1902-05-13

IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 112) to amend the Immigration Act - The Minister of the Interior.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifiton) moved :: That the said amendments be agreed to except the amendment whereby the words' [DOT] or for any other cause whatsoever ' are inserted in the eleventh line thereof, and, as to said last mentioned amendment, the same be disagreed to because such amendment confers upon the Governor in Council power to forbid the landing of any person whatever in Canada in the discretion of the Governor in Council which is an altogether excessive and improper power to rest in the executive authority.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Where are the Senate amendments to be found ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I presume they are in the original Bill. 1 will read them so that they can be followed. The Bill was pretty fully discussed in the House, and I need not go over what was said in connection with the general subject. But in the Senate some amendments have been made. The second section has been amended by adding after the word ' necessary ' the words :-
And every owner or master of a vessel who violates the provisions of this Act ; or who aids or abets an immigrant of passenger in acting in contravention of such order or proclamation ; or who refuses or neglects to take back on board the vessel any such immigrant or passenger, shall incur a penalty not exceeding ten hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars in the case of each and every immigrant or passenger.
I have no objection to that amendment. It seems to me, perhaps, effective in amplifying the origtinal intention of the Bill. Then, the first section, which enacts a section to follow section 24 of the Act, has been amended by inserting after the word 1 any ' in the tenth line, the word ' loathsome.' This would make it read
The Governor General may, by a proclamation or order, whichever he considers most expedient and whenever he deems it necessary prohibit the landing in Canada of any immigrant or any other passenger who is suffering from any loathsome, dangerous or infectious disease or malady

-And so on. I see no particular objection to that amendment, but there lias been inserted after the word ' malady,' the words ' for any other cause whatsoever.' Now, that would make the section read in this way.
The Governor General may, by proclamation or order, whichever he considers most expedient, and whenever he deems it necessary, prohibit the landing in Canada of any immigrant or other passenger who is suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease or malady, or for any other cause whatsoever.
So that, as the Act is amended by the Senate, the Governor in Council may, in the arbitrary exercise of his discretion, prevent any passenger for any cause from coming into Canada. I need only point out that if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), should go across to see the Coronation and the government, not desiring hi-s presence here next session thought it desirable to prevent his landing, under this Act they could legally prevent him from coming into the country again. The persons we may stop, are not classified or restricted in any way. I do not know whether the attention of the Senate was called to the extremely remarkable powers which they desire to confer upon the government, but, certainly, the government does not consider that the executive authority should have such unlimited powers for the exclusion of people coming into Canada. No such principle has been adopted by parliament before, and we think that parliament would like at least to have a full discussion of the matter toefore adopting such a principle. I agree with the other amendments, tout I think this one had better go back.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 think it would be better not to include these words. They seem to confer very wide power which is hardly necessary at the present time. As to the object of it, possibly some members of the government who are to remain here during the Coronation would like to keep out of the country some of those who are going. However, I would not like to see an unfair advantage taken of any of them in this way and I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in this motion.


Mr. SPROULE.: While this amendment seems to go too far, I think there should be a wider range of specified ailments and conditions that would be legal ground for excluding a party, so that those who are undesirable immigrants for other causes than such as are here given might be prevented from landing in the country. Notwithstanding this Act, people who are mentally



unsound and physically unfit may come in if they are not the victims of some loathsome, dangerous or infectious disease.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: With the consent of my hon. friends on the other side, I will call item 39 of the Public Bills and Orders, consideration of amendments made by the Senate to the Bill of the hon. member for Montreal. St. Antoine (Mr. Roddick), for the establishment of a medical council in Canada.


Mr. RODDICK.: I move that the amendments be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we ought to know what these amendments are.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If they satisfy my hon. friend from Montreal they satisfy me.


Thomas George Roddick: I am perfectly satisiied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I object to that, because, though it may be satisfactory to one or two gentlemen, it may not be satisfactory to the House in general. We have a right to know what the amendments are, because they might be objectionable to some, though not to others.


Thomas George Roddick: I may say that the amendments are practically only an addition to the amendment which was passed in this House some days ago, that is to say, that all the provinces shall consent before this Act can come into operation. There are a few changes in the wording, and an addition of one or two words, which are evidently unnecessary. I went over them very carefully with friends in the Senate yesterday, and I think there is no serious change in the Bill beyond what I mention. The changes are found on page 520 of the Votes and Proceedings.



INCORPORATION OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 161) respecting the incorporation of Joint Stock Companies by Letters Patent (The Prime Minister) read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This is a new Bill to simplify the granting of letters patent. There are some new clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: This seems to be a pretty serious kind of Bill to put through at this stage of the session. I did not suppose, on account of the delay in bringing it before the House, that there was any inten-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: tion on the part of the government to pass it this session.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This Bill has been carefully gone into in the Senate. The object is merely to simplify the method whereby letters patent are now granted. They are now granted by Governor in Council, and there is a good deal of red tape in the procedure. The gist of the Bill is in the first clause. I do not think my hon. friend will find it very formidable. Letters patent are to be issued by the Secretary of State.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). If it were merely a Bill regulating the issue of letters patent, that would be comparatively simple. It is desirable that the formation of companies should be free as much as possible from any red tape. But this is a great deal more than that, because it deals with the constitution of these companies, with their powers, the liabilities of the directors, the shareholders ; in fact, it is a Joint Stock Companies Act to all intents and purposes- a very important Bill indeed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: It Is practically a reenactment of a great number of statutes, respecting the several questions the hon. gentleman has just referred to. There are very few new Clauses, and these have special reference to the preliminary stages. In other respects my hon. friend will find it practically the old Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course this is quite in order if we are content to accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman and of the Minister of Justice, and to abdicate all responsibility in the matter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not mean that at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I know my hon. friend did not, but that is what it means, for at this stage how can we give any intelligent consideration to this Bill, and take upon ourselves the duty of suggesting amendments where we think they should be made. That is what we should do, in view of the existing law, at an appropriate time. But of course we cannot do that at this stage of the session, and if we are not to do that, what are we to do ? We are to sit here and listen to the clauses being read, and accept the assurances of the right hon. gentleman and of the Minister of Justice, that all these clauses are perfectly right-they are the existing clauses, and there is no use of any further amendment. Well, I do not regard that as a desirable way of dealing with legislation of this kind. I certainly did not expect this legislation would be pressed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In view of the very reasonable protest entered by my hon. friend, I will not press the Bill. I move that

the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I am sure that every one will be glad to know that this officer did not take part in election contests. But there is just one observation I would like to make, and that is, that a great many officers of the government have been prepared with evidence equally cogent of their freedom from political partisanship so far as taking part in elections is concerned, but who, nevertheless, have been dismissed without being given an opportunity of making their defence before an impartial or indeed any tribunal.']
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, i *wish to call the attention of the House and of the government to a grievance which has arisen among the produce merchants of Montreal, and which probably exists throughout the Dominion. I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture last night, whose department that matter particularly concerns. He was here this morning, and I suppose I may state the facts. In the early part of the spring the Canadian commission merchants and those employed by them who had business in England, when calling upon their clients there, were surprised to find that in many instances they had been forestalled by the visit of a gentleman named Bull. Mr. Bull had presented himself


Mr. MACLEAN.: Is his name John ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not John Bull but Charles Bull. He presented the card which I hold in my hand and by which card he purported to represent ' The Chas. A. Bull, Produce Company, cable address, ' Chasab,' 850,000 subscribed capital,' and gave his address as Montreal, Canada. In presenting himself to the people in the commission business and those interested in the importation of produce from Canada he had a letter which, according to the testimony of one commission merchant of the city of Montreal, who was in England at that time -I speak of February, March and the early part of April-from the Secretary of the High Commissioner in England. Fifteen of these letters had been distributed among the commission merchants there and these . letters, of which I have one here, were letters introducing Mr. Bull, written by Mr. Golmer, Secretary to the High Commissioner in England and written upon paper of the High Commissioner's office. I shall read this letter, which was addressed to the merchants and produce importers witli whom Mr. Bull desired to establish business relations :
Dear Sir,-I am desired by the High Commissioner to give to the bearer, Mr. Charles A. Bull, this note of introduction to you, in the hope that you will be able to spare a few minutes conversation with him on a matter in which he is interested.
Mr. Bull, who is engaged in the export trade in Canadian produce, brought a letter of introduction to Lord Strathcona from Mr. Fisher, Dominion Minister of Agriculture, with whom he is acquainted.
151i
The High Commissioner will be obliged if you will grant Mr. Bull an interview, and has much pleasure in commending him to your consideration.
I am, dear sir,
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
The Canadian merchants having dealings with English merchants, as a rule, found themselves in some embarrassment, being confronted by this letter in most of the places where they went to. One of them took one of these letters and brought it to this country together with the card issued by Mr. Bull. It was represented to these gentlemen that Mr. Bull, although soliciting business for this new company and although having a letter from the High Commissioner's office upon the recommendation of the Dominion Minister of Agriculture, had very little experience in that line of business, and probably on this account the commission merchants lost less than they would have otherwise, because lion, members of this House know very well to what extent a gentleman going from Canada and holding a letter of recommendation in his hand from the High Commissioner, issued at the special request of the Minister of Agriculture-might be placed in a position of advantage. Those who are acquainted with the customs of the trade in England will easily imagine what amount of influence such a document would have given Mr. Bull. At that time Mr. Bull had no legally incorporated company, but there was a project on foot in this -country for the formation of a company in which company I find that the brother of the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and I think, one of the employees of the Department of Agriculture were the principal promoters. I wrote the hon. Minister of Agriculture last night before I left the House a letter addressed to his department in which I told him) I would bring this matter up. I do not know whether or not he Received the letter.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not receive the letter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I wrote it. I can briefly state to the hon. minister the facts which I desire to call to his attention.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite ready to listen to the hon. gentleman, but I did not receive the 'letter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I was stating that the complaint is one made by the produce merchants of the city of Montreal, and I have no doubt that the same complaint is made by some produce merchants outside of the city of Montreal. They complain that they were forestalled in the canvass for business in England during the early part of last spring by Mr. Bull who had a letter

4S08
of introduction which I have read to the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: During the early part of last spring ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: During the early part of this last spring. Mr. Bull went among their clients in England armed with a letter issued by the Secretary of the High Commissioner. These letters were left together with a card of the Bull Produce Company at different places of business in England where these Montreal merchants were in the habit of doing business :
Dear Sir,-I am desired by the High Commissioner to give to the bearer, Mr. Charles A Bull, this note of introduction to you in the hope that you will be able to spare a few minutes conversation with him on a matter in which he is interested.
Mr. Bull, who is engaged in the export trade in Canadian produce, brought a letter of introduction to Lord Strathcona from Mr. Fisher, Dominion Minister of Agriculture, with whom he is acquainted.
The High Commissioner will be obliged if you will grant Mr. Bull an interview, and has much pleasure in commending him to your consideration.
I am, dear sir,
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
At that time it is claimed that Mr. Bull represented, not a company, because there was no company then formed, but some parties interested in the export trade of Canadian produce, and that principal among these parties were the brother of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and an employee in the Department of Agriculture. I will quote to the House from the Quebec Official ' Gazette,' of the 10th of May, the present month, a notice to the parties seeking incorporation. At page 1,014 there is a notice of an application of some parties for incorporation under the name of the Charles A. Bull Produce Company, and in the sixth paragraph are given the names of the promoters of this produce company applying for incorporation.
Sixth. The names in full and the address and callings of the applicants are as follows :
Charles Irving Knight, of East Hatley, province of Quebec, general merchant ; Aaron Bull, of East Farnham, in the province of Quebec, gentleman ; Charles Albert Bull, of the city of Montreal, produce merchant ; Miss Annie Allison Horrigan, of the city of Portland, England, spinster ; Roswell Corse Fisher, of the city of Montreal, gentleman ; Horace H. Bailey, of the City of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, clerk ; of which the first three are to be the first directors of the said company. All the said directors reside in Canada. and are subjects of His Majesty.
Now, it is claimed that of all these parties whose names I have given and who were on the 10th of May applying for incorporation, but wiho had not then obtained incorporation, the only responsible parties are Mr. MONK.
Mr. Aaron Bull, who, I understand, is one of the chief supporters of my hon. friend in his constituency, Mr. Roswell Corse Fisher of Montreal, a brother of the hon. gentleman, and Mr. Horace Bailey, who. 1 am informed, is an employee in the Department of Agriculture. What the merchants of Montreal complain of is that the hon. Minister of Agriculture should have given this letter of introduction to Mr. Bui) which enabled him to obtain from tbe High Commissioner in England a letter of introduction to each one of the importers, and which consequently placed the exporters of Montreal, who have been engaged in business for a long time and who have built up their business, in a handicapped position in regard to the promotion of their interests in England. It is claimed that.in so acting the Minister of Agriculture went beyond the duties of his office : that if he issued a letter in that way in favour of any one engaged in that line of business-which is a difficult business to build up and in which business some people have been engaged for many years-he should have given that letter, having an official character, to each one of those gentlemen or not given it to any one of them. One of these gentleman found letters of this kind in England in fifteen places where he was in the habit of doing business. They found that in the face of this letter of an official character coming from the High Commissioner upon the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, they were handicapped in obtaining orders. That is the complaint which they have made to me. It seems to me that it is a complaint well founded, and in pursuance of their desire I thought it my duty to bring it to the notice of the House.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: (Hon. Sydney Fisher.) I regret that I did not receive the letter of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) beforehand, so that I could have had with me a copy of the letter of introduction to the High Commissioner which I gave to Mr. Bull. I may say that it is quite a frequent occurrence that all persons engaged in Canadian business who are going to England ask for letters of introduction to the High Commissioner. Mr. Charles A. Bull asked me through a letter which I will show to the hon. gentleman for a letter of introduction to the High Commissioner. Having known Mr. Bull for a long time personally, although not connected with him in any business way, I gave him that letter of introduction. Mr. Bull appears to have presented the letter to the High Commissioner's office and to have received a letter from Mr. Colmer, secretary to the High Commissioner, introducing him to certain people with whom he wished to open business relations. Personally, I have always understood that it was one of the functions of our High Commissioner's office in London, to enable Canadians going to the old country to be introduced, when

they were known, or when they had proper references, to people In England for business purposes. I have myself on frequent occasions given letters of Introduction to the High Commissioner to people from different parts of Canada with whom I was personally acquainted, and I know that others who are acquainted with the High Commissioner have done the same thing. As far as the company which Mr. Bull represents is concerned, what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has just read to the House is the first which I have ever heard of it. I do not know that Mr. Bull is forming such a company ; I did not know that my brother, Mr. Roswell C. Fisher, was concerned with it, nor do I know who else was concerned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Might I ask if it is true that Mr. Horace Bailey is employed in the department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a Mr. Bailey who is one of the patent examiners in my department, appointed many years ago by the Tories, but I do not know if he is the same.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Horace H. Bailey.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: His name is II. Bailey, but I cannot say whether it is Horace or not. I now nothing more about that than I do about the incorporation of that company of which I have never heard in my life until the hon. gentleman read the notice of incorporation. Mr. Charles A. Bull is a young man who came from my own county a good many years ago and entered business in Montreal. He has been a produce dealer there, and has done a good deal of buying and selling of butter and cheese in Montreal. He informed me that he wished to open direct communication with the old country and it was for that purpose that lie asked from me a letter of introduction to the High Commissioner, so that when lie went to England he might have somebody to whom to refer. Mr. Aaron Bull, whose name is mentioned there, is one of the most respectable and substantial farmer of my county, a gentleman whom I could trust and rely on in every shape and way ; an old Quaker, if I may use the term, whose name is noted for integrity and substantial standing in the community in which he lives. Mr. Charles A. Bull is his son, and he is a young man who, as I say, went to Montreal' some years ago to enter business, and who, as far as I know, lias conducted himself in a proper and trustworthy way. He has been concerned in a business which has not met with the approval of all the produce dealers in Montreal, because he has been a rival of theirs, and has been working up a trade on somewhat different lines from the established lines of the butter and cheese associations of the city of Montretal. In that way he has incurred, if not the enmity, at
all events the dislike, of those who have been long established in the trade. I do not know, however, that there is anything in his methods which are objectionable or to which exception can be taken. If there is I know not of it. I do not know, that because his business happens not to have been on the lines of the established houses there, that therefore it is necessarily bad or improper in any way. Not having received notice of this matter being brought up, I have not got with me a copy of the letter which I gave to Mr. Bull, nor a copy of his letter to me asking for that introduction. I believe that the letter which I gave him will not show in any way any improper relations between him and me, or any relations except those of courtesy to one whom I knew and who asked for a letter of introduction in going to England, which I was quite willing to give him.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Or to anybody else.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Or to anybody else as my hon. friend says, and as I have given to many other people. I knew I could depend on him, and I considered myself justified and in fact bound to give him a letter of introduction to the High Commissioner. I do not know that I can say any more in regard to this matter and so far as my own family relations are concerned, I apparently gave that letter to Mr. Bull before he tried to form the company of which I now hear for the first time that my brother is one of the incorporators.


REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House very briefly, some facts in connection with the expenditure of this country during the present fiscal year, and also with regard to the proposed expenditure for the fiscal year which will end on the 30th of June, 1903. We have been accustomed during the past four or five years to a somewhat different nomenclature with regard to expenditure in this country, from that which prevailed during the years when the gentlemen on the treasury benches were in opposition. In those days, notably the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), the present Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Muloek), the premier himself

and the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), was not far behind then-they preached throughout this country to the people of Canada that there was a reckless and extravagant expenditure on the part of the Conservative administration; an expenditure which it was said at that time reached the sum of about ?36,000,000 a year on consolidated account.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Thirty-eight million dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Trade and Commerce corrects me. He is more familiar with these figures than perhaps I am. Thirty-eight millicins ! I wonder if he has impressed upon him to the same extent the amount to which that figure has swelled at the present day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: He remembers that it was $38,000,000 in these days because he preached it throughout this country ; because he told the people of Canada so often that it was extravagant and scandalous. I wonder if the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) has fully grasped the fact that during the present fiscal year the expenditure amounts to $51,000,000, and to this sum is to be added $14,250,000 on capital account, making a grand total of $05,250,000. Why, in days gone by the hon. gentleman would have shuddered at such on expenditure as he shuddered at the nepotism of days gone by. But these things do not shock him now at all. I remember when he said that a Conservative minister who happened to have some relative in the department was as fortunate as a bashaw with seven-no, three tails. Well, I do not really know with how many tails the hon. gentleman himself is now connected. I lost the count some time ago ; but perhaps the hon. gentleman has that circumstance impressed oli his mind as much as hd has the fact that $38,000,000 was the highest expenditure during the time of the Conservative regime. In those days this was reckless and extravagant expenditure. Mr. Speaker, you know what it is now : it is merely generous appropriation. You have noticed that from listening to the debates in this House and from noticing the comments of the Diberal press in the country. Another curious circumstance has taken place. Formerly this money, which was wastefully and extravagantly expended, belonged to the people of this country. It consisted of taxes wrung from the people 'by an odious and scandalous system of taxation. But now, Sir, that has all ceased. These moneys now belong to this government, who in the goodness of their hearts are pleased to appropriate a portion towards the public services ; and When the moneys in their possession are not sufficient for the purpose they are good enough to pledge the future of the country by borrowing large sums of money and adding to the public debt. And how delightful it is to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) grows more and more philosophical as the years roll by. In days gone by this condition of things would have stirred his blood; but now, Mr. Speaker, as you have observed during the past four or five years, he sits in his seat and views this wreck and ruin, as it would have been termed in days


Robert Laird Borden: And according to the estimate of the hon. Minister of Finance, the expenditures during 1902 will reach no less a sum than $65,-

250,000, or an increase of nearly $8,000,000 over tile expenditure during the past year.
If we look at the expenditure on consolidated revenue account alone, the record is almost as bad:
1892		  $36,765,894
1893		 36,814,053
1894		 37,585,025
1895		 38,132,005
1896		 36,949,142
1S97, the first year of this
economical government. 38,349,760
1898		 38,832,526
1899		 41.903,500
1900		 42,975,280
1901		 46,886,368
Or an increase of nearly $4,000,000 in one year. And for 1902 the Minister of Finance estimates $51,()OO.ouO, or an increase of more than $4,000,000 in one single bound. From 1900 to 1902 the increase in the expenditure of this country, chargeable to consolidated fund, is between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not whisper above his breath on this subject.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: He has nothing to say now about the farmers being bled white.


Robert Laird Borden: I am reminded of a favourite expression used by these hon. gentlemen in days gone by. The farmers, they were wont to say were being bled white. Of what colour would my hon. friend regard the farmers at present ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They never were as prosperous in their lives as during the last four years.


Robert Laird Borden: Owing no doubt to this extra expenditure of from $8,000,000 to $9,000,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Very largely.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume then that as we cannot have too much of a good thing we will have another increase in expenditure of $8,000,000 next year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We expect to see it before we go out of office.


Robert Laird Borden: By a judicious application of that principle the farmers of this country will eventually reach the highest stage of prosperity.
I would like to refer for a moment to some items which we are passing from year to year and to the manner in which the public money is being expended. Take, for example, the construction of the telegraph lines in the Yukon, under the administration of the hon. Minister of Public Works. Look at the expenditure on cigars and various drinkables which were necessary for the due and proper construction and maintenance of that line, and observe the efforts which the watch dog of the treasury, the Minister of Finance, made to prevent any unneees-


Robert Laird Borden: sary inquiry into these expenditures. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is supposed to be the watch dog of the treasury. He reminds me very much of a watchdog spoken of by an American humorist. The burglars seemed frequent in the neighbourhood of this gentleman, and he procured a dog for the purpose of preventing any undue abstraction of Ills goods and chattels. A burglar did arrive while the watch dog was there. The faithful and intelligent animal fraternized with the burglar and immediately seized by the throat a policeman who arrived shortly afterwards to arrest the burglar. The attitude of the Minister of Finance, when we were pursuing our inquiries in the Public Accounts Committee into the expenditure, seemed to me very much like that of this watch dog. He fraternized witli the gentlemen who were making raids on the treasury benches, but was hot and eager to seize by the throat any gentleman who was prepared to make any criticism or inquiry.
Look at the moneys which were voted by this parliament for public buildings in the Yukon and at the mode in which some of those moneys was expended. Officials were provided in that country, not only with a salary but a very ample living allowance as well, in some cases ranging to $3,000, and possibly more, and we found, when we went into the public accounts, that money voted for public buildings in the Yukon had been applied in paying the living expenses of these gentlemen in addition to the salary and living allowance voted them by parliament. When we inquired into this extraordinary condition, the hon. Minister of Public Works simply shrugged his shoulders and washed his hands of the whole business. He said that he was ordered to pay the money by the Minister of Justice, and when we inquired about it from the Minister of Justice that hon. gentleman also disclaimed responsibility by saying that at the time he was not in office. There was not one member of the administration who could give us the slightest information or justification for this expenditure of public money.
Look at the expenditure on the Gallops Rapids. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has an item of $50,000 in his estimates for expenditure on these rapids. Consider the position of affairs there. We are told that the Auditor General, or some official of this government who had a due regard for the public service, gave notice to certain contractors that the vote had lapsed on the 30th June last. Notwithstanding .that, we have the Minister of Railways and Canals admitting, as he was forced to admit by cross-examination by hon. members on this side, that the work has been going on there to the extent of a great many thousands of dollars during the past year. We were not able to ascertain by whose direction or to what extent that work had gone on. T'he only information we were able

to get from the Minister of Railways and Canals was that he and his department knew nothing about it, but that the contractors came down here during the present year and presented their bill for a good many thousands of dollars, which they desired this government to pay. It was said that if the government had not ordered this work it would not be paid for. But it transpired a little later on that officers of the government had been in charge of the work, and yet we could not fasten responsibility for the expenditure of this money upon any member of the government. That is the information we have up to the present time. Perhaps we shall have further information before the prorogation of this House. And not only that, but we were assured by an bon. gentleman on this side who professed to know whereof he spoke that the work was not only useless but detrimental because it impeded the course of steamships up and down that canal. Then look at the Intercolonial Railway-contracts let without tender to the extent of twenty or thirty miles of road on the ground that ten miles of the same line had been let at the same figure after public call for tender. Rook at the expenditure of public money in the county of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance- and I am not referring to this specially because it is in his own county, but as an illustration of the methods of hon. gentlemen opposite. Consider the matter that I brought to the attention of the House this year, where a carnal was cut from the sea to a lake, for the ostensible purpose of creating a harbour for fishermen. But when the canal was cut, it was found that the bottom of the lake was higher than the sea-level, and the only result of the work was that the lake was drained into the sea.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only way in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has brought this to the notice of the House is by quoting an anonymous letter. But has never ventured, either before the Public Accounts Committee or in any other way, to enter upon an investigation of any of the oases he referred to. In fact, he has shown by his own action that he has not the slightest faith in the statements that have been made to him.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the lion. Minister of Finance deny that what I have stated is correct ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know. And that is just the difference between the hon. gentleman and me. I do not know and I acknowledge that I do not know ; he does not know, but he does not acknowledge it. But, when he brought the matter up in the House he would not give the name of his informant. If the hon. gentleman had investigated, the engineers would have been present.


Robert Laird Borden: ' If the hon. gentleman had investigated ! ' Here is the watchdog of the treasury, and when I challenge him to deny the truth of the representations made to me not by one or two but by half a dozen responsible men, the only answer he is able to make, this watchdog of the treasury, is that he does not know.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I say that this is an engineering matter. The engineers know the facts, but they have been carefully not brought before the committee.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). The hon. minister does not know. And yet these engineers are officers of his government, and he could easily have informed himself upon the subject. And I know the hon. gent'email well enough to understand that if the facts had (been otherwise than as I have stated them, public inquiry would have been made and the facts would have been heralded abroad.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him ?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can state on the authority of the Minister of Public Works, whose engineers has made inquiries, that the statements were unfounded in nine points out the ten in relation to the works he referred to in Shelburne county.


Robert Laird Borden: I am talking of one particular work, and the hon. gentleman will not get out of it by trying to distract attention to works in other parts of the county.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What work is it ?


Robert Laird Borden: The lake to which I have referred.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have made the statement on the authority of the engineer. I do not separate one from the other of the statements


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot even tell the hon. gentleman at this particular moment where the lake is to which he referred. But I state that if he desires an investigation even now, we will take that investigation. Let the engineers be summoned and it will be shown that the hon. gentleman is entirely misinformed. And, let the House bear in mind that he has never to this moment given the name of his informant.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is somewhat annoyed about this


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no, I am not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He may well be.


The MINISTER OB TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Anonymous letters hurt nobody.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wonder at the hon. gentleman being annoyed. And his friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is coming to his assistance by talking about anonymous letters. Why, there ought to be a motion to strike out the hon. gentleman's salary because of the scandalous attack that he made upon census enumerators without giving them the slightest opportunity to make any explanation or to say a word in their own defence. Yet this is the gentleman who talks about anonymous letters. I think that if any member of the government is to come to the assistance of the Minister of Finance with regard to a matter of this kind, it had better be some one else than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now. Sir, I have made this statement about the lake, and have made it. as I say, on the authority of information furnished me not by one or two, but by half a dozen responsible men.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Give us the names.


Robert Laird Borden: And I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance and to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. If the statements made to me are not correct some authoritative denial should have been made with regard to them long before this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have never had any charge ; no names have been given.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). The hon. gentleman is always very anxious for names and for obvious purposes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, for obvious purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: The point in all this, however, is not who gave me the information ; the real point in the interest of this country is whether the information given to me Is correct or incorrect.
Further than that, I point out that the expenditure of public money, in many respects. does not proceed upon systematic lines or upon any principle whatever. We have brought down to us in the closing days of this session supplementary estimates of large volume. At two or three in the morning, with twenty or twenty-five men in this House, with three cabinet ministers, two of them asleep and the other putting through his estimates, we have been voting here hundreds and thousands, and hundreds of thousands-aye. "even millions of dollars for expenditures as to which we could not pretend at this stage of the session without undue waste of time to get any information Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
from the government. We have no less than 258 items in the supplementary estimates relating to rivers and harbours alone, items covering thousands of miles of this country, items concerning which it is utterly impossible for us at this time to gain accurate and necessary information. We have been obliged to allow these items to go through without the information which we should have. And we throw upon this government, as we have a right to do, the responsibility for the expenditure of this money without giving anv further information here than that which is afforded.
Criticism has been offered as to the duty of the opposition with regard to items of this kind. It has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side, and also by the press which supports them, that the opposition, if they object to this enormous expenditure should move to strike out items that they do not approve of.
Well, the record of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to that indicates that in making this assertion they are departing as far from the principles which they professed in the past as they have in a great many other respects. In 1879. the present Minister of Trade and Commerce proposed to make a reduction of $70,000 in the expenditure for civil government. In 1881, they moved no resolution against the expenditure. In 1882 they moved for a reduction of $8,000; in 1883, no resolution was moved; in 1884, no resolution; in 1885, no resolution; in 1886, no resolution; in 1887, no resolution; in 1888, no resolution. The House will bear in mind that during all these years my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was going through this country clamouring against what he called the extravagant expenditure of the Conservative administration of that time. In 1S89 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce moved that the vote for Manitoba penitentiaries lie reduced by $10,526. In the same year Mr. McMullen, the present Senator McMullen, moved that the vote for East Pictou river improvements be reduced by $500. In the same year Sir Eouis Davies, a late member of this government, moved that the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway be reduced by $200,000, and gave as his reason the fact that coal was being carried from Springhill mine at less than cost. In the same year the present Minister of Trade and Commerce moved that a vote for the Department of the Interior be reduced by $95,748. In the same year- this was a very active year witli regard to motions for reduction of expenditure-Mr. Somerville moved that a vote of $195,135 be reduced by $50,000, because Mr. Henry Smith, who was formerly a member of the House, and Mr. W. A. Webster, who was immigration agent, had not furnished correct dates for their services. Iu the same year Mr. McMullen moved that the salary of C. C. Chipman be reduced by $2,300. or left out. In 1890 no resolution was moved,

nor was any moved in 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1890. During every one of these years the cry went up from hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly from the hon. gentlemen to whom I have previously referred, that the expenditure of this country was scandalous and extravagant.
Now, where an opposition are not able to get, within a reasonable time, and without unduly protracting the session, information which would enable them to discriminate between hundreds of items brought down to this House, when they are unable to get information which would put them in the same position for forming an opinion that the government are in. the proper duty for an opposition is to protest against excessive expenditure, to throw upon the government the responsibility of making it, knowing as they do that the government have within their power the means of reducing that expenditure by eliminating from it items which are less worthy of public appropriation than those which are necessary to be made. That is the view which has been put forward in the English House of Commons as a sound principle, that an opposition in protesting, as we have protested, against undue expenditure, have discharged their duty without dealing in detail with the particular items of the expenditure brought down by the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to go over these facts in greater detail, as they have been discussed, not only in the country but in this House for a long time. I say we must bear in mind in this country that we are passing through an era of great prosperity, which the Minister of Finance himself has, on more than one occasion, admitted cannot be expected to last indefinitely. I say that in that period of prosperity we are setting a measure of expenditure which we will find it hard to reduce when the. lean years come in the future. I say that in doing that we are not acting wisely. To expend every dollar of the public revenue during the abundant years, to go into debt in the extravagant manner in which this government has proceeded to lay burdens upon the country, is not a wise or judicious course. We should look to the future, we should measure our expenditure by the fact that the abundant revenues we now possess cannot always be expected to continue. In view of the facts and figures which I have brought to the attention of the House, I move in amendment to this motion, that you do not now leave the Chair, but that all the words after the word ' that ' in the motion be left out, and the following be substituted therefore :
The total expenditure during each fiscal year from 1392 to 1901, both inclusive, was as follows :
1892		  $42,272,136
1893		 40,S53,728
1894		 43,00S,834
1895		 42,872,338
1896		 41,702,383
1S97	 42,972,756
1898		 45,334,281
1899		 51,542,635
1900		 52,717,467
1901		 57,982,866
That the Finance Minister estimates that the total expenditure for the fiscal year ending 30th June. 1902, will be $65,250,000.
That the annual expenditure on both consolidated revenue and capital account has increased between 1897 and 1901 by no less a sum than $15,010,110.
That during the period above mentioned the revenues of the country have been unusually large and the government claim a total net surplus of $19,743,527.69 but no portion thereof has been applied in reduction of the public debt which with the addition estimated by the Finance Minister for the ensuing fiscal year will have increased from $258,497,432.77, in 1896 to $274,480,000, in 1902, an increase of more than sixteen millions of dollars.
That the Minister of Finance estimates that the total revenue for the vear ending 30th June, 1902, will be $56,800,000.
That notwithstanding this very large revenue the Minister of Finance estimates that the public debt will be increased during the year about $6,000,000.
That this House desires to place on record the opinion that the expenditure lor the year ending June 30th, 1902. and the proposed expenditure for the yeifr ending June 30th, 1903, are excessive and extravagant and regrets that the government with the exceptionally large revenues at its command has not only failed to reduce but. has largely increased the public debt and has incurred capital expenditure for which the country does not receive and cannot expect any adequate return.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, before offering the few observations which I think may be called for upon the general question of the expenditure of the country, permit me to say a word or two regarding what I cannot help characterizing as a most extraordinary action of tlie bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in reference to certain public works in my own constituency. If I refer to them particularly it is because he has referred to them particularly, and there is the further reason that the manner in which he has treated these expenditures made by the government may be taken, I suppose, as a good indication of the degree of fairness and of consideration which he applies to public questions of that character. At a comparatively early stage of the session my hon. friend read a list of a number of works in the counties of Shelburne and Queen's which I have the honour to 'represent and he charged in general, vague and indefinite terms, but still charged very emphatically, that there had been wrong-doing in some way. It was charged that the works were badly constructed, that they were extravagantly constructed or corruptly managed. The precise meaning of what the hon. gentleman wished to convey was not easy to determine, hut that he did desire to convey the impression that there had been corrup-

