People may use, along with these, their own private marks if they choose. We wish gradually to Introduce these marks, but we do not wish at present to make them absolutely the onlj marks.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the first change Is concerned, there seems to be every reason for it; but the other seems to be remarkably indefinite. What would von regard as a designation inconsistent with XXX ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would be one of an inferior grade ; for instance, No. 2 with XXX. The point more particularly is that a designation must not bo used inconsistent with X or XX. For instance, if ' specially selected ' were used with XX, it would be inconsistent; or if No. 1 were used with X, the two would be inconsistent. The difficulty arises in the fact that certain dealers have their own special grades, and if they were to use XX as the proper designation of the fruit, and were to accompany it with another designation of their own, which meant 1 special excellence ' or * highest grade,' that would be inconsistent with XX ; and though they might truthfully say that the fruit was legally marked, yet the marking would mislead the purchaser.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have these changes been made at the suggestion of the fruit packers or fruit exporters ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, largely on the recommendation of fruit inspectors, who are charged with the enrol cement of the Act, and after discussion with the fruit dealers, and as a result of the experience of the last season.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the min- Mr. CLARKE. Was any intimation given ister would be good enough to explain what to the fruit exporters as to the amendments 130



which were likely to be made in the Act of last session ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were discussed with them by the inspectors and when the inspectors were here about two weeks ago, they made these recommendations to me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They discussed them previously with the fruit exporters ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that this section strikes me as very indefinite

indeed, so indefinite as to be practically useless. If a dealer puts any other designation whatever upon a package of fruit, it must mean either the same thing as one of the marks already there, or it must modify it in some way. If it modifies it in any way is it to be regarded as inconsistent with it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It must mean practically the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: If it means the same thing, what is the use of putting it on 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because certain dealers have marks which are known to their customers, and we do not wish to debar them from using those marks if they wish.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot understand how ' specially selected ' can be inconsistent with XX or X, because that particular variety or class of fruit might be specially selected. The third-class might be specially selected as well as the first-class.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would not be so considered by the trade.


Robert Laird Borden: But in dealing with an act of parliament it would be so determined. I am taking the English language in its ordinary acceptation ; I do not know anything about the technicalities of the trade. However, I do not suppose there is anything in this that can do any harm, though I fail to see that it can do any good. In fact, my hon. friend admitted last session that the chief merit of the Bill was that it could not do any harm. None of us were able to see how it could do any good.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE It has been found to do a great deal of good already.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Subsection 'a' requires that the packer shall mark the package with the initials of ' his ' Christian name. In the event of the exporter being a woman, how would the marks be designated ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe that ' his ' is supposed to include ' her '.


David Henderson: Under what authority ? Is there an interpretation Act which makes ' his ' stand for ' her ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe there is.


David Henderson: I regret very much that a Bill of this importance has been left to be dealt with by a thin House at the close of the session, when men who thoroughly understand the marking of fruit are absent.
I think it a great pity that this Bill has not been dealt with two months ago.


Mr. WADE.: I would like to ask the minister if he has considered the question of making any description of No. 2 and No. 3 grades. I have had several communications from fruit growers who think that would be desirable, if possible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The inspectors thought it was hardly feasible at the present time to make a correct and reliable definition of those grades.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Is it designated anywhere, either in this amendment or in the original Act, what XXX means ? If it is, this Act is of some service. If it is not, it is meaningless, and a man might put XXX on anything.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In section 6 of the original Act the definition of the first quality is given.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: What is this change ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is simply to put in section 6 of the Act the words ' No. 1 ' as well as ' finest,' ' best ' and ' first quality.'
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are two ways in which this Act works. One is that the fruit shall be marked certain grades, and if the inspector finds it is not up to the grade he is authorized to put on the words 1 falsely marked.' There is another part of the Act which provides that the fruit shall be equal, all through the package, to its face, and there is no means of authorizing the inspector to label the package ' falsely packed ' where that provision of the Act is violated. I therefore ask to be given the authority to have the package labelled ' falsely packed ' as well as ' falsely marked.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: I sent copies of the Bill to several fruit exporters in Toronto, but have


Edward Frederick Clarke: only had a reply from one of them, so that I take it there cannot be any serious objection to the measure on the part of the others. The gentleman who did write me suggests that the words ' offered for sale ' should be added after the word 1 package ' in the first line of section f! and also in subsection 3, He gives as his reasons :
Owing to unavoidable hurry at times in getting fruit under cover, also deterioration1 when held any length of time, a shipper should not be held responsible for marks excepting when offering the fruit for sale ; were it otherwise every one handling same would become liable over and over again during a season ; I would therefore urge you to secure the insertion of the saving clause proposed ' offered for sale.'
It would be a harsh provision to have the Act amended as proposed in this Bill, and my correspondent suggests the advisability of adding the words 'offered for sale' so that a penalty will not he imposed upon the person whose name or initials are to be found on the outside of the barrel, unless the fruit contained in the barrel is being offered for sale.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the addition of those words would make the Act practically unworkable. When fruit is hurriedly put into a warehouse, the seller need not mark the package at all. It is only when the fruit is offered for sale, that the package need be marked. If the merchant is going to repack the fruit, he does not need to mark It until it is repacked. In the second place, the fruit is very frequently already sold and in the hands of a purchaser, and legal technicalities might interfere materially with the working of the Act, if these words were inserted. In the third place, we have often to deal with fruit in transit for the foreigu market, and I do not know how we could deal with it if these words were inserted. The fruit is in Toronto, and whether it is being offered for sale or has been sold or to whom it belongs, are questions which would raise a number of legal technicalities and obstruct the working of the Act. I think the danger which my hon. friend's correspondent fears is not a grave one, because he is not required to mark these packages at all until he is ready to offer them for sale.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If this Act be found to work harshly, I suppose the hon. gentleman would consent to an amendment at some future time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have been enforcing the Act in a very lenient way up to the present and do not propose to administer it harshly at all.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the third clause ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is the same as in the original Act, the only 1301
difference being that the inspector must give notice when he marks the packages ' falsely packed,' as he does in the case when he labels them ' falsely marked.' The object is to let the shipper or seller know that his fruit has been found to be wrongly marked, so that he take what steps he think necessary to protect himself. That is necessary when the fruit is in transit.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Are we to understand that if the inspector finds certain packages falsely marked, he will condemn the whole shipment, or only the barrel so marked.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a matter of regulation. I think I will have to make a regulation by which a certain number of barrels will be examined, and if found falsely marked or packed, the whole of that particular shipment will have to be thrown out. Last year we only marked the barrels examined, and serious complaint were made from the old country. In one case a lawsuit resulted over a large shipment, in which some barrels were marked and others were not, because not opened. I will have to make regulations to deal with this matter more strictly than in the past.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Frequently the shipper or his agent buys the orchard. Sometimes he has the picking done himself or he may pay so much for the whole orchard and repack the fruit after delivery. Supposing a lot of barrels were marked by the apple grower as instructed by the shipper and were not up to the standard of the inspection, and the purchaser intended having them repacked before being put on the market, how would the Act work then ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tn
such a case the barrels need not be marked at all. If they were inspected and the markers found them incorrect and fraudulent, I think that the person on whose behalf the apples were packed would be responsible and not the owner of the orchard.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not think that the hon. gentleman could, under this Act, make such a regulation as he speaks of. He could only have such fruit marked as not being up to the standard, which was really examined.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is probably correct.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The regulation I propose would be that when a certain number of barrels are found wrongly packed or marked, the inspector would have to go through the whole lot. I do not propose that he should mark any package without examining it.


Robert Laird Borden: If out of a dozen barrels we found two falsely packed, would the inspector examine every barrel of the shipment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the case of two out of ten, I would not consider it necessary for the inspector to go through the whole lot. But if he found seven or eight out of ten wrongly marked or packed, he would be instructed to examine every package.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the inspector went through the whole lot, would the shipper not have the privilege of repacking ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where does the responsibility end in this matter? Suppose a retailer buys 50 or 100 barrels wrongly marked and offers them for sale. If the customer finds that the apples are not as represented, has he any recourse against the retailer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that not likely to do injustice to the retailer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention of the Act was that the retailer should have his recourse against the person who sold the apples to him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think a case arose in Toronto where information was laid against the retailer. My recollection is not clear as to the circumstances, but I remember tnat it seemed to me at the time a very great injustice to the retailer that, after he had purchased so many barrels of apples and taken them into the store and sold certain barrels, one or more of which were found not to be as marked, proceedings should lie against the retailer. It is the person who packed the fruit and not the retailer who should be proceeded against.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The person who packs is responsible, but, by another section of the Act, anybody who offers for sale fruit improperly marked is also responsible.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yet there is responsibility upon the retailer for every barrel, although he has had nothing to do with the packing.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Let him buy from a reputable party.


Edward Frederick Clarke: All the wholesale dealers are reputable parties. But does not the minister think it would be unjust to the retailer who buys twenty-five or fifty barrels of apples from a reputable firm and finds after they are sold by him, that some packages of the fruit are not as marked, that he should be proceeded against ? Would it not be better to provide that when a customer informs the department, the department should proceed against the wholesale man or shipper ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it would do to debar the purchaser from proceeding against the retailer. But I may say that, under such circumstances as the hon. gentleman has indicated, the department would not proceed against the retailer, but against the parties who packed the fruit, or for whom it was packed. It would not do, however, to relieve the retailer of all responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any provision under which the retailer has a remedy against the person who supplies him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The whole Act would give him that-he has the same remedy that the person who purchases from him has against him.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If he has purchased fruit, marked of a certain grade from A. B., a dealer or shipper or packer, he can proc'eed against that party if the fruit is not as marked.


Robert Laird Borden: For penalty ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and for damages also.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


INCORPORATIONS OF BOARDS OF TRADE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 132) to amend the Act respecting the Incorporation of Boards of Trade (the Minister of Trade and Commerce), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE. (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I may explain that this Bill is to facilitate the incorporation of Boards of Trade in mining districts, and to reduce the unit of population in the districts for which Boards of Trade may be incorporated in certain cases. This Bill 'applies only to British Columbia and Yukon Territory.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Public Works-Further amount required for contingencies, $3,000.
['We made a very careful investigation. The officer of the department at Halifax. Mr. Tremaine, looked into the matter, and gave his affidavit that Captain Smith never collected his travelling expenses and that the amount was legally due.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Tuesday.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: We require an additional amount for telegrams, stationery and printing. We are receiving a great many telegrams from all parts of the country, unpaid, of course.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the telegrams do not absorb the whole of this $3,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It includes printing, advertising, stationery.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the printing done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At the Printing Bureau.
We have remedied that to a certain extent by the draperies the hon. gentleman has seen. The chief architect informs me he will be able to remedy it still further.


Mr. BELL.: I would suggest that possibly another remedy might be found. The chairman's table and platform might be shifted to some point nearer the middle of the room at one side. It is almost impossible to hear anything now at the extreme end of the room.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure about that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure of that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know how the total vote compares with that of the previous year. There are so many supplementaries, and the thing is in such a state of confusion, that we cannot exactly compare the expenditure of one year with that of another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year we asked for $2,000 in the supplementary estimates, and this year for $3,000.
Parliament buildings, Ottawa

Addition to building over engine house and improvements in main vc-stibule, including elevators, &c., $21,500.'


John William Bell: What will that make the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


John William Bell: Does that cover the whole cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John William Bell: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that his elevators are not very satisfactory. If there was a fire, all the members of the Railway Committee in that committee room would be burned up. If both elevators go wrong at once there would be no way of getting out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure the trouble is not with the elevators. Sometimes during the session the power has been short. During the recess I will see that that trouble is remedied.


John William Bell: Another trouble is the noise; the echo in that Railway Committee room is a very serious evil, and makes it almost impossible to do any business there. I suppose that will be attended to by the hon. minister in some way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that in every new building there is something wrong with the acoustics.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know where to place the seat of the chairman. For a time we put it just across where my hon. friend would like it to be; but on reflection we changed it. Of course, if the committee would like it to be changed, I have no objection.
Ottawa public buildings-heading, including salaries' of engineers, firemen, elevator attendants and caretaker, $12,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the cause of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the first place we have been obliged to buy 1,000 tons more coal on account of the greater number of public buildings we have in this city. Moreover, after public tenders last year, I was obliged to pay 65 cents per ton more for coal. I have just received tenders for next year, and the price of coal has still increased.


Robert Laird Borden: What kind of coal is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hard coal.


Robert Laird Borden: How do you buy it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By public tender.


Robert Laird Borden: How much does this increase the vote over the previous year?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By $12,000. We will be obliged to ask for more in the supplementary estimates. The total increase in the amount will be $24,000. We are obliged to pay $15,134 for an additional 1,000 tons of coal. We are obliged to pay the balance, because the price of coal has been increased.


Robert Laird Borden: Coal does not cost $15 a ton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we are paying $6.45 a ton.


Robert Laird Borden: And the increase on the total coal, together with the additional 1,000 tons, makes an increase of $15,000 altogether in the cost of coal for the buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman taken into consideration the question of making further provision for the public service in Ottawa by building'' instead of renting so many buildings about the city ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have considered the matter, but as the government have decided to erect a museum, a mint, and an astronomical observatory, my colleagues have thought that this year's budget is large enough, and we have not resolved to erect any new public buildings.
Mi'. BORDEN (Halifax). I am not urging the expenditure of any more money. I believe that possibly there might be a saving of money. The difficulty that has been mentioned in. the past is that you will have to buy land. I never could see the slightest necessity for buying more land. I believe that you have all the land required for putting up additional departmental buildings for the public service. As far as the observatory, the mint and buildings of that kind are concerned, I do not profess to know about them, but it seems to me that there is ample room for increasing the western public building, and there is ample room where the Supreme Court building is to erect another building. I think it would be well to consider whether or not that cannot be done, so as to save a considerable sum of money that is spent in rent, because, I believe the interest on the cost of these buildings would be less than the rent which the government are paying out in the city of Ottawa annually. ' Of course, I would not profess to speak about that with as much knowledge as that possessed by the hon. gentleman and the officers of his department. There is, however, no difficulty about the land.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Supreme Court site has been pointed out to me several times and it is a very fine site indeed. I must admit that in my personal view it is better to erect the buildings required, but my hon. friend knows already, and he will perhaps know later on, that when budgets have reached a certain volume it is pretty difficult to get more money. We are paying out in the city of Ottawa $18,000 in rent. I am going to reduce that amount by $1,000 or $2,000, because I am going to improve the post office and provide accommodation there for the Department of Customs. We are now renting an office on Sparks street for that department. We are paying, as I was saying, about $1S,000 for rent, and, I suppose, $400,000. or $500,000, would erect a very flue building for the public service. I hope that next year we will be in a position to have a more definite policy upon that point.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are not the office buildings which have been rented for the public service in this city under lease for ten years ? W'hat is the shortest lease ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the shortest lease is one year. We are not bound by any length of time except in the case of the brick building at the corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets, where we are bound for ten years, of which two years have gone.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are no other 'buildings leased for ten years 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John William Bell: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he has any intention of building a new House of Commons chamber ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Suggestions have been made that as the library is too small we might perhaps make an exchange, but this is a big question and at the present time I have not the information necessary to enable me to express an opinion upon it.


John William Bell: I suppose that those of us who are so favoured by our constituencies may expect to remain in this chamber for some years ? And if so, it seems to me that the hon. minister should direct his attention to the subject of the ventilation of the chamber. I shall not say very much about it, because I know it is a subject which has been discussed very often, but really, it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the House of Commons should be condemned to spend year after year in a chamber whose ventilation is absolutely disgraceful and prejudicial to the health, and that the matter should get so little attention. What is the reason that it is absolutely impossible to provide the House of Commons with pure air ? I think it is a most serious reflection upon the hon. Minister of Public Works, who has proved himself in every other direction so energetic and so capable. I hope that he will direct himself to the question of providing a remedy for what is unquestionably a scandalous evil.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have, over and over again, called the attention of the chief architect to the ventilation of this House. Of course, we cannot change the nature of this chamber. It has been constructed on certain lines that we all know. It is a room in the middle of the building. As to the ventilation the chief architect tells me that he cannot see very well how he can change it now. It is as good as we can make it, although I grant it is not good.


John William Bell: It is not modern. It is an antiquated system.



The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we open the windows over our heads there is a draught and everybody is sick.
I want parliament to be in good shape and in good health.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long is the census building, at the corner of O'Connor and Sparks streets, leased for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What portion of that time has expired ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have leased it for five years, but two years have gone, so that we are not bound for more than three years now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it expected that the census will be completed in that time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not for me to answer that question.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose you have an arrangement so that it can be renewed if necessary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We can always renew.


Robert Laird Borden: At that price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no desire to renew the lease of that building. I had enough trouble to put it through before.


David Henderson: Before leaving the matter referred to by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) of the ventilation of this chamber, I desire to say that during this session, we, on this side of the House, and more particularly those of us who sit on the middle row of seats, have found very great inconvenience and discomfort from the system of ventilating the chamber. I do not object to the air not being so pure at all times; we can put up with that, but there is another matter we do desire to enter our solemn protest against, and it is that .the fans that are used to force fresh air into the chamber are turned on while we are sitting in the chamber. When a cold blast of wind is driven directly against out-heads, being uncovered, no man is free from a severe cold. During the greater part of the session, 1 have been subject to a cold. I am sure this is a matter the minister can remedy by instructing the engineer that these fans shall not be turned on after six o'clock until the members have left the chamber.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Get out.


David Henderson: The Minister of Customs says ' get out,' but we are not provided with suitable and comfortable rooms in other parts of the building as he is.
We are compelled to remain here, and do our work and it is absolute cruelty to subject us to such treatment. I have spoken time and time about it, but without having any remedy applied. I think Mr. Chairman you will remember that when you sat on this side of the House you suffered in the same way. We will put up with impure air if we have to, but we cannot put up with a Yukon blast blowing about our ears continually.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I come often to this chamber when the House is not sitting and I generally find a good many members here so that the difficulty is tp turn on the fans when there are no members. I assure the House that during the recess I will give my best attention to the ventilation of the chamber. I will consult not only my own officers, but men who have acquired experience in that line of business.


Robert Laird Borden: I would gather from the statement of my hon. friend from Ilalton (Mr. Henderson) that what the Minister of Public Works does is to turn the fans on against the members of this side of the House so as to kill off the opposition, and that he does not do so on the other side. If there is any truth in that, it is of course taking a most unfair advantage of us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend may rest assured that that side of the House has been blown up enough without me.
Mal i time provinces-General repairs, harbours. rivers and bridges, $8,000.


John William Bell: Is there anything in this vote for the works on Pictou Island, to which I have called attention several times.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that we have taken the amount out of the general vote of last year to do that work and the work is going on now.
Slides and booms-repairs, &c., $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Trade is developing and there are more demands for works of all kind. We make a rough estimate for the general vote. We cannot tell of course whether storms will destroy one wharf or ten wharfs throughout the country and the estimate is always approximate.


Robert Laird Borden: But this is for slides and booms. The explanation of the minister is very satisfactory so far as it is definite, but it is not very definite.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These works are quite outside of the ordinary vote. These are revenue bearing woras.


Robert Laird Borden: How much revenue do you get ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never handle a dollar of the revenue, but I think the revenue reaches about $130,000 a year. These works which pay best are on the St. Maurice and the Ottawa rivers.


Robert Laird Borden: The total expenditure is how much ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Robert Laird Borden: So that the work is really paid for out of collections ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Yes.
Telegraphs Land and cable tel 'graph lines of the sea, coasts and islands of the lower rivers, ana Gulf of St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service, $17,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This sum is asked for in connection with our cable and telegraph system. We have cables between Anticosti and the north shore, and between the Magdalen Islands and Meat Cove on the Island of Cape Breton, and also in New Brunswick. The steamer ' Newfield ' was wrecked, and we have been obliged to buy another steamer, the 1 Tyrian,' and to equip her, and this sum is asked in connection with that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is prepared to give the House and the country a full statement ais to the policy of the government with respect to the improvement of the telegraph and cable service in the gulf. In view of the lamentable record of losses in the gulf last season, I think we should have a comprehensive statement as to what steps the government are taking to mitigate the evils to which that route has been subject.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that we have completed our telegraph system to Belle Isle. We have laid a cable between Belle Isle and the north shore, and we have equipped two Marconi stations-one on Belle Isle and one on the north shore. When the supplementary estimates come, I think my hon. friend will find that I have not forgotten that important question. I think our telegraph system down by the sea should be completed. I feel that we should be at home, if I may so speak, with our telegraph system, so that it will be connected with all the cables of the continent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We shall have full explanations from the hon. minister before the supplementary estimates pass ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. minister had any communication with the shipping interest on the subject ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose the correspondence will be brought down, so that we may see if anything can be done to effect some improvement in the insurance rates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring down all the correspondence I have.
At one o'clock committee took recess. Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This amount iis asked to supplement last year's vote, it is to pay for accounts that are due.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the ' Tyrian ' to be used entirely las a cable steamer 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Have you sufficient work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: How many milesl of cable have you to lay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total mileage of our system is about 0,000 miles, including the Yukon Territory. We have 230 miles of cable to lay.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The hon. minister was kind enough to provide for a new cable between House Harbour and Amherst, Magdalen Islands last year or two years ago. The cable is, I understand, on board a steamer, but has not yeit been laid. Will the hon. gentleman attend to this matter this year, as our telegraphic service there is very poor indeed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cable was purchased in England and has readied Canada, and as soon as the season permits, it will be laid down.
Yukon public buildings, including revote of $23,723.32, lapsed $84,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A part of this vote Is composed of a revote, amounting to $23,723. That sum lapsed because the accounts for last year did not reach Ottawa In ibime. The balance of the vote is to cover expenditure incurred on public buildings in the Yukon, besides the appropriation. I,n other words tlie resident engineer, Mr. Fowler, has been obliged to spend more thian he thought on the public buildings out there.


Robert Laird Borden: What public
buildings has the government erected in
the Yukon ?