tion, mismanagement and extravagance in connection with these different public works is beyond all question. What are the circumstances under which the hon. gentleman brought these matters to the attention of the House ? He began by saying, and that was to his credit, that he knew nothing about them. If the hon. gentleman had stopped at that, and, knowing nothing about them, had said nothing about them, he would have pursued a course far more creditable to himself and far more in keeping with the good order of our discussions in this House. I grant that an hon. gentleman at times may be obliged to refer to some things of which he knows nothing himself, but if he knows nothing himself he is obliged in all fairness to give the authority of the man who says he does know ; but here the hon. gentleman, on the strength of an anonymous letter, undertakes at the end of the session to make statements that are as slanderous as they possibly can be about these works, without the shadow of an attempt to prove the statements he has made. It was the hon. gentleman's duty, if he believed the statements which he made on the strength of an anonymous letter, to go before the Public Accounts Committee, to call the officials concerned, to bring up the public accounts, to call the Auditor General, to call the engineer who had to do with these things, and to have an intelligent and fair investigation into this matter. Not one of these things has the hon. gentleman done, but be hopes some one may believe, precisely what it is difficult to determine, but at all events that there is some wrong in connection with these works. The hon. gentleman will see that he has pursued a course that is in the highest degree discreditable to himself and unfair to every man connected with these works. It is unfair in a sense to myself, but that is a small part of the matter, because the hon. gentleman does not imagine, I suppose, that I actually did the work down there ; but it is unfair to the people connected with the work, it is unfair to the engineers, it is unfair to the faithful servants of the government for an hon. gentleman, and especially for one occupying the high position of this hon. gentleman as leader of a party, to stand up, and, on the faith of an anonymous letter, make these statements, as he has made them, and then leave the matter there and fail to pursue any inquiry before the Public Accounts Committee or some other tribunal. I say that he is chargeable from his own point of view and that his party has a right to charge him with a great wrong in this matter. If he had information that there was wrongdoing then, it was his duty to probe the matter to the bottom. I will give the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) the credit of saying that in several Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
matters in regard to which they have wished more information, and in which they have thought there was some wrong-doing, they went to the Public Accounts Committee, they called up the Auditor General, they brought the public accounts, they summoned witnesses, they made some attempt to get information upon the point, and the men who were accused had a chance of appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. But, the hon. gentleman has not pursued that course. He has made these statements on the strength of an anonymous letter, he has not gone before the Public Accounts Committee, he has not asked for the Auditor General, he has not asked for a copy of the accounts, he has not summoned a witness, he has been content to make these statements, unjust, ungenerous, untrue; I characterize them as such. He has been content to repeat these statements, admitting that he knows nothing himself and shrinking from giving us the name of any man who will verify these statements, and now, having been content to make these statements, he is about to go away and leave the matter in that condition. I think I have a right to complain and I do. The House has a right to complain, the public have a right to complain, because, if the hon. gentleman knew that there was wrong-doing, or believed that there was wrong-doing, it was his duty to probe the matter and in failing to do that, he has failed to discharge one of his duties ns leader of the opposition.
As to the general question, my hon. friend will probably admit that he has not added very much which is new to the subject in the debate to-day. He has travelled over the same ground that he travelled a year ago, over the same ground that his predecessor travelled for several years, and over precisely the same ground that the former Minister of Finance on the'eve of the last general elections travelled. He has made a number of general charges of extravagance and I am inclined to think that the country will take about as much stock in the hon. gentleman's assertions in that line as the country has taken on previous occasions, of which the constitution and membership of the House are the best evidence. But the hon. gentleman, if we were to take his criticisms as being serious, would have us understand that the conditions of Canada are the same to-day as the conditions were in 1896. He would have us understand that it is a fair thing to make comparisons between the expenditure of that day and the expenditure of this day, utterly ignoring the fact that a great change has come over the condition of the country. To use a common phrase it has been a growing time. It is not only a growing time in the affairs of the government but it is a growing time in the affairs of every great enterprise in Canada as well. Every railway, every great corporation, nay, every business

firm in Canada which is carrying on more business is spending more money than in 1896, and according to my hon. friend's logic, because it is spending more money than in 1896 it is therefore on the verge of financial ruin. In government affairs and in individual affairs as well a large expenditure may not be an indication of extravagance, it may be an indication of wise administration, it may be an indication of far seeing ability, it may be an indication of the ability of the merchant, or the ability of the government. By providing for a larger expenditure it may be that you are providing means whereby the individual or the government will be more prosperous than they were with a lower expenditure. The conditions of Canada have changed. The hon. gentleman takes our aggregate expenditure and he makes no explanation as to what that expenditure represents. Take for instance the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway. We have spent a great deal of money on the operation of the railway-I will leave out of consideration for a moment the capital account. We have spent a great deal more on the operation of the Intercolonial Railway than our predecessors spent. Therefore, the hon. gentleman says that we are extravagant. But on the other hand the Intercolonial Railway receipts are much larger than they were. Before we took office they were $3,000,000 and to-day the Intercolonial Railway receipts are $5,500,000. Yet, the hon. gentleman would have us understand that the increasing expenditure is an evidence of extravagance. Take if you will the Post Office Department. We are spending a great deal more money on the postal service of the country than we spent before, but what do the returns show ? In 1896 the net revenue of the Post Office Department was $3,200,000, and the revenue for the current year is estimated at $3,800,000. In both these cases the increased expenditure does not represent an increase of one cent on the burdens of the country, but it does represent greater facilities for carrying on the business of the country. The increased expenditure in the Railway Department and in the Post Office Department is something which the government need not be ashamed of, because it marks the growth of the progress and business of the country and the increased facilities which are provided for the people. Take the. Yukon. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) gives us the total expenditure of the year, and he compares with the expenditures of 1896, but he forgot to tell us that there was practically no Yukon in 1896. We know that one or two officers of the government had gone in there in the earlier years, but up to the time that this government came into power the Yukon was practically an undiscovered country. It was only under the administration of the present government that the great development of that territory took place. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us of the total expenditure but they fail to tell that for every dollar that has been spent in the Yukon we have got a dollar back, and more. Therefore, the increased expenditure in that direction is not an indication of extravagance, but it is one of the indications of the development of the country which has come to this Dominion during the past few years.


John Graham Haggart: What is the increased expenditure in the Yukon since 1896 ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: There was practically no expenditure in the Yukon in 1896.


John Graham Haggart: What is the expenditure now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the figures at hand, but it is only in the year 1897 that the great discoveries were made in the Yukon, and that the Yukon began to be known. It is only since this present government came into power that there was a rush of people from all parts of the world into that country, and that this government had to assume the administration of the Yukon. We had to administer that country far away from railways and telegraph lines, and in the race of all that has been said, I say that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has reason to be proud of the splendid development of that country under his administration. So far as the working expenses on the Intercolonial Railway are concerned, that road is at least in a better position to-day than it was before. It is less of a burden to the country-if it is a burden at all-than It was before. Its receipts are increasing so rapidly that it will practically pay for itself. I will refer to the capital expenditure later. Then the Post Office Department; that is not only not a greater burden, but it is a greater blessing to the people of Canada than it was ever before. Under a lower rate of postage we are getting a larger revenue, and for a less rate of taxation the people of Canada are getting greater accommodation than ever in the history of Canada. If you deduct from the total expenditures, the expenditure on the Post Office, on the Intercolonial Railway, on the Yukon ; these three revenue producing departments, you will find that in all that remains the increase in the expenditure of the country has been very moderate indeed, and that there is nothing like the increase that the hon. gentleman ((Mr. Borden, Halifax) represents. He can only make out his case by adding the increase on the Yukon and the increase on the Intercolonial Railway, which perhaps during the current year will pay its own way and even though

there was a loss last year it was in a better position than in the time of the Conservative government. However, if you take out these items of expenditure, as I say, the aggregate increase remaining will be found to be a very moderate amount indeed. X have already said that it has been a growing time; a time of great progress and advance in Canada. Let us take a rough indication to prove that. I repeat what X said on a former ocacsion, that if one wants a rough illustration of the progress of the country it would be a fair thing to compare the expenditures with the total trade of the country. Roughly, the total trade of the country is a measure of the development of the country, and if you take for a rough calculation your expenditure in comparison with the total trade you get some reasonable measure-I do not claim that it is exact-but you get some fair proportion; certainly a much fairer statement of the accounts than was presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax). Now, what do I find V I find that in 1895 the consolidated fund expenditure of Canada- leaving out the capital-represented within a fraction of 17 per cent of the value of our total trade; while last year the consolidated fund expenditure of Canada represented only 12 per cent of the total trade of the country. Now, let us add both capital and income together, and take the total disbursements of Canada. In the year 1895 the total disbursements of Canada of all kinds-capital, revenue, &e.-represented 19* per cent of the total trade of the country, while last year it represented 14-9 per cent, or a fraction under 15 per cent as compared with 19* per cent in 1895. I do not present these figures as giving any exact measurement of the expenditure of the country, but roughly stated the total trade of the country is a fair indication of the general development of the business of the country, and when we show that the increased expenditure has only kept pace, or less than kept pace, with the development of the trade in the country, then I think we have a very fair and very satisfactory answer to make to the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bordon, Halifax).
My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) talks of the public debt. He says we have increased the debt. Again, I say that we must have regard to the increasing population, and to the increasing business of the country, and taking these into account we need not fear a comparison on this question of the debt. I have on another occasion given a statement showing the increase of the net debt from the year 1896 to the year 1901.' That statement is contained in the budget speech, page 1341 of ' Hansard,' and it may be useful to quote it again :


THE PUBLIC DEBT.
[Stage Direction]
Net debt 30th June, 1901... .8268,480,003 69 „	..	1900 ... 265,493,806 89
Increase in debt in 1900-1..	2,986,196 80
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman think that it is a fair comparison to take the increase of the public debt during the eighteen years of the Conservative administration ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why not? Most certainly it is fair. I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) means when he asks if it is fair. It is the statement in the public accounts. They are exactly the same figures that hon. gentlemen opposite take when making a comparison, but the difference is, that I present the figures fairly, and my hon. friends opposite do not.
Hon. Mr, HAGGART. That includes the assumption of the debts of the different provinces, does it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It includes the statements as shown In the public accounts. If you assume a debt of a province, and have to pay interest on it, your expenditure is increased by so much; and what difference does it make ? I am not going into a discussion of what this increase of debt was for. A great deal of it wras for the graving docks of Quebec. A considerable portion of it was for that interesting bridge at Montreal. A great deal of it was for purposes which, if I desired to investigate them to-day, might make a

very interesting chapter in the history of our predecessors. But I am not dealing wiih that phase of the question at all. There are the figures; I need not discuss the purposes of the expenditures, whether they were good or bad. It is the increase of the debt we are discussing, and the public accounts show that during the 18 years of hon. gentlemen opposite they increased the net debt of this country to the extent of $6,500,000 per annum, while during the 5 years of our administration, up to the 30th of June last, our increase of the debt was $1,900,000 per annum.
Let us view the matter in another way. My hon. friends like to make calculations per head in some cases, but you will observe that they have not done so in this case. We find that our increase of the debt has not exceeded the rate of increase in the population of the country. This is a fair mode of comparison. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs alluded to it some time ago, and I am only repeating his argument. In 1806, the last year of the late government, the net debt of the country was equal to $50.96 per head of the population, whereas the net debt last year, the debt which the hon. gentleman grieves about as so alarming to the country, which he holds up as such a bugaboo, was equal to $49.18 per head. In this we have but another evidence that, just as the expenditure of the country is only keeping pace with the reasonable growth and development of the country, so the moderate increase of the debt which we are showing is only keeping pace with the increased development and the increasing obligations and burdens which we have to undertake.
So we might go on through all the statements of the hon. gentleman and show that he is comparing conditions of former days with utterly unlike conditions which exist to-day. Will you tell me that the conditions in 1896, when our predecessors had a revenue on the Intercolonial Railway of $3,000,000, are the same as the conditions of to-day, when we have a revenue of $5,500,000 ?


Mr. BROCK.: And spend it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Centre Toronto is very much worried over the expenditure; but I have never heard that when there were deficits on the Intercolonial Railway in the days of the hon. gentleman's friends, he stood up in Toronto and condemned them. My hon. friend was perfectly satisfied to have a deficit of three quarters of a million dollars under the Conservative administration, and to go and vote the old ticket, and say that the Conservative party was a party of economy; but when he finds us giving a better railway service, one of which the country may be proud, and he discovers that in one year there is a deficit in the operating of the road, the hon. gentleman suddenly discovers that the whole thing is wrong. My hon.
friend is a most amiable and respected citizen of Toronto, but in the matter of politics he is about the blindest man in the House.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if perchance we admit for the sake of argument that this is an extravagant government, and that the country needs a government of economy, where are we going to find one ? From hon. gentlemen opposite ? What is the evidence of their economy ? What evidence have they given of it in past years ? Where is the evidence of it to-day ? Why, Sir, again and again we have been asked in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite to do what ? To spend less money ? No, to spend more money. Last year, when my hon. friend moved a resolution similar to this one, I was able to point across the House to an hon, gentleman who complained that we did not double track the Intercolonial Railway for a long distance. I could point to another hon. gentleman who complained that we did not go into larger expenditures in the North-west. I could point to another hon. gentleman, no less than the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who but a few days before had led a deputation to the government to demand that we should spend millions more on the improvement of the St. Lawrence. So I could go along the whole line and show that hon. gentlemen opposite, who talk about economy and who are going to vote for this resolution, have been urging on the government a more lavish expenditure. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier not only wanted greater expenditure on these things, but he complained because we had not appropriated a large sum to send a man to search for the North Pole. I will say in fairness to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that he has been away lately in Ontario busily engaged in making speeches, not of the same kind that he made in the province of Quebec, and he perhaps did not know all that was going on in the House in his absence; and last night, the first time he got a chance, he demanded- what ? Economy ? No; but he called on the Minister of Public Works to spend more liberally on the approaches to the canal at Sault Ste. Marie.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And my hon. friend the Minister of Railways reminds me that on a previous occasion the hon. gentleman reproached him because he had not spent a large amount of money in establishing locomotive works at Moncton. My hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Mac-Laren) is now in his seat, and I am glad to be able to remind him, as he is going to vote for this amendment, that only three days ago, in a very able address, to which all listened with great pleasure as coming from a gentleman familiar with our commercial

affairs, lie pointed to the fact that the United States government were spending hundreds of millions for the improvement of their waterways, and he declared that it was time that we set to work and did likewise.
I think I have said enough to show that if perchance this is an extravagant government, which I am not disposed to admit, then heaven help the country if it has to look to hon. gentlemen opposite for economy, when not one of them throughout this session has ever offered a proposal for economy unless the saving of a cent a gallon on a few gallons of oil. I venture to say that these things are understood in the country. The people understand that the conditions of Canada are not the same to-day as they were in 1896. The world has moved since then. Canada, as an hon. gentleman once _ said, before 1890, was living in a back street, and doing business in a back street; but in 1896, she moved up to the front, and since then she has been doing better business, she has plate glass windows, she has her sign up, and under the administration of this government the name of Canada is becoming known and honoured throughout the world. The country generally recognizes this fact. From east to west the story is told of how Canada has prospered under this administration. Go down to the sea, and you will find a great industrial development in the island of Cape Breton. But, say these gentlemen, it is our policy did that.
No, Sir, it is not. They fiddled and faduied with their iron and steel bounties for ten years but never succeeded in building an industry which attracted much notice. It was only when this government took up the matter that the great development down there began, and that the great development in the steel industry began in Sault Ste. Marie. It was when we took steps to give a contract to that factory at Sault Ste. Marie to encourage them in turning out steel rails, that the towering buildings went up, and then these hon. gentlemen opposite quarreled with us because we gave that help. It was only under this government that the locomotive works at Kingston were restored to their old energy and activity. That was due to the aid given by this government, and hon. gentlemen opposite found fault: with us for having given that aid. Go to the great west and what do you find ? These gentlemen, who pride themselves so much on what they did for the North-west, managed to produce a condition of affairs there which culminated at one period in a great rebellion and which, in 1896, produced a high class stagnation. AVhat has happened since ? Under the administration of this government, which has not been disposed to shrink from expenditure when such expenditure was needed, every great industry in Canada has been spurred into activity, and out in the far west, instead of finding people hopeless and despondent, we find that not only are the people who were there be-Kcn. Mr. FIELDING.
for prosperous, contented and happy, but thousands are coming from all parts of the world, even from that favoured land to me south, and now we have a stream of immigration into that country such as has not been known for many years. East and west north and south, we see the indications that under the hand of this government, aye, the extravagant hand if you choose to call it so-but it is not extravagant because wise expenditure is the truest economy-east and west north and south you will find that, under the hand of this government, all the industries of Canada have been spurred into activity, Canada has prospered, and is filled to-day with the hope and belief that we have many years of prosperity still before us.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: I have listened with much interest to the statements of my hon. friend and leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the answer of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The hon. Minister of Finance commenced with a very fierce personal attack upon the leader of the opposition, an attack Which was quite undeserved. The leader of the opposition spoke of certain works carried on in Nova Scotia, notably in Shelburne county. One of these works, he said, had been washed away, another was of no public utility, while another, designed to afford a harbour of refuge for fishing boats involved such bad engineering that the canal dug from the sea into a lake only served to drain the lake, as the bottom of it was higher than the sea level. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) did not make these statements upon his own authority, but upon the authority of reports in the neighbourhood and of what the hon. Minister of Finance is pleased to call anonymous letters. These statements were made in Committee of Supply, and the hon. member for Halifax had the right to give any authority he pleased and, the right, if he pleased, to withhold the names of this correspondents. Are the facts true ? That is what the country is interested in knowing. The facts are known to the Department of the Minister of Public Works and the hon. Minister of Finance had only to ask the engineer to learn the truth or falsity of the statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition. But, the hon. Minister of Finance does not even take the trouble to deny these statements. Does he dare to say that the faots with regard to this ditch are not ns given by the hon. leader of the opposition ? He was challenged on this subject a couple of months ago; why, then, does not he produce the evidence ? If the facts which are In possession of the department were made known to this House, and if they proved that the statements made were incorrect, no ihon. gentleman would be more

ready to acknowledge bis mistake and make the amende honorable both to the House and to the Finance Minister than the leader of the opposition.
The Finance Minister gives a glowing account of the prosperity of this country, due, as he would have us infer, to the statesmanship of hon. gentlemen who are now in power. Can these bon. gentlemen point to one thing they have done, to one Act which they have put upon the statute-book that has contributed to the advancement or development of the country ? That development is due to the legislation of the predecessors of these hon. gentlemen, to the national policy, to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to the building of the canals, to the bonus'ing of steel and iron works, and other Conservative measures. The hon. Minister of Finance takes credit for the opening of the locomotive works at Kingston and also for the development at Sault Ste. Marie. Why, I had an idea that I was the person who gave the first contract to Mr. Clergue at Sault Ste. Marie ; that it was I who leased to Mm the water power when 1 was Minister of Railways and Canals; that I was the means of having that gentleman build up his enterprises there after he had been induced by the national policy to come to this country. X had some idea that if there was development in iron and steel works in the Dominion, it was due to the policy which was adopted by the Conservative government and was over and over again condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite. And what has become of the promises of these hon. gentlemen to establish a rule of economy '! The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has been taunted with having accused the Conservative government of extravagance and of over burdening the people with taxation and increasing enormously the public debt. Ob, but these are different times, these are the growing times; and that is the one poor justification that these hon. gentlemen ban offer for increasing the total expenditure of the country-the capital expenditure on current revenue combined- from $42,000,000, as it was in the last year of our term of office, to $65,000,000 which the Minister of Finance proposes for next year. The bon. Minister of Finance makes a comparison to show that the amount of increase is not so very large after all. He asks us to deduct from the $65,000,000 of expenditure, the difference between the $3,500,000 which we estimated for the working of ithe Intercolonial Railway and the $5,000,000, which it) costs now. That is perfectly right. That amount should be deducted-$1,500,000. And I will admit also that w<e should deduct the difference between the amount of revenue which we received from the post office in 1890, and the amount which they receive at the present day-$500,000.	And I will admit further
that the expenditure on the Yukon would also be deducted from this account. But 152
make all these deductions, and you find that next year's expenditure will be nearly $20,000,000 greater than the expenditure during the last year of our term of office. What are we to think of public men, of statesmen, seeking the suffrages of the people with the promises of reduction in expenditure and in taxes, and, When they attain power falsifying every pledge they made, out-heroding Herod in their extravagance and corruption-even taking their own description of what used to exist-and also adopting the policy of their predecessors on every great public question ? The hon. Minister of Finance makes a comparison between the debt of the country now and as it was when the Conservative government 'went out of power. The public debt has increased $10,000,000 since in 1896, and the Minister of Finance says he will have to increase it by $6,000,000 next year. This makes a total of $16,000,000 of increase. To make a comparison of the results of our policy and theirs in respect to public debt, the hon. minister takes the increase of indebtedness during the last eighteen years of Conservative administration. Does he think that is fair ? He tells us he takes these figures from the public accounts. Yes; but would lie charge to the Conservative government the $77,000,000 of provincial debts which were assumed by the Dominion at confederation 7 If not, then, why should he hold the Conservative government responsible for the $20,000,000 of provincial debts taken over by the Dominion under the Conservatives ? Does not he know also that in his calculation he took in $10,000,000 expended for the purchase from the Canadian Pacific Railway of lands which had been given to them in consideration of their constructing the road, and that these lands were a quid pro quo for that increase of indebtedness V And does not he know that $62,000,000 of that debt represented an entirely abnormal expenditure, that upon the great work of the Canadian Pacific Railway? Leave out these three items of assumed provincial debt, expenditure in the repurchase of Canadian Pacific Railway lands, and expenditure on the Canadian Pacific Railway itself and the comparison will be favourable to us. He says that he took the accounts as he found them iu the public accounts. Does he take the accounts as he found them in 1897 when he came into power, when, for the purpose of making a comparison between his administration and that of the Conservative government for two or three years previously, lie falsified the accounts, shall 1 say ? Not, perhaps, falsified them, but altered them to suit his purpose. The accounts are not the same as the hon. gentleman found them when he came into, power. We took over the North Shore Railway from the Quebec government, and we were to give them an increased subsidy of so much a year, which was charged each year to the capital expenditure for the Dominion, hut he capitalizes it and charges



it in a lump sum against his predecessors for the purpose of justifying an expenditure for the several years, and making a comparison between his government and the Conservative government, on capital account, to the disadvantage of the latter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is wrong. He capitalized it and forgot to put it in the accounts.


John Graham Haggart: We did not capitalize it, and it did not appear in the accounts in any sense.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was capitalized by an Act of the Conservative government, and declared to be capital due to the province of Quebec.	.


John Graham Haggart: Oh yes, declared to be capital due to the province of Quebec. It may be so, but all that we required to do was to Increase the subsidy and pay the interest to the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, 1 deny it.


John Graham Haggart: And for the same reason, why does he not capitalize the amount of $140,000 which was given to the Grand Trunk Railway to secure an entrance for the Intercolonial Railway into the city of Montreal ? He could do it on the same grounds, because it is an annual amount.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend capitalized it. He was not content to let it stand as a subsidy, but by special Act he capitalized it and declared it was money due to the province of Quebec, which they are free to draw whenever they want to.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, free to draw, and they drew interest on it and it was so charged in the public accounts when we went out of power. And when the hon. gentleman came into power he changed the form of it in the accounts for no other purpose than to make an unfair comparison against the Conservative government. These are the facts of the case. The Conservative government can point with pride to the administration of their affairs for 18 years before tlie hon. gentlemen came to power. What public work of any utility have they started ? Have they done anything in reference to the great question of transportation in this country ? No, their revenues have been frittered away in lighthouses, in little wharfs around the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 15 or 16 of them situated in the county of Sheibourne, as I understand. I may toe wrong, but if I remember correctly it is 16.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The whole of them together did not cost as much as the Tay canal.


John Graham Haggart: The Tay canal was commenced and finished before the hon. gon-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
tleman was born, and the hon. gentleman does not know it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have been there myself. I am one of the few people who even went near it.


John Graham Haggart: He has seen it, then, since it was finished ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: Yes ; in 1832 the canal was commenced, and it was finished in 1834. It was built by Act of parliament of Canada. Under that Act the government had power to take it over from the corporation that built it. They took it from the corporation that built it and expended money to finish it. There is the same justification for the expenditure on the Tay canal that I have heard the hon. gentleman give himself. I remember well the support that lie got from Mr. Somerville, the member for Brant. The justification was this : Large sums of money are being expended in different parts .of the country, and it is bard that a section of country which does not benefit by these public works and yet contributes towards them, should not receive a quid pro quo. I well remember the arguments used in support of the minister Who introduced the first item for the purpose of building the Tay canal, and I was gratified to hear the Minister of Finance, speaking in justification of that expenditure in the county of Shelburne using almost the same words. We agree upon that subject, that there should he a quid pro quo in some way or another in regard to expenditures.
But the hon. gentleman surely must be satisfied with the expenditure that is going on now in the maritime provinces. It is about enough to eat up the whole of his surplus since lie got into power,' $21,900,000-if you capitalize the amount that he has given to the Grand Trunk Railway at $4,660,000-'has been expended in betterments on capital on the Intercolonial Railway. He has expended the whole surplus earnings of the Dominion in these prosperous times, not on his little wharfs, or lighthouses, or improvements in the different parts of Ills province, but all expended upon that work which we thought we had finished, and the capital account of which we had closed long ago ; the whole of that expenditure has been wasted on new locomotives and for certain other purposes on the Intercolonial Railway. Do tile people of this country fully understand it ? Do they realize that the whole prosperity of the Dominion of Canada has been pitched in, has disappeared in what I declared 'before to toe a useless expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway ? $22,000,000- who denies the figures ? Who dare contradict them to this House? I will give him Item by item the whole expenditure on capital account, and the deficits on that road, and will show that the people of this country

have expended the whole of their surplus revenue in these prosperous times, for what purpose ? Building up the Intercolonial Railway ? No, for the purpose of disgusting the people of this country with the management of the Intercolonial Railway, so that it may 'become in a short time a property for some company or another to take off our hands, when the country will be so sick of it that it will be glad to get rid of it. The hon. gentleman says : Look at the comparison between the management of that railway now and what it was under the Conservatives ; the management and the deficits in the later years under the Conservative government were as bad as they are under my management. Yes. if the same system of book-keeping is followed he can make a surplus.
The proper way to look at the expenditures and receipts on the Intercolonial Railway is to see what amount of money is expended upon it and what are the receipts. Never mind the capital account, never mind the sidings, never mind the new rails, the new locomotives, or anything of that kind ; ask only : What money do you put into it ? The money you put into that road, as I said before, since the hon. gentleman has been administering it, is $22,000,000, or within $10,000 of that figure, more than the receipts of that road. That money would have given us one of the best systems of transportation in the world, that money would have built the Georgian bay canal ; that money would have put the Canadian people in possession of the best system of transportation in the world. Yet the whole resources of the country must be frittered away for the purpose of enabling these hon. gentlemen to maintain themselves in power by extravagant expenditures. Where is the justification for the 200 or 300 little lighthouses that the hon. gentleman is building down in Nova Scotia, somewhere ? This is not a penitent session. If it were the last session, as the hon. gentleman said, and votes of this kind were perhaps for the purpose of catching the electors without any intention of spending the money it might be different, but two or three years will elapse before an election takes place and it means that this money shall be expended. As I stated before the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals are looking after their provinces well. I cannot congratulate the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), I cannot congratulate other members of the government when I see the enormous sums of money taken out of the coffers of this country and expended in the useless manner in which they are being expended in the maritime provinces. If confederation is going to exist, we intend to, and we shall have our share of the moneys which are being levied on the people of this country and expended upon works of utility and for the use of the Dominion in other particular 1524
provinces. It is not sufficient, as it is in France and other countries, that the sole and only object of portions of the Dominion should be to see how much they can get out of the Dominion treasury. This must be put an end to ; there must be a fair division of the funds of the people between the different provinces or there will be an end to confederation. This practice was not pursued in the past. We built the Intercolonial Railway. Of course, they contributed, they contributed a sum towards it. We said :	You may have the use of that
railway without the people of the country expecting to receive a cent for it for the purpose of carrying your grain and traffic. It is, to a certain extent, of mutual advantage, but we never contemplated that after the people of this country had been drawn upon to the extent of $02,000,000 or $70,000,000 for the purpose of constructing that road that there should be an additional expenditure taken out of the coffers of the country to the extent of between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 a year. This is not fair to the rest of the community. If the country is prosperous and growing, the revenue resulting from the growth should be distributed fairly between the people of the country. We have always looked with pride to the growth of the North-west Territories and we have always expected that we would get a return from the development of those territories and from British Columbia. We are willing to make an expenuiture in excess of the amount that is received from that country for the development and building up of that magnificent heritage of ours ; knowing that in the shape of trade and in other ways we will indirectly get a return from the development of that country. Our expectations have been verified and we are getting that return, but, from this expenditure down on the sea coast we are receiving no benefit whatever. Where is the expenditure for the purpose of improving our waterways ? Why cannot we have a magnificent harbour in Montreal V Why have we not terminal facilities provided ? Why has not the St. Lawrence been deepened from Montreal to the sea so as to enable large ships to come to Montreal ? The people in every part of the Dominion are all anxious that this port should be developed. We are anxious to secure a fast Atlantic service and every man in the Dominion would be willing to contribute his share towards that object. What have we done towards that ? Not a single thing. Nothing has been done in the way of improving our transportation, and notwithstanding the abnormal development of our trade, nothing has been done for the purpose of improving our waterways or narbours. The hon. Minister of Finance takes pride in the development of the- country. Can he put his hand on a single work in this country which tends to the development of this country which did

not have its initiation and commencement under the Conservative regime ? He cannot put his hand on a single work, and in that respect, instead of receiving any assistance from the hon. gentlemen who then were on this side of this House we had nothing but opposition to everything we undertook. We can point with pride to the past. We glory in the prosperity of the country at the present time, we hope the country will go on and prosper, but we expect from the administrators of the affairs of this country fair-play at least in the expenditure of the public money. We expect, instead of having the money frittered away in the manner in which it is being done from one end of the country to the other that there shall be some plan of transportation adopted and carried out, some project which will result in the development of our trans-Atlantic service and that there shall be someming done to which the people of this country can point with hope and with pride. We have looked in vain for any such policy in the past from these hon. gentlemen. Their only object seems to be in each of the departments to get as much money as they possibly can to expend for the purpose of purchasing locomotives that cannot run over the road, for the purpose of putting down new rails on the road which was perfectly railed already, for the purpose, as the hon. Minister of Finance says, of taking the Dominion of Canada from a back street and putting it on a front street, so that all the nations can look at us and admire us. This expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is a useless one. The idea of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals getting from -is colleagues in a country like this tne enormous sums which he has got for the purchase of larger locomotives to carry freight when he has the evidence of his own deputy to the effect that it would be impossible to carry this trade in competition with the roads that are at present in existence. When he purchased the Drummond County Railway he knew that he could not run these locomotives over it from Levis to Montreal, he knew, or at least, he ought to have known, that the locomotives that were in existence on the Intercolonial Railway, that the road-bed and that the rails were sufficient and equal to the traffic, that they were in first class order ; yet, he gets from his colleagues authority for an expenditure of .$23,000,000 and it is not ended yet, because, I expect to find out from him how much of the road is completed and how much it will take to bring it up to the standard he requires. He now requires $23,000,000, a sum which ought to have built and equipped tne road from beginning to end. The expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway when the road was first constructed was in the neighbourhood of $27,000,000. Of course, it is a longer roau now, but the means of builumg the road are cheaper now. The hon. gentle-


John Graham Haggart: man, as the evidence produced before the Public Accounts Committee shows, purchased 1,300,000 ties when the normal requirements were 400,000 ties, instructing his tie inspector to take them over or to inspect them in the form that he took some others, or, in other words, to take everything that could possibly be supplied at the time of an election.
In view of an election, the number of workmen was largely increased in excess of the requirements of the road, and kept on to the present day; contracts were let to Mr. Clergue for steel rails two or three days before an election, and the contract with the Kingston Locomotive Works which the hon. gentleman brags about, was made almost on the day of the election. Of course, all this was not done for the purpose of debauching the constituencies, because has not the Minister of Railways and ' the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) stated that there are no politics now on the Intercolonial Railway ? Well, with these facts staring us in the face no one will believe that statement. The Conservative government can point with pride to its record. The comparison made by the Minister of Finance with regard to the public debt is absolutely misleading, and no one knows it better than he does. He knows well that he should not charge against us the debts of the provinces which we assum
ed,	nor the $10,000,000 cash which we paid for lands to the Canadian Pacific Railway, nor, if he was just, would he charge against us the $62,000,000 for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. However that may be, there is not one of these gentlemen over there who can explain how it is that in view of the solemn pledges they gave to the people when they were in opposition, they have largely increased the expenditure of this country even throwing out of the calculation the Intercolonial Railway, the Yukon, and the Post Office Department, as the Minister of Finance has asked us to
do.	Take these out, and even then let me hear the Finance Minister offer a justification for the enormous expenditure so much increased, in flagrant violation of the pledges of the Liberals before they obtained power.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC YiORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte). Mr. Speaker, I happen to be in a most desirable position to discuss this question. Up to the year 1891 I belonged to the Conservative party, and for 20 years in my life I had to defend large expenditures and increases of the public debt. The country was prosperous; we were going on with large works, we were developing Canada, and I think my defence was successful. The chances of war placed me on this side of the House, and I have to defend to-day a large expenditure of money and also an increase in the public debt. I have heard over and over again speeches which were pretty


MAT 13. 1902
[Stage Direction]
similar to that delivered to-day by the leader of the opposition. I have heard my hon. friends on this side of the House in times past predicting all sorts of disasters because the expenditure was so large. Will my hon. friend the leader of the opposition permit me to say, that he has made to-day what is essentially a party motion, but at the same time he has raised a great national issue. I do not ignore the existence in both political parties of a school which believes that we should not spend much money. I think I know this country as well as any other public man of my years, and I know that there is another school which I believe is in the great majority; a school which has confidence in the future of this country, and which is ready to make all necessax-y expenditure to develop the great national assets we possess. We are spending money. There is no doubt as to that. We are not spending too much money. I see on the opposite benches business men of first rank and standing, and they will not stand before any audience and declare that we must not spend even more money than we have spent in the past. I hope there are enough men in this House to rise above petty party questions on important occasions. We have to face to-day the competition on land and sea of our American friends. Large combinations of capital ai-e monopolizing American railways and English and American steamship lines. Are we going to sit idly by and not do anything ?
William Rees Brock: That is what you are doing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say to the contrary.


William Rees Brock: What have you done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will grapple with the question in a moment. We have not been idle. We have before us to-day the motion of the leader of the Conservative party asking us to pause because we are spending too much money, and my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) tells me now that we are remaining idle and not spending enough


William Rees Brock: What I say is that you are wasting the money that you are spending.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, that is a mere play on words. When I have taken my seat, I invite my hon. friend to show where we have wasted any money.
I know that my hon. friends on the other side will assail the Intercolonial Railway policy of the government. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways will defend that part of the government policy. I am not . the Minister of Railways and Canals, and it is not my duty to take chai-ge of the department of one of my colleagues, but my hon. friend (Mr. Blair) is quite able to take cai-e of himself. Speaking of the general policy of this government, I ask : Have
we been idle ? We have this year a magnificent crop of over 100,000,000 bushels of grain in the North-west. We have not been able to carry that crop to the seaboard through Canadian channels because we were not sufficiently equipped to do so. We all recognize that. Now, Sir, our duty is to have a strong and progressive policy of equipment by land and by sea. I altogether shai'e the view of my hon. fi'iend the exMinister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart) when he says that the country expects that a fast Atlantic service will soon be established; and in connection with it we must have, as I have said before, a fleet of large carriers to take charge of our crops and trade. But, Sir, there is no government that may take charge of the affairs of this country that will not be obliged to spend more money even than we have spent. Why, Sir, our hon. friends opposite are afraid. The hon. leader of the opposition has invited us to shudder because the debt of this country has been increased during the last 6 years by about $10,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Sixteen million dollars.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a private corporation, have just increased their iudebtedness by $20,000,000. They have asked from parliament the power to increase their stock by $20,000,000, which means an expenditure of that much money and that much additional indebtedness. Why have they done so ? Because they have confidence in the future trade of this country. And why should a great country like this, full of resources, be afraid because we have been obliged in order to carry on large public works, to inci'ease our indebtedness by the small sum of $10,000,000, when there are private corporations which have incurred a larger indebtedness than the Dominion of Canada itself ? One lion, gentleman on the other side of the House, an hon. member for Toronto, said a minute ago that we are wasting our money. I will not discuss the policy of the government with regard to the Intercolonial Railway. My hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Railways will deal with that part of our policy.
Leaving that aside, as it is not my business to take charge of it, of what waste of money are we guilty ? The hon. leader of the opposition has paid me a great compliment this afternoon, and I am very thankful to him for it. After years in this parliament, and after all the inquiries that have taken place in the Public Accounts Committee, lie believes that he has been able to find out that one of my engineers has made a mistake, and that a little pond has emptied itself into the Atlantic ocean. Where is that pond ? I would like to find it. I pray somebody on the other side of the House to find it for me to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: It cannot be found.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has invited me to place on the Table of the House the evidence that there is a pond, and that it has emptied itself ;nto the sea.
I hold in my hand the appropriation Bill of last year, and I invite my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to tell me where that pond is. I tell my hon. friend that there is no pond of that kind. Even if there were, even if one of my engineers had made a mistake, and had spent $500 or $1,000 in trying to build a harbour, we are not infallible in the Public Works Department, and 1 think my hon. friend might have spared me the trouble of looking for the pond. I am very much afraid that the effect of that pond on the Atlantic ocean will be just about as much as the effect of my hon. friend's speech on that point upon the country.
My hon. friend has also alluded to what he called a raid on the exchequer in connection with the construction of the Yukon telegraph' line. There are a great n any business men in this parliament, and I want to know who is the one among them who has never made a mistake in his life, or whose employees have never made a mistake ? I would like to see nis face. I have followed the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee in regard to this matter, and what has been proven there is this : Mr. Charleson, who had charge of the construction of that line, had with him a gentleman of the name of Rochester. It was understood that he would act as a foreman of the work. After they had been two or three months on the work, Mr. Charleson, rightly or wrongly-imprudently, I grant-let a contract to Mr. Rochester for the supply of poles. After having heard my hon. friend, one would think that millions of dollars had been wasted, thrown into some pond or other. What are the facts ? My department was paying $3 each for poles to a local Yukon company. Mr. Rochester, who was a man of great experience, having been brought up in the lumber trade, made an offer to Mif. Charleson to supply the poles for $2 each. Mr. Charleson accepted his offer, Mr. Rochester supplied the poles, 6,000 of them; these poles were received by a gentleman, a former employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Richardson who in his evidence last year declared that the poles had not cost too much. These are the facts of the case, and this is the famous raid that causes my hon. friend to invite us to shudder. Well, it will require a little more than that to make the country believe that we have administered their affairs in an unworthy manner.
My hon. friend has also referred to the fact that the government have paid the rents of the residences of the judges in the


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Yukon. Rightly or wrongly, when Mr. Justice Dugas and Mr. Justice Craig were invited to take up their residence at Dawson, it was understood and agreed that the government would supply them with residences. We did not erect residences, but we paid the rents of residences for them. .These are the facts, rightly or wrongly; but again the amounts involved are very small. My hon. friend will permit me, I am sure, without my meaning to be in any way offensive, to say that this is peanut politics, and peanut politics has never carried any party into office. I remember very well when on the other side of the House, after the death of the great chieftain, whom I followed as long as he was in public life, when the Conservative party changed their policy and became small and mean-and they became small and mean because there was at their head a man who was not a broadminded man-they started these petty cries all over the country. I speak here in the presence of some of my former companions in arms, and I say that when the Conservative party started a small and narrow policy, they were defeated at the polls, as they will be again defeated if they do not change their ways. The country never takes any stock in reproaches like those levelled at us by the hon. leader of the opposition. I grant immediately that the policy we have adopted in regard to the Intercolonial Railway is worth discussing. It is a large question; we have spent a large amount of money upon it. The question is whether that expenditure was right or wrong. The government have thought it was right. The country will judge. All the other railways are spending to-day large sums of money in order to handle the freight which is increasing in quantity every day. We have followed the same course. We heard all sorts of rumours when the Public Accounts Committee was sitting, but no scandal has been proved. Let me mention that in passing. My 'hon. friends, both of them, reminded us that in former days the leaders on this side of the House promised to reduce the expenditure and debt of this country. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Ross), alluding to a speech of mine yesterday evening, said that, generally speaking, a minister should not be held responsible for any of his speeches other than those he would make at the Mansion house. No doubt my hon. friends on this side have said in former days that we were spending too much. But times have changed, circumstances have changed. Mr. Justin McCarthy, in his life of Mr. Gladstone, says in so many words that the public man who would attempt to be consistent all bis life would simply be an ass. And I think that Mr. Justin McCarthy is perfectly right. I appeal to all men who have braiins-I do not appeal to itliose who have none for I do not care what they may say- but I appeal to those who have a thinking of their own, and who are able to think.

Where is there amongst us the man who thinks to-day at fifty, fifty-five or forty-five years of age, what he thought when he was twenty or twenty-five years old ? Where is he ? There is not one among us. Our minds have undergone evolution, we have studied, we have learned, we have observed, we have moved in the world. Public men move as well as private individuals. This is a great country, and those who are in office are responsible for its development; and whatever may be the speeches delivered twenty years ago, (this government is in office to administer the affairs of the country and make it prosper, and to make it prosper it is necessary that we should spend money-not waste money, but spend it judiciously. My bon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) said a moment ago that wo had stood idle. In that my hon. friend was not accurate. He knows better. We have been going along at a high speed developing our waterways. There is no use in denying it. Bet my hon. friend count the number, for instance, of new elevators on the great lakes. Let him count the number of harbours improved. Let him consider the large sums my department has spent in developing harbours and deepening our rivers and waterways. The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways said a moment ago that with the money spent on the Intercolonial Railway, we, could have deepened and widened the St. Lawrence. Well, that work will be completed lin a very short lime. It is going on now.


John Graham Haggart: I said it would build the Georgian Bay canal.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me beg my hon. friend not to call that splendid French river a canal.


John Graham Haggart: A waterway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let him say that the French river should have been improved. But public education has to be made as well as private education. Great public works have to be carried out gradually. This country Is spending large sums on its railways and cannot do everything at once. My hon. friends say we are spending too much, and two minutes later they say that wre should have spent more. They tell us that the French river should have been improved, and the Georgian Bay canal should have been built. Well, if the whole system of canalization of tlie Ottawa river were attempted to be carried out liy this government or a private corporation, it would cost in the neighbourhood of $80,000,000. The country is not yet prepared to incur that expenditure, but when tlie country is more advanced, when we have a greater population, perhaps it will then be ready to take hold of tha t undertaking.	>
My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways has uttered words which, when he reads them in ' Hansard,' will appear to him
as very imprudent indeed. He has said that unless we take care not to spend so much money in the maritime provinces, something wrong will happen. He has spoken of the disruption of confederation. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are masters of the situation. Should they find we are spending too much on the Intercolonial Railway, they will say so. They will not destroy that magnificent fabric of confederation. I hope that there is not in this country a public man who would destroy it because an unwise expenditure of money should happen to have been made. Even if we should make an unwise expenditure, let us not speak in such a manner. We are old men. We may not take for granted everything that is said here, but there are in this country people who are not as old as we, and who perhaps might interpret in a serious way words of that character. Let us not speak of destroying confederation. We are a very happy people. We have only to stand by our country and strive to understand each other ns well as we can, and we have a great future before us. There is no reason for destroying anything, but there may be reason for improvement. There is always room for improvement. Let us go on and improve.
I do not see that there is much more to be added by me. A moment ago I alluded to tlie inquiries that have taken place in the Public Accounts Committee. The officers of a great department are no more infallible than are any other employees, either of a bank or a commercial firm. , My own employees may make mistakes. I have made mistakes myself. I know that some of my hon. friends have tried very hard to prove that in the purchase of certain things for the quarantine station, we paid too much. Perhaps we dlid. I do not deny that on certain occasions a public employee may be just as well imposed upon as ifnauy another man. There are able men in this House. Where i.s the one who has never been imposed upon by anybody ? My bon. friend the leader of the opposition, is a very able lawyer indeed. He has argued many cases and he has lost, no doubt, a lot, but that does not prove that he is not an alble man. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock), who conducted the Inquiry in the Public Accounts Committee, is a very able man and a great manufacturer. I want to ask him whether be has never made a mistake, or whether any of his employees have never made mistakes ? We are all apt to make mistakes, but, speaking for the department over which I have the honour to preside, I challenge the fullest investigation as to any of my employees having ever participated in any dishonest deal. My department is an open book. I have nothing to hide. I may have made mistakes. But there has not been any money stolen, to my knowledge, and outside of my knowledge it has not been proved that any dishonest acts have ever been committed.

In closing, let me repeat what I said In beginning these few remarks. Last year, the appropriation of the department of Public Works, including both main and supplementary estimates, reached the very large amount of $8,454,000. In all those large appropriations the fault has been found only with two or three small items that hare been mentioned here. No greater compliment could be paid to me or to the able officers who administer that department with me. Before I sit down, perhaps the House will permit me to thank hon. members on both sides for the courtesy that has been extended to me not only this year but on other occasions. I have been a sick man for a year or two. On every occasion I have had extended to me on both sides of the House the greatest kindness.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) seems to be a good judge of human nature. He has thrown himself upon the mercy and charity of the House, so that hon. members may not deal too harshly with the shortcomings of himself or his colleagues. In the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman said : We have spent money lavishly, it is true-


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No ; I did not say that.
Mr. SPROULE-because the development of the country requires it and the necessity of the country justifies it. Now, so far as that expenditure is needed, so far as it is in the interest of the country, so far as it was properly and economically carried out. we have no complaint to make, but it is because of unwise expenditure, because of improper and extravagant expenditure that we are justified in complaining. The history of this government has been one of great expenditures and extravagances. I make that broad and general statement, and I am sure it is susceptible of proof from the public accounts not only with regard to the government as a whole, but with regard to every department of it. The amounts appi'opriated for the current year were $65,801,000. And yet, when their predecessors proposed to expend over $15,000,000 less they declared that that was far too much for the requirements of this country. How then, can they deny that this last vast expenditure of theirs is a lavish and unnecessarily heavy expenditure ? For next year, that is the year ending June 80th, 1903, we have already voted $65,564,042. And, before the year is out, when we come back next session, no doubt we shall be called upon to vote $4,000,000 or more to cover various shortages that will be found. We are justified in assuming that that will be the case, for it was the case this year and last year and the year before. So, before the next fiscal year is over, we shall have been called upon to vote supplies for


Joseph Israël Tarte: the year of about $69,000,000. Yet the Minister of Public Works tells us that while they have been somewhat lavish in their expenditure yet they have spent no more than the demands of the country have required. It is with nations as with individuals in matters of economy. It is very easy to be extravagant, and a nation like an individual can form a habit of extravagance. And, with the nation as with an individual, it is the most difficult thing in the world to curtail extravagance, and, after an era of extravagance, to practice economy. We know how it is with young men commencing life or. with men of any age. Supply them lavishly with money and they will be apt to make their expenditure even more than their incomes. If adversity comes they find it almost impossible to economize. Hlon. gentlemen opposite enjoyed a season of overflowing revenue, but large as has been their revenues, their expenditures have been still greater. When their revenues are less buoyant, when hard times come and the question of economy must be faced, what will be the condition of the country ? It will be a condition of economic disturbance, of curtailed trade, and of sorrow for the people. We are writing a new page in the history of our country, a page which will, for all time to come tell not to the credit but to the discredit of hon. gentlemen who to-day control the affairs of the nation. Because their performance is the very opposite of their promises to the people, the page of history that these hon. gentlemen are writing they are writing to the everlasting disgrace of themselves and of the party to which they belong. They promised us stringent economy, they have given us increased expenditure in every line. Although our revenues have been so large that we had surpluses in a few years amounting to no less than $19,743,537, yet, as the Minister of Finance has admitted, the public debt of Canada has been increased in the same time by $16,000,000. This cannot inure to the credit of hon. gentlemen opposite, but must stand to their disgrace in the history of the country. We are told that the public debt has not increased rapidly. And the Minister of Public Works gave a comparison which he said justified the House and the country in coming to the conclusion that the management of the present government compared favourably in this respect with the management of their predecessors. How did he endeavour to prove that ? By taking a few years of the eighteen years of his predecessors, during which the expenditure was exceptionally heavy, and made so in order to carry out the obligations entered into before confederation, such as building the Canadian Pacific Railway, taking over the debts of the provinces, giving them assistance when they had almost fallen into bankruptcy, taking back 10.000,000 acres of land from the Canadian Pacific Railway and

giving them $10,000,000 in money instead, adding all that to the public debt. During three years of those eighteen the minister said the increase had been $6,000,000 a year, whereas under the present government it has been only $1,900,000 a year. But had the hon. gentleman desired to be fair in that comparison he would have shown a very different state of affairs under the present government. But take these years out of the eighteen years and the public debt increased during the balance of the time on an average at the rate of $3,000,000 a year. Taking the whole three years out and it would show an entirely different condition of things in the interest of the Con-servtive party.
Now, the revenue expected for the present year is $56,800,000, the highest revenue Canada has ever had. When $38,000,000 were taken out of the people under the Conservative administration the Minister of Trade and Commerce said Canada was being bled white by taxation. This year he 'is taking out of the same people $56,800,000, yet he has not a word to say against it. He is perfectly satisfied so long as he is allowed to remain in office and draw his salary. and have the honour of the situation.
The Minister of Finance gave us a very interesting exhibition for a few minutes this forenoon. I watched him carefully, and he reminded me of a certain little fish very common down in his part of the country. Whenever it sees danger approaching it commences to work its tail at an awful rate of speed, mixing up sand and mud and water until it surrounds itself with a cloud that hides it from view. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance did. Or as another hon. gentleman suggested, he reminded us of a badger in the North-west Territories. Whenever you frighten it it makes one race for its hole, and it runs with such rapidity that it raises a cloud of dust around it which conceals it from view until it gets into its hole. So it was with the Minister of Finance. Like that little fish, he worked himself into a state of excitement, and so stirred up the muddy waters around him that he thought he could hide himself from the criticisms directed against him.
He says the country will take no stock in charges of extravagance, because it knows the money is wisely spent. I ask him if the money was wisely spent in the Yukon in connection with the telegraph out there ? I have here some expenditures made by the government in that connection, and I'would ask the people of this country to say whether they have been wisely made. They send a party out there to build a telegraph line, and they think they must treat some of their employees very much like themselves, as if they owned the whole country and aM its resources, and were entitled to live in luxury on the fat of the land. They sent out Mr. Charleson with a party, giving him carte blanche to build that
telegraph. I have looked at the public accounts to see what supplies were furnished these men, and I will give you a few items by which the people will be enabled to judge whether their money is being wisely^ spent. The government are purchasing clothing for their employees, 8 dozen pairs of cashmere socks at $5 a dozen, the very best class of goods they could possibly 'buy. 1 ask the labouring man who is working in the streets of Ottawa if the man who employs him furnishes him with that quality of garment. Then eiderdown quilts at $25 a piece. What farmer in this country would be so extravagant as to furnish even his choice bedrooms with quilts at $25 a piece ? I want the farmers to see the way their money is being spent, and I am sure they will tell the Minister of Finance that they have analysed his statements and that they do not believe them. Caps, 6| dozen at $18 a dozen ; yet the country has nothing to corn-plain of says the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does not the hon. gentleman know that all these articles were bought to be sold back again to the men ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not seen anything in the accounts to show that they are charged to the men at those prices^ Then we have three waterproof coats at $25 a piece. The prices are most extravagant all the way through, yet I have taken them from the Auditor General's Report. Three cases of Abbey's Effervescent Fruit Saits at $5.25 a case. They must have all the luxuries of the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To be sold back again to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ten gallons of lime juice at $1.10 a gallon.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To be sold back again to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One hundred and twenty-five pairs of boots at $4.50.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To be sold back again to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Twenty pairs of boots
at $9 a pair.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: To be sold back again to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do the labouring men of this country invest their wages in goods at that price ? Do they pay back $9 a pair for these boots ? Thirteen pair of boots at $8 a pair ; 23 pairs of boots at $6.50 a pair ; 7 pairs at $5 a pair.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To be sold back again to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ten dozen pairs of moccasins at $33 a dozen ; 5 dozen of rubbers at

$44 a dozen. I want to ask if these are sold to the men as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, all those goods were In stock, and kept in stock, and were sold to the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And was the money taken out of their wages, because I have not seen any account of it yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been proved that these goods were kept in store as any other business firm working in the bush keep goods an store for their men. How could they get those articles in any other way ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister tell me if he knows of any labourers in the city of Ottawa who are paid that rate of wages, and who purchased goods at those prices ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is it true that the hon. gentleman will compare wages in the Yukon with wages in Ottawa ? If so, I will leave it to the country to judge whether the comparison is fair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no comparison between the two because the difference is so great that there can be uo comparisvi. But, the hon. gentleman tells us that these men bought all these things. They bought two cases of Hennessy's B. O. brandy, $16.75.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Was it unreasonable that men who went into that wilderness should have their whiskey or their brandy ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were supplied with all the luxuries of life and they were given these luxuries because they were enabled to fall back upon the public treasury to pay for them. They were allowed to have all these extravagant luxuries of life because they were employed under the hon. Minister of Public Works. Ten gallons of rum, at $5.25 per gallon, for the poor labouring men up there. How many of the poor labouring men employed on the streets of Ottawa are able to buy rum at $5.25 per gallon ; or how many employees are there who would do it for them ? It is only when men are employed by the hon. Minister of Public Works that they are treated in this fashion. Three thousand Representative cigars, $180. This sum was expended for the choicest cigars that can be produced, to be sent up there to add to the luxuries of these men. Then, there were 1,000 of another brand, Flora Espana cigars, at $45 a thousand. Ask the boys who are going around Ottawa smoking 5-cent cigars, how they would like to be employed by the hon. Minister of Public Works, and be enabled to smoke these expensive cigars. One thousand El Bondoso cigars, at $37 a thousand; 105 pounds of Myrtle Navy tobacco, $73.50 ; 70 pounds of Tuckett & Billings tobacco, $51.80;


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 86 pounds of Prince of 'Wales tobacco, $5S.4S; 1,000 Manual Garcia cigars, $75 a thousand. These men were supplied with the most expensive luxuries and the best cigars that the country could provide when they were sent up there to build that telegraph line by the hon. Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman has done this because he is drawing upon the public chest, and yet the hon. Minister of Finance says that the country will take no stock in the statements we have made as to the extravagant expenditure of the country's money. Well, the information is before the country, and it is for the country to say whether it takes any stock in it or not. In my judgment it will take a great deal of stock in it.
Now, I will deal with another point. The hon. Minister of Finance asked us why we did not go before the Public Accounts Committee if we thought there had been anything wrong and prove it. Did we not go before the Public Accounts Committee, and attempt to prove it ? We did. But when the men who could give evidence in regard to this wrongdoing were asked for information they were not allowed to answer the questions. For two years we attempted to get Mr. Charleson before the Committee on Public Accounts, but as soon as the order went out to bring Mr. Charleson before the committee his coat tails were seen flying out of Ottawa, and he was absent for the rest of the session. He was here until the subpoena was issued, but he left immediately for the west and we could not get him back. The excuse was that he was obliged to go away.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether Mr. Charleson has not been here during the whole of the session ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has, but owing to the short session we have not had time to get him before the committee. The Public Accounts Committee has not been called once for five times it ought to have been called, and we have been unable on that account to pursue the inquiry in regard to Mr. Charleson to the extent that we would have liked to. We desired to secure the attendance of Mr. Charleson before the committee and we would have done so had the length of the session enabled us to do so. But when we do get people before the committee we cannot get the information out of them. It would have been possible to have proved the charges that we have made but for the impediments that have been thrown in the way by the government of bringing the witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee whom we desired to have. But, we did have a few witnesses before that committee. We had Mr. Rochester, who gave us some information about a contract for the supply of telegraph poles. We endeavoured to ascertain how

much he paid for these poles. We were told that Mr. Rochester bought these poles for 90 cents apiece and sold them to the government for $2 apiece. When that question was asked, who objected to the answer ? I am told that it was the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 did not do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was said that the hon. gentleman instructed him not to answer.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not at the meeting, but I am told on reliable authority that it was the hon. Minister of Public Works, and no other. With these impediments thrown in our way we could not prove what otherwise was capable of being proved, if we could have got the evidence which the parties should have been able to give and which should have been taken on oath in regard to these transactions. Something was said in regard to the Intercolonial Railway. We presented allegations of extravagance in connection with that road and we brought before the committee different employees to prove them; or, to speak more correctly, we asked that they should be brought up. They were not brought up. We asked to have Mr. Archibald summoned before the committee. We fought it out in the Public Accounts Committee for a whole day, and we fought it out in this House for a whole afternoon, but the government called upon their majority to vote down our request and we were denied the right of having the evidence of Mr. Archibald before the committee. We were told that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals bought 1,300,000 ties when an election was going' on when there were not more than 400,000 ties required for that year. The hon. gentleman bought them to help the friends of the party to control the election and when we desired to prove that there was extravagance in the administration of that road the witnesses we required were not allowed to come before that committee. Mr. Archibald was not allowed to come here and we were in this way unable to prove what, under other circumstances, was perfectly capable of being proved, because, when we attempted to bring a witness before the committee, or to elicit information from a witness who did appear, obstacles were placed in our way by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says that the country will not take any stock in our statements about the extravagant expenditures of the government. They have been quite proper, says the hon. Minister of Public Works. How about the expenditure that we will be called upon to vote either to-day or to-morrow for indemnifying Mackenzie & Mann for a contract which ought
not to have been made amounting to $328,000, an item for which appears in the supplementary * estimates ? What will this be after we have voted it ? It will be a monument to the eternal disgrace of the present government, a monument to their folly and incapacity as public men and to their lack of business ability. It will stand as a matter of record against them. They made a contract that should never have been made.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that it is not regular to discuss a vote which is to be submitted to the Committee of Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will say the expenditure which we will be called upon to make in payment of the award of the Exchequer Court, to which the government referred this disputed question. The Exchequer Court has given an award in favour of Mackenzie & Mann that will mean an expenditure of $328,000. Is this wise or otherwise ? Will the people of the country say whether it is wrong or right 7 I will leave it to the people and I have no doubt what they will say about the payment to Mackenzie & Mann for the loss of that contract. But, we are told that the expenditure has not been extravagant and that it has always been wise. What about taking the census ? Let us give the House and the country a little information about that. Has the expenditure for taking the census been extravagant or economical ? That work has been done before and we have a fair opportunity of making a comparison. The predecessors of the present government twice performed work of taking the census of the country. Let me make a comparison of the cost of taking the census so that the people of the country may know whether the present government have been spending money extravagantly or economically.
The census of 1891, taken under the Conservative government, cost the country $548,000 all told, but the census of 1901, taken by the present Liberal government has up to date cost $980,000, and we are told it will cost $170,000 more, making in round numbers a total cost of $1,150,000. It is true that the population has slightly increased, and no doubt there was a little more work to be done, but the last census cost $602,000 more than the census taken by the Conservative government, and that enormous increase in cost can be pointed to by any honest man as a sample of gross extravagance on the part of this government. Every act of this government proves that there is a system of extravagance reigning which is not compatible with econ-. omy and wise judgment. The Minister of Finance told us that our expenditure on consolidated revenue account in 1895 was equal to 15 per cent, while last year it was only 12 per cent, thereby trying to prove that the present expenditure was compnr-

atively less. Well, it is easy to prove the fallacy of that comparison. The revenue of 1895 was only $33,000,000, whereas last year It was $52,000,000, and 12 per cent on $52,000,000 is proportionately larger than 15 per cent on $33,000,000. We cannot turn our face to any quarter without seeing evidences of this extravagance. Look at the Galops rapids. The Minister of Railways was obliged to admit the other night that he had a company of contractors dredging these rapids all last year, and he did not know it, and yet the country will have to pay for it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why does the hon. member state that I had them there, when they were distinctly instructed that they should not go on, and that there was no appropriation?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am justified in saying that the minister had them there in view of the fact that his own engineers were on the boats all the time directing the work. And yet the minister did not know it, and his chief engineer did not know it. But the company has rolled up an aggregate claim for $50,000, while the minister did not know that this work was going on. There is no doubt in the world but that this amount will be paid. The minister says he notified them there was no vote, but he let the contractors go on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why do you say I let them go on ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So far as ministerial responsibility can be brought to bear the minister did that, because his subordinate officers were superintending the work and keeping the accounts which were presented to the minister when the time came to pay them. Is that proper management of the affairs of the country ? I leave the people to judge. I have given a few samples of extravagance and waste on the part of this government, and I could give many more.
I could speak of the Yukon railway, the Drummond Railway, the Yukon telegraph lines, the purchase of ties and rails on the Intercolonial Railway, the Mackenzie and Mann contract, the census expenditure. I could speak of all these and I can submit them to the unbiased judgment of the people of Canada, feeling sure that the verdict would be that this government is spending the money of the country extravagantly, unwisely, improperly, dishonestly and corruptly.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: I know that any person who attempts to speak during this debate at such a late period of the session, incurs a serious responsibility, but some sentiments were expressed this afternoon by a veteran politician on the other side which I think require reply from a member representing a constituency in the Mr. SPROtTLB.
lower provinces. One would think from the style and quality of the remarks of that hon. gentleman, that there might be a provincial election pending in one of the western provinces, because the attack was made under the guise of a criticism on the expenditure for great public works, whereas, divested of that adventitious envelope it was nothing more than an unjust attack on the maritime provinces. The gentleman who made these observations is, and ought to be, perfectly cognizant of the fact that the maritime provinces have given uniformly and without stint their support to every expenditure that was for the'benefit of the country, and was a wise and legitimate expenditure. Whether that expenditure was made in Quebec, or whether in Ontario, or whether in the North-west, the votes of the lower province members have been in favour of such expenditure for wise public works. We regard it as a very unreasonable and a sectional cry, when the lower provinces are held up as a butt, and represented as partaking in the expenditure of public money for electioneering purposes, and from which no adequate return comes. I allude to the remarks of my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart). He has had a good deal of experience in this House; he occupied for a considerable time the responsible and honourable office of Minister of Railways, and he ought to know better than he speaks. Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that the money spent on lighthouses and wharfs and other works in the lower provinces is a very insignificant sum indeed when compared with the very large amounts which have been voted for public works in the other parts of the Dominion. We, from the maritime provinces have not quarrelled with this expenditure in the other provinces. We have not regarded it, that every dollar expended in Ontario and the North-west and on the St. Lawrence was so much taken from the lower provinces. We have no such narrow or limited or sectional feeling.
Now, Sir, I know the generosity of my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) ;
1 know his disposition and I know that his heart is perhaps capable of responding to any just appeal. I would like him to take a trip down to the lower provinces, especially around the shores of Nova Scotia, aud enter into the lives of the fishermen and others there. He would observe at once that he was among an entirely different population from those with whom he was familiar, the farmers and others of the province of Ontario. If he did so, wie would not again hear him complain that so much money was taken from the coffers of the country to be expended in aiding those poor fishermen in their precarious avocation. It is important to the business of these men that these public grants should be made for the construction of public works in their vicinity. They have no railroads, and they do not partake of the benefits of many of

tlie expenditures in other parts of the country. Their whole interest is in the sea. Suppose that for the want of a paltry grant of $100 for some lighthouse, all the inhabitants of one of those fishing districts should be swept away In consequence of not being able to make a port in a gale of wind. Again, in regard to the expenditure of $4,000 on the breakwater of Herring Cove, which is one of the subjects of discussion to-day, last year an Atlantic gale swept over that unhappy village, and carried away all the possessions of the fishermen of the place. It swept away their boats, their nets, their fishing houses, and all the means itthey had of getting a living. One of these Atlantic gales is sufficient sometimes to dam up the mouths of these little harbours, and destroy a whole year's living for the fishermen. It may be a most serious matter for them, because the fishing business is not a steady business like farming in the Northwest, but is a most precarious business. Sometimes two or three years will go by without the fishermen being able to obtain enough to pay for one year's living. Suppose the welfare of a community depends on the trifling expenditure of $100 for a lighthouse, what man in this House would rise up and give his vote to the proposition of my hon. friend from Lanark to withhold an appropriation of that kind, when so trifling an expenditure would be attended with such beneficial results ? Then there are people along the shores who have no means of communication, who have to carry their goods to and from vessels in their boats. What man who has any understanding of the difficult business of these men, and the very small amount of money that passes through their hands., would withhold a grant of say $1,000 for a wharf .at some place where there is no man with sufficient money to build a wharf for the accommodation of the people ? And so, when the hon. gentleman rises and in his grandiloquent way inveighs against the waste of public money in the maritime provinces, I think I can see the poor fishermen in those localities reading that speech-and I will take care that it is read by a good many of them. When the hon. leader of the opposition goes among them to solicit their votes-'and he has obtained a good many of them-I do not think he will promise that when his government comes into power, he will withhold the expenditure on wharfs, harbours, breakwaters and lighthouses in the maritime provinces, and especially in the county of Halifax. My hon. friend from Lanark dealt with the expenditure in a department wiith which he is supposed to be more familiar than he is with lighthouses, breakwaters and wharfs; and I would answer him, as other gentlemen have been answered on other occasions, and he knows it very well, that the maritime provinces were not disposed to enter into the union with Canada except on the express stipulation that the Intercolonial Railway should be built to connect the provinces, and that it should be efficiently maintained. The maritime provinces were not disposed to enter into the union with Canada, and that was held out to them as an inducemeut. Now, Sir, it has been a favourite subject in Ontario and perhaps elsewhere to describe all the expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway as expenditures for the exclusive benefit of the maritime provinces, and as matter of indifference to the other provinces-as a matter in which they have no pecuniary interest, but as a sort of boon to pacify the maritime provinces. It is no such thing. A large portion of the province of Nova Scotia has no direct connection with the Intercolonial Railway, and a great many of the inhabitants derive no benefit from it whatever. The province of Nova Scotia, in common with the other provinces, enjoys the benefit of transport over the Intercolonial Railway, but it enjoys no special benefit. It is true, some of the productions of the maritime provinces, a very limited number, are carried over the Intercolonial Railway; but the large bulk of the products carried over that railway have their origin in the province of Ontario, and that province derives very much more benefit from the Intercolonial Railway than the province of New Brunswick or the province of Nova Scotia; and any hon. gentleman who rises in this House and describes that railway as being maintained for the benefit of the maritime provinces simply errs in judgment and mistakes the fact. The great bulk of the benefit is derived by the province of Ontario in the transport of its productions to the markets of the maritime provinces, which take almost every production that originates there, and welcome it gladly as the production of one of the sister provinces of the Dominion. We make no complaints on that score, nor on the score of the expenditures lavished on the canals or on other projects In the western part of the country; but we hear it with ill grace from a mature and veteran statesman like the hon. member for Lanark, when he rises in his place, and, perhaps for the purpose of securing some votes or some eclat in the province of Ontario, denounces the expenditure on these public works which run through the maritime provinces, but which are not for their exclusive benefit. I warn the hon. gentleman that if he expects liis party ever to return to power, he should not place before the eyes and ears of the inhabitants of the lower provinces these denunciations of expenditures which are identified with the daily life and avocations of the working people in those obscure localities and, which they could not carry on successfully without these necessary public expenditures made by the Department of Public Works.
House divided on the amendment of Mr. Borden (Halifax).

YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Barker,	Lavell,
Bell,	Lefurgey,
Birkett,	Lennox,
Blatn,	MacLaren (Perth),
Borden (Halifax),	Maclean,
Boyd,	McGowan,
Brock,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin.
Carscallen,	Osier,
Casgrain,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clarke,	Rosamond,
Culbert,	Sherritt,
Earle,	Sproule,
Hackett,	Taylor,
Haggart,	Tolton,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Vrooman,
Kauibach,	Wilmot,
Kemp,	Wilson.-41.
Kendrey,	
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Archambault,	Legris,
Ball,	Lemieux,
Bazinet,	Lewis,
Belcourt,	Logan,
Bernier,	Lovell,
Blair,	Loy,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Maodonald,
Bourassa,	Mackie,
Bourbonnais,	MacLaren (Huntingdon).
Brown,	McCool,
Bruneau,	McCreary,
Brunet,	McEwen,
Bureau,	McGugan,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Campbell,	Madore,
Champagne,	Marcil (Bagot),
Christie,	March (Bonaventure),
Copp,	Martineau,
Costigan,	Matheson,
Delisle,	Muloek,
Demers (St. John),	Oliver,
Douglas,	Paterson,
Dugas,	Prefontaine,
Edwards,	Proulx,
Farquharson,	Reid (Restigouehe),
Fielding,	Riley,
Fisher,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fraser,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gallery,	Housseau,
Gauvreau,	Schell,
Geoffrion,	Scott,
German,	Sifton,
Girard,	Stewart,
Gould,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Harwood,	Tarte,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Tolmie,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tucker,
Laurier (L'Assomption),	Turcot,
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
LeBlanc.	Wright.-84.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd),	Tupper,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,


William Roche: McColl, .	Ward,
Horsey,	Pringle,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Emmerson,	Fowler.
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Blckerdike.	Cargill,
Parmelee,	Poipe,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Cowan,	Bennett,
Fitzpatrick,	La Riviere,
Murray,	Cochrane,
Beith,	Hughes (Victoria),
Guthie,	Calvin,
Kendall,	Roddick,
Thompson,	Ingram,
Erb,	Clancy,
McCarthy,	Smith (Wentworth),
Gibson,	Robinson (Northumberland),
Melsaac,	Hal'e,
Davis,	Roche (Marquette),
Lang,	Henderson,
Ethier,	Ganong,
Heyd,	Seagram,
Holmes,	Richardson.
Meigs,	Halliday,
Wade,	Clare,
Stephens,	Kidd,
Morrison,	McLeod,
MacKinnon,	Gourley,
Talbot,	Porter,
Flint,	Avery,
Angers,	Leonard,
Amendment negatived.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. member for East
Bruce (Mr. Cargill), East Hastings (Mr. Nor-thrup), East Durham (Mr. Ward), East Kings, N. B. (Mr. Fowler), have not voted.


Mr. CARGILL.: I have paired with the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickeraike).


Mr. POPE.: I forgot that I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford, and wish my vote erased.


Mr. FOWLER.: I was paired with the hon. member for Westmoreland, (Mr. Emmerson).


Mr. BALL.: On this question I made a sign that I wished to vote on the side of the government but being essentially a Conservative the deputy clerk of the House paid no attention, and my vote was not recorded either on one side or the other.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the main motion is carried, I wish to say the hon. Minister of Justice has handed me the Bill with regard to Joint Stock Companies, together with a brief, showing what portion is new and what is old. I have looked over the portion that is new and have no oDjec-tion to the Bill being proceeded with at some convenient time to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
To pay amount of judgment of Exchequer Court in favour of Messrs.
Mackenzie and Mann to recoup them for their outlay in connection with proposed contract for a railway from Stickeen river to Teslin lake	$327,878 10

To pay amount ot costs, including disbursements for evidence, witniesa fees, &e	 830 20
[Stage Direction]
Some lion. MEMBERS. Carried.
Rufus Henry Pope: No, some one ought to father this item. We do not know whom to look to, whether the Minister of tne Interior or the Minister of Railways and Canals. The original Bill for the construction of this road was introduced by the Minister of the Interior.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This amount covers the judgment of the Exchequer court in respect of the claim of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann under the contract made with them by the government for the construction of a railway in the Yukon. The amount of the award itself was $327,028.10. The cost including evidence, witness fees, &c., amounted to $830.20. This makes a total of $328,508.20, the amount of the resolution. The original claim was for $493,785.32. The present award includes the amount allowed by the Exchequer court with interest after deducting sales made of the supplies which had been taken into that country by the contractors.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals tell us liow long before tile opening of parliament in 1898, this agreement was made ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, the original papers have passed out of my department, but my information is that they are in the Exchequer court as yet. Speaking from recollection, not only from my own but the recollection of other members of the government, this agreement was made a month or thereabouts before the opening of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: According to the Order in Council, the agreement was made on the 25th of January, 1898, I think the House met that year on the 2nd of February.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Was it so short a time before the session as that ? The hon. gentleman had all the papers laid on the Table some weeks ago, and they would show the date of the agreement.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: The House met on the 3rd of February.


Robert Laird Borden: So, the agreement was made eight or nine days before the opening of parliament. Of course, so far as those contractors are concerned, I think it was recognized, to some extent at least by some members of the House, that, inasmuch as the contractors had proceeded at the instigation of the government before parliament had sanctioned the contract,
there might be some claim on their part to be reimbursed for their actual outlay. Therefore, in any remarks I make, I direct attention to the government who are responsible for the loss to the country and not to the contractors themselves. It seems to me a new phase of parliamentary government that this contract should have been made, signed and sealed just eight days before the meeting of parliament and made subject to the approval of parliament, and yet the contractors should have been directed by the government to proceed with the work immediately. I do not recollect that there were any circumstances which would justify the government in taking the course they did in this matter. Subsequent events in that country have not shown that there was any cause for the very extreme haste with which the government insisted upon these gentlemen incurring liabilities at the expense of the country before parliament had any voice in the expenditure. I have had my attention directed, not during the present session, but during last session to the English practice in regard to such matters, and I think the government departed from the principles of constitutional government, and the due administration of public affairs in taking the course they did, and that they are reprehensible for causing this loss of public money by acting without the sauc-tion of parliament and by urging the contractors as this Order in Council shows they did, to proceed with the construction of this work before parliament had an opportunity to pass upon it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if the correspondence-I suppose there was some correspondence calling upon the contractors to proceed with the work pending the decision of parliament-has been laid before the House. I presume that there must have been written instructions, because under the terms of the contract, strictly there would be no claim for damages. But, presumably because the executive saw fit to order them to proceed with the work we are called upon to pay this large amount. What explanation does the minister give as to the instructions given by the government before the decision of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All the correspondance exchanged between the contractors and the government or any department of the government has been laid on the Table. I know of no verbal instructions having been given. Perhaps the Minister of the Interior might be able to throw some light upon that, if there was any verbal instruction given. As I recollect the circumstances, our action was necessitated by the extreme urgency of the case at that time. We had a very grave problem pending before us with which we had to deal, and, according to the view we took of the question of urgency we could not allow any time to be lost.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that when we are called upon to vote such a large item as this, we are entitled to have from some member of the government a statement of the negotiations which led these contractors against whose claim I have nothing to say, if they received instructions to proceed at any rate and under any circumstances-taking the course they did, what instructions were given at the time, and who gave them those instructions. Having such a judgement I think some member of the government ought to be able to tell us how it came about that, although there were only eight days intervening, even less I think, between the signing of this contract and the meeting of parliament-three days, my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) says- still we are called upon to-day to pay an immense amount when parliament itself is not at fault. I think somebody ought to explain how such a very large bill was run up against the country. If it was a judgment,
1 would have nothing to say. From the little I know of the circumstances, I think the contractors were entitled to a petnion of right. But this is merely a reference establishing the quantum of damages.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I would like the government also to give this explanation:	Is
this a judgment by the Exchequer Court, or did the government admit its liability, and only go to the Exchequer Court judge to have the amount settled which would be paid to these contractors ? Is the item which is now before us founded upon a judgment by the Exchequer Court after the parties have been heard, or did the government admit its liability ?


Mr. OSLER.: This is evidently a very expensive coffin for a still-born child, and the child is so monstrous that the members of the government would be glad to have it buried out of their sight at any expense.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was undoubtedly a hearing before the courts. It took several days and witnesses were examined.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: At the same time there is something very singular about this. This is a large amount of money. Was there a petition of right filed ? Was a fiat given ? Was there a case made out before the Exchequer Court ? Was the Crown heard ? And if the Crown was heard, and judgment was rendered, how is that no appeal has been lodged from this judgment ? If it is a judgment, it seems to me a most extraordinary one. That a court should deliver judgment against the government on a claim of this kind, when it was stated in the contract in so many words that it would be subject to the decision of the House-the whole thing seems very strange. Then if that is true, the contractors took this contract and began work subject to this condition, and the government and the House


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: not having approved of the contract, I cannot understand how the Exchequer Court could have rendered judgment holding the Crown liable under these circumstances.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the award and reference, not to the Exchequer Court, but to the judge of that court acting as commissioner, have been placed upon the Table of the House. At all events, .the Minister of Justice was to produce them, under my instructions. I do not see them on the Table, therefore I will have to give the reference toy memory. The circumstances out of which this whole matter arose are familiar to the House. But though they may toe familiar, in order to make the thing more intelligible, and the present appropriation better understood, perhaps it is just as well that I should give a history of the circumstances from the beginning. The House remembers that iu 1898 the government introduced a Bill to construct a line of railway from Telegraph Creek up to Teslin Lake, which was to be the means of communication between the eastern world and the Yukon. The matter was brought, I admit, hastily to .the attention: of the House. The contract was made in the month of February, if, I remember right, and our intention was that the contractors should proceed immediately with the work, that they should put themselves at once in motion, and have everything ready so that at the opening of the season they would be able to go on at once with the work. AVhat was the reason of this haste V Why did we instruct the contractors to proceed at once without any delay in order to begin work with the opening of the season ? The reason was that in the previous session, that of 1897, the parliament of Canada passed an Act authorizing the construction of a railway from Skagway, on the Lynn canal, to the waters of Lake Bennett, that is to say to the source of the waters of the Yukon. ' This Bill was passed, as a good many Bills have been passed every year, without the government or parliament having any knowledge of the conditions of that country. The Yukon at that moment was a terra incognite. Nobody knew that it contained the vast wealth which events have subsequently shown it to contain. Undoubtedly if, when this charter was granted in 1897, parliament had been informed of the existence of this vast wealth, as it was later on informed in the summer of 1891, when the great discovery of gold was made, this charter would not have been granted. For my part I would have opposed it with all my might; and I am sure the same sentiments which would have actuated me to oppose it, would have actuated every other member of this House. This charter was granted from the waters of the Lynn canal towards the Canadian portion of Lake Bennett that is to say, from a point which is now and was then, in possession of the United States, from Skagway up to Lake

Bennett, which is undoubtedly in Canadian territory. The parties who had that charter had also a charter from the American Congress to build a railway from the waters of the Lynn canal through Canadian territory. I say Canadian territory, because the boundaries had not then been settled, we did not know where the true line was. We knew it w,as somewhere between the waters of the Lynn canal and the waters of Lake Bennett. It has since been established that the boundary is some fifty miles from Skagway. But we were in ignorance of the country then.


Adam Carr Bell: But that point is not accepted as the boundary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I meant to say the provisional boundary. It has not been accepted, but it has been recognized to be the boundary, at .all events, it cannot be worse for us than it Is at the present time. The boundary can be extended from the summit between the waters of the Pacific and the waters of the Arctic ocean. But in the summer of 1897 this gold discovery was made. There was a rush, we had to provide at once for a system of communication between the eastern world and the Yukon. We then made the contract with Mackenzie & Mann for the construction of that railway. The great object we had in mind was to have a railway, not from Skagway, but from Telegraph Creek, from one point in Canadian territory to another point in Canadian territory. Under that contract we intended to provide at once for the construction of a railway which would be altogether under our control. I may say it was only a provisional contract, because the Stikine river, though we have the right to navigate It, empties into American territory. But if our contract had been carried out we would have realized our intention to bring this railway to the waters of Observatory Inlet. We made haste to complete that contract for this reason, that if we did not take advantage of the time which was at our disposal, then the other chanter which was given a year before would be proceeded with, and a railway would be constructed from the waters of the Lynn canal, at Skagway, up to the waters of Lake Bennett, and of course this railway being built, it would be a great detriment to our national railway. If our idea had . been carried out, if the Bill which passed in this House had not been rejected by the Senate, then this railway would have been constructed, the railway between Skagway and Lake Bennett would not have been constructed, and we would have to-day an all-Canadian route in the Yukon, instead of having a hybrid route such as we have at the present time. That was the justification in our judgment. That is why there was such haste to have this railway built. The White Pass Yukon Railway people had been watching and were ready to proceed with the construction of their railway, and our own contractors were 153
also ready to proceed. They made haste, there was a great deal of work to do, they sent provisions into the country, they purchased materials, they proceeded to carry on the work in the hope and expectation that their efforts would be approved by the Canadian parliament, that the contract would be ratified, and that as soon as spring was opened they would be ready to proceed and have the railway built during the season of 1898. They spent a large amount of money with that object in view. Unfortunately, the Bill, after having passed this House, was rejected by the Canadian parliament. These contractors made a claim upon us to be recouped for the expenditure which they had made. We asked them to furnish us with a detailed account which they did, but, before we proceeded to have the account settled, we asked them to dispose of all the material they could dispose of, which they did. Lastly, we had the account audited by judicial authority. We referred the matter to Mr. Justice Burbidge, who audited the account and examined it carefully. Mr. Justice Burbidge made a report to the government that Mackenzie & Mann had honestly expended the sum that is established now to be in the neighbourhood of $300,000. Of course, I am bound to say at once that there is no legal recourse against the Canadian government which can be enforced in a court of law, but we admit that Mackenzie & Mann have a moral claim against the honour of the Canadian people, against the honour of the Canadian government, and against the honour of the Canadian parliament, for the money which they then expended in an enterprise which was national in its character and which in my opinion, though, perhaps my opinion is not shared by all the members of this House, in an enterprise, which, if it had been carried out, would have been of the greatest advantage to the Canadian people at large. For these reasons we submit to the Canadian parliament that these men should not be subjected to the heavy loss which would be entailed on them, but as this is a loss which must be borne by somebody, it should be borne by the country and not by the contractors. We may be told that they were hasty, that they should have waited until the contract had been ratified. The excuse and the reason for this haste, and in my estimation it is an ample reason, is that there was not a minute to be lost, that time had to be taken by the forelock, that they had to proceed immediately to collect the materials and to take the measurements necessary in order that as soon as the spring was opened they might be enabled to go on with the work of construction. Of course, if it had not been for the charter which parliament had granted-I will not say improvidently or imprudently granted- but granted in ignorance of the conditions existing in that country, there would not

486?

436S
lave been any necessity for such haste. But, this haste is justifiable by the events which have taken place since. As soon as the contract which we made with Mackenzie & Mann had been rejected by the Canadian Senate, the charter which had been granted by this parliament and by Congress to the White Pass and Yukon Railway Company was availed of, and in the spring the company proceeded with the construction of the railway between Skagway and the Yukon. This makes it a task 'of great difficulty for us now to have a national railway on Canadian soil. Under the circumstances, we say, and it is the only ground upon which we put it before the committee, that Mackenzie & Mann have against the Canadian people a moral claim which ought to be satisfied. The country can bear the loss, but individuals could not bear such a loss as that. The money was expended honestly and in good faith, the money was expended for a good purpose, the money was expended for a purpose, which, if it had been carried out, would have been of untold advantage to the country, and for these reasons I appeal strongly to hon. members on both sides of the House. As to the amount, as I have said, we thought we should not deal with the matter ourselves, but that we should refer it to a person most competent to deal with a matter of this kind, that is to say, to a judge of the land, who has carefully investigated and audited the account. We believe that on moral grounds Mackenzie & Mann should be repaid the amount they have expended, and for these reasons we have asked for this appropriation.


John Graham Haggart: This is the result of an infringement of the law by hon. gentlemen opposite, when they entered into this contract with Mackenzie & Mann. This system of entering into contracts without the authority of parliament should be put a stop to in some manner or other. It is unconstitutional. One of the principles that is laid down by the authorities as being one of the conditions on which a contract should be made is that:
It is equally clear that the government have no constitutional authority to make a contract which shall be binding on the House of Commons

The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) admits that.
-by whom the necessary funds for carrying on the contract must be supplied ; and the consent of parliament should be first obtained to all new contracts.
The contract was entered into only eight days before the meeting of parliament, and therefore hon. gentlemen could have obtained the consent of parliament by waiting for eight days, which would have been a very short time indeed to have waited.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. There was a delay


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has looked into some of the papers, I suppose 7


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He has observed, no doubt, that the account of materials furnished was care-153J
fully gone into, and that one of -the officers of the Railway Department, Mr. Shannon, a very competent and a very reliable man, went out to this portion of the country, and compared the materials and merchandise there with the items of the Mackenzie & Mann claim, ascertained wherein he thought it was in his opinion excessive ; ascertained as to the correctness of it, and made his report accordingly. The account was not by any means submitted to the judge of the Exchequer Court without having been inquired into previously in the -most thorough and exhaustive manner toy a competent officer of the department.


John Graham Haggart: I am not saying anything about that. I say that the judgment of the Exchequer Court is for the precise amount that was recommended by the officer of your department. The contractors claimed a certain amount; they agreed -that a certain amount should be deducted ; afterwards the sale of material reduced that amount, and the award was for the amount that remained.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I find no fault with the position laid down toy my hon. friend (Mr. Ha-ggart) as to -the status of parliamentary government. He says that the government should not enter into a contract unless they have previous parliamentary authority or unless ;it is provided -that the contract shall be ratified by parliament. That is exactly What was done in this case. The contract which was entered into by the government with Messrs Mackenzie & Mann provided that it should be ratified by parliament, and it failed of Its ratification. My hon. friend asks why the contractors engaged in the work of the contract before it was ratified. Of -course, if it had been like the case mentioned by my hon. friend a moment ago, simply for the adornment of a public building, they would not have been so hasty to do so. But he understands that from the very nature of the work, and from the fact that It was to be carried out in a part of the continent very difficult of access, they could not wait, but were obliged to have their_ materials on the spot so as to be in a position to go on with the construction as soon as the season opened. There was . not an hour to be lost, and they proceeded on the expectation and the presumption that the contract would toe ratified by parliament. I repeat that we do not pretend that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have a legal claim against the government.


Adam Carr Bell: Had they nothing more than the presumption that parliament would ratify that contract to warrant them in going on 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: They had the presumption and the necessity of the case, which would have made their efforts absolutely fruitless unless they had taken advantage of the winter season to send their

materials to Telegraph Creek. When the accounts were presented to the government they were carefully inspected and audited by an officer of the Department of Railways. But we were not satisfied to have that audit alone. We thought that a judicial audit of the accounts should be made, and we appointed Mr. Justice Burbidge to make that judicial audit; and I call the attention of the House to the very terms of the reference under which Mr. Justice Burbidge proceeded :
The minister, therefore, recommends that the said claims he referred, under the statute, ir. that behalf, to the Exchequer Court of Canada, for investigation, adjustment, and judgment, but that no claims which do not come within those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this minutes of council and the sum' total of which is given in paragraph 5, be inquired into.
Paragraph 4 says :
The minister considers that the claims which should be recognized are for time and services and money losses actually sustained and' money expenditure actually made or liabilities therefore incurred in good faith in connection with said agreement, and in preparing to carry out the same, and in procuring and transporting men, materials, plant and supplies therefore, and in carrying on the works so far as they may have been proceeded with, and the interest paid on the moneys expended.
This was the nature of the claim which was referred to the judicial audit of Mr. Burbidge. He investigated the claims and made his report, and accordingly, this appropriation is now asked for. I have only to repeat what I said: we cannot present the claim as a legal one ; we present it simply as an equitable one which ought to appeal to the sense of fairness and equity of hon. members on both sides of the House.


John Graham Haggart: When the right hon. gentleman interrupted me I was going on to argue that the Grown has no power to enter into a contract unless the money is voted by parliament or unless the Crown makes it a condition of the contract that it shall not come into force until the money is voted. But here is an expenditure which fell upon us the very moment the contract was entered into. There is no provision in our constitution for anything of that kind. If there is a necessity for any extraordinary expenditure, or if any emergency arises which justifies an expenditure, the only other method by which it can be incurred is by a Governor General's warrant. But no government has a right to enter into a contract by which any expenditure of money can be made before the money is voted by parliament. It is an attack on the privileges of parliament to enter into any such contract. The contract may be made subject to the approval of parliament, but no expenditure under it is justified until parliament votes the money.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. That proposition is all right Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
stated in a general way and applicable to ordinary circumstances; but the British constitution recognizes that in a case of great urgency, such as the purchase of the Suez canal shares by the British government-a case in which the government considers the matter is of such supreme importance it will be warranted in taking upon itself the risk of getting the approval of parliament in acting without previous parliamentary authority. This has been done more than once, and is regarded as being within the purview of the constitution, although no constitutional sanction is granted to it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman cannot give any authority for that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg pardon. The constitution is of that elastic character that it recognizes that such a contract can be made if it is made on the responsibility of the government, and if the sanction or approval of parliament follows, although it is not a thing that is regular or usual.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I invite him to distinguish between the case of the half a million or four hundred thousand dollar contract which he gave to Mr. M. P. Davis for the building of Sheik's Island dam and the case of the Murray Harbour Railway work, which he condemns so unhesitatingly.

My hon. friend can do so if there is any possibility of distinguishing between them, but I think he will find it more difficult than he seems to think. It is an interesting question. I could furnish my hon. friend with a number of similar instances which would occupy his consideration, and he might probably be able to tell us wherein the contracts were perfectly legal in the one case and absolutely null in the other. It is germane to this subject, because my hon. friend has dragged in this Murray harbour affair for the purpose of pointing the argument against us in connection with the Mackenzie & Mann contract, to show that the Mackenzie & Mann arrangement was in line with the policy we were in the habit of pursuing. While I am upon this point,
I wish to say a word with regard to the general question of inviting tenders for public works. I do not think there has been any department of the government, either under the present administration or under the former administration, in which there has been fewer cases of contracts being given without public competition than in the Department of Railways and Canals during the past five or six years. But cases will occur, and may properly occur, in which that may be done. If the people and parliament have confidence that the government and the minister will only take that course when the case justifies it, and when the contract is a proper one for such treatment, why should not the public interest be furthered, as it often may be, by placing the contract for work of this character in the hands of a responsible man ? Some people fall down and worship the idea of publicly inviting tenders for every contract, as though that alone would secure the best results for the country and for all concerned. But that is not my view. I do not think that is a position which one who has had any experience in public affairs would feel called upon to adhere to. I think if it were the ideal and the only proper way in which contracts could be given by the government, it would have been followed .in that country to which we all look for what Is wisest and best in the administration of government. But they do not follow this course in England. They very rarely, so far as I can learn, publicly invite tenders. If they want competition among men for any particular service, they privately notify chosen parties by sending circulars to them, and from the tenders received they chose the man. who shall receive the contract. But they do not by any means bind themselves to give the contract to the lowest tenderer even then. Nor are the oases infrequent, as anybody who has followed the subject must know", in which tenders are not invited at all. I believe that it is often the best and wisest course, where you have a man who is already carrying on a work who is responsible, and is doing his work satisfactorily, and at prices which are just and reasonable, to give the Hon. Mr. BLAIR.	'
contract for any extension of the work decided on. It is better that such a contractor should be permitted to continue -better for the government and for all concerned. I think that one of the last things that any man who has had experience in these matters would wish is that a contract which he has to let should fall into the hands of incompetent people, people who know nothing about how to do the business, but who are ready to jump at every opportunity of getting a contract and who, very often, when they have a contract, do not know what to do with it. It is not at all. the best thing for the government always to get the work done at (the lowest possible prices. On the contrary, it is the best thing for the government that its contracts should be let at prices which are fair and reasonable and will allow a fair-not an exorbitant, but a fair-return to the contractors for the investment they make and the work they do. These are the conditions under which contracts should be let. Whatever the nature of the work may be, whether the construction of a railway or the putting up of a public building or other works of that character, the very greatest difficulty arises if the contracts get into the hands of men who are really undertaking to do the work for less than, will give them a fair return for their labour, or is being done at a loss. With such people, you encounter trouble at every turn. You cannot have staff enough to see that such people do not evade you. They have every motive to do so, and sometimes even the motive of saving themselves from ruin; and they resort to all sorts of expedients for the purpose of evasion. If we were not opposed to one another here, some on one side of politics and some on the other, if we were not discussing this question from two sides of the House, there is no hon. gentleman who would not admit that the public interests will be best served by having contracts placed in the hands of responsible people and at prices that will give the contractor a fair return while being also satisfactory to the government. So, I say, I do not admit at all that cases may not properly arise in which the action should be taken which was taken. I do not criticise the action taken by the hon. gentleman-I have no doubt he has good reasons for recommending it to his colleagues. But cases will arise in Which it is necessary for the government to take this course in "the public interest. Now my hon. friend has not given to this committee, it appears to me, by any of the arguments he has presented, any reasons why this item should not pass. He has admitted that it would be a great hardship for these people to be called upon to bear this loss, and that parliament would not be willing under the circumstances, that these people should bear the loss. With the best intentions and with the fullest confidence that parliament would ratify the arrangements made, and yielding

to the strong opinion which was entertained in the country that something must be done immediately for the Yukon, this work was proceeded with. People were rushing in there, and predictions were freely made that fifty thousand people would go in during that season. These people had no means of carrying with them sufficient food to maintain them for any lengthened period. So, it was necessary that, as speedily as possible, easy means of transport should be provided toy which the needed supplies could be carried into that country. The government were aware of that necessity. Not because they wanted to act hastily, or because they felt they were acting hastily, but because they felt the responsibility resting upon them, and that failure to do what was best would lay them open to criticism and condemnation, they took this means to insure, to the utmost extent of their power, the providing of the best means of communication at the earliest possible moment. The contractors guaranteed us that by the end of September there would be a railway to Lake Bennett, and that at the earliest possible moment we should be able to get through that otherwise impassable barrier the supplies that were needed toy the people who were rushing into that country.	;	.
Mr. MACLEAN, i am not going to argue with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blair) whether party government is a failure or not, or whether public competition should or should not be abandoned, both of which principles he supported in the address he has just made. But I would like to ask him a question which is pertinent to the subject under debate. Did the government as a whole or did any member of the government- and if so, which one-give instruction to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann to go on with this contract and incur this expense pending the ratification of the contract by parliament ? That question has been asked two or three times and we have not had an answer yet.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The question which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) asks is a perfectly fair and pertinent question. There were no specific instructions given by the government or any member of the government to the firm of Mackenzie & Mann, or any of their agents, to proceed with this work before it should be ratified by parliament, that is to say, no member of the government gave specific instructions.


William Findlay Maclean: Were there any general instructions ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No general instructions, no instructons at all.


William Findlay Maclean: Then the contractors proceeded of their own notion ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. But first I want to refer to the question which the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has brought up. I desire to say to my hon. friend that he seems to be very anxious that the constitution should be observed in all respects. I think it is very creditable to the hon. gentleman that about once a day he points out the necessity of sticking to the constitution. There need, not, however, be any haziness upon the constitutional question involved in this contract. Every member of parliament, I apprehend, without being a lawyer, understands exactly what the position is in that respect. The government have no power to make a contract which binds the country, nor have they any power to expend any money, nor have they any power to incur a liability which the country is bound to pay without the sanction of parliament. That is sufficiently evident, even in the circumstance with which we are dealing at the present time; because the government could not pay the amount without a special appropriation of parliament.
But while the rule is abundantly clear and not to be disputed by any person, that contracts cannot be made without the sanction of parliament or without parliamentary authority in the shape of an appropriation, yet that rule is subject to exceptions. While I am not desirous of going over the ground which was gone over at such wearisome length when this contract was under discussion in parliament, I may simply refer to the fact that it is well recognized that in some cases the government does, in the exercise of its functions as a government responsible to parliament, decide that it will take the responsibility of departing from this well recognized rule. If we were a government such as, for instance, there exists in the United States, where they have a President bound by the limitations of a written constitution, such a thing of course could not occur, because the president could have no authority, and could not be justified in taking such responsibility. But inasmuch as our government is differently constituted we have the power of taking that responsibility upon ourselves, being bound to account to the House of Commons, from which we derive our authority, for the exercise of the power that is vested in us, and bound to account for the step which we took in incurring that responsibility. We took the responsibility because we thought that circumstances demanded it. It would be a wearisome waste of time to undertake to go over the circumstances which were discussed in this House, I think more lengthily than any other subject which has been debated since I have been a member of It. But we did take the responsibility of deciding that this action ought to be taken, and we caused this contract to be executed.