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government house, which is a residence for the commissioner, a building for the post office and custom-house, and administration building, iu which all the branches of the public service are located and a court house. We have several other public buildings in. the Yukon, and I gave the lisit in the previous debate. In the sup-plementaries we have arranged ;in such a way that the Yukon government will have charge of all local business just ias has the government in the North-west Territories, and my department will keep charge only of the federal business, fbhat is to say, the post office and the government house. It would be easier for the Yukon government to take charge of all the local buildings there as they are on the spot and know more about them than I do.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there official residences also for the judges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No, bivt we pay the rental of the government judges residence.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the furnishings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: We do not furnish the judges house residence, but we bad to provide the furnishings for the buildings I have mentioned.


Robert Laird Borden: How is it the hon. gentleman wants $60,000 more than be thought last year would be required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: It was very difficult to form an accurate estimate of the cost of work in the Yukon, especially when there was no telegraphic communication, and Mr. Fowler, the resident architect, under estimated the cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman's department a resident engineer in the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Not now.


Robert Laird Borden: These estimates were made, I suppose, in the Yukon and not in Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These estimates were sent by Mr. Fuller, who was our resident architect. But the estimates were exceeded. However, Mr. Fuller is here in Ottawa, and if my hon. friend would like to have him before the Public Accounts Committee, there is no reason why be would not do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is any need of that but


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was just explaining that the reason why we asked for this vote is that the resident architect exceeded bis appropriation. But be tells us that, these buildings having been commenced, be was bound to complete them.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite right. But what is the vote last year which was exceeded ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The appropriation last year was $145,000 ; as against this Mr. Fuller has drawn cheques to the amount of $228,947, a deficit of about $84,000, for which I am asking this vote. Of course, out of that, as I have explained, over $23,000 had lapsed from last year's appropriation, so I am really only asking for a vote of $60,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand that. If there is a difference of $84,000 between what was estimated and what was expended, how can $23,000 of this be a revote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the money has not been spent ; the accounts did not come in time.


Robert Laird Borden: But I understand the hon. minister to say that cheques were issued for $228,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister has explained the matter to me, and as I understand it, the appropriation was then exhausted. As a matter of fact before we had telegraph communication we never knew where we were in these matters. Our officers would delay and then the slowness of postal communication would cause further delay. But the case is as I have stated-we had an appropriation of $145,000 against which we have an expenditure of $228,947.


Robert Laird Borden: But the vote of last year does not expire until the 1st July next. I do not understand the minister's statement that a portion of the vote has lapsed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: The deputy minister explained that what was exceeded was the vote of last year, and out of this year's vote we have had to pay this $23,000, therefore we are short by that amount on this vote.


John Graham Haggart: Why did not you
get it revoted last session ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because, I am informed, the session was over when we learned of it.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Of course, I cannot help myself in these matters. The money has to be paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand now-the lapse is one lap back ; but it seems to be a pretty wide margin of error-$84,000 in $145,000. '
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKSr I grant that.


Robert Laird Borden: How were the buildings erected, by tender or by day's work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that we gave small contracts for material, and so on, but most of the work was by day's labour.


Robert Laird Borden: How would it be possible to have so large an error as that in doing the work in that way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 cannot explain more than I have already done. As I have said, we had a resident architect, a man who has been several years in the department and who was recommended to me as the best man for that work. We controlled the expenditure as much as it was possible to do from this distance, but the appropriation was exceeded. In a country where charwomen are paid $5 a day, money goes pretty fast.


Robert Laird Borden: The money goes pretty fast-I am disposed to admit that. But what margin of error does the .minister think we ought to allow in future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad to say there will be no more errors in this, because these works have been completed.


Robert Laird Borden: What has beeu the total cost of these buildings that the minister has spoken of ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that the total cost of the buildings up to 1st January, 1902. so far as reported to Ottawa, was $297,435.45.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the estimate ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I really cannot say. It is rather difficult to make an estimate out there.
To refund the Yukon local council the balance of their outlay in connection with the construction of the Ogilvie bridge, viz.: $32,403, together with the sum of $15,748.27, advanced by them so as to permit of the Hunker Road being completed ready for traffic in 1901-02	$48,151 31
To pay Palmier Bros., in full and final settlement of all demands in connection with their contract for the construction of a wagon road from Williams Roadhouse to mouth of Gold Run	 19,800 00


Robert Laird Borden: What funds do the Yukon local council administer ? Why is there a refund ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not in a position to answer the question as it does not belong to the Department of Public Works. But so far as I can say, they are funds collected from the royalties and so on. Out of their local funds they Hon. Mr. TARTE.
have advanced a sum for roads which we are asked to reimburse to them.


John Graham Haggart: Who had the contract with the government for building this wagon road ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Messrs. Palmer and Russell bad a contract with the Department of Public Works for the construction of this road. That work was recommended by Mr. Ross, the commissioner, and It was on bis recommendation that the contract was awarded.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the length of the road ?


The MINITSER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifteen miles and a half.


John Graham Haggart: Had you authority from parliament to enter into contract for building that road ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had a vote for roads last year.


John Graham Haggart: Is this in excess of that vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to complete payment for the construction of that road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much was paid before on account of this road ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had voted $10,000 before.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the road cost $29,800 for 15 miles. Is that right ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIO WORKS.: No, the total cost of that road was $31,479, and we have paid $11,000. The length of the road is 16 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a contract, apparently, according to the wording of the resolution. What was the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister reminds me that in point of fact the commissioner was the real party who contracted for the road, with the consent of all the officers. The contract price was $10,418 for the first section ; for the second section, eight miles in round numbers, the contract price was $10,950.80. Then there were extras that Mr. Ross, the commissioner, granted. 1 may say that Mr. Ross being a man of experience, when he went there I asked him to certify all the expenditures for the Department of Public Works. I thought it was safer to have him supervise my own officers, and in everything I am asking from the House to-day I have the sanction and approbation of Mr. Ross.


Robert Laird Borden: Were tenders called for by public advertisement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire, Mr. Chairman, to call your attention to the fact that there is so much noise in the Chamber that it is difficult to hear. While the committee is going on in supply we will have to have better order. On Friday evening it was almost impossible to hear the minister who was in charge, and it is very difficult this afternoon. Unless we have better order I shall move that the committee rise.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I cannot be heard from this side of the House I will go across.


Peter Macdonald: Very frequently when the committee begins work there is a system of interviewing going on in the House. Members gather in little groups around certain seats for the purpose of transacting business, which causes a hum that renders it almost impossible for the average member to hear what is going on. I hope that will be avoided as far as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: I may point out to to the minister that on Friday evening he was making a good deal of noise himself while the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were going on. I am glad to see that he is being taught a lesson on the present occasion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must apologize for my past faults. I have the best intentions for the future.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that from our seats up here we hear nothing whatever of what is going on down below, and we have to amuse ourselves as best we can.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tenders were asked for for this work, and thirteen were sent in. The lowest tenderer was a gentleman named Forsyth, but he had to be passed over because his securities went back on him. The next lowest tenderer was Mr. Palmer, the man to whom we gave the contract.


Mr. EARLE.: When was the contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: July 27th, 1900.


Thomas Earle: That was previous to Mr. Ross going in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, perhaps so. But he was consulted. I remember very well, when our final settlement took place.


Thomas Earle: That is the account that Palmer & Russell had a dispute with the department about ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there was a difference.


Thomas Earle: What was the difference ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were extras for about $10,000, or $12,000, and as I did not know exactly what to do, I referred the whole thing to Mr. Ross, in whom I had implicit confidence, and he settled with them with the aid of my officers.


Thomas Earle: That is unfair to the lowest tenderer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The lowest tenderer was passed over because, before accepting his contract, his securities went back on him, and for no other reason.
Quesneilla Atlin telegraph line-Yukon system, $107,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation here ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This money is asked to pay two different accounts. First to pay back accounts incurred in 1899-1900 and also in 1900-1901, amounting to $55,640.09. It is also to pay the cost of the gap that had to be completed during last session. When I came to the House on a previous occasion I stated that we had every reason to believe that the gap to be filled would be about 50 miles long. Of course, this is a wild country, and nobody had ever previously travelled over the ground between Hazelton and Telegraph Creek. Instead of having to complete a gap of 50 miles, we had 111 miles of telegraph line to build. Now, we had to carry our provisions on boats and in other ways, and we had to spend $30,000 to take the men in in the spring and bring them out in the fall. We would seem to have spent $79,000 for that 111 miles of gap, but we have really and practically spent only $49,000 upon that work, as $30,000 had to be spent to take the men in and bring them out again. I am asking this amount of money to pay $55,000 of old accounts and to pay the cost of this gap. During the last winter there were a couple of months in which there were 27 feet of snow. For the next season, as soon as spring is open, I intend buying cable and laying it down so that in the winter months there will be no interruption in the telegraph system.


John Graham Haggart: Why did you not run straight across the country ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is altogether out of the question. They were obliged at times before reaching these points to shovel five or six feet of snow on both sides.


John William Bell: At what season of the year?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was in the month of April that they started. It cost us $30,000 to take them in and bring them out.


Mr. BOYD.: I have heard it remarked that in building this line, the engineers or those

who were responsible, ran past one another about 50 miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They did not. If my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) will be good enough to look at the map he will find that there was nothing of the kind.


Nathaniel Boyd: Then it is not the case that they did run past each other ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say on the report of the engineers who were there and who are here to-day, on the report of Mr. Boyer, who is a most reliable officer, that nothing of the kind occurred.


Nathaniel Boyd: My information was that the parties building the line ran past each other about 50 miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am quite sure that information is incorrect, as the map shows.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am pleased to hear that It is not so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This map has been prepared by the officers who built this line.


Thomas Earle: I asked some information from the hon. minister the other evening which he was not then prepared to give. What is the total length of the Yukon telegraph line from Ashcroft to Dawson, the total cost and the number of men employed?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total length of the Yukon lines, including the Port Simpson to Hazelton branch, is 2,135 miles. Here are the distances : first section, Ashcroft to Quesnelle, including the branch from Ashcroft to Lilloet station and other branches from Quesnelle to Barkerville, 281 miles ; second section, which extends from Quesnelle to Atlin by way of Hazelton and Telegraph Creek, 397 miles; Hazelton to Telegraph Creek, 333 miles; Telegraph Creek to Atlin, 214 miles, making a total distance from Quesnelle to Atlin of 944 miles; branch line from Port Simpson to Hazelton, 200 miles ; Atlin to Dawson, including branch to Cariboo crossing, (ill miles ; branch from Dawson to the American boundary, 97 miles, making in all -2,135 miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $786,224.41 not including $94,000 for supplies and provisions which were left at the different camps on different occasions, and which have been paid out of construction money.


Mr. KEMP.: Does that include this estimate ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the total estimate. If the total sum of Mr. BOYD.
$7S6,224.41 is divided by the total mileage of 2,135 miles, then the general cost per mile would be $368.23, and If the House wants -to know how much per mile was the cost on the different sections I am prepared to give it.


Nathaniel Boyd: How many telegraph offices have you ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have 70 offices including refuge houses and about 119 employees.


Nathaniel Boyd: What kind of wire did you use ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. 8 wire. As I have said, next winter season we contemplate laying a cable on the most difficult part of the line so as to avoid the great damages caused by the storms. Between Hazelton and Telegraph Creek last winter there were 27 feet of snow, which accounts for the interruption in the service. We expect that by using the new device we will be able to have an uninterrupted service the whole winter round. The cost of the different sections of the line is as follows :
From Ashcroft to Barkerville 281 miles, less 62 miles to Lilloet making 219 miles ; total cost $24,000 or $110 per mile.
From Quesnelle to Atlin 944 miles, total cost $500,494.75, or $540.77 per mile.
From Fort Simpson to Hazelton 200 miles, total cost $64,037.52, or $323.18 per mile.
Atlin to Dawson including brancn to Bennett 637 miles, total cost $178,480.53 ; cost per mile $280.19.
From Dawson to the boundary, 95 mues, total cost $18,611.39, or $195.90 per mile.


Albert Edward Kemp: On which section did one of the civil servants in the employ of the government contract with the government to supply the poles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Bennett and Dawson line.


Albert Edward Kemp: Had any civil servants contracts on any other sections ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not admit that a civil servant had a contract at all, because Mr. Rochester is not a civil servant. He was a temporary employee for a time. I have already explained to the House how this matter happened. Mr. Rochester started from Ottawa and the intention of Mr. Charleson was that Mr. Rochester who had long experience was to be employed as foreman of works. AVhen he had been a few months there he contracted for the poles. We were then paying $3 for the poles and he offered to supply tnem for $2. Mr. Charleson rightly or wrongly accepted his offer, and after his contract was completed he began again as foreman

lof construction. Let me say at once that Mr. Richardson who was then in charge of the construction of the line was the gentleman who accepted all the poles from Mr. Rochester. These are the facts as they are.


Thomas Earle: I asked the other evening a question with regard to the amount of business done by that telegraph line. Can the minister tell us the amount of messages and the revenue received ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The revenue since the 1st of July, 1901, has been as follows:	July,	$7,478.78;
August, $7,583.52; September, $8,904.13; October. $8,976.10; November, $6,670.83; December, $6,509.36; January, 1902, $6,950.48; February, $7,683.71; March, $8,898. I may remark that the line was interrupted for several weeks, otherwise I suppose our receipts would have been larger.


Thomas Earle: Can you tell me what proportion otf the revenue is derived from the government service, and what proportion from general business ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is our net revenue. For next year we expect a revenue of $125,000 at least. The expenditure during the last six months or a year has been very large, because we were still building. We shall be able to reduce the expenditure very largely.


Thomas Earle: Will you be able to reduce your rates ? The impression is that if the rates were lowered to a reasonable figure, the business would be very greatly increased.


An hon. MEMBER.: What are the rates?


Thomas Earle: I think they are about $4.75 for ten words from Victoria or Vancouver to the Yukon. I am informed that if a message is sent from Ashcroft to London, the full Yukon rate is added to the cable rate, whereas in cabling over any other line there is only the usual local rate added to the cable rate. I understand that in cabling anywhere along the government line, the full Yukon rate is added to the cable rate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, I would be only too glad, if possible, to reduce the rates. We have not had many complaints. The rates, I grant, are not low; but that line has cost a large amount of money, and the rates must be judged according to local circumstances. Everything is high out there.


Thomas Earle: But that does not affect the case I mention. If you telegraph from' Ashcroft to Victoria the rate is perhaps 50 cents; but if you cable from Ashcroft to London, the full Yukon rate is added to the cable rate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is the hon, gentleman sure of that ?
Mi-. EARLE. I have been told so by a party who has cabled.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad ,my hon. friend has called my attention to that. I will immediately look Into it.


Nathaniel Boyd: What class of instruments are used in those seventy offices ? Are they repeaters, or can the hon. gentleman give me some idea of what batteries are used ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the prices of the instruments here, but if my hon. friend wants them,
I will .give them with pleasure.


Nathaniel Boyd: The average cosit of that line is $368.23 per male, with offices about 30 m'iles apart. In Manitoba it costs about $150 a mile to build and equip a telegraph line with offices about 10 miles apart, although we have to bring the telegraph poles three or four hundred miles. This line must have been built through a wooded country where the telegraph poles must have been very near. In the district of Keewiatin you can get large cedar telegraph poles at 50 or 75 cents. What kind of poles were these, which cost $2 each ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think we could have used cedar there. We had to use the native timber.


Nathaniel Boyd: How could the poles cost $2 each ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cost of transportation has been the greatest expense. Some parts of the work have not cost even $150 a mile. For instance, that part of the work from Ashcroft to Barkerville cost only $110 a mile. In other words, in a civilized country it did not cost nearly so much. The last gap cost over $700 a mile, because we had to pack provisions, wires, and so on, for a distance of 100 miles, and in some cases the men had to shovel away snow and ice to a depth of 6 feet.


Nathaniel Boyd: What wages are paid the operators and what are their duties ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The average price paid was between $80 per month and three dollars a day. I am speaking of the whole staff. For the coming year we have reduced the wages. The line was opened in a very hasty way, and we have reduced all the salaries, so that I expect next year the expenditure will be about $125,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: The cost of the poles appears to have been $2. I understand that there are no great transportation charges because they were floated down the river. I hope that the hon. minister does not approve of officials of the government taking contracts of this kind. I understand that the contractor was on salary before he took this

contract and that after lie completed the contract, he went hack on salary again and has been in the employ of the government ever since. I also understand that while he was carrying on the contract he kept the books of the government. I hope the hon. gentleman has taken steps to find out what the poles really cost, because the government would be entitled to the profits, the contractor being an official of the government. A civil servant has no right to take government contracts, and the officials implicated should be severely reprimanded.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not prepared to admit that Mr. Charle-son did right in giving Mr. Rochester this contract. I told him that if I had been in his place I would not have done it. But we must look into the circumstances. Our employes were in a wild country. The poles had been supplied to Mr. Charleson by the Victoria Trading Company for the line between Bennett and Caribou Crossing at $3 each. Mr. Rochester who has been employed in bush operations all his life, offered to supply the poles for the remainder of the work between Bennett and Dawson for $2 each, and Mr. Charleson gave him the contract at that price. My hon. friend is not quite correct in saying that Mr. Rochester continued in the employ of the government while he was earrving out this contract.


Albert Edward Kemp: He kept the books.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend should be fair. Mr. Charleson was alone and had no bookkeeper. Mr. Rochester is a first-class bookkeeper, as my hon. friend knows, because he heard Mr. Rochester give his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Charleson had no other man to keep his books, and Mr. Rochester agreed to keep them free of charge while carrying out his contract. He kept the books at night. I do not say that that was right or regular. But I say there has been no stealing, so far as I can see. I think that Mr. Charleson should not have employed him. I would not have done so, because I would have anticipated criticism, and of course fair criticism, but the facts are as I have stated.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Could not Mr. Rochester have bought the poles for the government instead of Mi-. Charleson ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am not prepared to agree to that. My hon. friend and myself are pretty able men, but if we would venture to start a trade in poles, I think we would lose a good deal of money and a good deal of prestige-both of which we require.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Mr. Rochester was bookkeeper for the government and resigned his position to become a contractor. That is to say, he did not draw any pay as bookkeeper after he had contracted to furnish


Albert Edward Kemp: the poles for $2 apiece. Would it not have been 'just ns easy and much better for the country if Mr. Rochester had bought the poles for the government at $2 apiece instead of Mr. Charleson.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If he had bought the poles for the government, I would not be obliged to give the explanations I am now giving. But I cannot help it. The poles were bought and paid for and I cannot do any thing more. I told Charleson that he could have spared me all that trouble if he had acted differently.


Albert Edward Kemp: How much increase in salary did Mr. Rochester get after the contract was completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He did not get any increase until the next spring when he had full charge of the work, which was more difficult in that wild place than it was between Bennett and Dawson. That increase of salary was not kept very long for I reduced it as soon as I learned of it.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister has told us that he reprimanded Mr. Charleson for this transaction. Did he reprimand him by letter or verbally ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When Mr. Charleson came back. I told him that he had not done what I would have done. He said he had not done anything wrong and had done for the best, but I told him that it would give me a great deal of trouble to defend him as I am now doing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do you save .$1 a pole on the price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From what I could learn, I really believe the price was a fair one.


Nathaniel Boyd: You have not learned what class of wood was in those poles and the size.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: It could only have been the kind of wood that grows in that country-a kind of spruce,
I understand.


Nathaniel Boyd: You will have to replace the poles inside of three years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am sure my hon. friend would not advise me to import the wood.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the diameter of the bulk and the height.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot tell you that.


Robert Laird Borden: I was only curious to know how it was the minister came to the conclusion that the price was a fair one, since he does not know the kind of pole or its size or its height.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have not the very best information. The gentleman who was in charge of construction is a Mr. Richardson, who is an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway on their telegraph line. He has built nearly all their lines, and it was because he was an experienced man that I instructed him to supervise the structure of our work. He came back and, of course, I asked him for all possible information and he told me the price was fair. He was before the Public Accounts Committee last session, and 1 think he made that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be desirable to know whether he was aware of the size of the poles at the butt, their height and material. If he did not know anything more about it than the hon. minister seems to know, his opinion would not be of much value. In what particular section was it that Mr. Rochester supplied the poles ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may be true that my opinion on these matters is not of much value, but Mr. Richardson was on the spot and received the poles, and he has been a telegraph constructor all his life. The section for which Mr. Rochester supplied the poles was between Bennett and Dawson City.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister has spoken of the difficulty of getting in supplies, explaining that in one section it cost $30,000 to take in the men and their supplies to the ground and back. Would the same difficulty exist on this portion of the line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not so much.


Robert Laird Borden: Where would the supplies come from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The supplies would come from Vancouver.


Thomas Earle: From whom were the supplies bought and how were they purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say at the moment how it is done this year, but last year and the year before they were bought by tender.


Thomas Earle: My information is entirely different-that there was no tender asked for a dollar's worth of supplies that went to the Yukon, either for the Public Works or for any other department, and that, moreover, this business was peddled out, as was done some years ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I remember distinctly that the last time we discussed this matter in the House, it was shown very clearly that tenders were asked for groceries and provisions.


Thomas Earle: Where ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In British Columbia.


Thomas Earle: I am positive that that information is incorrect.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am corrected by my deputy minister, who tells me that circulars were issued and that we got eighteen tenders and that out of these eighteen tenders Kelly, Douglas & Company were the lowest.


Thomas Earle: My information is that the very opposite of that, even that firms contemporary with Messrs. Kelly, Douglas & Company, in Vancouver, including many Liberals, who declare that supplies were bought regardless of tenders, and that they were given no opportunity to get the business. I am as positive as I am standing here that that is correct.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The information from my officials is what I have given-that tenders were called for and Messrs. Kelly, Douglas & Company were the lowest, and that since then, provisions have been bought at this lowest tender price. It happened that I was away when these circulars were sent out, although, of course, I am responsible for all that has been done. But I am sure that my officer would not make a mistake upon this point, and that tenders were asked for and that they were asked for exactly as my hon. friend (Mr. Earle) would do. In his large business he would not advertise for tenders, except in the way we did. I do not say that it is right or that it is wrong; I am only giving the facts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were there eighteen tenders from eighteen different firms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have some recollection of the discussion, and I think the information furnished was that a number of circulars were sent out. I believe 1 was consulted, when they were sent out, as the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) was away, and the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), who was acting Minister of Public Works, was also absent at the time. I think these circulars were sent to parties in Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and some cities in the east. I am sure that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Earle) will find that that statement, as regards the original purchase of groceries, is entirely correct.


Thomas Earle: It may be, and I hope it is. But my information 'is different. Not only from my own knowledge of the business there, but from the statements of par! ties in the trade in Vancouver, some of

them life-long Liberals, who complain very bitterly about it. It is a well known fact that everything is carried to Messrs. Kell}', Douglas & Company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was not so in the original purchase ; as to later purchases, I do not pretend to be informed. In the original purchase circulars were sent out, as I have stated.


Thomas Earle: But I am speaking of the purchase of supplies for the telegraph line for this year 1902.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that Mr. Charleson has bought his supplies at the same prices that were quoted by Messrs. Kelly, Douglas & Company when the former tenders were given.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: When were the original tenders asked for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1899, I suppose-I was away.


John Dowsley Reid: Three years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two years ago.


John Dowsley Reid: Prices have changed since the tenders were asked for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Prices of provisions have not lowered.


John Dowsley Reid: They certainly have lowered in some cases.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What prices have lowered

sugar ? Or bacon ?


John Dowsley Reid: Flour and many other articles. Is it not customary to ask for tenders each year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have the figures now under my hand, and I save my neck once more. Here are the people from whom we bought provisions last year : Messrs. Kelly, Douglas & Company, $5,908; the Hudson's Bay Company, $7,655; Messrs. J. Y. Galbraith, Telegraph Creek, $4,265; Messrs. Cunningham & Son, $4,220; and other small purchases- these are for provisions. Hardware seems to have been bought right and left.


Thomas Earle: These are dealers in the interior, except Messrs. Kelly, Douglas & Company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Kelly, Douglas & Company have only a limited amount


Thomas Earle: The accounts are not all in yet up to the 30th June.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have here the figures up to the completion up to 31st January, 1902.


Thomas Earle: 


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the intention to continue buying supplies for the current year on the same contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman will ask for new tenders.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will say to the House that I intend to change the system under which we have bought in the past. I am going to try to get quotations, as has been suggested to me by some hon. gentlemen in the House, and ask people to sell on those quotations. I shall be very glad to welcome suggestions from hon. gentlemen on. either side of the House as to the best way of purchasing.


Albert Edward Kemp: Do I understand from the minister that in future tenders will be asked from people who are in business regardless of politics ? I do not mean advertised tenders necessarily, because sometimes the purchases are so small it would not pay to advertise. But in oases where a fair amount of purchases are to be made, will the minister authorize requisitions to be sent to firms in the different localities, regardless of polities, and let them quote their prices, and will he accept the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Albert Edward Kemp: No, no. Country first.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Other things being equal. That is my duty.


Albert Edward Kemp: Country first.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am speaking of patronage. There are a great many good men in both parties, and I find there are enough good men in the Liberal party to supply the government in many lines at the lowest prices. I may, however, mention to my hon. friend that on many occasions in the past I have asked for tenders and quotations from men who differ with me in politics. I am prepared to appeal for the 'truth of my statement, to the lists of my purchases from Montreal and Toronto, especially from Montreal, where I have asked for quotations, for instance, for hardware, for boilers, and things like that. My instructions to our officers are :	When you find enough competition in the Liberal party, our duty is to stand by the party; but when you cannot, then go outside the party. I have done so repeatedly, and I will do it again. We are asking for tenders for nearly all the works, and the lowest tenderer invari-

ably gets the contract, in my department, at any rate. But let me add that I will change t.o a large extent the mode of purchasing. I am willing to meet the trade, and I will improve on my predecessors, on myself even. I (have just instructed my officers very lately to purchase direct from the manufacturer. That is a good policy to follow.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am afraid the minister has qualified his first statement to such an extent that the country will get no benefit. Now there are many friend's of the government who support the government in election times, who are in business in a wholesale way, but they don't happen to come to Ottawa and go about the departmental buildings here, bothering the ministers to secure contracts. But if a requisition was sent to them they would be very glad to quote prices. Then there is another class of people who come to Ottawa and lobby and work among the different departments, and the minister must know they come. They are a class of people who are not able to sell at the lowest prices, but WhOi through their influence in many ways, are able to get orders. The other class to which I have referred are doing business in a wholesale way, and although they may be supporters of the government, I know as a matter o,f fact that some of them never get an opportunity of quoting. It is frequently the men who are not in as good a position to quote low prices that get the business, because of their persistence in visiting the offices and presenting their claims upon the government, telling what they have done for them, in this election or that election, or what they will do, or some other nonsensical thing. I would strongly urge upon the minister" to qualify his last statement, and to send out requisitions broadcast to business firms regardless of their politics.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am willing to make an appointment with my hon. friend for next session, and i'f I do not convince him that I have bought at the lowest possible prices of tbe market, I want him to tell me.
Mr. REID (Grenville. The minister is not quite so good as the Postmaster General, who, when he advertises for tenders for the mail service, gives tbe contract to tbe lowest tenderer irrespective of politics.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do the same thing in every public contract.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must know that we are all in politics, all of us. We are playing the game the best we can. When I'ask for public tenders for public buildings, for a wharf, a breakwater, or any other important work, I always accept the lowest tenderer. I challenge any man from either side of the House to point to a single case in my department where I have not awarded the contract to the lowest tenderer, whether he is a Conservative or a Liberal. For doing this some of my friends on this side of the House have called me an old Tory. Now, I am accused of being bad because I do nott give everything to. my hon. friends opposite. Why, they have been eighteen years in office, and it is time that the poor Liberals who were so long in the cold shades of opposition should now (have a little show. But my hon. friends, opposite when they cross the floor of the House, will do just as I have been doing, and if they do not do worse, it will be a blessing of Providence.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the average cost of the poles for the whole line?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not bought any poles except on that section, because our men made most of the poles themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: There must be some idea of what they cost, because the reason advanced by the hon. minister was that Rochester could get them for $2 each, and that the cost had been $3 each at some particular time. If you know they cost $3 each, you must know what they cost on each section. You have the same information in regard to each section.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was an arrangement for a small part of the line with the Victoria Grading Company. We were to pay them $3 per pole, but that arrangement was cancelled and Mr. Rochester got the contract at $2 per pole. Later ou, instead of going on with that subcontract, the men made the poles as they went along with the work. But my hon. friend must not lose sight of the fact that all of the sections were not alike. A mile of telegraph line in the gap we filled last year cost more than a mile elsewhere. It is quite impossible to give the price of each pole, because, suppose we bad fifty or one hundred, or two hundred men carrying on this work it is impossible to be able to say that a pole here or elsewhere, would cost so much. These men were paid by tlie day and they were doing their work.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it only on the line between Dawson and Bennett that poles were obtained by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: How many were purchased at $2 and how many at $3 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We got 330 from the Victoria Grading Com-panv at $3, and it was proved before the Public Accounts Committee that the number of poles supplied for the balance of the line between Dawson and Bennett was 6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Were not tenders called for in respect to those that were supplied by the Victoria Grading Company?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand not.


Robert Laird Borden: Where did Mr. Rochester get those which he supplied?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has no information whatever as to where Mr. Rochester got those poles?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None, except that Mr. Rochester, in the Public Accounts Committee, said that he made a sub-contract with Mr. Johnston. He admitted that. Beyond that I cannot say where the poles came from. I do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: At what price were they to be delivered by the sub-contractor to Mr. Rochester?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know. I have no right to know, either.


Robert Laird Borden: Who was the sub-contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Johnston, I understand.


Robert Laird Borden: Where does he live?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know. I have never met him.


Robert Laird Borden: Did Charleson call for tenders before he awarded this contract to Rochester?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: And the hon. gentleman thinks that is a proper course?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Asking for tenders under the circumstances might have been difficult, but all the same, I say again-I have nothing to hide-Mr. Charleson might have avoided giving that contract to Mr. Rochester. It is not necessary to repeat it. I admit, although I believe that the price, if I have been rightly informed by those who have been on the


Robert Laird Borden: spot, and by Mr. Richardson, who is a very competent man, was reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: What was Richardson doing there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was supervising the construction of the line.


Robert Laird Borden: For whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For the government.


John William Bell: Under the control of Charleson ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, Charleson was at that time a kind of general officer, not only for the completion of the telegraph line, but for works elsewhere and Richardson was in charge of the construction of the telegraph line.


John William Bell: That would mean that he was foreman of construction for a portion of the line under Charleson.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John William Bell: And took orders from Charleson ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Charleson was a superior officer. Richardson would be in the position of my chief engineer here in relation to myself.


John William Bell: Do you make them do what you want ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I hare never tried to make them do wrong.


John William Bell: I would not suggest that the hon. minister would try to make them do wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister says we have no right to know the price at which Johnston supplied poles to Roenester. Why have we not a right to know that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For a very simple reason. My hon. friend is a lawyer and he has factums to be printed; suppose that he comes to ' La Pat-rie ' office when he has a Montreal case, and we would be glad to see him there, he will give us a contract for the printing of the factum. Suppose that my sons gave to another printing office the work of printing the factum, that they sub-let the contract, he would have no right to know how much they paid for getting the work done. It happens every day in the Department of Public Works that we give a contract for a public building, for a bridge, or some other public work and the contractor gives a sub-contract. What right have I to ask this contractor how much he has paid for his material ? I have no right to do that. The

contract is given and the contractor buys his stone, his iron or his timber and we have no right to know how much he pays for it. In this case the principle is absolutely the same.


Robert Laird Borden: How long after Rochester left the service of the government was it before this arrangement was made with him ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He left the service of the department-he did not leave the service, but he did so for two or three months when he got that contract. He carried out his contract and then resumed his position as foreman.


Robert Laird Borden: It is something like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Comparisons are odious.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) suggests that it was odorous. As a matter of fact this contract was made while he was in the employ of the government, under salary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he left the employ of the department, even the ablest lawyer cannot mix me up on occasions like this. He cannot do it. That man took the contract and carried it out at $2 per pole. While he was carrying out that contract he did not get a dollar from the Department of Public Works. That is the whole case.


Thomas Earle: Did Rochester, the contractor, inspect the poles furnished by him on behalf of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I said repeatedly and it has been proven in the Public Accounts Committee that Rochester had nothing to do with the inspection of the poles. Richardson inspected them. The thing was done in the ordinary way of business, and although I say it again, it should not have been done, because we would not have had all this discussion and it would have been regular if it had been done in some other way.


Thomas Earle: Are these people still in your employ ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, Richardson is not in the service of the government.


Thomas Earle: Richardson or Rochester ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Rochester is just completing our accounts.


Thomas Earle: And Charleson ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Richardson and Charleson are just completing the accounts of this line.


Robert Laird Borden: On what date did Mr. Rochester leave the government service.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was established before the Public Accounts Committee, but I cannot remember now.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course this is not the Public Accounts Committee and when the minister is putting through his estimates I should like to know the facts. There was some negotiation for the supply of these poles, and while that negotiation was going on between Mr. Rochester and Mr. Charleson was not Mr. Rochester in the employ of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose he was.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, that is perfectly frank. Then the position is, that Mr. Charleson who was superintending the building of this line for the government entered into a negotiation with an officer in the employ of the government for the supply of these poles at $2 a piece, and eventually he awarded a contract for some 6,000 poles to Mr. Rochester without asking for tenders from any other person. The minister does not know officially or otherwise at what price these poles were supplied to Mr. Rochester by the sub-contractor.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that Mr. Rochester had not much to do with getting these poles out and matters of that kind. What was Mr. Rochester doing while this contract was being carried out by the sub-contractor.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Rochester was the contractor and he gave a sub-contract and I suppose he was looking after the delivery of the poles on his own account.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not the subcontractor cover everything that he was obliged to do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but we had nothing at all to do with that man. Mr. Rochester was our contractor and I suppose he had to see that the goods were delivered. They were not moved after they were delivered to Mr. Rochester by the sub-contractor.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, but Mr. Rochester was our contractor and he was obliged to see that he delivered the goods. I was not watching over it myself.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better if the minister had been watching over it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, he did not steal any poles.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not understand yet what Mr. Rochester was doing.
o


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Rochester had to look after the construction of the whole line and the poles are only a part of that.


Robert Laird Borden: At what particular date of the negotiation did Mr. Rochester leave the employment of the government so as to cease drawing a salary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Deputy Minister tells me that he thinks Mr. Rochester left the service in the beginning of May and the contract was made then.


Robert Laird Borden: Made on the day on which he left the service.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so.


Robert Laird Borden: When did he resume.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In October.


Robert Laird Borden: That was the date when the poles had been delivered.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so.


Robert Laird Borden: Did he resume in the same position and at the same salary and for the performance of the same duties.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that he resumed service at the same salary.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact it amounts to this, does it not-if I am wrong the minister will correct me That Mr. Rochester remained there from the 1st of May until October, and instead of drawing a salary he took his profit off these poles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt about that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is about the substance of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is the substance of it.
Mx-. BOitDEN (Halifax). For the matter of appearance he did not draw his salary during the time he was making a profit because of course he could not receive both- that is right I suppose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He did not draw his salary.


Robert Laird Borden: But he had charge of the books in the mean time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As there was no other bookkeeper on the spot and as he opened the books he agreed to work at night on the books without charging a dollar to us. What my hon. friend says is perfectly true. From May to


Robert Laird Borden: October instead of being employed as an employee of the department he acted as a contractor.


Robert Laird Borden: When were the first poles delivered under the sub-contract by Mr. Johnston.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Upon my word I don't know.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister will find out from his officer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be only too glad to get the information.


Robert Laird Borden: How long did Mr. Rochester remain in the employ of the government in that same position after the sub-contract was performed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is still in our employ. He remained as foreman of works until the whole work was completed, and I may say in passing that Mr. Rochester has proved to be a very able man and in spite of what is being said here to-day-


Thomas Earle: You had a thoroughly practical man independent of him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me finish the sentence. In spite of what has been said here to-day I think Mr. Rochester is such an able man that he can be employed for some other work. He is an energetic man and a sober man. Of course when I learned that a sub-contract had been given I took special care to go through his accounts and the whole work, and I make bold to say, unless I make a very great mistake indeed, he is a thoroughly honourable man and able too.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not made any criticism so far either on his ability or upon his honour. What was his salary, and what were his duties, and what were his living expenses before this contract was entered into ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: His salary was $200 a month, and I understand that they had no living allowance, but lived together in a mess under canvas which they thought was the best way. He was foreman of works.


Mr. BORDEN (ILalifox).: What did that involve.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It involved construction under Mr. Richardson.


Robert Laird Borden: Did he continue to mess in the camp with the rest while the contract was going on ?


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


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister would be able to find it out from his officer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will get the information. 1 would not be surprised if he continued in the mess as he was keeping accounts for us without charge.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but he had full charge when Mr. Richardson left. Mr. Richardson constructed only that part of the line between Dawson and Bennett, and Mr. Rochester had full charge of the work in the more difficult part of the country and received more pay. I may say that when I found that I reduced his salary myself later on.


John Dowsley Reid: That was in 1900?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: From October last it was reduced to $200 a month ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What is he getting now in the city of Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $200 a month, but no allowance. He will not be employed for more than a week or so now.


Robert Laird Borden: Has Mr. Charle-son given any explanation why he did not ask tenders from any one but his own officials ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he has not.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister asked for any explanation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I asked Mr. Charieson why he gave the contract to Mr. Rochester, and he said it was the best bargain he could have made. Suppose we had asked for tenders. The line was built in the summer, and there was great pressure to get the work finished. It would have taken 3 or 4 weeks to get tenders, and the result might have been that the line would not have been completed that year. W'ould my hon. friend advise such a course ? In those days papers were scarce in the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: There would not seem to have been great difficulty in asking for tenders from all the employees in the government, if it was a proper thing to do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the employees were not capable of making poles. A bushman is better qualified for that work than others.


Robert Laird Borden: That only shows how absurd and wrong the whole thing was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must protest against that statement of my hon. friend. No minister could possibly control the expenditure or the work on this telegraph line, owing to the want of means of communication. To-day such a thing could not happen. If I had been informed then that Mr. Charieson had given a contract to one of his employees, I would have told him it was wrong, as I did tell him when he came here. But that does not show that any wrong was done, though it was a wrong proceeding.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I have not the slightest doubt, on the minister's statement to-day, that the government could recover every dollar of profit Mr. Rochester made on the contract. I believe that Mr. Charieson had no authority from the government to give a contract to one of his employees, and I have not the slightest doubt that this government has the right to every dollar of profit he made, although I know that two ministers of the Crown have prevented that information being brought before the public in the Public Accounts Committee. Unless Mr. Charieson possessed extraordinary powers, beyond those which any man in his position should possess, he could not have made this pretended contract with one of his employees, without any outside competition at all, and then have the man go through the form of leaving the public service when as a matter of fact he remained in it, as the minister admitted to-day; but, instead of receiving a salary during that time, he was doing very much better by making a large profit out of this contract created in this very indefensible way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How does my hon. friend know that Mr. Rochester made a large profit ?


Robert Laird Borden: Shall I tell the hon. gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With pleasure.


Robert Laird Borden: Because the hon. gentleman and his colleagues refused to allow that question to be asked in the Public Accounts Committee and suggested to the witness that he need not answer it, which leads me to suppose that they did not want the facts to come out; because I understood that the objection came, not from Mr. Rochester himself, but from two of the ministers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If that is the only ground on which the hon. gentleman bases his statement, it is baseless. In the Public Accounts Committee there are rules, and it is the duty of the ministers of

the Crown to see that they are followed.
1 have been here a good many years, both as a newspaper man and as a member of parliament, and never have I known a question to be asked as to the prices paid to sub-contractors. My hon. friend has no right to say that ministers of the Crown have prevented rightful information being given. We have followed the ordinary rules of evidence. Nor has my hon. friend any right to state that Mr. Rochester has made large profits. But if he has, does that prove that Mr. Charleson made a bad bargain ? Not by any means. A man may make a large profit on a government contract, and the government may make a good bargain at the same time. The proceeding was not right; I am not going to say that it was. I would not defend it. I told Mr. Charleson in a very firm manner what I say now. It should not have taken place, but all the same there is no evidence that the bargain was a bad one. At the same time, let my hon. friend admit that he has no ground for stating that we have prevented rightful evidence being given in the committee, because we have followed the ordinary rules of evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the objection to this evidence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The objection to it was the objection of the witness himself.


Robert Laird Borden: After it was first suggested to him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; he was not there, while I was. Mr. Rochester made the objection first, and the chairman ruled. At the next meeting of the committee, the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) tried, in an insidious way, in his able way, to induce the witness to go back on the ruling of the chairman, and then we said,
* Mr. Rochester, you are not obliged to answer.' But Mr. Rochester had first declined to answer, on the ground, which was well taken, that it was his own private affair. Before a court of justice my hon. friend would take the same ground; he cannot deny it; and he would be sustained by any court in the land.


Robert Laird Borden: If I had anything to do [DOT]with it, I would probably have a judicial inquiry and ascertain the rights of the parties in a court below. In that case Mr. Rochester would probably find that he would have to answer this question without very much discussion before the judge who tried the case. The minister may be right as to who first took the objection. I was informed the opposite; but I do not know, as I was not there. It does not make the slightest difference, however, whether the facts as to what took place on the first occasion are as the hon. gentleman says or not. There is no doubt at all, according to the min-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
ister's own statement, that upon the question being put, he, himself, and another minister of the Crown suggested to Mr. Rochester that he was not obliged to answer. It was perfectly proper for Mr. Rochester to answer, as far as he is concerned, if he chose, and I do not see why a minister of the Crown should suggest to him that he should refuse to answer. I do not see any special reason why ministers of the Crown, in a matter of this kind, should act as the advocates of an officer of the Crown, who had taken a contract from the government under these very extraordinary circumstances.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When a witness is examined before a committee, I see no objection to any member of the committee saying to the witness that he was not obliged to answer a question put to him. A witness who is a layman, and who is being examined by a lawyer, may be under the impression that he is compelled to answer every question, but I see no harm in any member of the committee putting him right.


Robert Laird Borden: What particular harm would there have been in his answering the question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was for him to say.


Robert Laird Borden: It was a perfectly fair transaction according to the Minister of Public Works, although he admits that it is one which should not have been entered into. But if it was a perfectly fail-contract between the government and Mr. Rochester, what special detriment could there have been to Mr. Rochester's interests in answering the question ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no objection to Mr. Rochester answering any question relating to his contract with the government, but the point was whether he was obliged to answer a question as to what his own sub-contract with another party was, which was quite a different matter.


Nathaniel Boyd: I wish to refer again to the salary of the operators. Tne hon. minister has told us that those employees are now receiving $80 per month, and that it is his intention to reduce their pay. Considering the cost of this work and the reasons given for the enormous expenditure, I think that instead of lowering the wages of those operators, their pay should be increased. I do not hesitate to say that telegraph operators working in that country should receive a higher salary than $80 per month. Only a night or two ago, a judge in the Yukon district was given $5,000 as a living allowance on account of the expense of living there, and considering this large sum allowed one man for living expenses, it seems to me that an operator ought to be

paid $150 a month and his board. The hon. minister admits the charwomen get $5 a day, and the Auditor General's report shows that an ordinary labourer there gets $4 a day, and that Mr. Rochester got $15 a day, and yet we have skilled men, men doing, not ordinary labour, but expert labour, getting only $80 per month, and we are told that they are to get less in the future. I do not think that that pay is sufficient, considering the country they are working in. It takes longer to learn to be an expert operator tnan to be a judge, and the $5,000 living allowance given to one judge would give each of these seventy operators $70 per month extra, and I say that they should receive it. There was evidently no scarcity' of money for the purpose of construction. The construction has cost one-third more than it should, and I am perfectly satisfied, after watching the Minister of Public Works, that he is not satisfied with himself, for ne has hau to get another member of the cabinet to defend his expenditure. And notwithstanding the enormous cost of construction and all that, the minister is not able to tell us what kind of poles have been used and their size. Had the poles to be brought a long distance, there might be some excuse, but they were cut along the line. Every one employed in the work of construction evidently was paid whatever wages he saw fit to ask, but we are to pay skilled expert labour only $80 a month, and that pay is to be reduced. Then the hon. member for Victoria asked what were the averaged earnings and we were told $7,000 per month. Is that the gross earnings and does it include the telegraphing of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is of the opinion that the telegraph operators are not paid sufficiently at ->oo a month, but he must not forget that those men are lodged and provisioned.