Now, for my hon. friend's question. No specific instructions and no general instructions were given to the contractors to proceed; but every member of the government perfectly understood, and the contractors perfectly understood, that they were expected by the government to proceed, because the very terms of the contract-if my hon. friend will take the trouble to look at it again-necessitated the contractors proceeding immediately to expend a large sum of money if they were to fulfil the terms of the contract and the obligations which they had entered into with the government. go the question whether there were or were not any specific instructions given to the contractors, is of no account whatever in endeavouring to arrive at the merits of this question. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, the contractors were perfectly justified, in so far as their relations with the government were concerned, in proceeding with the work. They perfectly understood that the government expected that they would go to work and put themselves in a position to fulfil this contract, and they could not possibly have done that if they had not anticipated the meeting of parliament by taking the action which required the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money.
Now, as to whether it was wise that the government should come to the conclusion that circumstances were so urgent as to require this departure from the regular usage, is a question in regard to which we are quite prepared to take our stand, and to accept the responsibility before this committee, before parliament, and before the people of Canada. My hon. friend will, I think, admit that some of the circumstances, at least, would assist in justifying the government in coming to the conclusion that there were circumstances of peculiar urgency. Suppose that some time about next September or October, some very peculiar set of circumstances should arise, which, in the opinion of the community, seemed to demand special action, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should come to a member of the government who was particularly charged with dealing with that special emergency, and urge upon him to take special action in regard to it, to take it immediately, without waiting for a meeting of parliament, then I think that we would be justified in assuming that there were some grounds at least for supposing that a strong case of urgency had been made out. It is within the knowledge of hon. gentlemen, I think, that while that contract was under discussion Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the opposition, came to my house and urged that the contract should be made; and when I said that the terms were under discussion and that the government had difficulty in agreeing upon the terms, the expression of Sir Charles Tupper was that it was not necessary to stand so much on the question of terms, but Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
that time was the important thing; that the question was one of extreme urgency, and we should act at once; that the contract should be made for the construction of a railway. And by what route ? By the Stikine route, by the very route which we were adopting at that time. And the hon. gentleman, who then occupied the position that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition now occupies, then and there joined hands with the government in the action which they took in that respect. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we had a right to expect that the honour and good faith of the Conservative party were pledged to us in that undertaking, surely we had a right to expect that a man of his years, and experience, and high position, having come voluntarily, of his own motion, to a member of this government for the purpose of suggesting the very action which was taken, would not allow himself to be put in the position of swallowing his own words, dishonouring himself, and going back upon the position he had just taken. I think. Sir, our hon. friends upon the other side of the House have placed themselves in a very invidious position, when, knowing that their lealder had gone so far as to indorse the position which the government had taken, ,they practically took him by the throat and in broad daylight, before the whole people of Canada, compelled him to swallow his own words, to dishonour himself and the Conservative party in this House, as he did upon that occasion. There is at least fair ground, I think, for the suggestion that the case was one of urgency where the responsible leader- of the Conservative party in this House went so far as to pursue the very extraordinary course that he did, in coming and urging "upon the government the very course which the government afterwards pursued.
I am far from undertaking to justify the action of the government by anything" that was said by the then leader of "the opposition. The government does not require to go behind the leader of the Conservative party or any member of the Conservative party for the purpose of justifying its action. The government is prepared to take the responsibility of its action ; and if hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to take the responsibility before the people of Canada, for the present position of affairs in the Yukon territory, then this government is prepared to take the responsibility of paying $328,000. We will take our share if hon. gentlemen will take their share, which they have placed upon themselves.
Now, after the firm of Mackenzie & Mann had gone on in good faith-and I apprehend from the tone in which this claim has been discussed that our hon. friends on the other side are not disputing the righteousness of paying the claim, or paying whatever may be found to be a proper amount, but after that contract had been executed, and the firm had gone on and expended their money in

good faith, the contract, as the members of the commitee are aware, was thrown out by the Senate at the instance of friends of the Conservative party. After the contract had been drawn up and the operations had been called off, the members of the contracting firm came to the government and explained the position in which they were and asked what redress they were to have and how their claim was to be recognized. The government came to the conclusion, that it was a fair and proper thing that the firm of Mackenzie & Mann should be paid the actual moneys which they were out of pocket, not any profits upon the operation, not any damages for the failure to ratify the contract, but the actual amount of money which the firm were out of pocket in consequence of the operations which they had undertaken for the carrying out of the contract which they had made with the government. I make that statement clearly and definitely' so that this committee might understand exactly' what the government decided to do. We decided, that, under the circumstances of the case which the members of the committee are perfectly familiar with from first to last, it was fair and reasonable and right that the government of Canada should pay to these contractors the actual amount of money which they were out of pocket in connection with the carrying out of the contract insofar as they had gone. Then the question arose as to the adjustment of these moneys, as to the proper ascertainment of the amount which the government should pay. They were told to file their claim with the Railway Department and that their claim would be considered. They filed their claim with the Railway Department and the officers of that department examined and audited the accounts. The government had no other way' of arriving at the amount which should be paid except by referring the claim to the proper department of government where were officers skilled in the examination of such accounts and knowing thoroughly well whether the figures, the items, the prices which had been submitted to them were just, or reasonable, or proper. That is the only' way in which the government could proceed in the adjustment of these accounts. We did proceed in this way and the accounts were sent to the Railway Department and they were audited by' the officers of the department. I am not familiar with the names of the officers who audited these accounts. They were sent there and under the direction of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) they were placed in the hands of the proper officers and audited. The hon. member [DOT] for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says that the award of the judge of the Exchequer Court agrees with the amount which had been agreed upon between Mackenzie & Mann and the officers of the Railway Department. This is not a correct statement of the facts. The officers of the
Railway Department made no agreement as to any amount with Mackenzie & Mann, nor did the government make any agreement as to any amount with Mackenzie & Mann. The officers of the Railway Department had no authority to make any agreement. It was the business of the officers of the Railway Department to make a correct audit of the accounts that were placed before them and to report to the minister the result of their examination.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The officers of the Railway Department went out to that country, made an investigation as to the goods, materials and supplies which they had on hand.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was not aware of that, but I know that the greatest care had been taken, because, at the time, the government took the position that the most careful overhauling of these accounts should be made, because, as hon. gentlemen have said, and as the government quite agree, the amount was very large, much larger even than we had any expectation it would be. What the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) should have said was that the finding of the judge of the Exchequer Court proved that the officers of the Department of Railways had properly audited the accounts. That is what the finding of the judge of the Exchequer Court proved. After the examination had taken place by the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals and after they had reported as to the amount which they found these accounts totalled up to, and which constituted their finding upon the claim which was filed there, we were in this position : Should we bring that claim to parliament, or should we accept the finding of our officers, the officers of the Railway Department, or, should we require some further examination of these accounts? We were quite aware that parliament would required that the utmost care should have been exercised in connection with the auditing of these accounts.


John Graham Haggart: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) proceeds from that point was there not an agreement or understanding between Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and the Department of Railways and Canals as to the prices or the amount ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, there was no arbitration, none whatever.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Not that I ever heard of.


John Graham Haggart: I am not saying that there was an arbitration. Was there not a settlement between the representatives of Mackenzie & Mann and the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals as to the prices, the amounts, and the reductions ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, not in the Department of Railways and Canals.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We decided as a government that Mackenzie & Mann should be paid the moneys which they had properly expended in attempting to carry out this contract. They filed a statement of their account, we sent it to the Department of Railways and Canals in order that the officers might decide as to what was the proper amount. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) asks : Was it agreed ? If he calls it an agreement that when the contractors filed their accounts in the Department of Railways and Canals the officers decided what they were willing to recommend and allow, then, that was an agreement. That was exactly what the accounts were sent there for, but the officers did not agree that the amount should be paid. The officers were in the position simply of auditors for the purpose of making an audit. As to whether that amount should be paid or not, or whether a smaller amount should be paid, was a matter respecting which they had nothing to do, and the government was in no way bound by the result of the examination which they made. I was going to say that we fully recognized the facts that this House would not take it as reasonable that they should be asked to sanction a payment of this character unless a very full and thorough examination of the accounts had been made. Therefore, after the audit had been made by the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals, in order that there could be no possible question about the amount, in order that there could be no possible suggestion that the accounts were cooked, or that they were padded, or that it was unfair, or unreasonable that any of these accounts should he paid, we sent the accounts to the judge of the Court of Exchequer for the purpose of having his findings upon these accounts.
It is upon the finding of the judge of the Exchequer Court in review of the result of the examination of the officers of the Department of Railways, that we bring this amount before the committee for the purpose of being authorized to pay it to these people. I cannot conceive at this moment of anything more that the government could do for the purpose of getting at a fair adjustment of this account, and I venture to say that hon. gentlemen upon the other side of the House will not in the course of the discussion be able to suggest anything further that the government could have done, or that the government ought to have done for the purpose of adjusting this account, than that which we have done already. We have endeavoured to protect the treasury, we have endeavoured to protect the public, we have endeavoured to protect this House in every way. and in the only way which was open to us. Under Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
these circumstances, so far as the question of the amount is concerned-although It is large upon the face of it; larger perhaps than any of us anticipated-yet we are not in a position to say that it is not a fair and reasonable adjustment.
What is the position therefore in which we are placed as a government in connection with this matter ? It is, that we decided upon a certain line of action at a certain time, and that we took the responsibility of taking that action. We were burked in our endeavour to carry out that project by our hon. friends on the other side of the House, who, not having a majority in the popular Chamber amongst the representatives of the people, sought to prevent us from carrying out our wishes; sought to prevent the majority in this House from having its own way in regard to the handling of the public property of this country, by having the Bill thrown out in another place. So far as we are concerned we are prepared to accept the responsibility of our action. I venture to say that hon. gentlemen upon the other side will not find as time goes on, tha^ their position in connection with this transaction will be regarded by the people of Canada as flattering to them. If this transaction had been allowed to be consummated as it was intended it should be, we should have had a Canadian railway to the Yukon Territory; we should have had a railway; which we would have reached in the first instance by means of a stream over which we have the right of navigation, and we should have been able to reach our own territory by a Canadian route. The scheme of that railway contemplated an extension to a port in British Columbia, and if the first section of the road had been built, undoubtedly the second section would have quickly followed, and long before this we should have been enjoying the benefit of an ocean port in British Columbia, from which we would have running a railway over Canadian soil which would have enabled us to reach the Yukon Territory without crossing American territory. That would have been the position in which the country would have been placed to-day. It would not have cost the exchequer of this country a single copper, and as to the importance of it, I may say that during that very session or the next session of parliament.' we had the admission of the responsible leader of the Conservative party, when he stood upon the floor of this House and actually suggested that this government should propose legislation under which we should provide that that very same railway sho ild be built out of the public funds of this country at an enormous cost. That is the position which the Conservative party committed itself in parliament at that time.
But what are the conditions at the present time ? Instead of a Canadian railway and a Canadian sea port, and a Canadian trade,

what have we got ? If our friends opposite think that the present position is a satisfactory one and that it flatters them, I wish them all possible joy of it. We have at the present time a territory rapidly developing, in which there is a great and growing trade; a territory which we absolutely cannot reach, speaking in a commercial or economic sense, except over territory which is occupied by the American people. We are absolutely in the hands of the American people in regard to our dealings with our own territory there. At the present time the steamboats which run from the ports upon the Puget Sound to Alaska are making it almost impossible for the Canadian boats to carry on business, and this government has an application before it from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company asking for assistance to enable them to maintain their line-the only Canadian line upon the route -because they are subjected to such unfair competition from the Americans. That is the position in which we are in respect to shipping. So far as trade is concerned, if hon. gentlemen opposite will look at the returns they will find that a vast proportion of the trade is done by the Americans. Upon the upper Yukon it is altogether in the hands of the Americans. The large commercial companies are American companies, and by reason of the fact that we have to pass through American territory, and that we are handicapped in every respect in connection with that trade, it is almost impossible for Canadian merchants to compete upon fair terms with their rivals there.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, leaving out of sight for the moment the question of trade, we are in this unfortunate and humiliating position, that we cannot send a policeman or a soldier into our own territory without that policeman or soldier taking off his uniform and asking leave of the American government to cross American territory. That is the humiliating position in which we are placed in the Yukon Territory by reason of the action of our friends on the other side of the House. More than that, we cannot take a prisoner from Dawson city to a penitentiary in the older portion of Canada, because we would have to take him through American territory, and we would be liable to be called upon to surrender that prisoner, and would be called upon to surrender that prisoner if we attempted to take such action.
Now, Sir, in connection with that country we are placed in a most ridiculous and humiliating position, and we are placed in that position by reason of the action of hon. gentlemen opposite who have forced us to it, or else to incur the enormous expenditure of the building of an allCanadian road out of the public funds. But further, the action which was taken at that particular time had this effect. As the right hon. the Prime Minister has said, there has been a railway
charter to run from the town of Skagway, known as the British Yukon Railway, but now popularly known as the White Pass Railway. It is a fact which is well known to many members of this House, that the promoters of that railway were in the city of Ottawa waiting to learn whether the Mackenzie & Mann Railway Bill would pass or not before they should ask their friends to subscribe a dollar for the purpose of constructing the White Pass Road. They waited in this city until they found out that the Senate had determined to throw out that Bill, and so soon as that action was taken, they went to work and got the money to build the road. And if that Bill had not been thrown out; if the Mackenzie & Mann charter had gone through, then the White Pass Railway could never have been built, because its promoters would never have risked a dollar of investment in that road. What is the result to-day ? By the throwing out of the Mackenzie & Mann charter the construction of the White Pass Railway has been made possible, and the existence of that road makes it an economic impossibility almost to get any money upon a commercial basis for the purpose of getting another railway constructed over Canadian soil. We are therefore in the unfortunate position, that unless and until the trade of that country would justify the government of Canada in making enormous sacrifices for the purpose of getting a railway in there, we shall not have a Canadian railway, and we shall be in the unfortunate and humiliating position of doing everything practically by the leave of eur American friends. I am bound to say that so far, our relations with the American government in respect to the right of way and passage across the strip of territory at Skagway, have been of a reasonable and satisfactory character. But there is no member of this House who reflects for a; moment who cannot see the difficulty of the position in which the Dominion of Canada is placed, by having access to its own territory only by permission of a foreign power. I have only to say in conclusion on this point that so far as the government are concerned, they regret that they are called upon to ask the committee to pay this sum of money; but they have no reason to doubt that the position they took at the time in connection with this enterprise was correctly taken, and we adhere to the opinion more strongly even than then that the Bill which we placed before parliament at that time was in the public interest and should have been passed.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the estimated cost of a railway such as was proposed by this contract ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not an engineer's estimate by me or I would be happy to give it to the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not propose to discuss the question of the constitutionality of this payment, or whether it should be made in the way proposed. But, considering it on ordinary business principles, I thoroughly approve of the payment to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, the contractors, of whatever amount is found to be fairly due to them, they having expended money under a contract that was entered into by them in good faith with a government having a very large majority at their back. I think that any contractors are justified under these circumstances in immediately making a large expenditure of money, and I think that the government and this House should pay them whatever is properly due to them for that expenditure. It may be that the government are not going about the matter in the right way. It may be that the amount settled upon is not the right amount. IThat, I should gather from what I have heard of this discussion, is quite open to question. It is evident that the amount which the Exchequer Court awarded was an amount that had been arrived at between the government and Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann before the accounts were submitted to the Exchequer Court.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, no.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Necessarily that is the only inference that can be drawn, because the amount fixed by the Exchequer Court is practically the precise amount that the government had agreed to before submitting the case. It.is quite evident further that there was very little if any investigation into the accounts by the Exchequer Court. There was practically no evidence whatever taken in regard to those accounts. That is quite plain from the fact that the total amount asked from this House in connection with fees and disbursements is only a [DOT]little over $800. I do not pretend to be able to say from the discussion whether the amount awarded was right or was not right, but I for one am of opinion that the principle of paying what these contractors expended in good faith under such a contract is one that ought to be approved of by the House and carried out. As regards the contract itself which the hon. Minister of the Interior has attempted to defend, I think it was a very vicious one. The statement which the hon. Minister of the Interior makes in reference to Sir Charles Tupper has, so far as I am aware, been heard for the first time in this House to-night. That statement, I venture to say, would not have been made if Sir Charles Tupper had been present, but would have been contradicted by him flatly and emphatically. It is a statement that was never made when that gentleman was in this House. It is quite true, Sir Charles Tupper said at that time that it was a wise thing to build that railway, but the terms of the contract were denounced by Sir Charles Tupper, as they Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
were by every other member on this side of the House, and as they were denounced by every man in the country who looked into them. But let us go further. It is the duty of those who assume the responsibility of government, if they meet with difficulties, to find a way out of those difficulties. But what steps did the government take when the Bill which they introduced was defeated by the Senate ? Did they do what men would have done if they were in earnest-at once set to work to carry out the object which they had in view and which they said they approved of ? No, they dropped that Bill and they shirked all attempts to re-enact the measure, knowing that their own followers and the country would not for one moment have endorsed the carrying out of another contract. If the condition of affairs is as humiliating to-day as the hon. Minister of the Interior says it is, what is to prevent the government bringing in a Bill for building another railway on somewhat similar terms ? I do not suppose it will be denied for one moment that much more favourable terms could be obtained to-day than the terms which were then given.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We could not get as favourable terms to-day.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You could get a contract to-day on terms so much more favourable to the government and the country that there would be no comparison between the two. If that contract at that time was worth the enormous grants of land and privileges given to Mackenzie & Mann, it is worth very much more to-day. The terms of that contract were such as outraged the sense of justice and fairness of this country and the government dropped as quickly as possible all further reference to the Yukon Bill. What have we seen this session ? We have seen a contract, less in value to the extent of its being less in scope and volume, but similar in its terms, made with the private firm of Messrs. Treadgold & Barwiek-a contract quite as outrageous in its terms as the Yukon contract; and what happened in regard to it ? As soon as the governor of the Yukon came down here and remonstrated with the government, and advised them that there would be a revolution in the Yukon if it were carried out, the objectionable terms were cancelled immediately. Why were those terms given ? They were given either without any knowledge of what was being given away, or for some purpose, because the moment the outrageous terms of the contract were brought to the attention of the government those terms were withdrawn. I say that if the railway which the action of the Senate prevented the construction of, was as important as some members of the government now assert, the government could now have that railway built on much more

favourable terms than those of the Mackenzie & Mann contract.
They have a Senate which is practically favourable to them now, and they need not fear that it will throw out their Bill. I have not been long enough in the House to make the statement with authority, but I venture to say that, if there ever has been a case, it is extremely rare, when the Senate has thrown out a Bill twice. Why did not the government re-enact the Yukon Railway Bill ? Because the Bill was so vicious, because the contract was so inadvisable, and so much against the interests of the country, that they dared not reenact it. I did not intend to discuss any subject beyond the actual policy and principle of paying this money, and would not have done so had it not been for the defence made by the hon. Minister of the Interior. As regards the payment of money to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, if the amount has been arrived at fairly, and is fairly known to be what was expended, I believe that the government should pay it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) has talked to us about the humiliating condition in which this country finds itself on account of the action of the Senate in rejecting this contract. He does not seem to understand in what a humiliating position he has placed himself and his colleagues by the statement he has just made. He says that the Canadian trade has been lost to that country and that a great many evils have befallen the Yukon on account of the action of the Senate in throwing out this Bill. I asked him, how much it would take to build the railway, and he did not know. What was there to prevent the government from building the railway itself that same year if it had desired ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It would have cost a great deal of money.


Robert Laird Borden: They were deterred by the expense. They were willing to place this country in the humiliating position in which he says it is, because they were afraid of spending the money. Well,. I have no doubt that it would have been a great deal cheaper for us to have built that road ourselves than to have had it built by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, under the proposed contract. But whether the sum required to build it as a government road be great or small, this government had the responsibility cast upon it of dealing with the matter; and if the facts are as the hon. the Minister of the Interior has stated them, this government has failed in its duty in not having brought down an appropriation for that purpose. These hon. gentlemen are on the horn of a dilemma. Enther we are not to trust the statement of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, or if we do, this government has been recreant in its duty in not having provided for the
building of that railway by a public grant and appropriation and in not having done the work itself if necessary. I would like to know how the hon. gentleman is going to get out of the difficulty. The government did not seem to want a railway into the country. I recollect myself that when a company asked for a charter, the government laid down the policy distinctly, in rejecting the measure proposed, which did not call for the expenditure of a dollar of public money, that while they were considering the whole subject they would not give any charter to parties to build a railway, and they had that charter voted down. They adopted that policy because they said they were considering the subject. They took a whole year to consider it. Why did they not come down the next year with a proposition to build a railway if its construction was of so much importance ? Why did they allow four years to pass and a condition of things continue to exist such as has been described by the hon. Minister of the Interior to-night ? The hon. gentleman, instead of placing in a humiliating position hon. gentlemen on this side, who have no power to deal with the subject, has placed himself and his colleagues in a most humiliating and extradordinary position by the statement he has just made.
I agree with my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) that, so far as this claim is concerned, it ought to be paid. It is the government we are censuring for their conduct in connection with this contract, and we are not objecting to the payment of the claim of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann.
There is another thing I would like to say to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and it is this, that when Sir Charles Tupper was face to face with him in this House in 1S98, when this matter was discussed for a month, and when Sir Charles Tupper was face to face with him in the session of 1898, and in the session of 1900, it is most remarkable that the hon. Minister did not take occasion, in any one of these sessions, to make the statement he has seen fit to make to-night about Sir Charles Tupper going to his house. These hon. gentlemen are very sensitive sometimes about statements concerning people who are absent. This matter was discussed, as the hon. gentleman has said, in wearisome detail in 1898, and I heard no such statement from him then as that which he has seen fit to make to-night. He has waited until Sir Charles Tupper was absent, to charge him with dishonour, to cast imputations on him, but he never saw fit to make any such charge when Sir Charles Tupper was present to defend himself.
There is just one more circumstance I would like to mention. The hon. gentleman said that the Conservative party threw out that measure in the Senate. Well, if all rumours be true-and we heard a good many on the subject at the time-there

were a great many Liberal members here, who voted for that measure, under the stress of party discipline, who were as much opposed to it as gentlemen on this side. And if- we are to believe what is told us by gentlemen in the Upper Chamber, some of those members exercised influence on the senators to have the measure thrown out, because although they felt compelled to support the government in this House, they felt that the passage of the measure was not in the true interests of the country.
It is not worth while for me at this day to go into a great many of the matters dealt with by the hon. Minister of the Interior, for the purpose of malting party capital. So far as I am concerned, I think that these men should be paid, but at the same time I think that the government are to be censured for having entered into this contract in the way they did, and for not having waited until parliament could pass upon this measure before committing the country to the expenditure we are now called on to vote and pay over to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have just a word to say in reply to some observations made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier). I do not know how my hon. friends on the other side can entertain the opinion, and repeat ft in this House that the account which parliament is called on to pay is one which had been settled between Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and the Department of Railways. Nothing of the kind has ever taken place, and such an assertion is purely imaginative.


Adam Carr Bell: Was there a report made to the government or the Railway Department by the officers of the department who investigated the accounts ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Here are the accounts themselves, presented by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, and which have been audited again and again by the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals, and audited with great care.


Adam Carr Bell: What is the amount of the account ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: About 302,000.


Adam Carr Bell: Practically the same amount as the award.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know what mysterious feature there can be in the fact that the accounts, which were audited by the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals, were found to be accurate, or about as accurate, by the official auditor. The claim was handed in by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann to the government. It was audited again and again by Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the officers of the Railway Department. Items were eliminated, all the profits claimed by Mackenzie & Maun were eliminated, and after it had been audited, by the officers of the department, a judicial audit was ordered by the government. The judicial auditor went through it no doubt with great care, and I am surprised that any doubt should be passed on the auditor, Mr. Justice Burbidge, and that he should be supposed not to have done his work with accuracy.


Adam Carr Bell: The hon. Minister of the Interior has just stated that the judicial auditor sat upon the reference, and that the reference was the papers audited by the officials of the department.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend find fault with that ?


Adam Carr Bell: The auditor simply dealt with those figures.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the judicial auditor was satisfied, if he had sufficient evidence in the record to dispense him from calling for other evidence, will my hon. friend insinuate that Mr. Justice Burbidge had not acted properly ?


Adam Carr Bell: No.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend says that because Mr. Justice Burbidge did not seek other extraneous evidence, therefore some doubt must be cast on his audit. I do not know what evidence he should have sought. I am content with believing that since Mr. Justice Burbidge has reported that a certain sum was due, he must have found evidence in the record to justify such a conclusion.


Adam Carr Bell: The right hon. gentleman said, in the course of his speech, that the judge of the Exchequer Court acted simply as an auditor.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Adam Carr Bell: Therefore he dealt with no other documents than those presented here. AVas there any interest included in the award ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Adam Carr Bell: If you add a reasonable amount of interest to the $300,000 you will come pretty close to his award.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What fault does the hon. gentleman find, then, if Mr. Justice Burbidge finds that the claim presented to him was correct in amount that he should say so ? If he found that th<? amount claimed was the amount due, what fault does the hon. geutlemanl find that he should so declare it ? AVhy, he could not do anything else. And I presume that the character of Mr. Justice Burbidge will satisfy every lion, member that the work was
properly done; and, since lie lias reported that the claim is correct In amount, every lion, member of this House ought to be satisfied so far as that is concerned. Now,
I come to the statement of the leader of the opposition a moment ago. He found fault with the government for refusing to allow the passage of another charter for a railway to communicate with the Yukon. So we did. But why ? Because this charter if we had granted it would have been the means of establishing communication with the Yukon through American waters, and we should have no relief, so far as having a national railway is concerned, from the position of having to communicate with the Yukon through American territory. The reason was that we would not again complicate the settlement of the boundary question which we have enough difficulty in settling already. The toon, gentleman says also that we did not bring in a new measure for a railway after this one had been defeated. Sir, there was all the difference in the world between building a railway to tliat part of tlie country in 1898 and building .it afterwards. When we asked parliament to sanction tbe contract whicto we toad made with Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann for tbe building of a railway from Telegraph Creek to Teslin Lake, there was no railway between Calgary and Lake Bennett. It is a matter of fact, unfortunately, that the best line of railway to communicate with the Yukon country is by way of Skagway. That is the shortest line. Before 1898, contractors could have been induced to put money into tbe enterprise, because there was no rival to compete with them. But after a shorter railway to the Yukon has been built, as it was in tbe summer of 1898, everybody realizes that to build and run a line of railway from Telegraph Creek to Teslin Lake would involve a very much larger expense. My hon. friend said that tbe terms we offered to Mackenzie & Mann were extravagant. On tbe contrary, I venture to say we might offer tbe same terms to-day, and there is not a firm of contractors who would accept them and build tbe road. In 1898, we were told on the floor of this House that we were giving to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann an enormous area of gold-bearing territory. Tbe fact is that over that whole space of country not a single discovery of gold has been made ever since, outside of Klondyke Creek, except that last winter there was a discovery on Stewart river. But in the parts where we gave Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann the option to locate their claims, not a single discovery has been made. And I venture to repeat what I have just said, that no firm of contractors would to-day accept the contract on the same terms as those given Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. Had the contract gone through at that time they would have had a monopoly, whereas now they would have to compete with the American railway which has
a monopoly. These are the reasons which have prevented us up to this time froimask-ing parliament to sanction the building of that railway. I venture to say that we may have to propose a project of that kind at a future time. We cannot remain very long as we are, dependent as we are upon the good-will of the American people to give us access to our otvn country. The _ position is not only humiliating, but, as stated by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, it is dangerous and dangerous in the extreme. Why, last year, we were told that there was a conspiracy about Skagway on the part of some American desperadoes to ' rush ' the country and take possession of it. There was such a conspiracy. It did not amount to much, I am glad to say. But, with the character of the population there we do not know when attempts may be made to ' rush ' the country and take possession of it. And we are absolutely helpless. If we are to send men to that section, as was stated by the Minister of the Interior, we have to send them as civilians, they cannot go through as a military force. We have almost to smuggle them into the country. This is a most alarming position, and one which we must ask parliament to remedy. And when that proposal comes before parliament, then parliament will realize what an egregious mistake they made in 189S.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The hon. leader of the opposition was exercised toy two things. The first was that I should put myself in such a humiliating position as to say that the country Is suffering from tlie lack of a railway, and yet that the government should not bring down a Bill to construct that railway. I venture to say to my hon. friend that if he should have the good fortune to sit upon this side of the House, he will find that there will be a great many things that would be of service to the country and for the want of which the country might be said to be suffering, and yet he will not be able to bring down an appropriation to parliament to furnish them. That is the position we are in with respect to many things in the Dominion of Canada. We know that the Dominion of Canada is suffering to a very considerable extent by reason of the fact that there is not an all-Canadian railway to the Yukon district. Yet, we are not prepared to take the responsibility of recommending to parliament a sufficient appropriation for the construction of that railway. That is a very plain and reasonable and intelligible position, and I am quite unable to agree with my hon. friend that, in any respect whatever, the statement of that position places me or any member of this government in a humiliating position. My hon. friend is further exercised by the fact, as'he believes it to he, that I would not have made the statement -with regard to Sir Charles Tupper calling upon me or saying

what he did to me upon this matter, if Sir Charles Tupper had been here. I did not hear what my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said, being unfortunately, unable to hear him very well when he addresses the House, but an hon. friend beside me tells me that the hon. member for West Toronto took the same view as his leader upon this subject. My hon. friends * are forgetful in this debate of many circumstances, and they are particularly forgetful of tlhe debate which took place on this very question. Members of the House will remember what I said to Sir Charles Tupper who then led the opposition, when he made liis famous somersault upon this question and, at the dictation of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), allowed himself to be compelled to swallow his own words and to do what was directly contrary to his own judgment, because the hon. member for East York and those who were with him thought they could gain a small party advantage over this government by that course. It is not necessary that l should have Sir Charles Tupper here to refer to a fact which he has admitted himself. If the hon. leader of the opposition will take ' Hansard ' of 1898, and refer to the report of my remarks wihen the subject of this Yukon Railway Bill was under debate, he will find in the first place, that I called attention to the fact that Sir Charles T.upper had taken this somersault on this question and I said he hadi done it not in accordance with his own judgment, but because he had been dragooned into taking it by hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. Then I went on to quote an interview with Sir Charles Tupper himself in the ' Mail and Empire ' newspaper, and hon. gentlemen wall find it on page 572 of the ' Hansard ' of 1898. I said :
The authenticity of this interview is vouched for by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), the gentleman who, in the Conservative party, fills the role of private detective and regulator of the party leader.
I do not know whether he fills that position in regard to my hon. friend who leads the opposition at present.
It appears that Sir Charles Tupper was asked by the correspondent of the ' Mail and Empire ' to state his views regarding the arrangements the government had made. This is what he said :
He stated that the route chosen is the best that comld have been selected. ' When I was in the west,' he said, * I made inquiries, and I reached the conclusion that Canada ought at th'e earliest possible moment to have communication with the Yukon. I impressed it upon the British Columbia government that it should co-operate with the Dominion government to secure the construction of a link between the Stikine river and Tesliu lake. At Winnipeg I declared that the undertaking was a necessity, and when I returned to Ottawa I went immediately to Mr. Sifton. I impressed upon him the absolute necessity of opening up the route to secure Canadian trade.


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: 


William Findlay Maclean: There is an imputation throughout this debate that the Senate of Canada did a wrong thing in throwing out that Bill. Sir, if the Senate of Canada ever justified its existence it did so in throwing out that Bill. Hon. gentlemen have an idea and they are always formulating it, that because they control the majority of this chamber therefore what they say ought to go in parliament. But the parliament of Canada is made up of this chamber associated with the other chamber, having equal authority, and associated with it also is the Governor General. What rules in this country is, not a brute majority of one party in this House, hut it is ultimately public opinion that rules ; and the public opinion of this country on that occasion was voiced by the Senate who threw out that infamous proposition.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Where was public opinion in 1900 ?


William Findlay Maclean: Where will public opinion be on the 29th of the present month, iu the province of Ontario ? But the Minister of the Interior, who has just left his seat, has never got over the soreness he felt because his pet project was thrown out of this parliament and was condemned by public opinion. He could not get public opinion to endorse it to-day, and therefore he cannot bring it in. It still remains a sore point with him that in some way the Conservative party, through its leader, was committed to that proposition, and because he didn't get the support he expected, he could not put it through. The government of this country has come to this, that they cannot bring forward any measure without its being iu some way endorsed by the Conservative party before hand. If they want to undertake any great railway project they first try to get the endorsation of the opposition, and then they bring it forward. Now, that has come to an end. The government, or at least certain members of it, have a great proposition in connection with the Georgian Bay ship canal, and in an insidious way a petition was circulated on this side of the House, and they tried to dragoon this side of the House first to give support to the proposition. Now, we are not here to do business in that way. I resent the doctrine that is laid down here to-night, and a great cry is made over it, and we hear a lamentation made before the country that the project fell through because they could not count on the support of the leader of the opposition. All that must end. The government must come forward witli their proposition supported by themselves, and they must assume responsibility for it. We hear to-night that their scheme failed because it was not supported by the opposition. Sir, their scheme failed because it was a bad one ; their scheme failed because it meant the giving of an enormous

amount of territory to a private company who proposed then and there to exploit tne London market with a $10,000,000 or a $aj,-000,000 proposition ; and if that agreement had been sanctioned and had been exploited on tlie London market-and it had actually been underwritten-there would have been the greatest Yukon scandal the world had ever heard of. The country would have been disgraced. We never would have got a railway, or if we had, it would have been a railway at the mercy of the Americans, just as lion, gentlemen have said that the present scheme puts us at their mercy. If there was an all-Canadian route independent of American territory, lion, gentlemen never had the courage to bring it forward, because they knew it involved too large an expenditure. I say to-night in face of the whole country that if the Senate of Canada ever gave a reason for its existence, it did on that occasion. There are times when public opinion can only find its expression and its outlet through the Senate, and it did find its outlet there on that particular occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I consider this question as one of the most important that ever came before this parliament. It is important because it involves a radical departure from tlie well understood principle of constitutional government, the principle that the executive are responsible to parliament and parliament is responsible to the people. In this particular case the executive incurred a very large and unwise expenditure before parliament was.consulted, and within a few days of the meeting of parliament. The reason given for their justification is that of urgency. The contract was entered into nine days before parliament met because, as they said, the case was an extremely urgent one. What has taken place since then to justify the plea of urgency) Have we seen any of those direful results taking place that we were told would take place if this contract was not sanctioned ? Not by any means. We were told that it was necessary to build this railway immediately because we could not get our soldiers in there, and there was danger of an insurrection. Have there been any signs of an insurrection ? Have not the North-west Mounted Police been able to make life and property just as safe there as in any other part of the Dominion ?
There is no evidence to indicate that there is the slightest trouble, but there is evidence to show that peace and harmony prevail there and that the authority of the Canadian parliament has been maintained the same as it has been maintained in all the other provinces of this Dominion. Therefore, I say, that the argument advanced on that ground lias no force. In the next place, it was said that we would lose the trade of that country and that the trade would go entirely to the United States. I would remind hon. gentlemen that one of their own 154
friends made a statement inside of the last year in regard to the trade of that country, if my memory is correct, in the city of Toronto before a commercial audience, which was something to the effect that of the trade of the Yukon to-day, about 60 per cent is done by Canadians, that the goods which are supplied to the people of that country are Canadian and English to that extent, and not American. Therefore, so far as that argument is concerned, there is nothing in it. It has not been verified. These predictions have not been verified, these forecasts have not come true and these prophesies have been unfulfilled. The next thing was that the people were crowding in there in such large numbers that they would likely die of hunger and starvation, because provisions could not be got into that country. How many people have died of starvation on account of not being able to get provisions into the country ? We have never heard of any difficulty in that regard. After the charter was thrown out by the Senate, people went about their ordinary avocations just as they had done before. They had plenty of provisions, there was no sign of starvation and they continued in the enjoyment of the luxuries of life. This was one of the strong reasons urged why it was desirable that parliament should pass that Bill. As none of these forebodings or prophesies have been verified, and as none of them are likely to be verified, we are justified in saying that when parliament threw that Bill out at that time parliament did right. But, the government are doing a very improper thing, and for another reason. What is it ? I say that they are violating one of the well understood principles of constitutional government in entering into specific contracts, giving orders to go on with these works, and incurring expenditures which undoubtedly the country will be called upon to pay without parliamentary assent having first been sustained. I do not blame the contractors for asking for an indemnification for what they have lost. The government were instructing, either by implication or direct authority and advice, these contractors to go on and make heavy expenditures and in doing so they knew that parliament would be called upon to indemnify them in the event of the contract not being ratified by parliament. It was not ratified, and we find this condition of things that we have here to-day. Our constitution never contemplated it, it never authorized it, it is contrary to free parliamentary government, and it confers no right upon a minister to do what the hon. Minister of the Interior did at that time. Therefore, these hon. gentlemen are violating a well understood principle of constitutional government, which above ail things ought to be sacred, not only in Canada, but in every other colony in the British Empire. But, they are doing more; they are estabiish-



ing a very bad precedent, a precedent tbat no doubt will be taken advantage of in tlie future by designing parties who wish to get claims before the government, by parties who desire to make money and who can find a government weak or servile enough to co-operate with them in entering into a bargain-I will not say that it would be a collusive bargain, but a bargain which they know parliament will not ratify, because, when they see proceedings of this kind taking place, and a precedent of this kind established, they will know that they would be justified in coming before parliament and asking to be indemnified, not only for every dollar they have put into the undertaking, but for the interest on their money, and for the costs which they have paid to the lawyers who have conducted the case for them. Such a precedent is bad on the face of it in Canada or in any part of the British Empire. Yet, we have lived to see the day when the Reform party, the party which above all others have always professed a desire to live up to the well known principles of free constitutional government, will depart from the principles in a most radical way, at the same time establishing a very bad precedent in the country. We are adopting a very bad precedent, a precedent that may work any amount of trouble and injury to the country in the future. To-day, we are asked to go it blind in this matter as to the amount of money to be voted. Hon. gentlemen have said that this question has been submitted to the Exchequer Court, but what information has been given to the House as to the question that was submitted to the Exchequer Court ? If it were the sale of a dog, involving a transaction of $2, as much trouble would have been taken to see that thq transaction was a fair one as has been taken in regard to this transaction involving $328,000. They submitted the accounts to the Exchequer Court that were received from Mackenzie and Mann, they were looked over by an officer of the Department of Railways and Canals, who was instructed, no doubt, to prepare a report on them which would be submitted to the House, and which would be of such a favourable character as to justify whatever action the government took upon the claim, but they gave no opportunity for the opposition to analyse it in such a way as to determine whether we are justified in voting this amount or not. In looking over the accounts carefully, I came to the conclusion that the government have taken no more interest in this account than they would in a transaction involving an expenditure of $100. They submitted the question to the Exchequer Court, and the judge was to report his judgment, but the court was not asked to determine the legal standing of the parties, or how far this country was liable or responsible for this transaction, how far the country was called
upon to indemnify the contractors for the loss they had sustained. That question was not submitted to the Exchequer Court or to any other court in the country. No effort was made to appeal from the decision of that court to a higher tribunal. The government claim that they have taken the ordinary course, but if this had been an ordinary contract, if advertisements had been published and an invitation had been given to contractors to submit tenders, and the contractor who had secured the work had a claim of $200 or $300, or $3,000 for work done under his contract, the government would have submitted the claim to the Exchequer Court, and if an adverse decision had been rendered by the Exchequer Court they would have appealed it to a higher court. Did they do so in this case ? No, they accepted the judgment in silence, and they paid no more attention to the matter than if it had been a claim involving $100 or $200. They did not take it to an independent tribunal with the view of determining the legal rights of the contractors who were applying for this large amount of money, or the legal liability of the country to pay it. They simply submitted the claim to this House and asked this House to ratify it. Then, there is something behind all this yet that seems to be of a very important character. When the Bill was before this House, and when it was considered and forced through the House by the majority that the right hon. leader of the government and his friend^ have at their backs, and it went to the Upper House, and after being carefully looked into, that house decided that the bargain was a very bad one, they decided that the reasons given as a justification for the passing of that Bill were not good, they decided that it was an attempt to exploit the domain of the state unwisely and imprudently, and they decided that a young Napoleon had floated one of his transactions on the country that would not bear the light of day, and the result was that they threw the Bill out. But, now, we are asked to vote the sum of $328,000 to indemnify these contractors. What say have the Senate whether that shall pass or not ? They were the portion of this parliament which prevented the Bill from passing ; they threw it out.
The Senate has no say as to whether this item shall pass or not, because if they reject it they could only do so by rejecting the whole Supply Bill, which they would not do, and so this procedure on the part of the government has wrested from, the Upper Chamber the power to pass judgment upon this matter. I do not blame the company for preferring this claim against the government, but I blame the government for giving them instructions to go on with expenditure under that contract. And although the government have hedged very adroitly upon that question I have no doubt in my mind that they gave instructions to


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann to go on with the work. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are too astute to be guilty of the blunder of spending even $100, if they had not a well understood agreement with the government that they would be indemnified if the contract was not ratified by parliament. I oppose this because it is in violation of the well understood principle that no expenditure should be incurred without the assent of parliament. In a matter of extreme urgency the government has power to raise money by Governor's General warrant, but in this case they did not dare resort to that expedient. We are told by the Minister of the Interior that we appealed to the electorate of Canada in 1900 on this question and that as a result we are in opposition. What was the result in the minister's own province ? Were it not for the most bare faced corruption he would have come back here with but a single supporter from Manitoba. What was the result in the great province of Ontario that will be called upon to pay the largest share of this ? The result was a majority of 16 or 18 members against the government, a clear and distinct condemnation of their action and policy. The Minister of the Interior tells us that he cheerfully accepts the responsibility for this action, and he intimates that the majority behind him will carry him through. Well, majorities have done many improper things in the past, and I have no doubt they will repeat it to-night. It is not the first time that the Minister of the Interior has done an improper thing and trusted to-I was going to say his servile majority-to carry him through. He is called the young Napoleon because he was willing to exploit anything which in the judgment of wise people would be regarded as unconstitutional and improper, and he does that because he depends upon his majority. We know that after the election of 1896 he illegally incurred the expenditure of public money in violation of all constitutional principles. He ordered an inquiry at the cost of the public treasury for which he had no legal authority under heaven. He did It because he depended on his majority, and therefore his statement that he accepts responsibility does not mean that his action was either constitutional or proper. He tells us that in this matter he endeavoured to protect the treasury, when as a 'matter of fact it is an act of piracy perpetrated upon the treasury. Why, the men who above all others should protect the trea-su.y are the men who are burglarizing the treasury through their contractors In this scheme. There is nothing to show whether these accounts are correct or not. There is nothing except the statement of the contractors who ask that they shall be paid out of the treasury their claim and their costs and everything else.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman make 154J
that statement ofter having read the report of the auditor of the department. Does not the hon. gentleman know that the cheques, the accounts and all these documents were carefully looked into by the auditor and passed by him showing the actual outlay of cash made by these people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What auditor ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The auditor of the Railway Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ask my brother if I am a rogue.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is about the principle involved. The Minister of Railways knows as well as I know, that he has not a public servant under him that he cannot get to make an account to suit him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is very complimentary to the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me be well understood. I do not mean to say by any means that he would falsify an account, but I say he would go there knowing that the minister desired to have these accounts passed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He could not know anything of the kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would he raise the objections he would raise if it was his own money he was handling ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has no right to say that Mr. Shannon knew the minister wanted to have these accounts passed. The minister wanted nothing of the kind. The minister wanted a proper audit made of them. The minister had no communication with Mr. Shannon at all. The instructions went to the Deputy Minister and by him were communicated to Mr. Shannon requiring him to make a careful audit of every one of the items of that account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and the auditor knew well that his superior was committed to the payment of them. He knew that his government had made that unwise contract. He knew that his government had given such information to the contractors as justified their spending money with the implied understanding that it would be repaid. His auditor knew that very well. Therefore knowing that the government and his minister had that dilemma confronting them, would he be likely to do otherwise than try to get them out of it in the best way. I say he would not. Had that audi-

tor an opportunity to analyse these ac-accounts ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could he analyse them ? Could he go to every part of the country and see whether the expenditure alleged to have been made had been made, or whether the materials alleged to have been sold at the market price had been sold at that price or squandered ? How could he go into these questions sitting in his office in the western block ? The country would laugh at such a suggestion. There is not a business man in the country who would say .that was a proper audit in any private transaction. He would go through a dozen courts before he would pay such accounts.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the hon. member ask the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals whether he believes that Mr. Shannon, who was in the department in his time, and whom he knows! very well, is the stripe of man the hon. gentleman represents him to he.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about the stripe of man he is at all. I assume that the work was done in every particular as it would be if the stripe of man was the highest possible in honour and integrity ; but he had not before him the available means of examining into these accounts, sitting there in his office.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He did nolt sit in his office. He went to the Yukon, the very place where the work was done and where the goods were got. He had all the money and all the time that was necessary to enable him to make a thorough audit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long was he at it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He was at it long enough to enable him to say that (the report made was an accurate report from a close personal inquiry into all the items of the accounts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister know* how long he was at it; why does he not say how long ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have nothing to take back at all, but something more to say. What had that auditor to do ? Place before me a thousand accounts, and I examine them. I see vouchers of payments that were made, iand I put one beside the other and I pass them as all right. I do not know whether the accounts were cooked beforehand or whether two prices were paid. I do not know unless I take some means of ascertaining in order to satisfy myself. The hon. Minister of Railways saVs that the auditor went to the Nortli-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: west. Yes, he went to the North-west and he examined certain accounts. Where did he examine them ? Did he bring before him the parties who were paid ? I say he was in the dark; and while I have no doubt he attempted to do his duty faithfully, it was utterly impossible for 'him, with the time at his disposal and in the way he did the work, to safeguard the interest of the country as a man would safeguard his own private pocket. We have endeavoured to protect the government, says the Minister of the Interior. Yes, we have endeavoured to protect the government-how ? By endeavouring to satisfy our friends that they ought to support us. What protection have they given the government ? They allowed the contractors to go on and operate under an unconstitutional contract. How have they endeavoured to protect the government? Only 'by keeping the majority behind them to vote them out of this dilemma. They have endeavoured to hide their tracks as much as possible, by keeping from the House the information it ought to have. When were these papers laid on the Table ? Only last week. We have not one-tenth of the information to-day that we ought to have. Where is the correspondence that passed between the government and the contractors and the correspondence that passed between the contractors and the parties who furnished tlie supplies ? Where is the information to 'Show that those supplies were sold at the prices at which they are said to have been sold at ? How do we know that they were sold at those prices, or ait lower prices V We have not this information, and in the absence of this information it is impossible for us to do our duty. The Minister of Railways says that we need a railway in that country very badly, and (but for the action of the Senate in throwing out that Bill we would have .it. I ask the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Railways why itiliey stood in the breach for four years and refused to allow any other company to build a railway into that country if we need one so badly ? We have had two Bills before the Railway Committee, one of which I remember distinctly. The company asked to be allowed to go on and build the railway without an acre of land or a dollar of subsidy, and ithey offered to deposit $50,000 as a guarantee that they would begin the work within six months.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where was that railway ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They offered to build into the country from Pyramid harbour and ultimately to extend the railway to British Columbia; 'but the government refused to accept that deposit and give them a charter; and they have refused not only that company but other companies as well which have declared their desire and willingness to build a railway there without asking an acre of land or a dollar of subsidy from the government.


Mr. SCOTT.: Was that to be an allCanadian road ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At first it was not; but ultimately it was to be. Was the road which was proposed to be built from Telegraph Creek to Teslin Lake to be an allCanadian road ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not a bit of it. One end was to toe in the United States, and you would have been obliged to make use of the navigation which would put you just as much under the power of the United States as if you went over a railway built in the United States territory; and it would not answer the purpose which the Minister of the Interior declared they 'had in building that railway. These hon. gentlemen have given no evidence that they want a railway into that country, or they would make an effort >to get it. They have had companies knocking at the doors of parliament for permission to build a railway there, tout they would not give permission. I have often thought they held it back for the purpose of using as an argument against the Senate the action of the Senate in throwing out that Bill. The Minister of the Interior will have to convince us in a different way that ithe government desire to have a railway built in that country. He went on to tell us of the wonderful bargain they bad made, and the advantages they were to get from it. By that contract they were giving away all the gold land in the country. I beard an Englishman say in the Brunswick hotel at the time that Bill was before the House:	' If Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann
make over to me toy power of attorney the right .to handle that scheme in the British market, I will make a fortune for myself and bring them back $40,000,000 of bard cash.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Did you .believe it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did, because I knew the man to stand high in the financial world.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the ,hon. gentleman think the land was worth $40,000,000 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can answer the hon. gentleman by telling him that the government would not sell the land for less than $10 an acre. That is the price they asked from the poor miner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Nobody ever asked $10 an acre.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why did the government hold the land at $10 an acre and refuse to sell for less ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They did not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They did not offer to sell it at less.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Nobody wants to buy it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why then make such a regulation ? Why not have said that you *would sell it at a dollar an acre. I am justified in taking the valuation which the government themselves put on the land, and what does that valuation amount to for the building of the railway. I think it is $37,500,000.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will stake my word to this fact that the government could not sell that land in any bulk for fifty cents an acre.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the bon. gentleman a miner ? Has be been out there in the mining business ? Or, is he simply a newspaper editor in Regina. What does he know about it ? He knows no more than I do. What does the government know about it ? What does the Minister of the Interior know about it ? Why did the hon. Minister of the Interior recommend to Council the land should be valued at $10 an acre if it was not worth half a dollar an acre ? On what authority did he make that recommendation ? What, the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Scott) says to-day is the strongest condemnation of the Minister of the Interior and the government. They have not offered for sale or sold a single acre of mineral land in that country since that time at less than $10 an acre. I am therefore justified in taking their own valuation as the consideration they were giving that company. What were they charging the poor man for a royalty ? Ten per cent on the gold he took out, no matter how poor he might have been or bow unable to pay it. And all they were charging this wealthy company was one per cent royalty. Taking all these things into consideration, we would be doing less than our duty if we did not raise our voices in the strongest protest against this transaction. It is a violation of the principles of constitutional government. It establishes a bad precedent, and for my part I enter my protest against it in the strongest possible language I can use.


John Graham Haggart: I am sorry that the right hon. leader of the government is out, because I wished to refer again to a statement I made as to an arrangement having been come to between the Department of Railways and Canals and Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann regarding the amount of the latter's claim, which statement my right hon. friend contradicted. I thought I remembered that I had seen in the papers laid on the Table some time ago some correspondence between Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann anld the department regarding their claim. It seemed strauge that the final claim of these gentlemen should amount to $302,239.69 and that the amount recommended by the Railway Department is exactly the same. Mr. Shannon of the Railway De-

partment went over the accounts and found that that was the correct sum due them. There is another thing which appears in the correspondence, and of which we have not heard before. These parties were entitled to the money they had expended on the road with interest. That was the understanding. That was the interpretation of the sub-imission as given to us, but when I look into the account, as arranged between the department and Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, X find that they are allowed, in addition to the money they actually expended, nearly $60,000, or fifteen per cent on the amount they expended on the road. We never heard of that before from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals nor have we heard it from the right hon. the First Minister. I remembered seeing in the papers some correspondence between the department and Mackenzie & Mann regarding the amount due the latter. And perhaps I had better read the correspondence so as to put it upon record and in order that there may be no doubt about it in the future
Toronto, July 18, 1899. Leonard Shannon, Esq.,
Accountant of the Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Re our account and claim for disbursements in connection with the Canadian Yukon railway matter. I Tieg to advise you that the claim against us of the Alberta Railway Company, amounting to $105,000, as set out and included in our account to you has been settled for the sum" of $11,000. Our solicitor's fee and disbursements in connection with defence of suit and settlement of the claimants to $750 more, making a total of $11,750. Will you, therefore, kindly note that this settlement adjusts the whole account as follows .
Amount rendered you.. ..	$493,735 22
Deduct the Alberta Railway Company's claim including Edmonton above.$105,000 00 Also 15 per cent on the above	 15,750 00 120,750 00
Total	$373,035 22
The House will see therefore that in this claim for $493,735 there is included fifteen per cent, because when the $105,000 was deducted there was also deducted fifteen per cent on that amount, or an additional $15,750.
Add-
Settlement with Alberta


Railway Company .. ..: $11,750 00 Also 15 per cent on above.. 1,762 50 $13,512 50

Then there is a further letter
New rails and fastenings at Vancouver purchased for the Canadian Yukon contract.
2 e beg to advise you that we have disposed of these rails and fastenings for the sum1 of $83,270.43, less cost of checking out and superintending transfer at Vancouver, $150, leaving Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
$83,720.43, which sum we have credited on the account rendered you as follows :
Balance of account advised you in
our letter of 18th inst	$386,547 72
Present credit	 83,720 43
Balance due	$302,827 29
Just the amount the department found was due, just the amount given by Mr. Justice Burbidge in favour of Mackenzie & Mann, and that includes $58,000, or 15 per cent advance upon the claim against the government, besides the interest which was awarded by the Exchequer Court. And I would ask hon. gentlemen to give me reference to the statute under which they referred the question to the Exchequer Court. Nobody seems to be able to answer this. But it is a very important question. We do not want the country to believe that a judgment was rendered by the Exchequer Court to pay this amount to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, because, as I said before, this contract had a saving clause under which the contractors knew they could not oblige the government to carry out the contract unless they had the authority of parliament to enter into it. The contract was with that condition, a condition sine qua non, that it should be approved by parliament. It was submitted to parliament, and, rightly or wrongly, parliament refused to approve it. Therefore, the conditiou under which these gentlemen entered into the contract never arose, and they had no binding legal claim, as was admitted by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House. The only claim they had against the country and against the government, was an equitable claim which they could not enforce in law. That is the reason why I asked whether this was a judgment or whether it was an order, or what it was. It becomes evident now that the only thing that the government did was to refer the question to the judge of the Exchequer Court as a persona designata as to whether the account could be audited in a proper manner and was a proper account to be paid, supposing the government were bound in law to pay it. Moreover, the first thing the government did before submitting this to the judge of the Exchequer Court was to acknowledge its liability that this amount should be paid by the Dominion. Therefore, I object, and I say that the resolution should be amended. This resolution, if I may use the word, bears upon its face a falsehood. For, if there was no judgment, it is not a true representation of the facts to say that there was a judgment of the Exchequer Court. There has simply been a report made by Mr. Burbidge, it may be, by any other person, but not by a court. Therefore, I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this resolution proposed to us bears upon its face a falsehood when it says ' to pay amount of judgment of Exchequer Court to Messrs. Mackenzie

& Maun.' Why, the Committee cannot pass that resolution; the Committee cannot say that there was a judgment when it was admitted on all sides that there was no judgment and that there could be no judgment. I am in the judgment of hon. members who are of the legal profession when I say that no judgment of this kind could be rendered against the government in connection with this contract. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) said himself, and nobody can deny it, that these gentlemen have no legal case against the government. At all events, this resolution must be amended so as not to make it appear that there was a judgment. Otherwise, what would happen ? When hon. gentlemen opposite go upon the hustings to defend their policy in connection with this item, they will say : We were condemned by the judgment of the Exchequer Court to pay the amount. We had no discretion, for if we had not paid it, execution might be issued against us or other means taken to compel the government of the Dominion to pay the amount. But that is not a valid excuse; and it cannot appear in the resolution that there was a judgment when there was no judgment. If the resolution passes, as I think it will, it will have to be amended so as to read otherwise than as a declaration that there was a judgment of the Exchequer Court, when, by the admission of ail the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, there was no judgment either by Judge Burbidge, sitting as a judge, or by the Exchequer Court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cas-grain) is to be congratulated upon making a remarkable discovery at this late period of the debate. He has read the item which goes to show that there was, in point of fact, a recognition of this claim and an acknowledgment that it had to be paid. My hon. friend tries to draw a very large conclusion from very limited premises. There Is not a word in this paper that will justify any man of business, any man who has experience in affairs, in making any such statement as he has made. The claim was handed to the government by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, and by the government referred to the Department of Railways and Canals for audit. The department was not asked to say whether the claim ought to be paid or whether any item of it ought to be paid.


John Graham Haggart: But they objected to some items.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All the department were asked to do was to ascertain whether or not the items which went to show large disbursements for the purposes stated, had been made by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann in connection with this business. The question was, whether the disbursements which
these gentlemen claimeu to have made for supplies, for freight, and other proper charges in connection with their preparations for the construction of this railway had, as a matter of fact, been made. Now, how would you go to work Jo ascertain that, preliminary to a decision as to whether or not you are going to pay it or pay any part of it ? Mark you, the government had not declared, it had not come to any decision, as to what would be paid, whether the whole or any portion of the claim. The government simply felt, as several hon. gentlemen on the other side have said they would feel under like circumstances, that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, having been induced by the government to enter into this contract, ought not to be left to pay the loss which has resulted to them from their endeavour to carry it out. Now, the auditor, taking up the claim item by item, examined it. What are these items 1 They are for material of all kinds, for supplies for wages paid to men, for moneys paid for all the purposes which will occur to the minds of hon. gentlemen as likely to be called for in connection with this undertaking. Now, how would the auditor satisfy himself upon that point 1 What ought he do to satisfy himself as to the correctness of the items ? One thing you will say he ought to do-he ought to go to that portion of the country wherever it was, where the supplies were which had not been used.


John Graham Haggart: What was the finding of the auditor. Tell us. Don't be all night about it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will pardon me, I will take as much time as 1 please, and if he does not like the fullness of the answer I give him, he will have to bear it with such patience and serenity as he can command.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the hon. gentleman do this-will he, instead of showing at great length what the auditor ought to do, tell what he did do ?


John Graham Haggart: That is what we want.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am charmed with the clearness and acuteness displayed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox). It is not often that we have an opportunity of congratulating the hon. gentleman upon the clearness and lucidity with which he puts a point. But, had he been following me, he would not have felt called upon to interrupt me in doing the very thing which, with the clearness and astuteness of his intellect, he sees I ought to do.
Now I was proceeding to say that the auditor went to that country, he went to where these supplies were that had been

purchased for the use of this railway but that were not used on the railway. He makes his inventory, and he compares the inventory which Mackenzie & Mann had given in this bill with the articles themselves on the ground ; and he finds that it either corresponds or does not correspond with their inventory, as the case may be. He found that it did not entirely correspond, although it did to a large extent, and where it did not correspond the items were struck out.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister tell us in what respects they did correspond and in what respects they failed to correspond 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will read for the information of the hon. gentleman the statement which the auditor himself has made :
Sir, in accordance with your instructions I have personally made an audit of the account presented by Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Co., in connection with the Canadian Yukon Railway, and have the honour to make the following report :
I find that the vouchers submitted for the expenditures of each month, with certain exceptions to be hereafter mentioned, represent the amounts charged in the statement and are correct as to amounts, and that the necessary details have been given to enable a proper audit to be made. In nearly every case each voucher contains not only the receipt of the parties to whom money was paid, but also the retired bank cheque, which in itself is sufficient evidence of the money having been paid out. .1 found the following errors which I have altered to the correct amount in the statement, namely:
Then he enumerates a number of errors.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount of the errors ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Some are small and some are' large. I will read it all to the hon. gentleman, if he would like to hear it:
Voucher No. 46, March, originally charged $816.50, but one account of $61.50 has been withdrawn, making the amount not charged, $755.
Voucher No. 29, Juns, should be $106.80 instead of $116.30.
Voucher No. 45, June, contains items to the extent of $120.30 which are also included in; voucher No. 46. I have, therefore, reduced the, amount to $161.25.
Voucher No. 47, June, returned as $138.50, should be $128.50.
Voucher No. 70, July, returned as $11,642.11 should be $11,632.11.
Voucher No. 10 and 11, December, for $100 and $630 respectively, are not yet paid, so these amounts have been transfered to the list of vouchers approved by Mackenzie, Mann & Co., but unpaid.
I also found in the pay lists submitted several sums amounting to $80. Twelve representing overpayments to men, and have accordingly deducted them, but Mr. Lukes representing Messrs, Mackenzie, Mann & Co., informs me that those items should be considered inasmuch as they were caused in all cases by the store account, and other charges against the men being in Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
excess of the amounts earned, and not due to any clerical error.
After making the aforementioned corrections, I find that the actual amount of vouchers paid and pay rolls, including interest at six per centum per annum up to January 1st last, to be the sum of $317,767.65 which together with accounts approved but not yet paid amounting to $26,800.88, makes a total of $344,568.53, and with 15 per cent added by Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Co., $51,685.28, and less proceeds of goods sold as per statement of credits, viz., $34,362.09, makes'a grand total of $361,891.72. In connection with this I would draw attention to the 15 per cent being calculated upon the sums of interest claimed.
In addition to the above, the statement contains accounts and claims in dispute to the extent of $114,890 which with the 15 per cent added makes a total of $131,893.50.
I also beg to draw attention to the nature of the following vouchers :
He enumerates the vouchers which he thinks ought to be brought to the notice of the department.


Haughton Lennox: I presume the miuister, having gone over these figures, can tell us what was the difference made by the auditor. It was a matter of less than $100, was it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is really making a desperate effort to be sarcastic.


Haughton Lennox: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS :: Yes, he is making a painful effort, but be has not succeeded.


Haughton Lennox: It is not painful to me, though it may be to my hon. friend. But can he tell us what was the total difference made; by the auditor as the result of going over these accounts ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The total amount finally settled upon was $302,239. There appears to have been a claim for $510,422. There appears to have been credits which were afterwards brought in to the extent of $208,182. What the auditor did by this finding was to see that the disbursements which the company proved as having been actually made, amounted to $302,239. The very moment that the auditor came to that conclusion. Mackenzie & Mann, recognizing that the audit was fair and just, withdrew any larger claims they had, and preferred a claim for the amount which the auditor had declared to be proper, a very reasonable and proper course for these gentlemen to take. Now the hon. gentleman draws the inference that there must have been some collusion between the government and Mackenzie & Mann because the judge, when he came to examine into this matter and hear witnesses under oath, came to the conclusion that the amount which the auditor had passed upon was a proper amount to allow with the additional interest, whatever it might be. If the audit was properly made, and if the

disbursements were truly shown, and it was proper to allow interest upon the money actually paid out, and something for services given 'by these contractors to the work, then the claim would be that allowed by the audit, and so the judge finally decided. This matter passed into the hands of the Department of Justice, and immediately upon the auditor's report being received, the claims, papers, reports and everything else went over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice made a recommendation to Council as to what would be a proper mode in which finally to have this matter determined, and Council was advised by the Department of Justice that a reference should be made-not a petition of right, because a petition of right would have to be founded upon a legal basis, but this was regarded as a claim of an equitable nature, rather as an application to the grace and bounty of the Crown than as the preferment of a legal claim founded upon a legally authorized contract.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was not a judgment at all.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAY'S AND CANALS. A reference was made to the judge under the Order in Council.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There cannot be a judgment except there be a suit. There was r.o suit, there was no petition of right and the hon. gentleman does not say there was. There was really no reference under the law as far as I can see. There was not even an award, and further the right hon. leader of the government said this afteruoon that there was simply an audit of these accounts by Mr. Justice Burbidge. There was no judgment, there was no award, there was no decision.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Was there not a finding ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No, there was no finding ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cas-grain) is quite correct in saying there was no judgment of the court. I am prepared here to admit that the hon. gentleman is, absolutely right ; there was no judgment of the court in which that expression can be technically used. There was a reference. No one wants to have the item appear in any other form than according to the fact. This matter was referred to the judge, the judge took evidence under oath, he examined witnesses, he heard what they had to say, and he came to the conclusion that the amount was properly made up, that these disbursements had been actually made and that, under the terms of the reference, $32S,-000 was the proper amount to pay.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The result of what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says is that the reading of this resolution is not correct, and the committee cannot decide
that there was a judgment when there was not. The committee cannot say that tins amount is the amount of a judgment rendered by the Exchequer Court. I would suggest that these words be substituted : ' To pay the amount due under the report of Mr. Justice Burbidge to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I do not suppose that we need quarrel over the words. As a matter of fact the Order in Council distinctly states that this matter is to be referred to the Exchequer Court, that the judgment of the Exchequer Court is to be accepted, and the Exchequer Court does not appear to have taken any exception to the form of the reference.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am sorry to differ with the hon. gentleman, but I hold in my hand the statute which shows that there can be no judgment of the Exchequer Court because the statute says :
The head of any department in connection with the administration of which any claim arises may, instead of referring such claim to the court for adjudication thereon, refer the same to one of the official referees for examination and report, both as to the matters of fact involved and as to the amount of damages, if any, sustained.
The statement which is made is that a decision has been rendered by the court in a case which has been regularly instituted by these gentlemen, Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, against the Crown. This is important to this extent that if this question came up for discussion on the hustings, hon. gentlemen on the other side will get up and say that as this was a judgment of the Exchequer Court we had no discretion in the matter, but we had to pay it. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, whether, in view of the facts which have been stated by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and by the right hon. leader of the government, it is fair to put in this resolution that there has been a judgment of the Exchequer Court. I do not care What the reference, or what the Order in Council said. I am very much surprised to see that such an eminent lawyer as the hon. Minister of Justice should have drafted an Order in Council in the terms which have been mentioned by the lion. Minister of Finance because that would not be according to the law at all. This is a simple reference to Mr. Justice Burbidge and in this matter he is hot even acting as a judge of the Exchequer Court but he is merely acting as a persona designata.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As to the question of the words, we do not attach any importance to them. I do not think the great public of Canada will see as clearly as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) does the distinction between a judgment of Mr. Justice Burbidge in the Exchequer Court and the report which Mr. Justice Burbidge

has made in this matter. The fact has not been disputed that the duty of the court was simply to pass the accounts, and I think the great public will not see the distinction between a judgment of Mr. Justice Burbidge and a report of Mr. Justice Bur-bidge, but, that the public will see that this is the opinion of Mr. Justice Burbidge whether you call it a judgment, or a report, or a finding.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am sure that if the hon. Minister of Finance and myself were on the hustings discussing this question, ho would be astute enough to take the position that this was a judgment of the Exchequer Court. I would not have very much to say because I would not be able to deny that, if this were a judgment of the Exchequer Court the government are bound by it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But, as the Order in Council distinctly declares that the liability is admitted, I would not put myself at the mercy of the hon. gentleman by making any such statement.


Haughton Lennox: I think we are getting into greater difficulty by reason of the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). He tells us that by the Order in Council it was referred to Judge Burbidge of the court of Exchequer to give judgment. If it is the case that no judgment has been given we are not in a position to treat of the matter at all, but I think we may take che statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals as putting the matter in a fairly clear light, and keeping that in mind, 1 think the hon. Minister of Finance does not give the great public credit for the astuteness which it really possesses. I think the public will see a very broad distinction at oiice between a judgment of the Exchequer Court, as it has been pointed out by my hon. friend here (Mr. Casgrain), and the case as put by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. What I understand is that there had been an audit by the Department of Railways f. -id Canals for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the items, that they did go into the matter and did ascertain the correctness of the items and that for the purpose of verifying that further-if I understand the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals correctly, and I hope the hon. minister will not say that I am sarcastic in any degree


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are not now.


Haughton Lennox: I am improving- all the time. For the purpose of verifying that and for greater assurance and for the purpose of justifying the government in any action they might subsequently have to take they referred the matter to Judge Burbidge, as a persona designata. It might have been referred to any other well qualified persm. He could corroborate by a report the amount arrived at by the audit that bad Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
been previously made. This is not a judgment and the public will apprehend that point if they get an opportunity of being seized of the facts and therefore it is important that what is suggested by my hon. friend on this side of the House (Mr. Casgrain) should be complied with.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will bring the trouble to an amicable end by proposing that the item be changed to read :
To pay the amount reported by thie judge of the Exchequer Court on a reference made of the claim of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann to recoup them, &c.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Knowing that it will be a great relief to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) I will tell him that $10 an acre for land in the Yukon, except it may be choice land, is too much. The hon. Minister of the Interior tells me that in the Department of the Interior they have valued this land at a dollar an acre and that they find some trouble in disposing of it at that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But mining lands are worth $10 an acre, and it was mining lands that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann were to select.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of the Interior stated that itibe amount paid to Mackenzie & Mann was solely the cash they expended. I believed that at the time, but I find now that the amount awarded to Mackenzie & Mann includes $58,000 for remuneration besides interest.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon, there 'is 15 per cent allowed for remuneration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only 124 per cent.
Hon'. >Mr(. HAGGART. The amount claimed >is $302,000, and if you add 15 percent to that and costs, it comes to the award of the Exchequer Court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 124 per cent is all that is allowed.


John Graham Haggart: The judgment is for $58,000 for remuneration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a judgment ?


John Graham Haggart: The award or recommendation or whatever you want to call it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 124 per cent is allowed.