Nathaniel Boyd: I know all that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: AVe must also not forget that we have no trouble getting telegraph operators at that rate.


Nathaniel Boyd: Nor would you have any trouble getting judges at $5,000 a year either.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I would be very much surprised if, when we can get operators at $80 a month, I would be complimented by hon. gentlemen opposite for deciding, out of the kindness of my' heart, to give them $150 a month. I am perfectly sure that I would be censured for doing that. AVe did not compel these men to go there. They went of their own sweet will and are glad to remain at the wages I have mentioned besides lodging and provision. As regards the size of the poles, the diameter of the butts is between nine and ten inches, the diameter of the top is five inches, and the length 22 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the operators paid $80 per month and their board and all expenses.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.	[DOT]


Edward Frederick Clarke: When did Air. Richardson, who had charge of the construction of the line, enter the employ of the government, and when did he leave ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVOnKS. He entered in March, 1899, at the very beginning of the work between Dawson and Bennett, and left in October, 1899.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was he in the employ of the government when these poles were purchased from Mr. Rochester.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and accepted delivery of them all.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it a fact that the minister is paying labourers $4 a day and their board.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I cannot really say, but the hon. gentleman must remember that while the operators are employed by the year, the labourers may be only employed for a month or two.


John Dowsley Reid: If the operator is a married man, does he get provisions for his family ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No, we only give a certain quantity of provisions to each man.
Mr. 'BORDEN (Halifax). What was the cost of operation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: The cost of operation this year would be large. When the supplementary estimates for this year come down I will apply' for the necessary amount to meet this expenditure, and then, if my hon. friend desires I will give him all the information.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be all right. The hon. minister mentioned the item of revenue-$20,000 a month, as I understood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, $8,890, or something like that, for the month of March.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that include messages sent by the departments of giovernment ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Apart from that, what is the revenue ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no statement to show that, but if my hou. friend wants it, I will get it.


Robert Laird Borden: That also can be given on the supplementary estimates '?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can hardly promise that, as the figures will be a little difficult to get.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the hon. minister has not the data here, and will have to send for them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The question having been asked, I will take care, next year to have detailed statements of the revenue. And, ais we lire discussing that point, I would like very much to know the feeling of the House as to the rates. Am I expected to make a paying business out of these lines ? I think I can do so, if I maintain the rates as they are now. I do- not wish to be judged, so far as the working of the (line is concerned, by last year, 'because that was the first year, and every one connected with such matters knows that the first year, is, so to speak, only a construction year. But in future I think I could make a paying business by charging the present rates. This is not a party question, and I would like to know the views of the House upon It.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. minister tell ns even roughly, what part of the revenue is from government, and What part of it from private business ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of the revenue, of last month, I am quite sure, departmental business cuts a very small figure indeed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What are we to understand by the statement of the minister that he could make this a paying business V Does he mean to pay something over expenses, or to pay expenses and interest on the capital expenditure as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I make lit pay interest on the capital with a balance to the good, I think that will he all right.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is an opportunity for a great object lesson here. There were great difficulties to be overcome-there is no doubt about it-in the construction of that line, as there are in maintaining it in an efficient condition. The obstacles are so great that, as I understand it, the minister intends to have a cable laid to overcome the difficulty of snow on a part of the line. It seems to me that he ought to charge only such rates as are necessary to yield a revenue that will pay working expenses and interest on the indebtedness. If the government can do that and can give us a low rate-low considering the conditions-it will be, as I say, a great object lesson, and will be an argument in favour of the government taking over all the telegraphs of the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would he glad if tine House would give Mr. BORDEN (Halifaxl.
its attention to the telegraph system in British Columbia and the Yukon. We have constructed 2,135 miles of telegraph in the Yukon, and also have a certain number of miles in British Columbia. From Nanaimo to the coast, we hiave a telegraph line that will connect that part of our system with the prospective Australian cable. The time may not he distant when, our telegraph system in the Yukon may be connected with advantage with that cable. I think we should make ourselves as much at home a,s possible on land and sea. Regarding the matter from that standpoint, I take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the maps of our country, asking hon. members to study them. These are not party questions, and I think a more careful study of the map would help us to solve many difficulties to the advantage of the country.


Nathaniel Boyd: Speaking with some experience in this business, I would suggest that the government is much more likely to make -money by lowering the rates than by keeping them at high figures. They have their staff, which they must keep in working order, and they must keep the batteries and supply the electricity. The outfit is there, and the men are there, and might as well be employed. I understand that a message costs about $5.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: lit is $4.50 between Dawson city and Ashcroft.


Nathaniel Boyd: At that rate, if a mail can wait for a letter he is not going to telegraph. But, by lowering the rates, you will induce him ,to send two, or even three, messages where be would send only one. The expenses are about the same, whether we send ten messages or ten thousand. The men on the staff would just as soon be employed. If you keep operators employed steadily as some of the men here are kept during the whole working day, passing messages through their hands .ait the rate of one a minute, a comparatively low rate will make money for the line. But, with High rates, the men will sit with their heels on window sills. From practical experience, I would say :	Lower the rates. Moreover, whenever the government is prepared to take over the whole telegraph system of the country, they will have my support; for I believe we could have our telegraphing done a igreat deal cheaper than we have now. I have said before, and I say again, we ought to have our telegraphing done for a cent a word anywhere within reasonable distances in Canada.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have made the press rates on the Yukon line one cent a word. Tihe rate was three cents a word, but I (Changed that, for, at these rates, the newspaper men could not use our line. Since then, we have made pretty good business. The trouble is. if I



[Stage Direction]
lower the nates and the result is not favourable, it will be difficult to raise them again. I am sure there is a gooid deal in the suggestion that has been made. When the session is over, I intend to give my best consideration to the rates on our telegraph lines in general. And when the (supplementary estimates come up for discussion, I hope we shall discuss the subject at greater length. There are good opportunities now to make ourselves independent in these matters. Our telegraph system has been completed to Belle Isle, and now it is finished to Murray Bay. It would take very little to complete it and carry it up to the city of Montreal; and instead of relying on New York for our coronation news, we may make Montreal a distributing centre for the news. From the British standpoint and from the Canadian standpoint it would 'be better.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I fully eudorse the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). I think the rates we are paying for telegraphing in this country are rather too high, much higher than in cases where lines are owned by the government. I hope to see the day when the whole telegraph system of the Dominion of Canada will be under the control of the government. I am glad to find that that sentiment is increasing rapidly on both sides of the House. Look at our condition to-day. We are laying a telegraxoh cable between our own country and Australia and New Zealand, and the moment you land in British Columbia you are at the mercy of a telegraph company. Then when you come to the Atlantic you are at the mercy of another telegraph company. All the lines from Australia to Great Britain and to the continent should be owned by the government. I hope when our friends go over to London to discuss all these large questions among the representatives of the different colonies, this question will come under their consideration.
Nathaniel Boyd: I would like on another occasion if the minister would give us the average number of words that have been sent daily since the line was opened, on the average number of messages.


Thomas Earle: I would suggest to the minister that he should take action during this busy season of the year, and if he is going to make any change in prices, it should be made early.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will discuss the question to-night. But I must warn the hon. gentlemen that if 1 find I am losing too much, I will raise the rates again.


Thomas Earle: I am satisfied he will make more money by lowering the rates to a figure where the line can be generally used.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister can readily ascertain from experts what the capacity of the line is. There are certain fixed charges that must be borne.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The line is all right. From what I can learn, we can do a much larger business. It is a question whether we are receiving all the business that is to be had at the rates we are now charging. I have often discussed the matter with my officers, and they do not share the views that I have expressed here. I have been advised by them that it would not be wise to decrease the rates. But having reduced the expenditure I think we may fairly try to reduce the rates a little.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the minister is going to make a comprehensive statement on some other item of his policy respecting telegraph lines, and telephones as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not much to do with telephones. I am not the minister of telephones, and I do not know who is. I cannot find the minister of telephones, so far.


Robert Laird Borden: We will limit it to telegraphs, then.
Telegraphs - Port Simpson - Hazel tori telegraph line, $25,100.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC 'WORKS. This is practically the same. We require more to complete from Port Simpson, because, instead of the line being 130 miles long, as we expected, we find it is 200 miles long.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did the hon. gentleman not have this $107,000 for the Quesnel-Atlin telegraph line in the main estimates last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had not sufficient information, the country had never been explored.
New Brunswick-St. John imjnigrant building, including interest to contractor on overdue amounts, $12,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Wby do you want this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To carry out the work on the immigration building at St. John. The total cost of the work is estimated to be $33,596.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is there interest on overdue accounts ? Were the contractors not paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had not enough money to pay the contractor, and we are obliged to pay interest on what we are owing him.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did you not have enough money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because we did not ask for enough. The contractor went faster than I thought he was going. We are paying 5 per cent interest.


Mr. WILMOT.: Was there any competition for tenders for this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there were public tenders and the lowest was accepted.
Quebec-Peribonka-immigrant building, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in the Lake St. John district. A large number of immigrants are settling there, coming from Holland, Belgium, Finland and all parts of the continent.


Robert Laird Borden: In what part of the province is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the Lake St. John district. I would invite the hon. gentleman to visit that place. We will give you the freedom of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman take me in as an immigrant ?
The MINIS-lER OF PUBLIC WORKS. If the hon. gentleman went there I think he would settle.


Albert Edward Kemp: I thought the object was to bring Canadians back from the United States and induce them to settle in that district ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. There are' some Canadians from the United States and the North-west Territories, but this is purely immigration from abroad. This season on one train, there were 700 people who came from the continent. Large numbers of settlers are going in and they are of a good class. I am informed by the Colonization Company of Quebec that these people have enough money to buy property, and settle in a comfortable way.


Albert Edward Kemp: Were the agents of this government or the local government instrumental in getting people to go to that district ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is in the city of Quebec a colonization company which is a kind of independent company working with the corporation of the Lake St. John Railway Company. Mr. Dupont went last year to the continent of Europe, and I understand he has been very successful indeed. The local government have helped and this government have helped the railway company by giving them $8,000 a year during the last five or six years.


Robert Laird Borden: This is to complete the building.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Roberval, immigration building, $2,650.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The very same object.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that complete the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
St. Jerome public building-improvements, repairs, &c., $1,775.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are small repairs to the public building which is in existence at St. Jerome in the county of Terrebonne behind Montreal.
Quebec Military buildings-rolling mill for cartridge factory, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work that is under contract.


Robert Laird Borden: Rolling mill or cartridge factory ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) knows, the Department of Militia and Defence manufacture arms In Quebec, and I am the builder for the department.
Drummondville public buildings, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To complete.


Robert Laird Borden: How much is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Robert Laird Borden: By contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, by contract and by public tender.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did you not have it in last year's estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We were short. We give contracts for public buildings and when we come to pay for them we find we are short.
Ottawa-Majors Hill park, plant house, &c.,


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman kindly explain this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During last session of parliament the House gave me a sum of money-$8,000-if I remember rightly-less than that, for greenhouses in Major's Hill park. When we were about to arrange for the work Sir Sanford Fleming made us a gift of a very valuable collection of plants. Then I thought mat while we were at work it would be just as well to have a green house of larger dimen-

sions than the one we contemplated at first,
I took it upon myself, X may say, to change the plans that had been entertained and to build a more expensive green house. I think Major's Hill park is an ornament to the House and it is a portion of the government grounds. Although we have not decided altogether on the site, we contemplate the idea of erecting our museum on the Major's Hill park ground. A few thousand dollars more or less under circumstances of than kind. X think, do not amount to much. I am asking the indulgence of the House for the change which I have taken upon myself to make.
I think that these park grounds should he made as nice as we can make them without spending too much money. I am sorry to say that under the system of contract which has been in existence for some years the grounds have been allowed to run down too much. I have changed the system. I have given charge of the grounds here and of Major's Hill park to Mr. Davis who is a very capable man. For these reasons I am asking the House for this amount of money.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this a new building ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOKivS. Yes, it is not yet painted, but I think it is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: What is me total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $14,000 to complete ; including the heating and fittings. Part of the work has been done by contract by the W. C. Edwards Company.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the use of it particularly ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, it is to winter our plants. We must have plant houses aud greenhouses to winter the plants that we use on the ground here and at the same time it beautifies the city and the government property.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. gentleman erected this building before he came to parliament and asked for a grant with which to build it. I passed there the other day and I found it completed. I inquired what it was and they said it was a new building that the government had erected.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WoBivci. I had a grant last year.
Mr. TAYeoR. To erect this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, to erect this building, but when I changed the plans I found that I required more.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, &c., $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for this increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not an increase. My hon friend must not lose sight of the fact that the number of our public buildings is increasing. Many of them are run down and they are in very bad shape. We want this money for small repairs.


Robert Laird Borden: These are all over Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Brockville drill hall, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To pay the balance of the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: How much was the total contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was for $42,000, the worn having been awarded to the lowest tenderer.
Toronto Post Office-building for branch office in west end of city, site, &c., $15,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What will the new building cost in the west end ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will cost, we expect, about $35,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: $35,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much of it will be for the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $6,000 for the site.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom was the site purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From the Land Security Company.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it the intention of tne government to improve the old post office ? There is nothing in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) allows me, when the supplementary estimates come down he will find, I hope, that we will have some money to improve the old building. Our intention at first was to enlarge the old building, but the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) has made up his mind to have a new system. He thinks that sub-stations will give a better service. When tne mail is delivered at the main post office in Toronto it takes a good deal of time to denver newspapers and letters, but in future they will be delivered direct to the sub-stations and the distribution will be quicker.


Albert Edward Kemp: We had quite a discussion on this point the other evening. Hon. members speaking on behalf of Winnipeg, Montreal. Charlottetown and Toronto, questioned the Postmaster General in regard to these matters. It appears that Montreal is also i*

a bad position regarding post office facilities as well as Toronto. This question of subpost offices is an important matter for the Minister of Public Works to consider. It is departing altogether from the principle that has been adopted in all large cities on this continent and In other places. It would be a great credit to the city of Toronto and to the country, if we had one first-class post office building in that city, and I suppose the same would apply to Montreal. For my part I do not think the policy of sub-offices is a wise one. If these branch post offices have to be erected at a considerable expense, that principle will involve the doing away with the central building to some extent. If the present post office in Toronto is not suitable, then a first class building should be erected. The responsibility does not rest altogether on the shoulders of the Postmaster General because the Minister of Public Works has charge of the public buildings, and he ought to have something to say on the matter. If the present post office in Toronto is not in the centre of the business part of the city, then the government could dispose of that property to advantage and erect a first class building in the centre of the city. This principle of doing away with a central building is a radical change, and I would like to hear the views of the Minister of Public Works in respect to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On questions of policy of this kind the Minister of Public Works is only responsible as one member of the government. When my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) is Postmaster General, some time in the future, he will make recommendations to his colleagues and they will accept them or not. In the present case it is evident that the Government in Council have agreed to erect sub-stations, and I become a builder pure and simple, carrying out the instructions of my colleagues. The government have decided on the recommendation of the Postmaster General to adopt the sub-station policy, and I am charged with the duty of erecting buildings not only for the Postmaster General but for all my colleagues. As to the wisdom of such a policy, I think my kon. friend, on reflection, will agree that there is a good deal in it. Toronto and Montreal are becoming large centres of population and the people want rapid distribution of the mails. In Montreal a letter which reaches the post office in the morning is often not delivered at my house until 11 o'clock. The Postmaster General thinks that by subdividing the work he will get better service all around.


Albert Edward Kemp: In what other place in the world is this system in existence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have enough of my own work to defend without having to defend the Postmaster General. On this occasion I am prepared to defend the erection of this building. ' Mr. KEMP.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This matter was brought to the attention of the House a few days ago when the Postmaster General was present. The difficulty in Toronto is that the main post office is now in the wrong part of the city. Toronto has made substantial progress westward, has annexed some municipalities in that direction, and the great bulk of the population is now far west of the general post office. We believe that what is the more pressing necessity is the construction of a main post office building further west and north of the present site, which is not even on the line of the tram cars.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The post office in New York is very far from the centre of population, and sub-stations are in existence there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the opinion expressed by the Postmaster General, I speak with a good deal of diffidence, but I think it will be found that his idea will not facilitate distribution. ,The erection of a main post office building within easy access of the Union railway station and on the line of the tram cars is what we want to give us a more rapid service.
Alexandria Reformatory-balance of arbitration, $174.02.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it that we have so many of these small votes to complete contracts which are supposed to be let by tender?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The policy of the department has been to vote only the money that we expect to spend during the year, and then afterwards we ask for the balance. Suppose I am erecting a building in Halifax which will cost say $200,000, I ask for only $20,000 or $30,000 which I will expect to expend during the current year.


Robert Laird Borden: But these contracts usually provide that the work shall be completed within a fixed time, and it seems to me it would not be a very difficult matter to provide for an adequate vote each year without bringing in all these supplementary estimates and dividing it up so that one cannot get an adequate idea as to what the whole work will cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very difficult to make an accurate estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: The trouble is that in all these contracts the cost is far in excess of the original estimate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the original tender for the Broekville drill hall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must not lose sight of the



[Stage Direction]
fact that in addition to the contract there are the fittings, the heating, and so forth.
John Dowsley Reid: What was the original estimate, and what is the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers tell me that their estimate was $55,000 for the whole work, heating and all, and it will be completed for that amount. The estimate for the building was $42,200. The amount of the contract is $42,000, and there are no extras.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this Alexandria reformatory built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What did it cost to get rid of the obligation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not remember; a small amount of money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, it is not the intention of the government to have a reformatory for boys ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not there.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, it takes $13,000 to fit up the interior of the drill hall in Brockville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Heating, fitting, sidewalks, footpath, and things of that kind.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock. Lethbridge immigration building, $2,600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract. The total cost will be $5,600. This will complete it.
Kamloops public building, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract. This vote is to complete It. The total cost is $20,000.
New Westminster public building-reconstruction, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The original building was burned down. This work is under contract, and this vote will complete it.


Robert Laird Borden: Has there been no public building in New Westminster since the time of the fire there some years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have rented one.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total cost of this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 

Vancouver drill hall, $7,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total cost of the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $100,000. I understand that the cost of the site was given free of cost by the provincial government.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose all these 'buildings were constructed by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes
Public buildings generally, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is there a general item of this kind in the supplementary estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have so many public buildings, it is ouit of the question to see in advance what small repairs are required. The caretaker writes to the chief architect thiat such and such repairs are required, and we have to provide for them.
Salaries of resident clerks of works, assistants, $2,800.


Robert Laird Borden: I can see no reason why this should not have been in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We were short on this appropriation because we have more work than we ever had, and it is necessary to have more officers.


Robert Laird Borden: How many more officers have you employed since this time last year on these buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is pretty hard to have all these details at a moments notice. Some day when my hon. friends are in my place and I am in theirs, they will appreciate the difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these resident clerks of works men who are temporarily employed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they are officers who have charge of certain districts. In Quebec we have Mr. Belland; in St. An,nes, we have Mr. Water-bury; in Halifax, we have Mr. Doddbum; in the North-west Territories, -we have Mr. Paradis ; and in British Columbia, Mr. Henderson.


Thomas Earle: That does not cover Mr. Henderson's salary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, travelling expenses, and so on.
Toronto Post Office locomobiles-maintenance of, $5,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We want a very elaborate statement from the minister about these

locomobiles. I have seen them in all stages of decrepitude on the streets of Toronto. One-third of their time was spent in the blacksmith shop, and the unfortunate postmen who were obliged to use them had to spend part of their time in the hospital. They have proved a dismal failure. The hen. minister is not responsible for the purchase of these machines, because the purchase was recommended by the Postmaster General, but we ought to know what they cost in the first plaice, then how much it has cost to maintain them, and how much time has been lost by the employees who attempted to utilize them. I hope the hon. minister, ill view of his expensive experience, will abandon these machines on- pass them over to the Post Office Department.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a locomobile 1


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a machine which is one-third oif the time on the road, one-third in the ditch, and one-third in the repair shop.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: While I was representing to the best of my ability, my country in a foreign land, my progressive and economical colleague, the Postmaster General, unloaded those locomobiles on my department. I have to carry the load and to give the best information my limited ability will permit. Those locomobiles do not seem to have given the satisfaction which the Postmaster General expected from them, and I am not going to ask anything for their maintenance in my estimates for next year, but this year I have to foot the bill. The Postmaster General tried the experiment and we have to pay for it. I do not know anything more about the matter except that as the service did not turn out very satisfactory, we are going to put an end to the employment of these machines in Toronto.


Jilt BORDEN (Halifax).: How many did you buy ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My department has nine.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman would get them repaired, he might take them over to England and challenge the Australia nis to a race between London and Brighton.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that His Majesty can be crowned without those.


Albert Edward Kemp: Before the locomobiles came into use, the mails were gathered by officials using horses and wagons. After these machines go out of use, will the hon. minister have charge of the carriages and horses ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope not. I have had enough of the locomobiles. They were unloaded on me while I was away, and the Postmaster Gen-Mr. CLARKE.
eral will have to answer for any expense he may incur in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: How much did they cost ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They cost 81,000 each. It was an experiment. It is true, it has not succeeded very well.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why does the Minister of Public Works allow the Postmaster General to experiment in this way at his expense 1 The policy in regard to the post office "building in Toronto is the policy of the Postmaster General, but the Minister of Public Works does not approve of it. Here is another policy which the Postmaster General has forced on the Minister of Public Works Why does he sanction it ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, in his absence, the Minister of Public Works appoints, as master of the administration for the time being, the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General wants to be economical and at the same time to make improvements. So he unloads his experiments upon me.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then the Minister of Public Works has to father these schemes ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Let the hon. gentlemen wait until the Postmaster General is in his seat, and then he will answer them all.
Riideau Hall, including grounds - Improvements, renewals and maintenance, $7,500.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the total spent on Rideau Hall ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: We have spent a large sum of money ou Rideau Hall, but largely to fit it for the reception of their Royal Highnesses on their recent visit. I venture to say that the Vice Regal buildings are in better condition today than they have ever been in the past.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the expenses of this service any more than they were under the Conservative regime ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: There were years when the Conservatives spent less. During the last year or two of the Conservative regime, when Mr. Poster was Minister of Finance, they did not spend so much on Rideau Hall. But then their party was killed-killed outright.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to complain about the expenditure on Rideau Hall. But, when hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House, one of their number used to relive in finding fault with this expenditure. I merely wished to know if the expenditure had grown less.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC AVORKS.: No. A couple of years ago I gave a statement of the expenditures on Rideau Hall.