John Graham Haggart: A few days ago the minister promised to bring down the amount expended on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway since he went into office, the quantity of miles of rail laid and the number o'f miles still unfinished. He promised that information before he would go on with the estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have here a statement showing the amount chargeable in connection with the Canadian canals, statement of expenditure of construction, cost of enlargement and total estimated cost to the 1st of May, 1902. I have also a statement here of the renals paid on the different canals. The deputy minister does not seem to have made a note of the other question. The information can be obtained, I suppose. I will hand these documents to the hon. member for Lanark.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Rideau canal, $1,200.


John Graham Haggart: I call the attention of the minister to the report of his officer on the condition of the Poonamalie bridge, and I would ask the minister to insert an item in the estimates to put that bridge into proper shape. The government engineer reports :
I can see no appearance of the bridge being damaged or shifted by high water as stated in the petition because it appears to be fairly in line throughout. It is of course in very bad repair, and in my opinion most dangerous for vehicles to pass. In fact, Mr. Snider said nothing to me about damage being done to the bridge but admitted that dt was simply worn out by old age, and that their council had to renew it ; but that as the holding up of the water by the canal bank at Poonamalie lock necessitated an increasad length of bridge, which is in my opinion true, they were for that reason praying the government to assist them to do so.
The engineer states the amount they were entitled to. Therefore I hope the minister will see his way to put a sum in the estimates to carry out the recommendation of the engineer as to the claims of the municipal council of the township of Elmsley.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is hardly a recommendation of the engineer. The difficulty we have had in making any allowance in respect to that work is this, that it does not appear that the bridge required to be renewed, because of our having raised the level of the water at that point ; but it does appear that the bridge requires to be renewed because it is worn out and decayed from old age. It is too late to put an item in the estimates this year, but I would be disposed to consider the matter for a future estimate.


John Graham Haggart: Is the minister not going to contribute to the additional length of the bridge rendered necessary by1 the raising of the water level ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If there is any substantial increase in the length of the bridge by reason of our having raised the level of the water I think that would be a fair ground for a claim; but I do not know that the length has been increased to any appreciable extent.


John Graham Haggart: All the council ask the hon. minister is that that portion of the work they have to do by reason of the raising of the water above the normal level of the dam shall be contributed to by the government. The amount which they say will be required to complete it is 81,000. The hon. minister's engineer says $900, and he says that a fair amount to contribute would be one-third of the cost, that is, $300. It is not worth arguing about.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot put it in the estimates this year, but I am willing to consider it for next year.
Trent canal'-Rebuilding dam at Peterborough, $9,000.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that was a new dam, which we built not long ago ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not finished yet. This is to finish it


John Graham Haggart: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Last year we had an appropriation of $12,000 which, with this vote will bring the total cost to $21,000.
Prince Edward Island-To increase accommodation at Charlottetown, $30,000.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman tell us whether any estimates have been prepared as to what the 311 miles which he is constructing will cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The engineer has not got the| estimate here. He has it at the office.


Samuel Barker: Was the estimate prepared as a whole or in sections of 10 miles?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As a whole.


Samuel Barker: When was that done ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He got it inside of last week.


Samuel Barker: Then, no estimate was made before the contract was let ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not up here at Ottawa.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand that the minister let the contract for these 311 miles without knowing what the works would cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He had the calculation showing what it would cost, but he had not the engineer's estimate.


Samuel Barker: I understand, from the discussion which took place on the 6th of May, that the contractor had a contract two years ago for 111 miles, that that contract was let by tender, that since then recently the minister has let a contract for 311 miles additional at the same rates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For the same class of work.


Samuel Barker: How did the minister know whether these rates were reasonable or not ? How could he tell that the price per yard for earth cutting or rock blasting or anything else was reasonable without having an estimate ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He had the tenders for 114 miles-for earth, rock and all the other items.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman suppose that the earthwork at one point of the railway must necessarily cost the same as the earthwork at another point. At one point it may cost 27 cents or 30 cents and at another 15 cents. How can he tell whether the price was reasonable for the 311 miles unless he had an estimate ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had a total estimate.


Samuel Barker: That is a most extraordinary way to make a contract.


John Graham Haggart: It was a most peculiar contract. The first time I asked the Minister of Railways whether this work was let by tender, he said yes. I understood then that the whole work was let by tender from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour. On April 9th the question was asked in the Senate by Mr. Ferguson, whether the work had been let by tender, and the answer was that it had, but in the neighbourhood where the work is being done, it was believed that only one portion, 111 miles, had been let by tender, and on the 1st May the Hon. Mr. Ferguson inquired in the Senate :
Whether it is the intention of the government to invite public tenders for the construction of the railway from Chnlottetoivn to Murray harbour other than section 2.
If so, when will the notices for such tenders be issued ?
The Hon. Mr. Scott replied as follows
The answer sent me is as follows :-The department invited tenders by public advertisement for section 2 covering 11J miles from Mutch's Point towards Murray Harbour and the contract was awarded accordingly to a responsible contractor, at prices which the engineers pronounced reasonable. The next section was continued at the prices for the work as Mr. BARKER.
settled under the first tenders, by Order in Council. The contract has been sent for execution by the contractor.
In reply to my question as to whether any work had been done before the Order in Council was passed, the hon. Minister of Railways said no, that the Order in Council was passed before the contractors had begun to do the work on the other sections of the road. But what are the facts ? Here is what Mr. Ferguson said in the Senate :
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON-That is most extraordinary, in the face of the replies that were given across the floor of the House on the authority of the chief engineer of railways, that no work was being done on any section hut No. 2, when now it appears that by an Order in Council the work was prosecuted on other sections of the road on the same terms as No. 2.
Hon. Mr. SCOTT-The hon. gentleman is right except as far as the date is concerned. After my hon. friend made the statement that work was going on, I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to it and he denied it, and I spoke to Mr. Schreiber about it. It appears the contractor went on with the approval, perhaps, of the local engineer. Subsequent to tbe statement made, on a report from tbe local engineer, conarmcd by Mr. Seh-reiber, a continuation of the work was given beyond the 111 miles to this contractor at schedule prices contained in the first contract.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON-That is ail right, but what becomes of the denials given by my hon. friend on the authority of the department, that work was being done by the government ?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT-Evidently the department did not know the work was going on.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSON-And it was done by Order in Council ?
Hon. Mr. SCOTT-No, he went on1 before the Order in Council. The Order in Council was passed, if my memory is correct, after my attention was called to it by my hon. friend.
What becomes then of the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways that the work was, in the first place, let by tender for the first 11J miles, and then that a contract was given for the other 31 miles, on the schedule prices of the first tender and without inviting any competition. I need not go into the constitutional question, whether the hon. gentleman had the right to do this or not. There are enough sins against the government without charging it with anything more. But the hon. minister did what he had no right to do. By law lie is bound to advertise for tenders for the construction of all these works. But the hon. gentleman does not seem to pay much attention to the law in these matters. However he extended the contract, and he told us that no work was done by the contractor until the Order in Council was passed. It appears now, however, that the contractor was doing the work by some one's authority, without the knowledge seemingly of the minister, and without any Order in Council having been passed. According to the hon. minister's colleague in the other House, he seems not to have

known anything about this. The work, it seems, was going on without his knowledge, and it was only authorized by Order in Council when the attention of the minister's colleague in the Upper House was brought to the fact by Senator Ferguson.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has discovered a mare's nest. Let me tell him that the questions which he has asked and which have been answered, have been truthfully answered. The question he asked me, whether or not the Order in Council authorizing the giving of the second contract to the contractor, on the schedule prices of the first, was made before any work was done, I replied in the affirmative. I still say that it was.	.


John Graham Haggart: Before the work was commenced ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Before any work was done on the extension. I am confident of that because that Order in Council was passed long enough ago, and I do not think that the contractors could possibly have begun the work before it was passed. Let me make a suggestion to my hon. friend. He has been during last summer with his hon. friend beside him (Mr. Barker) travelling over the Intercolonial Railway. The attention of these two gentleman has been given during the recess almost exclusively to the subject of the Intercolonial Railway. They travel- j led over the line, listening to all the stories they could hear, and they were convinced that when parliament was called together and when the Public Accounts Committee went into all these transactions, they were going to make a great exposure of wrongdoing. The minister was to be proved guilty of all sorts of transactions next to criminal. The air was blue with the predictions they made. They took a certain amount of comfort out of that. They were buoyed up during the recess by the confident expectation that something was going to happen disastrous to the government, as the result of their labour. Well, I would suggest to them now that they should proceed at once to Prince Edward Island and gather all the reports and information they can regarding the Prince Edward Island Railway, and let them buoy themselves up until next session with the expectation that they are going to prove any quantity of misdeeds. Let them go into the Murray Harbour transaction, sift it to the bottom, and make a great exposure of it. That is something to which they can devote their attention during the recess with great benefit, no doubt, and from their point of view, to the country . But it is rather late now to go into an inquiry of that kind. It is a thing which will keep. If^ everything is in such a deplorable condition, no doubt they will have abundant opportunity a year hence to make a reputation for themselves
even exceeding what they have succeeded in establishing this session.


John Graham Haggart: Did the hon. minister contemplate, when he began building the railway from Mutch's Point, 11* miles south, to continue it to Murray Harbour 1 If so, why did he not, when letting that part of the contract, let also the whole line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was not intended then to carry it on so soon.


John Graham Haggart: You only intended building 114 miles then.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was very largely in the discretion of the minister on the island then, and he recommended that 114 miles be taken up.


John Graham Haggart: As a business proposition, I should think that you would have intended building the whole section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was a very serious question about the route, as to the direction we would continue. And that matter had to be looked into, as the hon. gentleman knows. That was the reason why only 11* miles were taken.


Mr. HACKETT.: I would say with regard to the building of these lines on the island


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Which one ?


Edward Hackett: Take the whole enterprise. It should not be dealt with las a number of small sections. If the hon. gentleman is going to build fifty miles he should call for tenders for that work. But I can understand why tenders were first called for this 11* miles from Mutch's Point. It appears the hon. gentleman contemplated *building only 114 miles, but. since then, lie has changed his mind and is building 45 or DO miles, and is giving these parties an opportunity to build through the level section the grading of the railway, the ballasting and track laying, on the basis of a tender for 114 miles. I think 'that is very unfair to the contractors in that part of the country that they should not be afforded an opportunity to tender.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But they had an opportunity.


Edward Hackett: On the 114 miles, but not on this.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The small contractor could handle 114 miles easier than he could 30 or 40 miles.


Edward Hackett: They had an opportunity 'to tender for the work in the most hilly part of the country-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Which is the most profitable for the contractor.


Edward Hackett: We know Which is the most profitable. And if the hon. minister will consult his deputy and chief engineer, who built the railway in Prince Edward Island, he will learn how it was bu Lit around the hills in every direction, and it has cost the country over $17,000 within the last few years to strighten out those curves. Now, the ihon. gentleman is building this railway through the country south of Hillsborough, the hilliest part of Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) object to the location of the railway in this section ?


Edward Hackett: I am not objecting to the portion of the country the railway traverses. But I am objecting to the bou. minister giving the contract for building 111 miles through the most hilly part, and then continuing the contract to the contractor for 311 miles through a level section without giving others an opportunity to tender.


Mr. HUGHES (King's).: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) say that it is easier to build the 311 miles than to build the 111 miles ?


Edward Hackett: I do.


James Joseph Hughes: On what authority does he make that statement ?


John Graham Haggart: On his own.


James Joseph Hughes: I asked the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett).


Edward Hackett: I make the statement on this authority, that, in building the Prince Edward Island Railway, the line was run around the hills, and it has cost this country, as I say, almost $20,000 within the last few years to straighten out the curves. The hon. gentleman will understand that it is more difficult to make a straight line through hills and levelling up the valleys than to build it in a level country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But it ,is much more profitable to the contractor. So, the hon. gentleman is not making out a very strong case.


Edward Hackett: As the straightening out of these curves has cost the country so much one would suppose that the minister in laying this track for 114 miles would lay it in a straight line through that section of the country, ,so that trains could be run without difficulty. If you gave a contract for this 114 miles for a straight line through the hills levelling up the valleys, then It would be a different matter to get contracts for 314 miles where you have a level surface.


Edward Hackett: 


James Joseph Hughes: Starting at Mutch's Point where would the 114 miles bring you to ?


Edward Hackett: About to the ten-mile house.
Mr. HUGHES (King's;. About to O'Neils. It does not pass the ten-mile house at all, but passes 'beyond it. The hon. gentleman does not know the location of the road. Has the hon. gentleman ever been over that road that he says lit is a more level road from Mutch's Point to O'Neils than over the other part of the road ?


Adam Carr Bell: That is the very opposite of what he said.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman understand that, in going from Mutch's Point to O'Neil's you go over Tea Hill ?


James Joseph Hughes: No, you go east of Tea Hill. Has the hon. gentleman ever been over that road ?


Edward Hackett: I have been over it, I can assure the hon. gentleman, and I was down to Vernon river last summer.
Mr. HUGflES (King's). How far did the hon. gentleman go ?


Edward Hackett: To Murray harbour. And let me say that I think the hon. gentleman's interruption on this occasion has been quite impertinent.


James Joseph Hughes: Now I make this statement, and I venture to say I shall be borne out by the engineers, that the latter portion of the road is more difficult to build than the former. The hon. gentleman stated that the first of the road was over a more level country.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, King's) is making a worse case for his friends.


James Joseph Hughes: I mean, that the ihon. gentleman said it was through a hillier country. But that was not in accordance with the facts. Does the hon. gentleman know the, settlements through which the road extends ? They are Vigg, Kinross and Caledonia. Amd Caledonia, with the exception of de Sable, is the hilliest part of the island.


Samuel Barker: And the hon. minister says that is where you can do the cheapest work.


James Joseph Hughes: I am making my statement in contradiction of the hon. gentleman from West Prinice (Mr. Hackett). He says that the 114 miles was the hilliest section of the road and that the rest was a very level country, and I must say that that is not in accordance with the facts.


Samuel Barker: There is one thing that is in accordance with the facts-that the minister did find it expedient and proper, when he was oonstructing only 114 miles of

road to ask for tenders, and to receive them from four or five different contractors. But now that lie is constructing 314 miles he does not think it is necessary to call for tenders, thougti the statute under which he exercises his authority requires him to do it.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We can go into that next session, when we have plenty of time.


Edward Hackett: I may say, in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes), that I was over that section of the country last year. I drove through from Charlottetown to Murray harbour, and I saw the work that was being done as far as Vernon river. I want to assure him that my experience in driving through the country was that the most hilly part of it was between Charlottetown and Vernon river. Prom Vernon river to Murray harbour I found a more level country that I could drive through easily. The hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) cannot make it appear that there are mountains in that part of the country.
Post Office Department-Salaries, to provide for 3 additional second class clerkships, $3,500.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Those are promotions, one from a third to a second class, and the other two are for the outside service whom it was intended to transfer to the inside in connection with a change of work.
Provisional allowance. $180.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is for a clerk in the dead letter office at Victoria.
To provide for increases of salary for employees in the inside service not provided for in the main estimates, $2,260.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Like many other estimates, this appears extremely vague. Who are those clerks whose salaries are to be increased ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In the main estimates provision was made for all whose salaries were not over $800. At that time the officers had not gone through the whole list. This provides for statutory increases for all whose salary are above that should they be recommended for the fiscal year, and the fiscal year is not yet concluded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may as well take occasion of this item to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) with regard to the dismissal of the postmaster at Holstein. I have in my hand a copy of the information given to the hon. minister as to why he was dismissed.
Memorandum for the Post Master General in reference to the removal of the Postmaster at Holstein.
The Postmaster General is informed that complaint was made that the postmaster was
conducting a public library in the room where the Post Office was located, and that looking after his duties as librarian conflicted with his duties as postmaster, causing thereby both delay and inconvenience to the public. It was further complained that the postmaster was not exercising proper care over mail matter, and that the public in going to the library had more or less access thereto.
This complaint having been referred to the inspector, he reported on the 11th of March, 1902, that the Postmaster was acting as librarian and also attending the public telephone, that he was also engaged in the grain trade, to which he devoted the greater part of his time, and that he found considerable dissatisfaction at Holstein on account of the public library being kept in the Post Office. In his opinion the Post Office is not a suitable place for such library. He also stated that during the time he was examining the accounts of the office a person called and asked for twelve books, that the person in charge left the Post Office work to look over the library to see if such books were in stock ; that at the same time the telephone was ringing, which also had to be attended to by the same person, causing thereby considerable confusion in the office. The Postmaster himself was absent from the office that day.
The inspector further states his opinion that the office was of sufficient importance to be separated distinct from the public library aud telephone business, and that sufficient privacy for those depositing money in the savings bank and seeking money orders, could not exist under existing conditions.
Under the circumstances the Postmaster was removed ou the 12th of March, 1902.
Now, I have here a copy of a petition sent to the Postmaster General with reference to that. I may mention the fact that this petition is signed by 151 parties who use the office, and I am told represents about leighty per cent of all those who use the office. It reads as follows
We the undersigned who are served by the Holstein Post Office have learned with most profund regret 'that our present Postmaster, W. T. Petrie, has been notified that the postmastership is about to be changed. We are thoroughly satisfied with 'the equipment and arrangement of the public library and telephone being in the post office building, and also that the service and accommodation are entirely satisfactory. And your petitioners do humbly pray that you reconsider your decision and leave the office and service in its present form.
The postmaster, writing a letter regarding this question, draws attention to the fact that in Dromore the library Is in the post office as at Holstein, and no complaint appears to be raised. In several other post offices the same thing is done. I have personally known Mr. Petrie for many years. He is a most enterprising man in the community, enjoying the respect and good will of almost the entire community. He is a business man of many years standing and has done everything that could be reasonably expected to benefit the place and serve the

492S
public. I do not wonder that it is regretted, as this petition expresses it, that a change should be made in respect to a man who has served the interests of the public so long and so faithfully.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) expects me to make any observations as to the report of the inspector to which he has referred as a justification for the action taken. It is quite clear that the convenience of the public was not being sufficiently regarded in the management of the office. In the course of carrying on the department complaints were made, the matter was referred to the inspector and he made his report. I do not think the department could have done less than change the postmaster under the circumstances.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The office seekers seem to be satisfied that their interests are being very well served.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: I know this oflice, I know the postmaster, and I know personally the service he has given to the community in that place. It is a pretty well known fact that a simple matter of keeping a village library in the post office is a convenience to the public. It is something to which there is no emolument attached, it is a gratuitous service to the public which is very much appreciated, I am sure, in this case. There is one tiling in the inspector's report that carries with it great improbability, and it is the statement that somebody comes into that village library and asks for twelve books. It seems to me to be incredible unless it was arranged specially when the inspector was there that something of the kind should be done. Usually only one book is allowed out at a time, or two at the outside. I know how the library is kept and it does not require any one to go out of the office to see whether the books are in their places or not. I know Mr. Petrie is very highly esteemed by the community there and that the petition is, I am credibly informed, signed by 90 per cent of the people who are served by the office, irrespective of political lines altogether. It does seem somewhat strange, with a petition of that character presented, that no further inquiries seem to have been made, but that on this flimsy pretext, the postmaster is simply dismissed in order that a place may be made for a man who has been a very active politician and supporter of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: 
ROBERT KAULBACH,
[Stage Direction]
This is simply another of those cases in which the Postmaster General has seen fit to dismiss men without giving them auy opportunity whatever to reply to the charges made against them, and has acted upon ex parte statements without giving the officers of his department an opportunity to make a defence. I have a similar letter from Mr. David Mitchell, of Jeddore, who states that as far as political partisanship is concerned, he canvassed no man for or against the government, he was on no committee and had nothing to do with the elections.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is the statement of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) there ? I do not remember the case. I sent the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the particulars.


Robert Laird Borden: The documents that were handed to me in Mr. Kaulbach's case were two so-called affidavits of a very indefinite character, taken before a justice, not giving any dates or particulars, but making a general charge of political partisanship against Mr. Kaulbach, which he has denied.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In what constituency is that ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is in my own constituency.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does Mr. Roche represent that too ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, Mr. Roche represents it also.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think there is some communication from him.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) was brought down by the hon. gentleman.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I may be in error.


Robert Laird Borden: What I submit to the hon. gentleman is that it does not seem to be a very fair way of dealing with these men to dismiss them without even letting them know anything about the charges against them, and upon ex parte statements of this character, to dismiss them from their positions with a certain imputation upon their character without giving them an opportunity of making their own defence. I have put that forward in this House a good many times without any effect. I think it is absolutely unfair to the officers of the department to dismiss them for alleged political partisanship without giving them an opportunity of making their defence against these charges. I know that notwithstanding the pledge which was given by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, the practice has been defended from the other side of the House of dismissing these men upon the statement of a member of parliament purporting to speak from actual knowledge. I do not think that the hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Roche) would pretend to have any personal knowledge of the alleged partisanship of these' men, because they live a long distance from Halifax, where he resides, and he must, in any statements he has made, have had information given to him by other persons, so that the cases do not even come within those that I have mentioned. There is another difficulty in regard to the Jeddore postmaster, and it is that the people of that community are to be deprived of any opportunity to communicate to the outside world by telegram, because the only person who is capable of taking charge of the telegraph office there is Miss Mitchell, daughter of the postmaster, and it would not be worth her while to devote her attention to that work, as her father has been deprived of the post office. I have had a communication from a strong supporter of the Liberal party living in the vicinity, who has complained to me very bitterly in regard to this matter, and I think the hon. gentleman had better look into that and see whether the public are not likely to be inconvenienced very greatly by the dismissal of this man without any opportunity being given him of saying anything in his own defence.
There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman, and that is that 21 petitions of right were tiled three years ago and the fiat asked for, which has not been granted in regard to any of them up to the present time. We have had at least two cases this session where people have been offered fiats and have declined to receive them, and their claims have been submitted to the Exchequer Court, not on the question of legal liability, but on the question of what is 155
fair and right apart from legal liability, and very substantial claims have been voted by this parliament upon the reports made under references of that kind. If the government see fit to grant references with respect to claims where there is no liability; on what ground does the Postmaster General persist in refusing petitions of right to these men who simply ask that claims against the Crown shall be adjudicated on in the Exchequer Court. Under a statute passed this session, the Crown has the right to exact security for costs from all these men, and whatever justification there might have been before-and I think there was none-there certainly is no possible justification now for refusing these men the right to have their claims decided on before a properly constituted tribunal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In cases where the claimants have any substantial claims ; claims in good conscience as well as legal claims, I would agree with my hon. friend that a fiat should issue as a matter of course. But you have to look at these cases in order to see whether it is in the interest of right that they should be facilitated in proceedings against the Crown. It is rather late at night to take up the whole subject, but speaking generally what are the facts ? My hon. friend has not perhaps studied all the facts. Permit me to tell him that in the year 1895-9(5, the government-probably because they expected an early election or for whatever reason-proceeded (to disregard the statute which governs the Postmaster General, and right and left they issued contracts for the carrying of mails in contravention of that statute which says that tenders shall be invited for mail service and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer; but, that in special cases the contract may be renewed. The cases that my hon. friend refers to are renewals of contracts. Now, not in one instance is there a special circumstance so far as appears in the department to warrant entering into these renewal contracts. They were renewed not only without justification under the statute but against the interests of the public. I do not know whether the observations I am about to make apply in detail to each one of the twenty-one cases, but I am sure that an analysis of the facts will show that many of the cases fall within the class I am about to describe. Tenders had been invited in many instances by the late government and after their receipt sometimes opened and the amounts ascertained, and then disregarded, the contracts were let to the old tenderers at prices in some instances enormously in excess of the general average of prices for which the new tenderers were prepared to perform the contracts. In some instances tenders were not even opened and scores and scores of new contracts were let for services which had been advertised and for which there



were tenders by the score in the department. In some instances contracts were let-and I believe one or more of the contracts referred to by my hon. friend-were let to the tenderers at higher prices than their tender. There are instances-and I think there are one or more among the twenty-one cases speaking from memory- where the old contractor put in his tender in the ordinary course for the new contract, and yet the government of the day chose to ignore his tender and let to him the contract at the original contract price, which may have been 50 per cent in excess of the amount of his new tender. These contracts, I submit, are not worth the paper on which they are written. There is no equity in their claims. If the contracts are good in law; if the statute does not mean what it seems to say, then it will be on the barest technicality they could recover. If they choose to disregard the right, and by their understanding with the government of the day or for whatever reason obtained improper contracts from the government, they have no claim upon the government to aid them, because they did not enjoy the full fruits of these improper contracts. Rather, they should be compelled to account for the portion of the excess they received during the currency of these contracts. It is incredible to suppose that in hundreds and hundreds of the simplest service that Canada affords, there were special circumstances that warrant the abandonment of the principle of inviting tenders, and yet that is what took place wholesale, and these cases are of that class. Under the circumstances there is no merit in good conscience in these claims, and the claimants have nothing to claim, but rather they should congratulate themselves that the government proposed to have the contracts treated ns null in the first instance, and did not call upon them to make good to the Crown the excess of money which during the time they purported to render service, they received.


Robert Laird Borden: The doctrine laid down by the Postmaster General is absolutely subversive of the principle upon which petitions of right have been granted in the past. The Postmaster General in effect says : Because my predecessor was guilty of laxity in the public service, I will annul these contracts whether I have the legal right to do so or not, and I will refuse these men a fiat which will enable them to substantiate their claims in court.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The other party is just as guilty.


Robert Laird Borden: What other party ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The petitioner is a party to the wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: If the petitioner is a party to the wrong; if this contract is


Hon. Mr. MULOCK.: not worth the paper it is written on, it is perfectly competent for the Crown to go into Court and say that. If the argument of the Postmaster General means anything it means that there was a conspiracy between these men and his predecessor in office to defraud the government. If that can be established in court, then not one of these men can recover. But the Postmaster General sees fit to judge these men behind their backs. He refuses these men the right to urge their claims in court, just as he refused the two postmasters the right to be heard in their own defence before he dismissed them. That is the position which the Postmaster General takes. I would be willing to leave it to the House and to the country as to whether that is a position which can be fairly maintained by any man who is desirous of doing right. If what the Postmaster General says, is true, then the government has nothing to fear because these men cannot substantiate their claims in court. If on the other hand these men are able to prove that what they say is correct, they have a valid claim against the government and they should have the privilege before the court of seeing whether they are right or whether the Postmaster General is right. But that right the Postmaster General denies them. He judges their cases himself and he deprives these men of that which every man in this country is supposed to have : The right to have his claim determined in a court of law by a proper tribunal, and after hearing both sides of the case.


Edward Hackett: I desire to bring to the notice of the hon. the Postmaster General a case which I brought before the House last session when he was away in Australia, and the acting Postmaster General ;could make no reply. It is the case of a man named Kelioe who had the contract for carrying the mails between Tignish and Mail Point. Mr. Kelioe was requested by the inspector of post offices in Prince Edward Island, Mr. Brecken, at the expiration of his term of three years or so, whether he would renew his contract on the same terms, namely, $30 a year. Mr. Kelioe said he would, and signed the bond in my presence, and entered into a new contract in accordance with the request of the inspector. A few days afterwards an order came from Ottawa that the mails were to be delivered to another man, Thomas Nelligan, that Mr. Kelioe was not the contractor. Mr. Nelligan has been carrying the mails for the last two years and has been receiving $50 a year for the same work that Mr. Kehoe did for $30 a year. I would ask the horn Postmaster General if he has any knowledge of this matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sorry to say I have no recollection of the transaction. I was not aware that it had been referred to in the House on a former


MAT 13. 1902
[Stage Direction]
occasion. If my lion, friend had intimated to me that he was going to bring it up I would have been prepared with a statement of the facts. But even at this late date I will endeavour to obtain such a statement, and if he does not receive it in the House I will send him a communication explaining what the facts are, and I feel certain that he will find it to be a satisfactory explanation.
Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to say with regard to the post office at Holstein, that if inadvertently an injustice has been done to the late postmaster and also to the public who by petition have expressed their satisfaction with the service and their desire to have the post office conducted by the same man, in view of the fact that no irregularity has been found in the office conducted by him for many years, and that he had no opportunity of hearing the charges made against him or making any defence. I think the Postmaster General should at least make some further inquiry into the matter. This is a case in which a gentleman who has rendered good service to the public for many years has been suspended on short notice without any opportunity to defend himself, ad the position given to a very active political partisan.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what my hon. friend would suggest could have been done. It was a question of the proper management of the office, and the course pursued seems to me to have been a reasonable one. Charges were made, the proper officer was instructed to investigate he did investigate, and he ascertained that the public were not receiving fair consideration. The officer was conducting a telegraph or telephone business and a public library and was also engaged in the grain trade, so that the public were not receiving reasonable service. If the public are to be considered, it seems to me that it was a case calling for a change of postmaster. The inspector was at the office and saw for himself what was going on there. The postmaster, or his assistant, or his people were there. A new officer has been appointed, and I suppose the transfer has taken place, so that new rights have arisen. I see by the papers that the report was made early in March last. If so, the new officer has entered on his duties. He has his rights now, and it will be quite impossible to undo what has taken place.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I understand that it is a very common thing to have a telegraph or telephone system conducted in a post office. The emoluments are so very small in these offices that these businesses have to be combined for the convenience of the public. As to the other little matter of keeping the village library there, only five miles away a village library is kept in the post office and no complaint is made, and I do not believe there would have been any com-155J
plaint in this case if it had not been got up by a few people who were opposed to the postmaster. I know that he is a popular man. I believe that this petition asking that he be continued in the office has been signed by from eighty to ninety per cent of the people served by the office. It certainly seems to have been a case in which there might have been an investigation and opportunity given to comply with requirements of the department with regard to keeping library or telephone office.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL There was an investigation and the inspector made a report.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That was the only investigation. He had no opportunity of making a defence.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He had every opportunity.


Mr. MORIN.: There was a postmaster in my county who was dismissed last fall. The other day I put a question on the Order paper about the dismissal and the Postmaster General replied that he was dismissed because Mr. Talbot had asked that he should be, as he had taken an active part in the election of 1900. Mr. Talbot was at that time, like myself, busy at home, and ho knew nothing about what was going on in my county. All he could say was that some one told him so. Well, the hon. Postmaster General should not listen to what he hears in that way, especially from politicians. He cannot expect to hear anything else, whether it is so or not. I remember very well in 1896 that question came up in the House, though not with regard to my county, and the Prime Minister said that people employed by the government would have the right to vote for whom they pleased and they would not be deprived of talking politics if they wanted to, but he said that a man employed by the government had no right to make speeches nor to publish articles in the newspapers. He said it made no difference whether the parties were Conservatives or Liberals, they would be dismissed. Now, to show you that this promise has not been carried out at all, I know a man perfectly well-he is a friend of mine if he is a Grit, and I do not like to mention his name-who last January spent some eleven days in the county of Beauce. On his return home he and I rode on the train together, and he was telling me how muck money he had spent in the county and how many days he had been there. He was also in the company of the Minister of Justice. Some time ago this question was brought up in the House by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard), and the Minister of Justice replied that he knew nothing of it. In this case it would not do to say that he knew nothing of it.
The hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. Minister of Justice were in the county

of Beauce doing electioneering work. I do not ask that this man,' be dismissed, but I say it is rather strange to find one man treated in one way and another man treated altogether differently. If a Conservative works, or even if he does not work, but is reported to have been working in an election, he is dismissed. But a Grit is allowed to work right along, right and left in election time, and he is not interfered with. Is that treating citizens of this country on an equality ? I say it is mot. Let me draw the attention of the Postmaster General to another case. In 1890, there was a man in my county who got a contract for carrying the mails and he got it by tender. In 1895 that contract was renewed without public tender. In 1896, the present Postmaster General dismissed that man and gave the contract to somebody else. I have no fault to find with that, but what took place in 1897, right in the very town where I live ? I know all about the contract and the man. The contract expired and was given to another man, after public tenders were asked, for ?55 a year to carry the mails from the station to the post office. That contract expired some time last fall. The contractor wrote the department asking that his contract be renewed, but he got a reply that it was given to another man without any tender having been called for at all. Why is it that the Postmaster General condemns men and contracts just when it suits him and in any way he likes? If it was not right in 1895 to give a contract without public tender, why was it right to give it without public tender last fall ? If the hon. minister can explain that, I will be very grateful to him.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to the first point, the dismissal of a postmaster, I think that my horn, friend moved for a return.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Not that I know of.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some one did, and I think that the declaration of Mr. Talbot was produced upon which this change took place. I think it took place last summer while I was away, but of course I assume the responsibility. I looked up the papers when my bon. friend asked the question and I found that Mr. Talbot did not in any way qualify his statement, but spoke as if he had positive knowledge of the facts. Therefore, although my hon. friend thinks that he had not that knowledge, still Mr. Talbot assumed full responsibility. I remember speaking to him personally on the subject, and he assured me that his statement to the department last summer was perfectly correct; and if he were here, I think he would be prepared to discuss the facts with my hon. friend. With reference to my hon. friend's inquiry as to the contractor in his town, he will understand that I cannot carry all these transactions in my head and remember an inci-Mr. MORIN.
dent that occurred five years ago, and which has reference to one out of ten thousand contracts. I will, however, look the matter up and find out all about it.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The hon. minister says that he is sorry Mr. Talbot is not here to defend himself. Will the hon. gentleman give him a chance to defend himself ? Will he tell Mr. Talbot that I spoke from personal knowledge, that I was in the county of Beauce myself, and that I know he was in the county working with the gentleman who gets ?800 a year from the government ? The hon. member for Belchasse (Mr. Talbot) and the Minister of Justice and that man were there together. If Mr. Talbot wants to make reports and have everything done right, let him look after his own man who worked with him in the county of Beauce.