Under Lord Dufferin the expenditure was never less than $30,000 a year. Under other Governors General we have spent a little less. The expenditure, I think, is wisely made.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not finding fault with it ; but, as fault has been found with the expenditure under the Conservatives, I wished to know the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: One thing I would like to know is this-if everything about Rideau Hall is in such fine condition, whv does the hon. gentleman want this $7,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To pay for putting it in such fine condition.
Lighting Dominion public buildings, $18,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The appropriation has been the same for a good many years, but, for the last two or three years we have had a deficit of $3,000 or $4,000 a year. We have more public buildings, as hon. gentlemen know, and we must, of course, spend more money. These accounts are paid just as they are sent to us. This question of lighting is supervised by the department. It is a work that cannot be curtailed.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen, elevator attendants and caretaker, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just explained how this item arises, we are obliged to ask for more because we have more public buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. minister had an item this afternoon that covered this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said this afternoon that it would be necessary for me to ask for $24,000 because we spent $15,000 additional for the purchase of coal alone.
Ottawa public buildings-gas and electric light including light for roads and bridges, $7,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As my hon. friends know, we have installed a new electric lighting system. We have more public buildings to provide for under this item and the expense is greater.


John Dowsley Reid: How is the lighting done, by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have a contract. This covers the cost of gas also, which is used in some of the departments, including the Inland Revenue and the Museum. The main reason for this increase is the installation of an electric light system for the Senate, the same as we have for this chamber.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the light paid for by meter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. It is a flat rate-two dollars per light per year.
Public Works-chargeable to income-public buildings-Yukon Territory-rents, beating, inclusive of fuel, lighting, water service, scavenging, janitors, watchmen, repairs, &c., $48,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained this item on the main estimate. It is the last year I am to ask the House to give my department any appropriation for this purpose. As I have said, these items will be transferred to the Yukon government with the exception of the federal buildings, that is the post office, the administration building and the residence of the Governor.


Robert Laird Borden: Who supervises the expenditure of this money 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Up to a few weeks ago, our resident architect was Mr. Fuller, and he had full charge of that expenditure, under Mr. Ross, commissioner of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: What rents do you pay in addition to the four buildings mentioned this afternoon ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The rents include the following. Gold Commissioner's residence ; residence for Judge Dugas ; residence for Judge Craig ; mining inspector's office ; Silver Creek ; mining inspector's office, Gold Run ; mining inspector's office, Stewart River ; mining inspector's office, Dominion Creek ; mining inspector's office, Hunker.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the total amount of rents ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total Is $4,267.


Robert Laird Borden: These judges have an allowance of $5,000 In addition to their salary. Do we also provide them with house rent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far, we have paid their rent.


Robert Laird Borden: How much do we allow for rent in addition to the $5,000 expenses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Judge Dugas, $150 a month ; Judge Craig, the same.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understood it, then each judge gets his salary, $5,000 living expenses and $1,800 for rent. That is, he gets $6,800 as a living allowance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the Department of Justice has control of this whole matter, and I only obey orders. When the Governor General in Council decides that a judge must be lodged and housed, they simply notify me, and I have to make provision.


John Dowsley Reid: In addition to that, there is the heating. Does the government pay for the heating of Judge Dugas' house ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the main estimates were discussed, I gave a complete statement, covering a page of foolscap, giving all these details.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister must know whether the judges get their heating.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I gave the information a month ago, but I do not remember it now. I am informed that they get fuel, I do not know the amount per annum. It depends upon the price of firewood.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is the lighting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They get that also.


John Dowsley Reid: And water service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so, yes.


John Dowsley Reid: And men to attend to their houses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, according to that, a judge in the Yukon gets a salary of $5,000, $5,000 living expenses, $1,800 a year for rent, and his heating, fuel and water service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and the judges are complaining very bitterly, indeed.


John Dowsley Reid: He gets about $14,000 or $15,000 a year. The Minister of Justice shouid explain that, let ns understand it thoroughly.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Under the law, he is entitled to $5,000 a year for his salary at the present time and $3,000 a year for living allowance. I am telling what the law is.' I have nothing to say further than that.


Mr. WILSON.: I think the Minister of Justice stated the other night that that is to be changed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am telling you now what the law is, and I will tell you by-and-by what the law will be.


Uriah Wilson: If you will explain it now it wnl save the trouble of explaining it hereafter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am telling you what the law is. Next year, by virtue of a statute passed here, the judges will have $5,000 a year salary and $5,000 a year living expenses.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


John Dowsley Reid: That comes right back to the point I stated. It was stated in this House that a judge in the Yukon would have $5,000 a year living expenses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is what he will have next year after the 1st of July. What he is getting now is $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are just now dealing with the supplementary estimates for the coming year, when we will have to pay $5,000 a year for living allowances.


John Dowsley Reid: This coming year is the $5,000 to include the rental ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the Minister of Justice tells me to pay rents I shall do so. But he has just said that for the next year the judges will have $5,000 a year for living allowance.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it is only fair that we should know whether the $5,000 includes rental. The Minister of Justice should state whether, out of that $5,000, the judge is to pay his own rental, lighting, fuel and living expenses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Some days ago we had all this up in the House, we discussed the whole subject here, and when the question arose as to the additional allowance to be given to the judges next year, and I was asked how it was intended this amount should be spent, I then went over the list I had, showing how much would go for rent, how much for lighting, how much for fuel, and I gave all the details to the House to justify the increase.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember that this particular fact was mentioned by the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I read from a list provided by the commissioner of tire Yukon, showing the amounts to be expended, so as to justify the increase from $3,000 to $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The rental was mentioned, was it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, $150 a month. I mentioned the wood and the lighting.


Robert Laird Borden: What we are anxious to get at now is whether the $5,000 he is to be paid covers every one of these items the Minister of Justice has mentioned.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That certainly was the intention at the time the item was put in the estimates, that $5,000 would cover everything, and we would have no more of these outside claims. That is the intention now.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not understand it as the Minister of Justice has explained it now, and I think I was quite */ justified in getting it fairly understood.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course you were.


Mr. LEONARD.: (Translation.) Who hires those people '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) It is the department which hired them.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) By whom are they paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) So far, we have paid them ourselves.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Under whose control are they ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) They are under the control of the resident architect, Mr. Fuller, who is here now. As I have said before, all public buildings used for what may be called provincial purposes, will be handed over to the Yukon government in the future, and only the Dominion buildings will remain under our control, such as the government house, if it may be so called, and the post office. As to all the other provincial buildings, they will be transferred to the Yukon government, because they are used for local purposes.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Has the Department of Public Works notified Mrs. Louise Collinet that her usefulness was gone ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) We have nothing to do with that staff.
That is quite another story. We pay the sheriff and the caretakers, but those officials are not under our control. Mrs. Collinet is the matron of the court-house. There are a certain number of employees who are under the control of the Department of Justice, with whom I have nothing to do. I have no doubt but that Mrs. Collinet belongs to that class of employees, and I may say that I know nothing about her.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) To whom was it written ?


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) To the Deputy Minister of Justice. When Mrs.
1 Louise Collinet was engaged by tbe depart-



ment a man named Willie St. Denis was also hired at the same time. Both have been discharged on the same grounds, and on the 1st April, 1902, Willie St. Denis wrote to the Deputy Minister of Justice, as follows :


Dawson.   Y.T.@: , April 1, 1902.
To the Deputy Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-On September 6,1899, I began service as caretaker of the court house, and man-servant for Mr. Justice Dugas. On the 21st day of March, 1902, I was discharged from my dual position without cause. I ask to be reinstated in my position or some reason given for my discharge. I wish my appointment made from Ottawa and my duties defined, as for the period of my service my chief duties were as manservant in the judge's private residence, and out of the $160 per month allowed me for my services, I was forced to repay $40 per month to said Mr. Justice Dugas. Said Mr. Justice Dugas d'seharged me because I refused to act as ebamberman in his house, wait on his tables, prepare wood, draw water and do general cleaning work in his residence in addition to my duties as caretaker of said court house. I wish to know whether such were a part of my duties and whether said judge had a right to force me to repay his said $40 per month.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) WILLIE ST. DENNIS. On the 12th April he wrote again, as follows :
Dawson, Y.T.. April 12, 1902. To the Deputy Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-On April 1, 1902, I addressed a letter to the Deputy Minister of Justice, which letter ere this must have reached his destination. In that I complain of my wrongful discharge from the position of caretaker of the court house here, and persecution hy Mr. Justice Dugas.
I after being discharged, obtain the position as n'ght watchman in the post office, and gave first-class satisfaction in that position, as has been testified to by the postmaster, Mr. Hartman, and Mr. Bertrand of the Department of Public Works here.
I was on the 11th day of April, 1902. discharged from this latter position, without cause, and was to-day informed by Mr. Bertrand that he has been forced to discharge mo hy Judge Dugas who dislikes me, and insisted that a nephew of J. E. Girouard, Jean Marier, who arrived in Dawson Monday last, be appointed in my stead.
I ask to be reinstated in one or the other of my potations, and believe I had a right to the first, from which I was driven by the persecution of Mr. Justice Dugas.
Yours respectfully,


WILLIE ST. DENNIS.
[Stage Direction]
Now, I should like to know front the hon. Minister of Public Works, whether these two persons, employed as caretakers of the court-house at Dawson City, are under the immediate control of the Minister of Public Works ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Heretofore the caretakers have been under our charge, but in the future they will not


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: be under our charge. I cannot, of course, say anything as to the people to whom my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) has just alluded.
I do not know anything about their case. The letters are all of recent date, and I have not read them. This is the first 1 have heard of them. I cannot believe that a judge could be repaid by people of that class. Of course, Iedo not know anything about it. It is all new to me. I will inquire into the case. I will write to Mr. Bertrand and ask: for an explanation in regard to these people. But, until I hear more 1 cannot have any faith in charges of that kind. People who are dismissed are generally not in a very good humour. In fact, I do not know anything about the case. The hon. -Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is within reach of the voice of my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard), and surely, if a judge would be guilty of such a thing it would be very extraordinary.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister should at least know whether or not such an order was issued as purports to have been Issued, dated 1st July, 1901, from the resident architect of his department to this woman Louise Collinet:
Dawson, Y. T., July 1, 1901. Louise Collinet, Matron,
Court House,
Dawson, Y.T.
MJadam,-Rations having been withdrawn from you, it has been decided to allow you therefor $30 per month, which you will receive in addition to your wages of $80 per mouth. You will continue therefore to be at .he service of Mr. Justice Dugas and act under his guidance for any work which you will be required to do as matron of the court house.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who writes such an order ?


Robert Laird Borden: T. W. Fuller, resident architect of the Department of Public Works.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fuller is here now.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so. The letter continues as follows :
You will arrange with the judge for your meals, which, under any circumstances, must not be taken within the court house. No fire is to be made therein for the purpose of cooking, &c., nor arc strangers to be received there by you, unless specially authorized.
(Sgd.) T. W. FULLER, Resident Architect, Department of Public Works.
It would be desirable, so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, to know why the matron of the court house should be at the service of Mr. Justice Dugas and to act under his guidance for any work which she should be required to do as matron of the court house. It should he a matter f< r the hon. Minister of Justice to investigate why the matron of the court
4197	MAY 5, 1902	4198
house should be at the service of Mr. Justice Dugas and under his guidance in any work which she shall be required to do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is something that the hon. minister will have to understand and the committee will have to understand. I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Justice as to whether or not such a letter has been received in his department as that which has been read by my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Such a letter was received at the Department of Justice and immediately forwarded to the Department of Public Works, as we had absolutely no control over this lady who calls herself the matron of the court house not having anything to do with her appointment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The secretary of my department, who is on the floor now, says that he received these documents to-day. I did not know anything about them until they were read on the floor of the House now. I will inquire of Mr. Fuller to-morrow and ascertain what he has done in the matter. I cannot understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: These statements are of a very extraordinary nature.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are very extraordinary.


Robert Laird Borden: And I think the item should stand until the hon. gentleman is able to explain them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no reason why the item should stand. I have promised to bring down the information to-morrow. Let us go on with the work.


Robert Laird Borden: We can take up some other item if necessary, but we must have an explanation of the matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 shall bring the information to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: This woman alleges-I do not know with what truth- that while she was ostensibly acting as matron of the court house she was really a servant in the private residence of Mr. Justice Dugas. Further than that she states, what I can hardly believe to be true and what I would certainly very greatly regret to believe to be true, that of her allowance of $110 a month she was forced to repay a portion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot understand that.


Robert Laird Borden: Letters which have been received in the Department of Public Works certainly call for some in-132*
quiry. I should think not only would they require an inquiry by the Department of Public Works but also by the Department of Justice, although the hon. Minister of Justice has sent the whole of the correspondence to the hon. Minister of Public Works.
It would seem to me a very improper thing that any such transaction should have taken place, and I am not disposed to believe for the present that it did take place, but there is the statement of this man Willie St. Denis that he has repaid a portion of his allowance to an official occupying a judicial position. So far as that is concerned it ought to have some inquiry, not only from the Department of Public Works, but the Department of Justice as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I willl wire immediately to Mr. Justice Dugas and the employee he is accused by of having received a commission, because it amounts to that. I will wire the contents of the letter and in the morning I will call Mr. Fuller in and lay the matter before him.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the judge be violating his position if he collected tolls from an employee of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no use asking that. It is a clear case if it is true, but I cannot believe it.
It has no sense.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course I know nothing about this. I was always under the impression, and still am under the impression, that when a judge gets $5,000 a year of salary and in addition to that $3,000 a year for living allowance, he ought to apply that living allowance to the reasonable charges of his household, and payment for all these things which men require for living should be paid out of the $3,000. With respect to this woman who made the complaint I understand the facts to be that she went up there as a matron, and as an employee of the government originally she would have been entitled to rations, but that living with the judge the rations went in the common fund. She was boarded [DOT] by the judge and the rations used by the judge for the purpose of her maintenance as well. I understand there is nothing beyond that. If that is what really took place it is not a serious matter, but when you go beyond that and extend it to say that instead of rations she received $40 a month for her living allowance and that this $40 a month was paid over to the judge-well, if she lived with the judge and it was a matter of bargain between them, that they would put their allowance into a common fund there was nothing very wrong about that either. But if the judge received the money and did not'supply this woman with her board, of course that is a matter that ought be investigated, and so far as I am concerned, he is going to hear about it if it is a fact.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fuller will have to tell us to-morrow what are the facts of the ease, and if I have the information before the orders of the day are called to-morrow I will give it with pleasure.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not tfiink it was a desirable thing this matron drawing rations should live with the judge, and that the judge should draw the rations instead of her. I would not consider that a desirable position for a gentleman occupying a seat on the Supreme Court of the Yukon, even if it did not go beyond that. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would regard it as a very desirable condition of affairs either.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They must be living under very abnormal conditions in that country.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice puts it very mildly to say the least when he says that. As the hon. gentleman very truly remarks, there is something beyond that in the statement, not only of this woman, but the man as well, who says he was performing the duties of manservant for Mr. Justice Dugas, and that he was making an allowance to that gentleman out of the amount which he received. I will not ask that i the item should stand on this account, because I appreciate the reasons which influence the Minister of Public Works, but it must be distinctly understood that at some future occasion we shall have an opportunity of obtaining information and discussing it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I have the information I will bring it down to-morrow morning.
of the Auditor General I find that we have spent $4,128.67 for fitting up a residence for Mr. Justice Dugas. What arrangement is to be made about that residence in the future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of Public Works has been guided in this matter by the Department of Justice. When we are asked to supply a judge's residence with light or anything of that kind we do it.


John Dowsley Reid: Does this building belong to the Department of Public Works?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have rented it.


John Dowsley Reid: You pay for fitting it up and pay rent as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, it often happens, even in the city of Ottawa, that we ha\% to repair buildings that we pay rent on. We will pay no more rentals in the Yukon after the 1st of July.


John Dowsley Reid: Judge Dugas received $5,000 as salary last year and $4,128 was paid for his rent and for fitting up his house. Judge Dugas has his house this year complete, so that actually he is getting an increase of $2,300 on his salary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have paid the amount as the hon. gentleman says, but there will not be such an expenditure after this year.


George Taylor: Who contracted the debts ? Who authorized the payments ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not in a position to give more information, I am sorry to say.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. Minister of Justice could explain that item. Two nights ago he stated that Judge Dugas was to receive last year $5,000 salary and $3,000 foir living expenses, whereas $4,128 in addition was spent on these various items for living expenses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Last year, so far as my information goes, and so far as the law goes, Judge Dugas was entitled to receive for his salary $5,000 and for his living allowance $3,000, and for next year he is entitled to receive $5,000 for his salary and $5,000 for living allowance. Of any expenses beyond that I know nothing whatever.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And for next year I shall not pay one dollar.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is concerned, he has assumed charge of his department only recently. We are not attacking the Minister of Justice. We are making our charge upon the government. It is a mere accident, so far as we are concerned, that one minister goes out and another comes in.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Would the hon. minister also inquire on what grounds Judge Dugas discharged from his service a person hired by the month, without giving that person a day's notice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) I know nothing about that case. I cannot understand it.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) At all events, as a member of this House, I lay before the House the fact that those employees made an allowance to Judge Dugas, out of the amount which they received, to be retained in his service. The Minister of Justice told us that those sums were paid over to the judge by those employees because they were boarded by the judge. But I should like to know since when a manservant or a maid-servant have to pay their master, to be retained in his service ? On the contrary, it is the master who pays the servants.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that in future the judge has to provide his own residence and is to receive an allowance of $5,000 for living expenses. In the report Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
4201	MAY 5. 1902	4202


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Department of Justice is not responsible for this. It is not money expended by us at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I thoroughly appreciate that; but it is money expended in connection with the administration of justice in this country, over which the de-[DOT] partment of my hon. friend presides. Last year this gentleman got $5,000 of salary and $3,000 of living allowance, and this sum of $4,128.67 was expended for him in addition, of which I think $900 was for rental. If you deduct $900 from $4,12S.G7, you have $3,228.67 expended on this rented house.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no. We have spent $990 for fuel, $776 for lighting, and $1,800 for rent. In past days the policy of the Department of Justice was that we should pay these items in the Yukon, and I paid them. Outside of these, the expenditure is very small.


George Taylor: What is the $3,000 living allowance for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not for me to say. We have simply been instructed to pay for the rent, the fuel and the lighting, and we have done so. It will not happen again. There is not much pleasure in the poor Minister of Public Works being sacrificed because he carries out the orders of the other departments.


Robert Laird Borden: I am as sorry as I can be for the Minister of rublic Works, and I think some of the other ministers should take a turn when any of these items prove too much for him. Let me run over same of these expenditures again. We have the Dawson Electric & Power Company, for installing 16 lights, 2 four-light fixtures, 1 two-light fixture, 2 brackets combined, into one, and 1 stand lamp $152.75 ; lighting, from October to April : 13 lamps, 192 nights, and 4 lamps, 173 nights, $776 ; F. A. Delage, repairs, $535.70; D. A. Matheson, 45 cords of firewood, $990 ; McLennan, McFeely & Company, sundry repairs $340.15; P. G. Overton, painting, $41.20; Cortland, Starnes, rent $900; Yukon Saw Mill Company, lumber, $339.87; amounting in all to $4,128.67. What I want to know is under what rental agreement is this house held from Mr. Starnes ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No man could carry all these details. I understand that we have paid $150 a month for the house since the judge occupied it.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say more than I have said. The amounts have been paid, and I do not See a way of getting them 'back.


John Dowsley Reid: I see a way of getting them back. If Judge Dugas was paid $3,000 for living allowance, and it was intended to include all these items, he should refund the money. I do not think that is unreasonable.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have only paid what I was instructed to pay and nothing- more. If the Department of Justice wishes to inquire into this matter, it can do so.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). Mr. Justice Dugas has been paid $3,000 for living expenses. Besides these the Department of Public Works has paid $990 for his heating, $928.75 for his lighting and installing his lights, and $1,309.92 for repairing his house, in addition to $1,800 for his rent. If his living expenses mean anything, surely they must include his heating and lighting. The Minister of Public Works tells us that he has paid these moneys by the instructions of some person. What department or person 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just said that the Minister of Justice instructed me to pay the rent for the judge's residence and fuel and light. We did that in the past. Things were in great confusion for a year or two-not much order anywhere. There were no funds available elsewhere, and we paid those sums, rightfully or wrongfully I do not know, hut I suppose rightly as usual.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not treating parliament or the country fairly to lead us to suppose that $3,000 is the entire contribution of tlie country to the living expenses of Mr. Justice Dugas or any other judge, and I am. coming to some of the other judges. Why were these items of heat and lighting paid besides the $3,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no other explanation than the one I have given. It was the policy of the past, and Judge Dugas has complained over and over again that he could not live on his salary, in spite of all we have been paying him. I quite grant that it seems extraordinary that we should have to pay for the lighting and so on.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the item in the Auditor General's Report on page V-49, for court house aud judge's quarters, Dawson, $430, mean ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That means the court house and the judge's room there.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the heading of Judge Dugas' residence, I do not observe any rental. How is his rental provided ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: We are paying $150 a month for his reutal also.


Robert Laird Borden: Where does that appear in the Auditor General's Report ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have got it down in my notes that we are paying that.


Robert Laird Borden: I have only such information as is found in the Auditor General's Report. On page V-19, I find under- the heading of 'Judge Craig's residence, Dawson,' that we paid the Alaska Commercial Company for a stove $25; the Dawson Electric Light & Power Company $49.50 for installing lights, and $191 for lighting; and that we paid D. A. Matheson for firewood, $759, and the North-west Mounted Police for firewood $8G.G3. We paid also to the Yukon Saw Mill Company for 4 book cases $70. Did Mr. Justice Craig have the residence and did the country pay for it ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The position is as I have described it. We have simply paid in the past for the judge's residence and lighting and fuel. I am not in a position to explain every item in the Auditor General's Report. The Public Accounts Committee would be the better place to have those explanations.


George Taylor: Can the hon. minister give us the items composing $48,000 he is asking in this vote ? If some of these go into next year, we will have to strike off the amount in next year's estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are obligations that we have to pay to the 1st of July this year, and that will be all.


George Taylor: If Judge Dugas and Judge Craig went out there on a salary of $5,000 and $3,000 living allowance, who is it that has violated the law by paying them more? It must be either the Department of Public Works or the Department of Justice. These items were paid at Dawson and the vouchers sent here, and the Auditor General passed the voucher. The accounts did not pass through the Auditor General's hands before payment at all.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman will not ask me to repudiate our obligations. We have rented those houses and must pay for them till the 1st of July.


George Taylor: Then you can deduct what you have overpaid from the judges salaries to the 1st of July. Each judge is entitled to $5,000 salary and $3,000 living Hon. Mr. TARTE.
expenses and to nothing more, and if the country has paid anything more, he ought to be made to refund it. Each went out there under a stipulated bargain of $5,000 a year salary, and $3,000 a, year expenses. And he could live there for $1,000 a year if he wanted to. This $3,000 living expenses was to cover house rent, fuel, light, &e. Why does the Minister of Public Works. come to the rescue of this judge and say : We will pay you $4,000 more in the form of house rent, lighting, cord wood and so on 1 Somebody has authorized it or it would not have been paid. Either the Minister of Justice's department is responsible, or else the Minister of Public Works' department has done it of its own accord. But it is contrary to law, and surely the hon. minister does not want to force through the House a vote that is contrary to law. We do not want to repudiate a just debt. But here is debt that we did not fairly incur. If it is paid, it should be taken from the judge's salary.


John Dowsley Reid: Here is a case in which the Minister of Justice should exercise the power of his office. The hon. minister states on the floor of this House that Judge Dugas was appointed with an allowance of $3,000 for living expenses. The Minister of Public Works asks us how it tomes that the Auditor General would pass this item of house rent if it was not right. It was because the $3,000 living expenses was put in that way so that the Auditor General could not question it. The Minister of Public Works states that this was in addition to living allowance expenses. But the Minister of Justice tells us that this $3,000 living allowance was to include the rent. That being so, the Minister of Justice should see to it that Judge Dugas is brought to some settlement, or he is not fit to occupy the position of Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Minister of Justice can only say that, so far as any expenditures in the past are concerned he will be glad to inquire into them, and when he has informed himself will be ready to come back here and talk about the matter. I can only tell what the judges were entitled to receive. And I will be responsible, for the future, to see that this $5,000 is given as a living allowance, and that the judges shall not get rent, fuel, light, and so on in addition. I will undertake that.


John Dowsley Reid: But is it not the hon. minister's duty to see that the wrong of the past is righted ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is my fluty to ascertain the facts, and, having ascertained the facts, to consider what I will do. But my hon. friend surely will not ask me to take as facts all the statements made here to-night. They are made, of

course, in good faith, and to the best of belief of those who make them.


John Dowsley Reid: But I am taking the hon. minister's statement that Judge Dugas was appointed with a living allowance of $3,000, which was to include these items.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not withdrawn any statement which I made.


John Dowsley Reid: If the minister has . made the statement that this living allowance was iutended to include these items, and if, as a matter of fact, these items have been paid over and above the living allowance, is it not his duty as Minister of Justice to see that this money is refunded ? And will he not do that, so that, next session, when he comes before the House, he will be able to tell us that the money has been refunded?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Next session I shall be glad to answer any questions that shall be put to me. But I am not going to say now what I will do next session.


John Dowsley Reid: But will not the hon. gentleman say now what he will do about an expenditure that was made wrongfully-I do not say wilfully so, but perhaps through some clerical mistake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBUIC WORKS.: There has been no clerical mistake. I have been told by the late Minister of Justice that I was bound to pay for rental, fuel and light. Right or wrong, that is the way I was instructed.
Mr: REID (Grenville). That is a fair statement'on the part of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and exonerates him from responsibility. But. it makes clearer the duty of the Minister of Justice to see that this wrong is righted. I ask the Minister of Justice if he will see to it that this is made right.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The appeal to do what is right is heard, and will be dealt with accordingly.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice must recollect that this does not in the slightest degree depend on statements made by my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard). We are depending upon the public records in the report of the Auditor General. If the living allowance of $3,000 excludes these items of rent and so on, the Minister of Justice can come next year and say that the increase of $5,000 also excludes them. Or if my hon. friend should not happen to be Minister of Justice when these items are discussed next year, the hon. gentleman who occupies the position at that time might do the same as, apparently, the late Minister of Justice-if we are to accept literally the statement of the Minister of Public Works-has done. I do think,
5. 1902	4206
with all respect, that it will be necessary for the Minister of Justice to investigate this matter. I do not understand him to say that he will not investigate. On the contrary, I understand that he will. And it requires a thorough investigation. Because, of course, apart from anything the Minister of Justice may say, we know that a living allowance should include rental and a number of other items that have been charged. These things are not to be dealt with according to the opinion of the Minister of Justice for the time being as to what is right or what is wrong, but according to the law and to the vote of parliament. The vote (Of parliament was for a living allowance, and outside of that, these gentlemen have no more right to have their houses furnished than any judge in Ontario or Nova Scotia. Would the hon. Minister of Justice say that, outside of this living allowance, a judge in the Yukon had a right to have his house furnished, to have electric light provided or to have carpenter work done at the public*, expense any more than a judge in any other part of the Dominion of Canada? I cannot understand on what principle he would be entitled to it. And I do not think the Minister of Justice can suggest any.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not tried to suggest any.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite understand that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will understand the position I take. By statute the judge is entitled to receive a salary of $5,000. In addition, $3,000 yearly is placed in the estimates as a living allowance. I understood that this $3,000 was paid to these gentlemen for the purpose of placing them relatively in the same position as if they were living in one of the older provinces, an allowance being necessary on account of the increased cost of living in the Yukon. Now, I cannot deal with understandings and policies with respect to expenditures; I can only deal with facts, with the statutes and the estimates. I find that the statute provides a salary of $5,000 and the estimates contain a living allowance of $3,000. That is all I know. Next year this difficulty cannot occur, so far as I am concerned. Because when the question arose about increasing the living allowance to the judges of the Yukon, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me to explain. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the ' Hansard ' report of what I said, he will find that I took up the list of expenses, and said that the allowance was to be increased because of the amount of expenditure that is necessary to put a judge in the Yukon in the same relative position as one in the older provinces. Going over the list, I found the first item was $150 a month for house rent,

420S

then so much for light, so much for fuel, and so much for servants' wages. I think I even gave the price of bread and beef and other things out there. In view of that, if anything was paid to these gentlemen in addition, I do not know how I could explain it to the House-it would be impossible for me to do so. Of course, I have no control over any expenditure except that of the money placed in my charge. In this case, there is a salary and a living allowance, which is fixed at $5,000. Beyond that, my authority does not go. If my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works states in his place that he was requested to provide these gentlemen with residences and, in addition, to supply them with furniture for these residences, and further to supply light and fuel, and so on, that is a matter with which I have had nothing to do, though, of course, I accept the responsibility for what was done by my predecessor. But all I can say is that no such thing as that can occur in the future. I cannot permit it, and in view of the debate which has taken place tonight, the Minister of Public Works will not permit it either. I may say that when the matter came before council for consideration, the justification for the increase to $5,000 for living allowance was that these gentlemen should receive it directly and not indirectly, outside of their salary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me say that not only have I been asked to pay for the rent, but that the Department of Justice has written me a dozen letters at least asking me to build residences for the judges. Not very long ago I received requisitions to build residences for those judges, and in the meantime, pending their erection, I have been requested to pay the rents, and for lighting and fuel. The Department of Justice has over and over again urged upon me the erection of residences for those two judges. Whether my hon. friend will do it in future is for him to say.


George Taylor: I presume the Minister of Public Works has authority from the late Minister of Justice authorizing the payment of these amounts. If he will bring that down it will relieve the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not say that I have the written authority for everything that the government has decided to do, that is not the way business is done. But I say I have many letters asking me to erect residences for the two judges there, and in the meantime it has been decided to pay for rent, fuel and lighting.


George Taylor: Surely the Minister of Justice would not violate the law without authority.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know that I have violated the law.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works of course relieves himself of the responsibility by reason of the Justice Department giving him the instructions; and the Minister of Justice relieves himself from responsibility by saying that it was done by his predecessor. However, I think that the Minister of Public Works is entitled to a little share of this responsibility.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I take it all.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps now we can find out exactly whether in this $3,000 the rental was included. We have the Minister of Finance here who will perhaps explain it, because when Judge Dugas was appointed to the Yukon this $3,000 living expenses was of course brought up in the council. Was there not a statement showing how these living expenses were made up, and whether the rental was included in that $3,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I can hardly undertake to tell the hon. gentleman how every item approved by the council was made up. In regard to the Yukon affairs, we recognized there were conditions out there which differed from those in old Canada, and allowances were made upon a liberal scale regarding the officers in a way that would not be done in the older portions of the Dominion. As this regards the departments of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works, I would hesitate to express an opinion about it, but I do not hesitate to say, from the discussion that lias taken place here to-night, it is quite evident that Judge Dugas received a sum of money which the present Minister of Justice did not suppose he would have received under the arrangement. Before the Minister of Justice takes any action in that matter, it is only right he should endeavour to find out the circumstances under which this order was given. But we do not divide responsibility. The government as a whole must accept the responsibility. Whatever may be said as to the liberality of this allowance in the past, the present Minister of Justice has declared that there shall not be any such allowance in the future. I agree entirely with the hon. gentlemen opposite that the payment of the allowances in this loose way is entirely objectionable. We should give a reasonable, even a liberal sum for living allowance in that country, but that should include everything of the kind, and there should not be a penny expended in the manner of these charges that appear in the Auditor General's account. I am inclined to think as respects the past that the judge has been receiving a more liberal allowance probably than he should.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the case might be put more forcibly even than the Minister of Justice or the Minister of


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 4209	MAY 5. 1902	4210
Finance has put. I was trying to discover the vote out of which-this has been paid, it has been paid apparently out of the Yukon public buildings. It would be just as right for the Minister of Public Works to pay the rent for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice out of the vote for Dominion public buildings generally for Ontario, as for these expenditures to have been paid out of the votes from which they have been paid. I do not see the least distinction between the two. It would be just as wrong, just as unjustifiable, for the Minister of Public Works to have paid the house rent for himself or the Minister of Finance as to pay for this house rent out of this vote, whether he did that by direction of the Minister of Justice or of any one else. I would hesitate to suppose that the late Minister of Justice would have ordered these expenditures to have been paid out of a vote of that kind. It seems to me that this question demands the very closest investigation on the part of the Minister of Justice and on the part of the Minister of Finance, who is the guardian of the treasury. I appreciate the fact that they cannot give a full explanation at the moment, or say what course will be pursued without looking into the question. I think it well that the matter has been brought to their attention to-night, and I trust the investigation which they make will be thorough and complete, and one that will enable them to come down to the House with a satisfactory statement with regard to these matters at some later date.


John Graham Haggart: There is a still more objectionable feature in regard to this vote. Here is a vote of $3,000 for living allowance and $5,000 salary, $8,000 altogether. Surely the Auditor General is aware whether the rental should be included in this $3,000. How did it pass the Auditor General's Department ? That is the extraordinary part of it. Perhaps the vote was set free for public buildings in the Yukon territory, and the money was taken out of that. The Auditor General is responsible to this House, and he is under the direction of the Minister of Finance. There is no justification for his course whatever. What is the use of our voting particular items for particular purposes if they can be applied to other purposes. The Auditor General is the guardian of these votes to see that they are properly applied. He does not seem to have done so in this respect.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will not the hon. gentleman admit that the word ' rents ' cover these things ? We had a vote last year under the head of ' rents ' for public buildings in the Yukon. The policy of the Department of Justice from 'the very beginning was to erect residences for the judges, and until they were erected we have been paying rents.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it would be fair that we should take refuge behind the Auditor General in this matter. My impression is that this money was paid out of a letter of credit, and the Auditor General probably was not aware of it until after the payment was made. If so, the most that can be said of it is that the Auditor General when he had the accounts submitted to him should have drawn attention to the matter.


John Graham Haggart: That is the fact. There was a credit given to the department for a certain sum of money, and out of that sum this expenditure has been made. Then it was the duty of the Auditor General when he found an expenditure which was not justified by vote of parliament to draw attention of parliament to it. He should have said that here was an expenditure over and above the amount that was voted by parliament for that particular purpose.
Harbours and rivers - Nova Scotia-Ecum Secum-wharf, $3,200.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This amount of money is required for tne balance of the contract to complete the work.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Guysborough county.


George Taylor: What was the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


George Taylor: How much was voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the information under my hand but I will find it.
Gabarus Bay-breakwater, $3,500.
Mr. KAULBACH, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has given any recognition to the appeals which I have made in regard to the breakwater at Petit Riviere and also the breakwater at Mill Cove in St. Margaret's Bay in the county of Lunenburg, and also the retaining wall at Battery Point at the mouth of Lunenburg Harbour. In regard to the latter I would say that a retaining wall is an absolute necessity and unless attention is given to it in the course of a very short time it will endanger the lighthouse erected on the banks as it stands on the very brink of a wall of clay and unless attended to in a very short time, will tip over the precipice. I would ask the hon. minister to give it the attention it deserves.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that he does not

remember that we have any information at band. I did not cateb tbe first name that the bon. gentleman mentioned.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Tbe Petit RiviSre breakwater.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is this a new work or is it just a case of repairs ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It is a work that has been suffering for want of repairs. A large amount of money has been spent there. I have repeated this appeal every year since the hon. gentlemen have been in power.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will give instructions to the engineer to pay a visit there and report.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Suppose the hon. minister places a certain amount of money in the coming supplementary estimates for the work this session?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The supplementary estimates for this year are completed, and I would not dare to reopen them, but if the amount is small and if the work is not too extensive you can take the amount out of the general vote.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: No, it requires a larger amount than that.
Ingomsh (North Bay) strengthening breakwater-repairs, $1,000.


George Taylor: Before the last item is carried pernaps the hon. minister has the information now with reference to the first item of $3,200 that I asked for. 1 unuer-stand that he asked for the full amount last year and said that the work was let by contract. Now, he comes forward and asks for $3,200 to complete the work, and he says that the contract was $3,900.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year we had $1,300 only.


George Taylor: And the work was $3,900 and he now asks for $3,200..


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was for $3,950. We are now asking for $050 for contingencies and that brings the whole amount up to $4,000. We have spent up to December, $1,399. So that we require the amount which we are asking to complete the work.


John Dowsley Reid: Will this vote complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Prince Edward Island, West Point-extension rtf pier, $1,550.


Mr. PIACKETT.: What is that money required for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to pay the balance of the contract for that work.


Edward Hackett: To pay the balance of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, to pay the balance to the contractor Mr. McDonald.
Tignish-repairs to breakwater, $600.


Edward Hackett: What is that for-a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is to pay for work done on that breakwater.


Edward Hackett: When was the work done-last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
New London-repairs to breakwater. &c., $2,200.


Edward Hackett: I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister to the work at Skinner's Pond. An expenditure of about $2,000 was made two years ago for this work. Nothing has been done there since. This is a very necessary work and I may say that there was a channel opened through the sand from the pond to the gulf. That channel was closed up last fall. At the time of the opening of the channel a dam was built across the old outlet from the pond and this was closed up. When the sea had closed the new channel the pond overflowed its banks, there being no outlet from the pond, and the consequence was, that the farmers found that the ground up to their doors was flooded with water. They petitioned the hon. Minister of Public Works that some action should be taken last fall. I forwarded that petition myself, and I would ask, inasmuch as this expenditure of about $2,000 was made two years ago, that he followed it up by a further expenditure to assist the farmers and fishermen living on that part of the coast where they are very much in want of this accommodation. It is very much required. There is no harbour from Tignish to Miminegasli, a distance of 30 miles along the coast. These people are obliged to use small fishing boats, whereas if they had Skinner's Pond harbour kept open sufficiently to admit a larger sized craft, they could pursue their industry with greater success and perhaps the hon. gentleman will see whether we can get an amount placed in the supplementary estimates next year for this purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not remember that our resident engineer has called attention to that work. I thought it was completed. I was under the impression that all the work, necessary there had been done. The chief engineer will take' note of it, but at the same time Mr. I-Iegan has not called our attention to the necessity of any further work there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Edward Hackett: That may be, but the people petitioned last fall. I am aware that the hon. minister received the petition because he replied to my letter forwarding the petition. That should be sufficient notice. He said that he would consult Mr. Hegan, the engineer about the work.. It is no fault of the people who have been urging upon the department the necessity for this work. Will the minister say that it will be provided for in the supplementary estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say that because the supplementary estimates are closed.
Repairs, maritime provinces generally, $8,000. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
I move that that Item be struck out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Hackett: Cannot the minister apply that amount to Skinner's Pond.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I wish to call the atten-ion of the minister to the works at Oro-mocto on the St. John river. What amount will likely be expended there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two plans are prepared for the work on the Oromocto river and tenders will be asked for it in a short while.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I am very glad to hear that. Does the minister intend to prosecute the work of clearing out the shoals.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: Instructions have been given for a dredge to go there and as soon as a dredge can be got the work will be completed.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Under the charge of Mr. Shewan the resident engineer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the much needed work of the dredging of La Have river, Malione bay, and Lunenburg harbour. There is no work in all Canada that is more necessary than the dredging of these three places. There is a very extensive shipping fleet there, and accommodation is absolutely necessary for it. Last year the minister told me he had no dredge, but I find dredges going to other places of less importance. Why cannot this work be attended to during the coming season. It was promised last year and promised the year before. There was a sum in connection with this work placed in the estimates just previous to the last election, but it was not expended. Will the minister promise me that he will send a dredge there this year. This work is in the public interest and there is nothing at all political about it. I would strongly urge this work on the attention of the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade)-


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: From Lunenburg.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, from Annapolis, called my attention a week or two ago to this matter and because of the great importance of La Have river I fully realized that something has to be done. It is a very fine river. I was there two or three years ago and representations were made to me, but there was then no dredge available and there is not to-day. I have tried at the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Wade) and other friends to relieve the situation by ordering some rudimentary work to remove a sand bar that was formed by the flood this spring and we are trying to remove it now.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: This interest shown on the part of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) is very commendable no doubt, but the minister might have referred to the hon. member for Lunenburg as having appealed repeatedly year after year for this work. If that fact were shown and credited me it would have looked a little better and more commendable on the part of the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I will have to intervene. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) could not very well have called attention last year to a sand bar which was created by the flood this year, although I have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbach) would have been quite ready to call attention to it this year. There is dredging urgently needed on the La Have river,, Lunenburg harbour, and Mahone bay, and I must do my hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbach) the justice to say that he has repeatedly brought it to the attention of the House. There was a special obstruction caused this year in La Have river apart from the necessary 'dredging. It was that which my hon. friend from Annapolis brought to the notice of the Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) was for many years a resident on the La Have river, and knows it perhaps better than any man in the House. Accordingly the Minister of Public Works took steps to do the little work connected with the removal of that sand bar. There is great difficulty in finding dredges. I told my hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbach) a year ago that I would recommend the La Have river to be dredged almost before any work I was prepared to advocate in Nova Scotia. 3ut the trouble is that the smaller class of dredges which suit in other places are not adapted to the La Have river, and so far the Minister of Public Works was unable to carry out his intention of having dredging done there. He is now having a large dredge built which will be suitable for work on the La Have river, and with the assistance of that dredge that work can be done. In the case of Lunenburg, for the last year or two, there have not been urgent works except dredging.

My hon. friend has urged us repeatedly to send dredges there, and I have been as anxious as himself to see them sent; but we really have not had the dredges to do the work.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It is very kind of the minister to refer to me in the way he has done, and I appreciate it; but my reason for referring to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. AVade) was that the hon. minister drew out the hon. member for Annapolis to speak of dredging in the county which I have the honour to represent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have referred in so many kind words to the efforts of my hon. friend from Lunenburg that I thought for once my hon. friend from Annapolis might have a little credit.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If you will allow me a word, I may say that I have received communications from people who are interested in having the dredging done on the La Have river and in the removal of the bar which has been referred to by the Minister of Finance. I am free to admit that while my hon. friend (Mr. Ivaulbach) represents the county of Lunenburg, the people on the La Have river have no confidence in his ability to secure dredging for them. He represented the county in the time of the late government for many years. The only dredging done in the county was in the harbour of Lunenburg, and there are people mean enough to say that his own property was benefited by it more than any other. It is only natural, therefore, that friends in Bridgewater should have written to me to urge the minister to do this work. On the very evening that I received the letter, I brought the matter to the notice of the minister, and the statement he made, I think was very satisfactory. ,


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: If the hon. member for Annapolis got a letter of that kind, I think that he' should in courtesy have handed it to me, and left me to make the appeal ; and then he might have supported me. That would have been kindness on his part, and what I might reasonably have expected from him. With reference to the dredging in Luneftburg harbour, the hon. gentleman knows right well that no part of it benefited me in any way, and I am sorry that he should have referred to it as he did. On the contrary,
I objected to the dredging being done where he refers to, because I wanted the harbour deepened for the purpose of improving it as a harbour of refuge for the fishermen ; and the dredging where it was done was endangering the bank of my property, as was well known to the public.
Ste. Genevieve-protection of piers, $a30.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) What kind of work is the hon. gentleman doing there ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) As the hon. gentleman is aware, there is a bridge at Ste. Genevieve that was built by the Dominion government, and under an arrangement entered into be-between the government and the municipal authorities at Ste. GeneviCve, the government are bound to do the necessary works for tlie protection of the piers. Although the county is not favourable to the government, I shall see to it that those works are properly done.
Valleyfield-Dredging channel in Valleyfleld Bay, $4,000.


John Dowsley Reid: What is this for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a pretty large trade at Valleyfleld, and this work is being done in the harbour, not in the canal. We are dredging the channel from the lake into the bay.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it opposite the town or above the entrance to the canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is above the entrance to the canal.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Is this for the canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (.Translation.) This has nothing to do with the canal. This work is being done in the bay, at tbe entrance of the harbour. My hon. friend, who is familiar with that bay, knows that it is very shallow. There is only about from 6 to 7 feet of water, and a great many boats which visit that port find it very difficult to enter the harbour. We are dredging a channel from tbe lake to tbe wharf.


John Dowsley Reid: How deep are you making it ?


Tbe MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are dredging to 0 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: There has been 11 or 12 feet of depth there right along.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, only 5 or 6 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: Steamers drawing 9 or 10 feet of water have been going there for years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not in the channel to the canal, but in the channel from the lake to the wharfs.


Mr. LOY.: If I might be allowed to explain, this channel is near the entrance of the canal down towards the port Of Valley-field. This channel has been used a great many years and is now being used by coal barges, and barges laden with grain and lumber. In low water in the summer season there is only about 6 feet of water, and in consequence these barges are not able to load and unload to advantage. This is a very important work, and I am only sorry that a larger amount is not voted for it. When I state that the largest industry in
4217	MAY 5. 1902	4218
Valleyfield now gets 20,000 tons of coal a year, and that many barges laden with grain and lumber come into the harbour, you can well realize the importance of deepening the channel to a sufficient depth. It should be at least 10 feet deep. I may say that in consequence of its being so shallow, and in consequence of the shoal at the entrance to the harbour, in very severe winters, the ice forms to such a depth as to shut out the water for the mills which are dependent upon it for their power. So that the deepening of the channel will be a double advantage, increasing the water for power purposes, and also enlarging the channel for navigation.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Did the minister make all that expenditure to redeem one of the many pledges given to the electorate during the last election ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) I had no time to give pledges, as I hardly spent twenty-four hours in the county.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) I was there for eight days, and I know something about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: (Translation.) The hon. gentleman must jbtave made pledges.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) I could not afford to do so.
Point Pelae Island Vharf, $1,290.


Thomas Earle: I see that the government are spending a great deal of money for the construction of wharfs in all the older provinces. I would ask the minister if it is his intention to extend the same principle to the province of British Columbia, where we have large fishing interests, and where up to the present the government have not spent any money for wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Senator Templeman called my attention to the Importance of British Columbia and its claims to have wharfs built in that province, and when the supplementary estimates come down, I shall probably be criticised for having provided too large a sum for this purpose.


Mr. PRINGLE.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These estimates are only for the current year. When the supplementary estimates come down, my hon. friend will have to judge whether we have acted as he wishes us to do. Until then my lips are sealed.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that a wharf is badly required there, and
that the wharf which was there has been destroyed owing to its having been used by the government contractors.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My engineer tells me that we have had an examination and a survey made there lately.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I understand that.
St. Maurice district-accommodation at Grand Mere for storing and soiling logs, &c., Governor General's warrant, $63,000.


Mr. MORIN.: Does the government sort the logs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Robert Laird Borden: Why was the Governor General's warrant required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year the lumber companies suffered great damage because our accommodation for sorting was not large enough and they could not drive all their lggs during high water. They made representations to us, and we changed the location of the work at Grand Mere, so as to give more storage place. The work had to be completed by the 1st of May, because later on it would have been of no use.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five piers, 9,000 or 10,000 feet of booms and other works.
Slides and booms-St.. Maurice district-to complete payments for timber supplied in 1900-1 for improvements made to boom works at Shaw-irigan, &c., to facilitiate the floating, sorting and storage of logs, $11,300.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been spent on these works altogether '?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About three quarters of a million-they have been in existence for fifty years.


John Dowsley Reid: Each year, there is some expenditure of this kind ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not every year, but as may be necessary. The booms are paying pretty well, and I hope they will pay better.
Roads end bridges-bridge over the Belly River at Pace's Crossing to complete payments to the North-west Territories government for the construction of this bridge, $959,67.


John Dowsley Reid: Why is that a Dominion bridge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, the government of Canada build bridges in the North-west Territories-large bridges.
Mr. ItEID (Grenville). This is not the first, then ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there are several.
Roads and bridges-Des Joachim3 bridge- reconstruction, the Ontario and Quebec governments contributing-to complete, including approaches, $32,000.
The MINISTER! OF PUBLIC WORKS. I move that this item be reduced to $1(1,01)0.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to income-miscellaneous'-chief engineer's office-salaries of engineers, draftsmen an# clerks, notwithtanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $10,500.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of this ?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman, last year, asked for $40,700 for this office the same as the year before. And now he comes forward with a request for $10,500 for the balance of this year. What is the reason 'l


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because, this year we have more work than we ever had-nearly twice as much, and it is impossible to*carry on all this work with the same staff in the engineer's office.


George Taylor: But surely the hon. gentleman had all this before him when he made up his estimates and put down the samq sum as for the year before ? And now he asks for $10;500 more merely to complete this year. He must have employed a great many more men.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: But, $10,000 is not a very large amount of money considering the work we do. We are spending about $3,000,000 in dredging, contractors, &c. We have to have a staff large enough to control our work. I am sure that I do not do an injustice to any other branch of the Public Works Department when I say that the chief engineer's branch is administered to my entire satisfaction ?
Miscellaneous-to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway interest at five per cent on sundrv freight charges, the settlement of which was unavoidably delayed from 1900 to 1902, $1,514.51.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move that this item be struck out


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
For purchase and fitting of ss. ' Tyrian ' as a cable vessel, purchase of Marconi instruments *and testing of his system of wireless telegraphy (Governor General's warrant), $50,093.17.
Robert Laird Borden: How much was paid for this vessel ?


John Dowsley Reid: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $20,000. In addition we have spent for fitting her up $25,000. We spent about $5,000 on the Marconi system.


John Dowsley Reid: Who was she purchased from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From the Nova Scotia Steamship Company. We had a cable ship which was wrecked, and we had to buy another one. The other steamship foundered on the 20tli of September, 1900. Then we rented this steamer for some time, and when we were contemplating returning her to her owners we found it would be necessary to spend $5,000 or $6,000 to place her in the same position she was in when we rented her. I thought it was more advantageous to buy her. This vessel is absolutely necessary for the Department of Public Works. The vessel was in running order when we purchased her.


John Dowsley Reid: $25,000 was a very large amount for fitting up a vessel which was in running order when he purchased her. Has the minister any memorandum of the items that went to make up that sum ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $6,000 was spent on repairs, and the balance was spent on fitting up the boat as a cable boat for laying cables.
Working expenses, Levis, Kingston and Esquimau graving docks, $7,000.
The MINISTER OF 'PUBLIC WORKS. There is a general law which authorizes us to pay two per cent for twenty years on moneys invested in building graving docks. Mr. Robertson has been negotiating, I understand, with the imperial government to get an Act of incorporation. I do not know as they have succeeded. I hope he will be able to give St. John a graving dock with the guarantee we have placed on the statute books. We placed on the statute book last year a law which authorized us to guarantee two per cent to any company which would build a graving dock whose plans will have been approved by the Department of Public Works and we hope that the company formed by Mr. Robertson will be able to build that dock. We have not a separate account for the three graving docks and we have been obliged to spend more than we thought we would. That is why we have to ask for a supplementary vote.
Slides and booms-St. Maurice district, working expenses, $10,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I see an item No. 88 which is for the same thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That item is for construction of works. This is for maintenance and working expenses.


George Taylor: I thought the hon. gentleman said last year that he would require $1,000 for working expenses.
[DOT]4221


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, the more dams and slides there are the more money we are called upon to spend.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman made an estimate last year and now he says that he is short by $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We did not foresee the fact that we would have that large increase of work at Grande Mere for which I have just asked parliament to give me $63,000, and it is in view of these increased works that we have tilts increased expenditure for maintenance.
Ocean and river service-further amount required for maintenance and repairs of Dominion steamers, including Governor Gen-eral's warrant of $26,000, $50,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Explain that please.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Chairman, this item of $50,000 is required to pay the expenditure for the maintenance of this service for the current year. It will be noticed that in the estimates of last year only $160,000 were voted, whereas it required about $200,000 to carry on this service. I find it has been the practice in the department to carry over from one year to the other balances of accounts. I am desirous of squaring them all off and keeping within the estimate of parliament for the various services.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand the hon. minister has now charge of the steamer * Scout,' between Kingston and Montreal. Is that the case ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. The Railway Department has turned over that steamer to the Marine Department, and it will henceforth be in our charge.


John Dowsley Reid: And all the buoys between Montreal and Kingston will be looked after by the Marine Department ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.
To provide for the removal of a submerged wrecked schooner ip Petit de Grat harbour, Richmond county, N.S., $350.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister to the wreck of the steamer ' Rothesay ' just beyond the town of Prescott. It is in a dangerous place and very little would remove it. I think the matter has been brought to the attention of the government before, and if it can be removed it will avoid the wreck of some other steamer. The machinery is about five or six inches below the water and small boats have run upon this and several lives have been very nearly lost. I think the department asked for tenders a short time ago. It would
only cost $200 or $300 to remove this wreck.
If the minister can see his way clear to have that wreck removed I believe its removal will probably save life and property.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is some question as to the responsibility in this matter. Now that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) has brought it to my attention I shall make careful inquiry. I agree with him that it is dangerous and some action must be taken to remove this obstruction.
Lighthouse and coant service, $35,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has charge of the light at the head of the Cornwall canal.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Department of Railways and Canals.


George Taylor: I hope that the minister will make this year provision to buoy the different channels of the 1000 Islands on the Canadian side. On the American side they have these channels for small excursion steamers all buoyed. I drew the attention of Sir Louis Davies last year and he promised to have it done. I think I also spoke to the present minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) about it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) brought the matter to my notice and I asked the engineer to report, and in the supplementary estimates next year we will have an item for it. The care of the buoys in the rivers as well as in the canals will now be in my department and I shall ask for a grant to place that service in a more satisfactory condition.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to that light at the head of the Cornwall canal, an arrangement was made that the lockman should attend to it, but now that it is under the care of the Department of Marine and Fisheries the lockmen may not consider it their duty to do so, unless they are instructed to that effect. The light is a very important one.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This matter will also come under the jurisdiction of the engineer who is to be appointed especially to attend to that section of the river. I shall have a report made in regard to the light which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) has referred to.
Fisheries-Further amount required fo-r fish breeding establishments, $30,000.


Edward Hackett: It was announced in a Prince Edward Island newspaper recently that the minister intended to build a combination hatchery for salmon and lobster on the island. Is that under consideration V

, The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES. Yes, but I am not prepared at the present moment to definitely state what will be done. My personal opinion is that the establishment of hatcheries has proved satisfactory in other countries and also in Canada. If we find that the results have been as good as we expect I shall ask parliament for a grant for the coming year to establish more hatcheries. Of course that must depend to some extent on the information given by the experts as to the proper locality to establish a hatchery. I have no doubt it would be in the interest of the fisheries of the Dominion to establish a hatchery on the island, but I cannot say now what will be done. The estimates have not been sufficient, and it has been the practice, unfortunately I think, to carry over from year to year accounts that should have been provided for in the current year. I am anxious to stop that practice. For instance a vote of $3,500 was taken in the first instance to establish hatcheries in British Columbia, and the total cost was $10,258. The estimate for the Gaspe hatchery, was $7,000, and the cost up to the present $18,000 ; the Margaree hatchery estimated at $5,000, cost $8,780. This money is required to complete these works and also I trust to clear up the accounts in the department so that there will not be overdrafts. I think it is a very bad practice not to take a sufficient vote to cover the expenditure of the year, because this results in men being kept out of their money in the latter part of the year, which I do not think conduces to the good management of the department nor is satisfactory to those interested. My object is to establish a system on such a basis as to avoid that. I can understand that sometimes, in taking an appropriation for new work, it is very difficult to estimate properly the exact cost, in that case the fund should not be taken out of an appropriation for other purpose. If the department makes a mistake of that kind, I think that the matter should stand over until parliament meets and we can get a subsequent appropriation.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The matter referred to has been brought to the attention of the department frequently. I find that there is a great divergence of opinion as to what policy is best to adopt in regard to the herrings in that district. Some claim that there is not the slightest danger of their being depleted at all by our allowing them to be taken as they are at the present time, while others take the opposite view. However, the matter will be thoroughly looked into. I may say, in this connection that, as the committee well know, the whole fishery question between the province and the Dominion is not in a very satisfactory shape at the present time, and I decided not to take very active steps in regard to some of these matters until the various questions


MAT 5. 1902
[Stage Direction]
of jurisdiction were settled. An invitation has been sent to the various provincial governments to hold a conference here at as early a date as can be arranged, perhaps during the next two weeks, to discuss all these matters, when I hope some satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at. If1 not, I have intimated to them my view that it is most desirable that a stated case be prepared for submission to the courts, so that we may know once and for all the position of the Dominion and the provinces respectively with regard to these various questions. The subject of the customs regulations is receiving the attention of the Department of Customs at the present time.
Thomas Earle: I would like to ask the minister whether the hatchery on the Cedar river is finished, and whether it is stocked V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The work is completed, and the stocking and putting in good shape is going on.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a matter which I wished to mention to the minister in connection with the lighthouse and coast service. It is the necessity of having a lightship for the Halifax harbour.
I brought this matter to the attention of the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries two or three sessions ago-in fact, I think on two or three different occasions. Since then a statement has been placed in my hands on the matter, and, as it will take only a few moments to read it, I will take the liberty of reading it to the minister now. It is prepared by a gentleman who is intimately acquainted with the necessities of the harbour. I think there was a lightship at the mouth of the harbour a good many years ago; and, in the opinion of this gentleman and others who are familiar with the subject, the reason that lightship drifted and failed to be of service, and had to be abandoned, was that it was not properly moored. The statement which has been given me is these words :
A lightship is wanted off Halifax harbour because the existing lights and fog signals are all inside of the dangers to be avoided instead of outside. The dangers to be avoided are the Sambro ledge on the west and Thrum Cap shoal on the east. The latter Is well inside the bay formed by Chebueto Head on the west and Devil island on the east, but the former runs a long way out, nearly two miles beyond Sambro island.
In clear weather, i.e., not foggy, the lighthouses on Devil's Island, Sambro Island and Chebueto Head are sufficient guides to' the entrance, though even then it is worth noting that the [DOT] Daniel Steinmann ' was lost with 100 lives through mistaking the light on Sambro for that on Chebueto-the explanation given at the time being that the rain squalls blowing across the fixed light on Sambro caused the captain to mistake It for the revolving light on Chebueto. He ran in for it expecting to pick up a pilot, only to find himself among the maze of reef outside of Sambro island.
But in foggy weather the lights are useless, and the guides to the entrance are two automatic buoys, one to the south-east of Sambro and one further to the eastward, and fog bombs on Sambro island. An automatic buoy is a very imperfect guide. Unless there is considerable sea on it makes very little noise. Even when it is making a good deal, it is universal experience that it is quite uncertain whether you will hear it or not. It is not a loud noise and easily drowned by the noise on board a steamer. The sound often seems to act in a peculiar way, so as to be inaudible half a mile away, and yet perfectly plain several miles off. In a strong breeze it can seldom be heard any distance to windward of the buoy. In every way it is a poor mark to run for in the fog and if you do not hit it the penalty may be to find yourself among the ledges, just as the ' Portia ' did. The bombs on Sambro island are said to be very bard to locate and misleading, and they, too, are of course inside the danger. A few years ago the ship [DOT] John Maeleod,' with a cargo of sugar wandered about for two or three days in the fog looking for something to show her a course to the harbour, but found none, and eventually was lost on the Sambro ledge.
Tliis is the remedy he proposes
What is wanted is a lightship with a powerful fog horn moored well clear of the outer Sambro reefs. Such a mark could he run for in any weather day or night with perfect ease and confidence. Pilots could be kept on board.
There should be no difficulty in mooring such a vessel. The bottom is mostly sand and gravel, good holding ground. The experiment formerly tried of a lightship was bound to fail, because they tried to make the ship ride to her own anchors and two enormous chain cables, the weight of which was certain to drag her under in a seaway. What is wanted is to take weight of the cable by a large mooring and fasten the ship to the mooring. In that case a properly designed vessel would ride easily in any weather. The lightships in Great Britain and the States are mostly moored this way, I believe. Even if she could not or any accident happened, she could slip the mooring line and run up the harbour, without losing anything.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: DicI the hou. gentleman mention the name of the lighthouse ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will mention that in confidence to the hon. minister. The writer is a gentleman who has taken a good deal of interest in the subject, and the hon. minister can inquire as to whether the suggestions he made are valuable or not. I know nothing about the subject myself, but take a little interest in it on account of having brought the matter to the attention of the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries on several occasions. I asked this gentleman, who locally takes a great deal of interest in the subject, and is personally interested in the safety of the harbour, to give me a statement of his views in writing. He wrote this rather hurriedly, supposing no doubt that I would not read it to the House, but I thought it better to give his own language than attempt to sum up his remarks by any language of my own.



I trust that the hou. minister will consider the matter because there is a strong feeling among masters of vessels that something of the kind should be done, and it is quite easy to make the harbour perfectly safe by night and by day. The only subject for consideration by the minister is the best way to do this, and this gentleman thinks it can be done by a lightship, and that there would be no difficulty In doing this with the improved modern methods of constructing and placing lightships.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I had the great pleasure of visiting Halifax a short time ago, and was told that it was a magnificent harbour with a wide channel and that it had never suf- j fered from fog or ice all the year round, so that I am rather surprised to hear of any application for any improvements in connection with that harbour. However, 1 suppose that this is a little outside the harbour, and I may say that the matter was brought up some time ago and an investigation and report made. The opinion come to was that there was no such pressing necessity for this lightship, which the informant of my hou. friend seems to think there is. However, we have always to recognize that nowadays, when vessels are so much larger and swifter than formerly, aids to navigation are required that were not thought necessary some years ago. If the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to give me the memo, he has just read, I will look into the matter and give some information concerning it, when the estimates for next year come down, and I would also promise him that it will have most careful consideration by the department at an early date.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I do not think that any person in Halifax would make the statement that we do not have occasionally a little fog along the coast, though, so far as the harbour itself is concerned, I do not think that any improvement is required, as the harbour is as open and clean and safe as any harbour in the world. But what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is referring to is not the harbour but the coast before you reach it, some miles outside, and it must be understood that we are not making any reflections on the harbour when we speak of the coast outside. We have a little fog on the coast occasionally, but nothing compared with the Bay of Fundy and over at St. John. The harbour of Halifax is as perfect as it can be, but there is no harbour in the world where there is not a little fog outside. If it were so perfect, as to be free from fog along the coast, we would not require lighthouses or anything of the kind, but in common with all harbours some little protection is required there as elsewhere.


Robert Laird Borden: Fisheries-further amount required for salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $20,800.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose tkq same explanation applies to this ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes; we never had a sufficient vote. I want to balance the account and take the amount that is really needed and keep within it in the year's expenditure.
Fisheries-to pay damages and costs sustained by Messrs J. & G. Noble, as awarded by the commissioner appointed by Order in Council 16th August, 1901, $18,563.


Mr. BENNETT.: Persons who are at all acquainted with the circumstances in connection with this case will consider the vote a most extraordinary one. This is a most unsatisfactory matter to discuss in the House, because the minister who is in charge of the department had nothing to do with it, and those who are to blame, if there are any to blame, are not here to meet the charges. To hon. gentlemen who were in this House ten or twelve years ago, this claim of Noble Brothers is quite an old friend. This firm were engaged in business of fishing on Georgian Bay. I know very little personally of their operations, but I shall read from * Hansard ' the opinion of a gentleman in this House showing that they were not by any means persons deserving of much consideration. In a discussion on this same claim the bon. member who represents the adjoining riding to that in which Noble Brothers live, spoke of them in the following terms. I quote from page 2014 of 'Hansard' of 1895:
I know that I have been spoken to dozens of times by fishermen with regard to the reputation of the Nobles, and I merely give this as a justification for the seeming harsh course which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries adopted in this case. When I have been endeavouring to get these men off time after time, it has been said to me :	Why take the Nobles part, they
are perfect outlaws ; they fish with nets that are larger than the law allows ; they fish out of season, they violate the law in every way. They say : You cannot prosecute them because they are so strong and have such powerful influence at their backs, the department is afraid to prosecute them, but they pile unto us because we are individually alone, and we cannot bring that force to bear against the department which they can.
These remarks were made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who, I regret to see, is not in his place, but who, if he were here, I am sure, would join with me in protesting against this vote. These remarks were made when the present Hon. Senator Danderkin, then the representative of South Grey in this House endeavoured to bring the same case under the review of parliament. Let me now refer to some of the circumstances of this claim. These Noble Brothers, who -were engaged, as 1

say, in fishing, year in and year out, season in and season out, had openly and in the most flagrant way defied the laws of the land in connection with the fisheries. This is shown by the evidence in the case laid on the Table of the House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. That evidence shows that they supplied seine nets, trap nets and other illegal fishing gear to halfbreeds and Indians, and in return, took a share of the fish caught by these illegal means. After they had been trespassers against the laws for years, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that time, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, determined to bring them to time. They were notified that, in consequence of the flagrant outrages they had perpetrated in the past, evidence of which was before the department, they would not be granted licenses. Having a large fishing plant, consisting of tugs, fishing smacks and a large quantity of nets, they came down here in 1893 after having received notice that no consideration would be allowed them for the future. They proffered their money to the license inspector, Mr. Elliott, but finding that a license would not be issued, one of the firm came down to Ottawa. The hon. member for East Grey, knowing Mr. Noble, accompanied him to the minister and endeavoured to intervene on his behalf. And the hon. member for East Grey gives this account of the interview:
Mr, Noble admitted himself in the presence of the minister that he knew of the change in the regulations the fall before. He admitted also that after he paid his money, that he was told before his boats went out that he was not likely to get his license. When that Information came *to his knowledge he came down to Ottawa to Intercede with the department in hopes he might induce them to give him his license, and on the very day ho was here, and when we were pleading on his behalf In the office, a telegram came from the fishery overseer saying that his boats were out fishing in the Georgian Bay.
Let bon. members get tbe full meaning of these facts. Here were two partners who bad been officially advised that tbe department would refuse them a license. One of the partners comes to Ottawa to see the minister, and while he is actually laying his case before the minister, tbe inspector advises the department that, in open violation of tbe law, a license not having been issued to them, this firm were out on tbe lakes with their plant. I do not intend to speak personally of tbe operations of these men, because X do not know tbe facts. I can only say that, if general repute about Georgian Bay, where their operations are carried on, goes for anything, not a word that was said by the hon. member for East Grey concerning these people is too hard or too strong or too severe. The inspector, in pursuance of his instructions seized the tug and fishing plant of these men, and, it was tied up-there is no doubt about that- for a whole season. They had openly violat-
133J
ed the law, and the minister was quite justified, as the House at that time believed, in acting as he did. And what next happened ? These gentlemen employed solicitors to prosecute a claim against the department. The minister granted them a hearing before Judge Johnson-I believe it was-as commissioner. The evidence was thoroughly gone into. When the case came before the department, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that time, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, told these people point blank that they could have a fiat at any time to go into the courts if they thought their claim against the government was a good one. As often as this fiat was offered to these wrongdoers-for they were wrongdoers-so often was it declined. After a time Sir Charles Hibert Tupper left the department, but the gentleman who succeeded him also declined to allow the claim. Meantime, some very powerful friends of the Conservative government, relatives of these Noble Brothers used every occasion to put the pistol to the bead of the department to compel it to yield. But Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper refused to recede an inch, but told them they could rest upon their rights, a fiat would be given and they could go into tbe courts. But, knowing the ground upon which they stood, these people, very properly, from their point of view, refused to go into courts. When the change of government came in 1896, the matter stood as it had stood for three or four years before.
But, no sooner was there a change of government than the Noble Bros., being prominent supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite, exerted their own political leverage ; and, knowing one of these gentlemen personally as I do, I saw him here session in and session out, and it was notorious what his business was. He was endeavouring to have the government take up this alleged claim and deal with it on its merits. I am glad to say for the credit of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, that from 1896 that gentleman resisted the payment of this claim. 1 do not know whether he offered them a fiat to go into the courts, I assume probably he did ; had he followed the action of his predecessor in office he certainly would have done that. But there is one thing certain, and that is that Sir Louis Davies nevejr agreed-because there was never any vote in the estimates for such a purpose-to compromise with these people in any shape or manner, so far at least as the records of the House showed by a vote of money. There was the action, first, of Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper offering them a fiat for them to go into court, and their refusal to do so. Then here is the palpable fact that for five years Sir Louis Davies would not recede from the position of the former minister and would not pay these people one dollar ; at least the evidence that is open and above board as to no

money grant being voted in the House would show conclusively that he agreed with the action of his predecessor in office, and did nothing in that regard. Now, I find on the 22nd of August, 1901, the then minister, Sir Louis Davies, appointed Mr. Justice Lount, one of the judges of the Superior Court in the province of Ontario, under a commission to inquire into this matter ; and I will be bound to say that there never was before, and I doubt if there ever will be again, a document issued from any government in this country within the terms and under the circumstances that this one was issued. Let me read for the benefit of the committee the instructions of the Order in Council to the commissioner :
By the said commission and Order in Council the following matters are submitted to me for my opinion and1 finding :-
(a)	Whether in my opinion on the facts proved before me the conviction, seizure and confiscation mentioned in the said Order in Council were justifiable or not ; and if I find such conviction, seizure and confiscation were Justifiable :
(b)	Then, whether there were any and what extenuating circumstances in connection with violations by Messrs. J. & C. Noble and their fishermen of the fishery laws and regulations, and
(c)	Whether in equity and good conscience, having regard to all the circumstances proved the government of Canada, should pay to the said Messrs. J. & C. Noble, any damages by reason of such conviction, seizure and consequent disposal of their tugs, boats, gear and nets, and the reason why in my opinion the government of Canada should pay any, and
(d)	If I fiDd that damage should be paid by the government of Canada in equity and good conscience on account of the conviction, seizure and subsequent disposal of such tugs, boats, gear and nets, what amount of damages and the reasons why in my opinion the government of Canada should pay the amount determined ; with further authority to me to recommend to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to what disposition of all questions of costs in connection with this commission and the proceedings had and taken thereunder to me shall seem proper.
The learned judge goes on to make liis findings, and be says :-
In my opinion on the facts proved before me, the conviction, seizure and confiscation mentioned in said Order in Council were justifiable for the following reasons :
I need not read the reasons in detail which he sets out. Then he goes on to say :
Under a strict interpretation of the said S.S. 3, it was the duty of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to cause to be seized and confiscated all the materials, implements or appliances used in violation of the Act.
Further on he says :
I have therefore now to determine whether or not there were any and what extenuating circumstances on the facts proved before me which should be taken into consideration in connection with the violations by the said Nobles and their fishermen of the fishery laws and regulations, and whether in equity and good con-Mr. BENNETT.
science, having regard to all the circumstances proved, the government should pay to the said Nobles any damages hy reason of such conviction, seizure and subsequent disposal of their tugs, boats, gear and nets.
Now, it will be seen the commissioner found
that the seizure and action were justified by reason of their violations of the Act, and that all that had been done in the premises was justifiable. Then he next puts the question, hedged in by these words that the minister had inserte'd to let the Nobles fall easily, * in equity and in conscience as to what amount of damages should be paid, if any.' Now, the minister, in a case that he had refused to take up for five years, had refused to pay any damages on all the facts and evidence which was before him, because there had been a prior inquiry before Judge Johnston as commissioner, and if there was any decision to be given the then minister had all this evidence and could come to a conclusion as easily as the judge. The case was pressed strongly by the law firm with which a member of this House is connected. And here again we see that principle that is coming to the front more and more everyday in this House, and is coming to be a by word and a reproach in this House, namely, the steering of cases in every department of the government by men who are members of this House, or by their partners. Why, these hon. gentlemen made the welkin ring when they were in opposition on this very question. It was notorious that for years they denounced the action of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy in holding a brief in the St. Catharines Milling Company, although Mr. McCarthy stated time and again that he did not participate in any of the fees that came to his office through that ease.
Well, Sir, the case apparently was put in good trim, a partner of an hon. member of this House is retained on behalf of the Nobles; and then, so as to make their fall easy with these words ' in equity and good conscience,' the learned judge goes into the disposition of the case. The minister this afternoon laid the papers on the Table containing the evidence; there are 800 or 900 pages which it is difficult to wade through. I have glanced over it, and I find that page after page of that evidence proves every allegation that could be made against these men. The counsel for the government, Mr. Lindsay, was acting, I think, with commendable vigour in resisting the claim on behalf of the department-and I have no fault to find from what I have seen of the evidence in that regard-and Mr. Lindsay was told by7 the counsel of the Noble Bros, that he need not call any more witnesses to prove that they had supplied illegal nets to half-breeds who had participated in the fish that were taken out of these nets, and the evidence was so preponderating that these men did systematically defy the law for years, that it was admitted there was no necessity for calling some eighteen of



[Stage Direction]
those witnesses who were standing there in court to prove that the Noble Bros., had been supplying them with these illegal fishing nets. More than that, it was shown in evidence by their own bookkeeper when the books were produced, that year in and year out they had fish caught illegally in their storehouse for sale ; they made no bones about it, and one of their witnesses makes even this strong allegation, that as soon as the fishery inspector came there to make a seizure, one of the Nobles suggested to his assistant the propriety of ' fixing ' Mr. Elliott the fishery inspector, evidently supposing that for a monetary consideration the inspector could be fixed, and there would be no prosecution. You can find in different parts of the evidence this fact, that when the inspector came there they bundled a large quantity, one witness states over a ton, of these illegal nets, trap nets, pound nets and seine nets into boxes, and then when the inspector came to look through their storehouse, of course nothing was to be found.
Now, I have this to say, that I am going to enter my protest, although it will not have any weight with the committee, I assume, and as far as the whole case is to be discussed it is most unsatisfactory because the hon. gentleman who is now at the head of the department had nothing to do with it beyond simply finding it when he came into office. I may say that throughout the country and particularly on the shores of Georgian Bay it will be a most startling thing when it is known that these Noble Brothers are to get $18,563 for systematically breaking the law, for telling the Fisheries Department that they did not care what power or influence they had, that they were prepared to bring influence to bear. When the Conservative party were in power they were being buttressed up by strong Conservative friends and when the change of government came I know not what they have done since then. In view of the strong language I have read from [DOT] Hansard,' uttered by the hon. member for East Grey, I would be bound to say that the statements made by him on that occasion will be amply borne out. Here was this officer of the law doing his duty fearlessly, as I know. More than once when 1 was a supporter of the old government in parliament from 1891 to 1896, I had time and again to appeal to Sir Hifobert Tupper for what ? Because, the men doing exactly what these men were doing, fishing with illegal nets, had their nets and boats seized, and it was proper that they should be seized. If a man wanted to take the chance there was the law set for him, and if he was found fishing illegally he had to suffer the consequences. I can recall instance after instance where fishermen who had their all invested in an equipment consisting of boats and nets, had the mortification of seeing their property burned up on the shore right under their very eyes in an endeavour to stop this illegal fishing. These men can now look back knowing what they had to suffer by reason of having contravened the law. While these Noble Brothers who were the greatest poachers and the greatest wrongdoers, the men who had been spoiling the whole fishing business on the lakes, are to be rewarded by the government with this princely grant of $18,563, of which I believe some $3,000 is to go as law costs to a firm of which a member of this House is a partner. I can only say that I enter my protest against voting this money.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I fear we will find a great deal of difficulty in enforcing the fishery regulations. I have a statement furnished me by the department in regard to this matter, and I will place it before the committee :
In 1894, the fishing tugs, boats and gear of the Messrs. J. & C. Noble, of Killarney, were seized by the fishery overseer for the district under instructions from the department, for having been used for fishing purposes without having first obtained a license therefor as required by law, and the Messrs. Noble were, during the year, refused licenses and their tugs, boats and gear confiscated. These were eventually returned in bond in time for the fishing season of 1895.
Even during the time of the previous government, there was quite a difference of opinion as to the punishment which should be inflicted upon these people for the violation of the law that had occurred. After having these tugs, gear and boats under seizure for a long time, they were eventually returned :
Meanwhile strong representations were made that the offence committed was mrely a technical one under the circumstances, and that the punishment received by the Nobles was far in excess of that demanded by the irregularity committed by them.
Thie correspondence continued from 1894 to the fall of 1901, during which time two commissions were granted to inquire into the claim of the Messrs. Noble for damages, neither of which ever reached a conclusion, the counsel for the Messrs. Noble being unable to accept the terms of reference to the commissioners, and the commissioners' ruling on strictly legal grounds.
In 1901 the government consented to refer the matter for a final decision to a commissioner in the person of the Hon. Justice Lount, one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice of the province of Ontario, and in the terms of reference to the commissioner the element of good conscience and equity was admitted, as well as that of strict law.
I may say to my hon. friend and to the committee that we all remember that there was a great difference of opinion in regard to this question. It is true that the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Char-

les Hibbert Tupper) took a very extreme view, but bis successor, tbe Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan, took a different view to a very considerable extent, and the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) did not see his way clear


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. minister whether the return of the property was made while Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper was minister, or while Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan was minister ? I am not sure myself.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would not like to be certain about that, but it was under the administration of either one or other of these ministers and during the time of the former government. Sir Louis Davies did not see his way clear to granting any redress except in the way of a further departmental investigation, which did not seem at all satisfactory. My hon. friend has laid some stress upon the government of the day in granting this commission, but I may say that I think all governments as well as parliament are susceptible to public opinion, and I believe there was a strong opinion not only in the locality, but throughout many portions of the province of Ontario, that these people had been harshly treated. One of the brothers, it is known, died in poverty as a result of this punishment, and there was a strong public opinion that the matter should be referred for judicial action. Sir Louis Davies resisted the applications that were made from time to time, and although I was not a member of the government at that time and do not remember the exact circumstances, I have no doubt that he gave way to public opinion and granted a hearing in this matter. The result was a finding by the commissioner awarding the Messrs. Noble as damages, sustained under the circumstances proved before him, the sum of $15,563, with a further sum for legal and other expenses in connection with the last commission of $3,-
000.	I looked into this matter a few days ago and I wish to say that this is a very small portion of the cost to which these people have been put during all these years while the matter was in dispute. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) referred to the counsel in this case being a partner of an hon. member of this House. Perhaps that is hardly fair, because, I understand that from 1894 onward and during the whole progress of this case the same firm have been counsel and solicitors for the Nobles. So that, in that case it cannot be charged that there was any fav-ounitsm, or any favour shown to a member of this House, or to the firm of which he is a partner, nor has there been any political favour shown him.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The member at that time was on the Tory side.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, but that was during the time of the Tory government.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is now on the Grit side.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The solicitor was on the Tory side, I am sorry to say. I mention that incidentally, because a wrong impression may be taken from the remarks of the hon. member for East Simcoe. Perhaps it is not intended to suggest that any extra influence has been brought to bear by the present member who happens to be a partner in that firm. The two late lamented members of the firm perhaps would have as much if not more political influence under both governments than the younger member of the firm. However that may be, I think this commission was appointed simply on account of the strong public opinion existing, and the feeling that injustice had been done.


Samuel Hughes: In view of the decision in this matter, I presume the minister is prepared to pay every fisherman in the Dominion who had his property confiscated for illegal work. I have a large number of gentlemen whose loss was pro-portionaibly as great as the Nobles, but they never squealed and took their medicine like men, I presume the minister will pay their claims.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In view of the frequent violations of the regulations, the department has dealt fairly leniently with all parties. The department generally stands by its officers in carrying out their duties. I may say that it would cost us very little if we could compromise on the same percentage as this, with almost all the vio-laters of the Act.


Samuel Hughes: What was the original claim ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think it was something over $100,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the case was one of such extreme severity, how was it that it took five years before an inquiry was granted V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: An inquiry and some mitigation had been granted under the Conservative government, and a minister does not like to reopen a question that has been decided by his predecessor. I believe it was due to the strong public opinion that existed that a judicial inquiry should be held.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be a rather remarkable thing that a reference should have been made in these terms, when in other departments of government

it lias been impossible to get fiats granted for tlie enforcement of claims purely on legal grounds. Three years ago twenty-four claims were presented to the Postmaster General in which the people only asked a legal enforcement of their rights, but a fiat lias not yet been granted, while this claim has been referred to a special -commissioner with the proviso that he is to report not only the legal rights of the parties, but also as to whether, apart from legal considerations, they have a fair claim against the government. This commissioner has found that these gentlemen pleaded guilty to the offence; that the seizure of their boats was justified in law, but notwithstanding the minister proposes to pay them $18,000 on account of certain considerations. If that favour be granted to these men, it is remarkable that twenty-four other Canadians who have claims against the government in respect to post office contracts are not allowed to enforce their legal claims in the courts of the country, simply because some minister refuses to report favourably on the granting of a fiat. Can the Minister of Marine explain why one practice prevails in his department and a practice of so remarkably a different character prevails in the department of the Postmaster General ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not think I can explain the ways of the law. The members of the legal profession are very peculiar sometimes and if the Postmaster General were present he no doubt would be able to give his reasons. However, this was a departmental matter, and it could have been dealt with by the department at the time of the offence by inflicting a much smaller penalty. Personally, I always have been willing, both in the management of public affairs and my own private affairs, that a fair bearing should be given to both sides of case, with the view of arriving at a fair settlement. Speaking for myself, and not belonging to the legal profession, unless it is a question, of policy on which the government and parliament takes a stand, I am inclined to think that I would be always in favour of referring these matters to a proper tribunal for hearing rather than have them stand before the department for a long period, resulting in costs both to the country and to the parties themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: But the matters to which I have referred are just as much of a departmental character as this. The Postmaster General saw fit to_ cancel contracts entered into for the carriage of mails, and the persons whose contracts are cancelled are advised by counsel that the Postmaster General had no right to do so. They applied for a petition of right to assert their claims, but years have passed and they have not received a single word of satisfaction. The Noble Brothers were offered six years ago a fiat in the Court of
Exchequer which they did not want because they knew they could not succeed, but these other men have been vainly trying to obtain that for three years past. After having refused a fiat these gentlemen were allowed to have their- claims investigated by^ a special commissioner, not upon the question of legal liability but on grounds infinitely more favourable to them.
I have not had an opportunity of reading the report of the commissioner very fully.
I understand that the recommendation lie makes to the government is that this claim should be paid to these men, because an officer of the government acted wilfully and in bad faith, and misled the deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time as to the real facts of the case, and he has no doubt that if the real facts had been communicated to the department at that time the forfeiture would not have been enforced. Well, I do not know whether or not any claim could have been made against the government in the Court of Exchequer on that ground. I should think not. I have not considered the question, but I should think that the claim, so far as there could be a legal claim, would be against the officer himself, and that the government would not be responsible for a wilfully wrong act done by this man against these people. I suppose the Crown in that case is not legally liable, even on the report of this commissioner; and it is only as a matter of grace and favour that this vote is being put before the House at the present time. But I rose merely for the purpose of contrasting the consideration granted to these men with the utter lack of consideration granted to the men of whom I have spoken, who have been for three years asking for the right to file a petition in the Exchequer Court for the purpose of obtaining only their rights, and for no favour or grace of any kind whatever.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there any reason why there should have been a special commissioner in this case, or why it should not have been tried in the Exchequer Court? I understand that a fiat had been offered to these gentlemen for a number of years. If they had a legal claim, I cannot see why it was not referred to the judge of the Exchequer Court, and it looks as if they were afraid to go before him, and wanted a special commissioner who might be more favourable to them. Is there any reason why it should not have gone to the Exchequer Court ?	.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So far as I have been able to form an opinion, I do not think they would have had much chance of succeeding purely on legal grounds, and I think it was a wise act on the part of the government, if the matter was to be considered at all, to refer it to a judge of the High Court to take evidence; and he has found that the

department were not in possession of all the knowledge they should have had, or perhaps their decision would have been different. I think it is rather commendable than otherwise that the matter was taken away from here and referred to a judge who was altogether independent.	[DOT]


William Humphrey Bennett: It is simply like kicking a dead cat to discuss the matter now, because the minister is not at all responsible for what has been done, and I suppose the government are bound by the finding of the judge. But I can only say that if the last Minister of Marine and Fisheries were standing here and trying to get this vote through, it would certainly be a matter of wonderment why this claim, if it was a fair and honest claim, was allowed to stand for five years without any action being taken in regard to it. It was not because the claim was not pressed, because the Nobles were haunting the corridors for weeks endeavouring to get this claim through.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the Minister of Justice considered whether the report of the commissioner discloses any legal liability on the part of the Crown?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not looked into the matter very fully. According to the report, the whole proceedings were the result of a conspiracy started by this man Elliott. The learned judge finds that the fishery overseer deliberately plotted to bring about the ruin of the Nobles in accordance with threats which he had previously made to outside parties, and he goes on to say :
la my opinion, if the facts as they have been made to appear before me in the sworn testimony of many of the witnesses, and in the ex-hibts filed, had been present to the mind of the minister, such severe treatment would not have been dealt out to the Nobles. The seizure would have been abandoned.
Then he goes on to say:
The said overseer Elliott acted in bad faith, with malice and with a desire to injure and destroy the business of the said Nobles. He wilfully made false and misleading reports to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
He further goes on:
I find that the evidence given before me by the said Elliott was not given with candour or truth, and I distributed it when in conflict with the evidence of reputable witnesses.


Samuel Hughes: Might I ask, is that officer Elliott still .in the service of the government ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then I find it stated that they pleaded guilty, and a witness who was examined before the commissioner, a man named Long, said that they pleaded guilty on an undertaking being practically given to them by a solicitor of the government at the time, that the result of a plea of guilty would be a favourable report to the Minister of Marine at Ottawa, and that this would restore them to their former standing. It seems to me, under all the circumstances, that there was something sufiiciently peculiar in the whole ease to justify the action of the department in referring it to the commissioner.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have not gone into the evidence fully, but it will be borne out by the report that there was one conviction got against these people. Let me ask the Minister of Justice how he reconciles these facts, that there was a sweeping condemnation of the witness Elliott by the inspector, and that there was leave and license for the solicitor of the Noble Brothers to say what be liked to this man. Time and again it appears that after the witness gave his evidence frankly and candidly-and I searched all through the evidence in vain to see where the commissioners remonstrated with him for not telling the truth- Mr. Osier charged him with having stated a series of deliberate lies. The commission did not seem to have any air or dignity about it at all events. If the commissioners had the evidence of such a gross conspiracy against the unfortunate Noble Brothers, bow is it that Sir Louis Davies could not find a tittle of proof to establish such a conspiracy in spite of all the efforts of so able a counsel as Mr. Osier. Take all the evidence before Judge Johnson and Mr. Wilmot, before whom Mr. Oslei* appeared on behalf of the Noble Brothers, and it is quite clear that Mr. Osier failed to make any proof that would justify Sir Louis Davies in concluding that there was anything savouring of conspiracy. This fact stands out strongly, that with all this evidence before him. Sir Louis Davies refrained during five years from naming auy other inquiry. In every section of the country where the Noble Brothers are known, it will be agreed that it was not a question of merit or justice, but rather a question of political pull.
To pay the estate of the late Captain W. H. Smith, R.N.R., for travelling expenses incurred by him on government business while holding the position of chairman of the Board of Examiners of Masters and Mates, and Inquiries into Wrecks, between January, 1893, and December, 1900, Captain Smith having failed to render his accounts for such expenses each year, $3,691.09.


Samuel Hughes: I think he is, and I wish to state that he is just as reputable as any judge who took evidence concerning him.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Robert Laird Borden: I know that Captain Smith was engaged holding inquiries and was not paid his travelling expenses and I think they ought to be paid.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We made a very careful investigation. The officer of the department at Halifax. Mr. Tremaine, looked into the matter, and gave his affidavit that Captain Smith never collected his travelling expenses and that the amount was legally due.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Tuesday.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 6, 1902.