Robert Laird Borden: I have received a communication with regard to withdrawal of the mail service from the. village of Bay-side in my constituency. It is regarded as a great hardship by the people that the mail service should have been withdrawn. There was some talk of dispensing with it two years ago, and the person who carried the mails offered to do the work for a lower sum in order that the people might not be deprived of the mail service. The service was continued a couple of years, but lately has been withdrawn. There are three or four business places in the village, which do a large business and ship a large quantity of fish. There is no railway to that village or telephone communication, and they had only mail service twice a week. Now, I believe that service is altogether withdrawn. I would like the hon. gentleman to consider the matter and see whether it would not be possible to continue the iService to that community.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not see that the office has been closed. I think it is a case of removal of the site.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know. They regard it as a withdrawal. They say that they had a service in the past and that it is now withdrawn. They speak of a more frequent service in some other place.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection is that the inspector made a report in which there were some recommendations and what is done was the result of his report. There certainly was no intention to disregard in any way the convenience of the people.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a triweekly service to a village five miles away and it is proposed to open an office at another place seven miles from Bayside, where there are only two or three houses. It seems to be largely for the convenience of the people that the post office should remain where it was, if the statements I have in this letter are correct. It seems to me

that it was a mistake to withdraw the service from these people.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We went simply on the inspector's report.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would like to call attention to the change made in the post office at Keith. A post office existed between the two villages of Robinson and Gould, and that has recently been removed. A post office had been established many years at a point supposed to be the most central, marked out in former days, by the joint actiou of tlie mayors of the two towns. It is about 12 miles from Robinson to Gould, and the point that had been selected by the community, in which the office has existed many years, is supposed to be the most central and most accommodating to that district. By the change, the office has been removed many miles nearer Gould. To-day there are four farmers and their families living between the location of the present post office and the village of Gould. Naturally those farmers would be served at Gould which is the natural place for them to transact their business. The result has been to compel the people living for many miles in that vicinity to travel all this distance in order to get their mail. To meet these conditions I understand that an open bag of some sort is carried by the mail carrier and a sort of distribution takes place between Robinson and the present location of the post office known as Keith. I know no good reason why this change should be made. There is a large petition, I presume almost a unanimous petition, which was forwarded to the bon. gentleman from that section asking that this change be not made.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When was it made ?


Rufus Henry Pope: Perhaps sixty days ago. Perhaps thirty days ago. 1 understand that the postmaster who previously handled the mail there was a Conservative, which, I suppose, is no great crime in the estimation of the Postmaster General. The present occupant, I presume, is a Liberal. I do not know. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain in my constituency those who are Conservatives and those who are Liberals. The Postmaster General has been asked on more than one occasion to make changes in my constituency. None of these changes have been favourable to the public. Some of them have been moved back again to the section in which they first were-not to the same parties, I admit. But I am perfectly willing to have the hon. Postmaster General appoint his own friends, provided he serves the public well. But I must say that in my constituency he has been particularly unfortunate in the advice he has received in the past. If he has no better source of advice in the future, I would ask him to come to me-not that I could give him any particular advantage, but I wrould at least
give him the prestige of serving the public well, and I am sure he will estimate it at its proper value such an advantage.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is a way by which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) can get the patronage.


Rufus Henry Pope: That would be to expensive to principle. Ambitious as I may be, that would be too expensive, I am sure the hon. gentleman will see that. I feel somewhat interested in the post office at Keith, because it is an inconvenience to a lot of people as the mail has to be carried along this entire route, nine or ten miles until it gets to the post office as now located. I would ask the hon. Postmaster General, in the interest of these people, to open a way office that might possibly be more convenient and very little more expensive to the country. We have been told that this is a growing time, and I trust that the Postmaster General will regard this district as growing with the rest of the country and will hold it entitled to better service than it has ever received. I would ask him to open, somewhere, between the present post office, Keith and Robinson, a way office that can serve the farming community. There is not a village, but a straight road, and farmers located as they usually are in a district of that kind. I am pleased to see the Deputy Postmaster General on the floor. He has always treated me with great courtesy, and I trust that my words to the Postmaster General will strike the pan of his ear somewhat favourably, and that the people of that section will be given the accommodation to which they are entitled.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will promise that the application of my hon. friend (Mr. Pope) will receive careful consideration. The general practice-I do not think it is ever departed from-is to change the location of a post office only on the report of the inspector.


Rufus Henry Pope: I believe that in this instance the Postmaster General is more or less correct. From my Information, the inspector did recommend the change. But that does not alter the fact that the present arrangement is an inconvenience to the people. The cost of putting in a way office would be small and it would be a great accommodation to the people. Therefore, I ask it.


Edward Hackett: I would ask the Postmaster General to inform me why the change at Alberton has taken place, and Sir. Thomas Keith, who was postmaster for nearly twenty years has been retired and somebody else appointed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 will make a note of it and will let the hon. gentleman know to-morrow.


Edward Hackett: These notes are very well. But we have no difficulty in under-

standing that Mr. Keith was dismissed because he was a Conservative.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will give the information to-morrow.


Edward Hackett: That is old to-morrow. However, I shall be pleased if the hon. gentleman will give it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I can give it, I daresay on going into supply, or I can give the hon. gentleman a memorandum as I did before.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: I am glad to learn that it is the intention of the Postmaster General to transfer the mail carrying service in the county of Inverness from the present carrier to the Inverness and Richmond Railway. As this is an important portion of the county which I represent, I would like to know how it is intended to carry the mails on the trains. Does the hon. Postmaster General intend to have them sorted by mail clerk, and delivered as is ordinarily done, or merely as baggage in the baggage car ? I can tell the hon. gentleman that this is a most important part of the community, that there are three very thriving mining towns springing up in the county of Inverness along this very route. I hope that the delivery will not be made in such a fashion that the change will be regarded by the people as a retrograde step. For the last thirty-five or forty years, the mail has been delivered twice in every twenty-four- hours along this route. I am sure that anything short of a delivery by mail clerk from the train would be considered by the community over this long distance, fifty-eight miles, as a step of a retrograde character. I did not have an opportunity within the last week or two to discuss this with the Postmaster General. 1 did talk it over with the gentleman in charge of the railway mail service, but he was not very clear then as to the manner in which the mail service in this connection was going to be canned out. And I would like to learn what is intended ? _


Edward Hackett: That reminds me of the fact that the mails going west of Summer-side are delayed at Summerside for twenty hours. There is no connection between the steamboat arriving at Summerside and the train going west. I would ask the hon. gentleman in the interest of the public living west of Summerside that close connection should be made between the boat arriving and the trains going west. There are several towns, two of them 70 miles west of Summerside, and I hope that the Postmaster General will see to it that the mails shall not be delayed at Summerside for twenty hours, where you have only to run trains four or five hours to reach the homes of the people and convey the news that they are expecting from all parts of the world. I trust the Postmaster General will consider this matter. At present we have a steam-Mr. HACKETT
boat running between Pointe de Chene and Summerside, and when mails go to Charlottetown there is no connection to carry them west. Supposing I left here to-morrow morning, I would reach Summerside on the evening of the next day, and there I will be delayed until the following day. For just 60 miles, there is no connection between the mail and steamboat service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will say to my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. McLennan) that the matter he has brought to my attention is a very important one, and it will receive the careful consideration of the department. I will say to my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Hackett) that I think the mails are despatched on all trains between Summerside and Charlottetown, and Georgetown and Charlottetown. Probably if there is any interruption it is because of there being no railway communication.


Mr. TALBOT.: I deire to know from my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) the name of this Liberal postmaster who, he says, accompanied the Minister of Justice and myself during the last campaign in the county of Beauce.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I did not say that.
To provide for an additional second-c-lasa railway mail clerkship, $720.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is for the reappointment of a mail clerk named Gingras. He was dismissed from the service because of supposed irregularities. He was charged with having thrown mail mat-ret off the cars and delayed it in transmission. He was reinstated, and this is to make good the reinstatement.
To provide for the salaries of additional stampers and sorters, letter carriers and clerks, $10,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is to provide for any increase in the staff during the year at any place in the Dominion where it may be required. Owing to the expanding business, it is found that in different cities we have to make additions that are not anticipated.
To increase the salary of Mr. E. B. Bate3, assistant postmaster at Ottawa, from- $1,800 to $1,900, notwithtanding anytaing in the Civil Service Act, $100.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Assistant postmasters are paid a salary based upon the revenue of the office. But the Ottawa post office does a great amount of free business on account of the quantity of matter franked from parliament and from the departments, so the revenue of this office does not fairly represent the business done by it. We think that rule ought not to be adhered to in the ease of Mr. Bates.
To provide for increases of salary for employees in the outside service, not provided for in the main estimates, $2,500.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When the fiscal year closes, the officers, as in the case of the inside service, will go through the staff and report to the deputy and the deputy will report such as are entitled to the increase. If they should all be reported for an increase it would exceed the sum of $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman able to give the names of the employees who salaries are to be increased ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When the fiscal year closes then the officers make a report as to who are and who are not entitled to the increase. At present we are assuming they will all be entitled to it. I trust such may be the case. The report is made to me by the deputy. He, I presume, gets his advice from the officers immediately under him. In the inside service there are heads of branches, and I presume that he bases his judgment largely upon the recommendation of those heads of branches. In the outside service, I presume, he would have the report of the postmaster. It is the duty of the postmaster to inform himself of the efficiency of his staff and report. In the case of inspector's offices he would have the report of the inspector ; and in the case of the railway mail clerks, the report of the controller, I suppose. He in turn will get the advice of the local superintendents of the railway mail service.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the usual way in which the vote is passed, waiting for a report to be made at a subsequent date ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That has always been the practice, I am informed.


Robert Laird Borden: Pass the vote in general form without stating how many persons are entitled to it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The usual practice has been to provide for everybody and then get reports.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be the practice in the bon. gentleman's department, but it certainly is not the practice in other departments. The minister usually comes down with his estimates and says : I propose to recommend an increase to certain persons whose names are given, and if necessary I will ask the House to appropriate a sum of money for that purpose. I do not see why a different principle should prevail in the Post Office Department, and I do not see any reason why the officers of the hon. gentleman's department cannot make up their report.


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: We cannot do that until the years' services has expired.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that that has anything to do with it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know about other departments.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if a method of this kind is not necessary in other departments why is it necessary in the hon. gentleman's department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These estimates were prepared before Christmas.


Robert Laird Borden: They may have been prepared two years ago, but they are presented to the House now, and we are asked to deal with them now. When the hon. gentleman comes down with his estimates he should be prepared with the report of his officers as to those whom he proposes to recommend for increases. I do not think it is a very good practice to ask parliament to vote a general sum in this way subject to a further recommendation. We can have nothing to say about it at present. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. If the hon. gentleman would name a particular individual we would know from him as to what the report was, and we would know something as to the length of the officer's service. AVe cannot know that very well when we have an appropriation in this general form.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what the practice is in the other departments, but I cannot myself understand how an officer could give a report as to a person entitled to an increase until the year of his service had expired. When, as a result of the year's service you can tell from his efficiency and fidelity whether or not he is deserving of the increase. To-day, no officer can report whether A B of this department would be entitled to an increase in July. There is a month and a half's time yet to expire. He might disqualify himself in the meantime and therefore the report for the whole period can only be made after the lapse of this time. We cannot anticipate how the service will be performed before the end of the fiscal year. This seems to be the common sense system. If there is a different system I think it ought to give way to one like this because we cannot give a certificate until we come to the conclusion that the officer is entitled to promotion.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General an instance in the North-west Territories, where I think there is fair ground for asking for increased postal facilities. The Pasqua branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which runs from Aloose Jaw to North Portal on the boundary line, is a part of the Soo railway line, the greater portion of which is in the United States. There is a first class daily train service each way on that line and has been for eight or nine years past, but up to tlie present time there has never been a mail car put on the trains running on that line of railway, tint ft within perhaps a couple of years this has not caused

any grievance, because, on the Canadian part of the line, there was not a very large population, but within the past three years, and within the past two years particularly, a very considerable immigration has been coming into that particular district chiefly from the United States, and there are now some eight or nine considerable towns between Moose Jaw and North Portal. The hon. Postmaster General will remember that some time during the past winter an application came into the department from Milestone, asking the privilege of a daily mail from tlie train each way ; that is to say a double daily mail. The application came from the representatives of a very large American Land and Immigration Company which had established offices at the town of Milestone, and this company found that it was put to considerable inconvenience owing to the lack of the facilities which it asked. For instance, a letter posted at Milestone, addressed to the company's general offices in the United States, had to go first west of Moosejaw and then back towards its destination. I think there is good reason for asking now that additional facilities be furnished to the people of these towns by placing a mail car and a regular mail clerk on that branch railway.
Mi'. ICENDREY. Before that item is passed. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General a matter in reference to the post office in the town of Peterborough. The Postmaster, I understand, from the 1st of July is to be reduced in salary from .$2,000 to $1,750. I also understand the salaries of the assistant postmaster and some of the subordinates are to be increased. The revenue of the post office in Peterborough has increased at the rate of about $1,000 a year, the work has increased with this increase in revenue and I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General on what principle he makes this reduction in the salary of the postmaster at Peterborough.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Whilst there is no absolute equality in the salaries of postmasters there is an effort as nearly as possible to bring post offices of this character under the same conditions. The postmaster of Peterborough, I have noticed, has a salary which is exceptionally high, as compared with the salaries of postmasters in other offices of the same character. I think that as a rule postmasters in offices of that importance do not receive $2,000 a year. Speaking from memory, I think I wrould be safe in saying that the postmaster at Owen Sound, which is a town perhaps almost equal in importance to Peterborough, but probably the responsibilities of the office are equally great, the postmaster at Berlin, which is another town of that character and of Brantford do not get as much as the postmaster at Peterborough. I do not think the postmaster at Brantford Mr. SCOTT.
gets $2,000 a year. In fact, the salary of the present postmaster at Peterborough is exceptionally high as compared with the salaries of postmasters in similar towns. I think there is one other town where the postmaster has a salary equal to that of the postmaster at Peterborough, but perhaps that will have to be 'looked into. It is not finally decided to carry out that arrangement. Mr. Edwards, of Peterborough, has brought the matter to my attention and has written a very lengthy memorial on the subject. I propose to look into it carefully and to endeavour to prevent any injustice, but you will find that it is a little difficult to defend giving a postmaster $2,000 a year and not much more to half a dozen others. Of course, the postmaster occupies a more responsible position, but at the same time there should be some reasonable relation between the salaries.


Mr.   ICENDREY@: The reason that I bring this matter up is that in the office in Peterborough the work has been increasing from year to year and the hon. Postmaster General knows that the revenue from that office is increasing at the rate of about $1,000 a year. It does seem to me that so far as the postmaster at Peterborough is concerned, the responsibilities of the office are greater than those in many other cities and that it would be unfair to reduce the salary of the postmaster in order to raise the salary of the assistant postmaster and the subordinates on account of the work which has to be done there. It seems to be unreasonable because I can compare Peterborough with Belleville. Our revenue was very large and I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that while the revenue has been increasing the work has been increasing. I understood some time ago that the salary of the postmaster was to remain at $2,000. I do not think that the Postmaster General intends to do anything that is unreasonable, and I hope he will not do an injustice in this case.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the hon. gentleman will find that the salary of the Belleville postmaster is a good deal less than $1,750.


Mr.   ICENDREY@: I understand that the postmaster of Belleville pays his own subordinates and that in Peterborough the subordinates are paid by the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the same principle applies in each case. There is a sum of money set apart to meet the salaries of all the staff, and instead of the postmaster hiring his staff and paying them as formerly, he is limited to a certain amount in regard to his own salary, and the remainder must be apportioned amongst the staff.


Mr.   ICENDREY@: I understand that the postmaster in Peterborough has a salary of $2,000, and the staff are paid by the gov-

eminent, while in Bellevilie the postmaster has a lump sum and he hires the help in the offices.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the arrangement is precisely the same in the two places. When there is a vacancy in the post office the postmaster reports it to Ottawa and then the department calls upon our friends in the district to recommend a suitable person, and that name is submitted to the postmaster for his approval. No person is forced upon the postmaster, and he can veto the recommendation. The money set apart for the maintenance of each office is divided by the government and a certain amount is fixed for the postmaster and the amount assigned to the members of the staff goes to them.


Mr. KENDREY.: Do I understand that the Postmaster General has recommended that the salary of the postmaster of Peterborough shall be reduced from $2,000 a year to $1,750, and that the $250 taken off his salary shall be distributed amongst the employees.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nothing has been done in that way. The postmaster's salary is one thing and the salaries of the staff another. There may be an increase in the salaries of the staff, and there may be a reduction in the salary of the postmaster.


James Kendry: Has the postmaster of Peterborough been notified that on the 1st July his salary will be reduced to $1,750 7


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was in contemplation and he may have been so notified. Mr. E. B. Edwards, of Peterborough. called upon me and asked me to reconsider the matter, and I requested him to put his views in writing. My secretary, I think, told me that a lengthy communication covering a good many pages of foolscap has come from Mr. Edwards, and I have deferred the pleasure of reading it until after prorogation.


James Kendry: Has the notification been sent to the postmaster ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Probably he has been notified, but I have told Mr. Edwards that I will reconsider it.


James Kendry: All right.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I wish to say a few words in defence of the Postmaster General who has evidently been wronged by some of his friends. The hon. gentleman stated a few moments ago that he was endeavouring to regulate the post offices throughout the Dominion on some principle. I am perfectly prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's word, but I would point out to him that so far, the Belleville post office has not 'been treated by his department on any principle. Before the advent of the Postmaster General to power, Belleville was a city post
office and had a postmaster under the Civil Service Act. Envious people, without any grounds whatever tried to get that postmaster removed from his position. Attack after attack was made on him and in fact he almost lost his position on the ground that he had driven a voter to the polls during my last election, but on inquiry it was found that the voter he had driven was a warm supporter of the Liberal party. When it was impossible to secure his removal with the consent of His Excellency, Belleville was reduced to the status of a country post office for the sole purpose, it is said, of getting rid of the postmaster. It is now announced by the Postmaster General that he desires to apply the principle, and desires to act fairly. Every one will be pleased to hear that, because the fact remains that of all the cities in Canada, Belleville is the only one reduced, while other offices with less revenue and greater expenditure are not interfered with. The fact remains that there are men in the States drawing superannuation allowances while others are filling their places at the salaries the gentlemen who were superannuated were willing to work for. I am sure that the Postmaster General must intend to apply the principle to which he has just referred, or otherwise he would not have spoken of it. I would call his attention in all humility to the Belleville post office and ask him to apply precisely the same principle to that office that he has expressed his intention of applying to every other post office in this country. If the hon. gentleman keeps his word he will restore Belleville to the list of city post offices, and see that the country is not burdended by having to pay to some persons superannuation allowances while others are drawing salaries for doing the same work.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The changes in ithe Belleville posit office were deliberately made on my own judgment without advice from any one else. Belleville was on a city basis, as it is called, and if it had remained on that basis, the expenditure on the staff would to-day probably have attained to $10,000 a year. I do not wish to be held bound by the figures I now mention, because they may be slightly incorrect; but my recollection is that up to the time it was moved .from a city basis the salaries had attained to $8,000 or $0,000 a year. The expenses of that office were out of all proportion to the revenue. With the exception of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, I think there was no city office in Canada having so small a revenue ns Belleville. Therefore, I removed Belleville from the city basis for the purposes of economy and to prevent an abuse. My hon. friend is wholly in error in suggesting that the public is under anything like as great expense now, even including -the superannuations, as it would have been had Belleville been left on the city basis. I think

the reduction in the expense of the office was not less than $4,000. With regard to the question of my hon. friend from Western. Assiniiboia (Mr. Scott), with reference to an increased mail service on a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I can only say that the matter will toe carefully looked into.


William Barton Northrup: I accept with pleasure the statement made toy the hon. Postmaster General, and X presume that if I can show him that there are other cities ini this country whose returns are less satisfactory compared with the expenditure than those of Belleville, he will either reduce those offices to a basis of country post offices, or restore Belleville to the list of city offices.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not wish to enter into any controversy with my hon. friend. I said that at the time Belleville was reduced, it made a worse showing than any other city in^Canada, except Charlottetown; but the latter, being a seat of government, I felt wTas entitled to a little different treatment.


William Barton Northrup: It is not a question ot controversy with me. I am merely asking the hon. Postmaster General to apply the principle which he himself- stated in this House a short time ago it was his intention to apply, not only to Belleville, but to other places ; and as he gives certain reasons why Belleville has been reduced, 1 take for granted that if those reasons are proven to be erroneous, he will do justice, and restore Belleville to the list oif city offices. That is all I ask.


James Kendry: I wish to call the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General to the fact that the town of Peterborough, though it has only a town post office, has a revenue of $21,000 as against $14,000 of revenue in Belleville.
Militia, $500,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. Minister of Militia given any thought to the claim of Joseph Larose referred to during the present session, to whom he said he thought it would be possible to grant the indemnity voted some years ago ?


The MINISTER OE MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, wre have undertaken to - pay that amount.
Halifax provisional garrison, $315,100.


Robert Laird Borden: I brought to the attention of the hon. minister last session the case of Private Sievert, of Halifax, who fell at the charge of Paardeburg. I have had some inquiry from relatives of the young man, and I wish to ask the hon. minister if he is able to tell me anything with reference to the position of that matter V


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it was with reference Hon. Mr. MULOCK.
to the granting of the Victoria Cross. I may say that I brought the matter to the attention of the imperial authorities through His Excellency the Governor General, but have been unable to accomplish the object, so that the matter remains in precisely the same position that it was in before. There seemed to be some difficulty as to the chain of evidence with regard to the alleged action of Private Sievert, which the War Office seemed to consider was necessary, and it was not forthcoming
To provide for engraving, lithographing, printing, &c., to bring out maps
of work already done	$ 9,000 00
To provide for the salary of a geologist to the International Boundary Survey from July 1, 1902, to July 30,
1803	 2,000 00


Robert Laird Borden: Why was not the general item brought down in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We brought down the usual vote, and Dr. Bell said that in order to keep up with the work we required an additional amount. The mapping of the geological survey has been behind for years, and I have been making strong efforts to try and get out the general geological map. I hope the map will be got out this summer.


Rufus Henry Pope: If it were not so late in tbe session, the subject of tbe geological survey would be worthy of discussion. Considering the great resources of this country, tbe exhibition we have in tbe building of the geological survey and tbe limited information which it is possible to get there, is a shame and a disgrace. I take this opportunity of placing myself on record as having voiced my opinion with regard to this subject.
Government of the North-we3t Territories- Further amount required for schools, clerical assistance, printing, &c., to be paid half yearly in advance, $100,000.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems extraordinary that a large sum like this was not brought down in the main estimates. Why is it brought down so late ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Some little time ago we had a lengthy discussion in Supply on the necessity of increasing the subsidies to tbe North-west Territories. We bad practically made up our minds to give some increase but bad not decided what it should be, and in tbe light of that discussion, we made up our minds to give $100,000. This $100,000 represents an increase in the subsidies referred to.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that tbe amount previously granted was very meagre, and from tbe discussion which took place I think this amount might very reasonably be voted.


AIAY 13. 1902
Thomas Walter Scott: Without doubt, Mr. Chairman, this item shows what a difference is made by the point of view. Ordinarily an amount of $100,000 appears very large to me, but in this particular instance the amount does not impress me at all in the same way.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking absolutely and not relatively.
Yukon public buildings-Bents, heating, &c., 525,000.


Robert Laird Borden: If the session were not so far advanced and the hour not so late, I would like to say something about the terms of the concession granted by this government, known as the Treadgold concession. The terms were not submitted to this House at the opening of the session as they should have been. Whether or not they were required to be so submitted by any statute or regulation, the interests dealt with were so large that I think the government should have brought the papers down and have had them printed earlier in the session, for the purpose of informing the House as to the nature of that concession. That was not done. We did not get them until a date at which the government, in consequence of representations made to them from the Yukon, had themselves come to the conclusion that the terms on which that concession was granted in the first instance were not such as should be continued. But it does seem to me that that contract must have been entered into by the government in a very hurried way and without much consideration. To illustrate, I might mention the fact that the miners were to be charged at the rate of $1 per inch for the water supply and this was afterwards reduced to 25 cents an inch. I do not know the provisions of the later Order in Council with regard to this. Lookiug over it to-day, I could not see any provision on the subject at all. Some communications which I have had from the Yukon Territory indicate that the dissatisfaction with the conditions of the contract as at first framed was very strong, and was not confined to those who are opposed to this government, but was widespread and was felt as strongly and deeply among gentlemen who otherwise approved the policy of this government, as among their opponents. It seems to me, so far as I have been able to consider it, to give a monopoly in the Yukon which will be very valuable to the gentlemen who receive it, and will probably-if we may rely upon statements made by the press of the Yukon and by a great many men interested in that country-prove very detrimental to the miners there for a long time to come. In addition to this monopoly, the men who have obtained the concession have rights which are very much more valuable, so far as I can understand the situation, than those which can be obtained by ordinary miners in the district. For example, what is called the necessity of representation or something of that kind was dispensed with in the first concession so far as these men were concerned. I do not know whether or not that still continues. The effect, as I understand it, was that persons who obtained that concession were not obliged to perform the work of development or pay the annual sum which was necessary on the part of other miners. But these are only a few of the circumstances to which my attention has been directed with regard to this concession. I think it would have been better if the government had submitted a proposition of that kind to parliament before entering into the contract. But putting that aside, there can be no doubt that the terms should have been brought down to the House in the early part of the session so that discussion could be held for which opportunity up to the present time has not offered.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I admit that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Hali-ax) has some ground for finding fault because the Order in Council was not laid before parliament sooner. But, as my hon. friend knows, I was away, being in ill health, and even when I returned, I was not able to give attention to the House for some days. The papers were prepared as soon as the motion was made for them and they were brought down. I can assure the hon. gentleman that whatever questions may have arisen, whatever difference of opinion there may have been as to the government's action, that action was not taken in haste. The whole subject has given the government a great deal of consideration, and anxious consideration, in order to bring about the best results. A question which has not yet been realized in regard to the development of the mining ground of the Yukon Territory as completely as it will be realized is the question of the water supply. So long as the rich pockets upon the creeks now well known continue to be worked, the effects of the lack of a proper * water supply are not likely to be seriously felt. But as soon as these beds begin to be exhausted-and we are getting pretty near to that now-the difficulty about the water supply will press for attention. There is an enormous quantity of gravel of a much lower grade than the miners have been heretofore operating upon which it will be necessary to work if that portion of the country which is producing the largest quantity of gold is to be kept up to its present position. It was the desire of the government to secure the inauguration of some scheme whereby water would be brought in on a large scale, and, to do that we felt that it would be justifiable and proper in the interest of the country that pretty liberal privileges and concessions should be given to those who engaged in that enterprise. If the scheme as originally contemplated had been carried out, the expenditure involved

would have been $7,000,000 or $8,000,000. It was thought that all the water would have to be pumped from the Yukon river. But subsequently the promoters came to the conclusion that water could be got from a stream called Kock creek and brought by gravitation, reducing the cost of operating considerably, though, perhaps not the cost of putting in the plant. Under that arrangement, the corporations were bound to introduce certain quantities of water under certain conditions and supply it to the miners. The dissatisfaction which arose, I think arose owing to the changed conditions as time went on and the matter was further considered. If, when the contract was first entertained, the proposition had been promulgated I do not think there would have been any opposition. But the condition of affairs had changed. Gold in paying quantities was found in some of the abandoned claims though not to the same extent that the newspapers would lead us to believe, and there was a disposition on the part of those who had no mining claims to take these* abandoned claims. My own opinion is that the abandoned claims were probably of no great value, but it is hard to tell with certainty. The change was of such a character as to demand consideration. Mr. Ross, the commisssioner of the Yukon, was here on other business, and Mr. Treadgold, representing the promoters, was here and we endeavored to remove the objections. Under the second Order in Council the plan was passed so that, while many of the privileges given to the promoters are surrendered, the obligation on the part of the promoters to deliver water is removed and it is left practically in the shape of a voluntary enterprise. I still have strong hopes that this arrangement will be successfully carried out and that it will result in the production of an enormous amount of gold from places where at present it cannot be produced at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know whether the concession in this amended form is meeting with any opposition in the Yukon at the present time ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think so. Mr. Ross informed me that the delegates who had been sent from Dawson had seen the amended Order in Council, and agreed that it would be perfectly satisfactory.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the abandoned claims, the information I have would show that in many cases those claims afterwards proved to be very valuable. Another objection that was brougnt to my attention was that a scheme of this kind was not required in the Yukon at the present time because it could not be properly carried out until the lower levels had been more thoroughly worked. As I understand it the operation of a scheme of that kind would Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
prevent the working of the lower levels. Am I correct in that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.	.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one other circumstance I would like to mention. There was a memorial of some kind presented to the minister by a number of miners. I saw a copy of that printed in the public press. I would like to know whether the amended Order in Council meets the objections, either wholly or partially, which were made by the miners in this memorial ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: To all intents and purposes I think I ca i say that it does. I went over the memorial with tlie delegates, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sugrue. Mr. Wilson was one of the elected members of the Yukon council, and Mr. Sugrue was a newspaper man. I went over the memorial with them, and they agreed that the Order in Council in its amended form substantially met their objections. Possibly some of the abandoned claims may turn out to be very valuable.


Robert Laird Borden: As it may be necessary to discuss this subject on some other occasion when we have more time, possibly at another session, and as we have not much knowledge of these objections or conditions, perhaps the hon. gentleman would be willing to bring down this memorial and have it laid on the Table of the House and printed.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Any papers whatever which the hon. gentleman suggests.


Robert Laird Borden: The only one I have in my mind is this memorial of which we have been speaking. Are there any others ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I gave instructions that all the papers should be brought down. If there are any papers in the department other than those already brought down, I will lay them on the Table of the House at the beginning of next session, or if possible before this session closes.


Robert Laird Borden: The memorial 1 speak of is one of recent date, about two weeks ago.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think my hon. friend must have seen something printed which was sent down a good while ago. There has been nothing lately.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to detain the committee, but while other business is being proceeded with I will get a copy of what I have and submit it to the Minister of the Interior. I think it will be found it is somew'hat later in date than he supposes.

Dominion lands-Chargeable to capital-further amount required for surveys. $100,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you going to,do extensive surveys this year ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This amount was made up by an exact detailed estimate from the surveyor general, giving the locality where each survey party is going, and the exact cost. Each party costs on the average $5,000. We are getting a considerable portion of the work done by contract now. We found it was necessary to do so, because the work done by day costs very much more. There are sections where day work may be preferable, but the surveyor general has to exercise his own judgment about that.
Additional amount required for museum building at Banff, N.W.T., $3,000.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: We are putting up a new building here. As first estimated it was to cost $5,000. Subsequently the superintendent submitted plans to me, and after consideration we decided it would be advisable to make the building larger, and we are making the total cost $8,000. That is not a large sum for a building in a place like Banff Park. It will be of rustic style with a reading room and museum.
. 1 Further sum>
required for boundary surveys,
JplUjUUv.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are you geting on with the boundary survey ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The work that is contemplated during the coming year will involve an expenditure of $41,000, including this $10,000. There is the survey by Mr. J. D. McArthur, of the 49th parallel in the province of British Columbia, and the surveys of J. O'Hara, of the 49th parallel, along the Columbia river in the province of British Columbia. Then, there is the survey of the boundary between Canada and New York State for the purpose of setting some new monuments and of replacing monuments which have been destroyed or moved. Then, there are the expenses of four or five of the officers of the chief astronomer's department who are engaged in determining the longitude in different parts of the country, the time service at Ottawa and .the expenses of the men who go out with these different parties to which I have referred. The estimate which was made up by the chief astronomer amounts to $41,000, $31,000 in the main estimates and this additional $10,000 that we are now voting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In your survey in British Columbia and the territories, you are carrying on the work jointly with the American surveyors, are you not V


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The work is being carried on under an arrangement with the United States government. They have a party and wo have a party. They co-operate with each other, they collaborate their work and check it over together.


Mr. KEMP.: Are the surveyors engaged upon the New York boundary working in the province of Quebec ?
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
It will have to be in the province of Quebec.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would that not include the boundary between Canada and the state of Vermont and New Hampshire as well ?
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
I do not at this moment remember whether the marks have been obliterated so far east as that, but the arrangement is that they shall go over the boundary line and wherever it is necessary re-survey and place the marks where they have been obliterated.
Expenses and salaries	connected with the
commission appointed to inquire into the halfbreed claims in the North-west Territories, $3,000.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The commission will complete their sittings on the 1st of July, and this is to pay the clerks who are winding up the work finally.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the commission doing ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
They are adjudicating upon claims for halfbreed scrip. This has been going on for the last couple of years. Mr. McKenna, the commissioner, is now in Winnipeg and he expects to get the matter closed up by the 1st of July. He has two or three clerks doing the clerical work there. This is for the purpose of paying them.
Engraving, lithographing, and printing maps of the Dominion and the North-west Territories, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you getting out a new lot of maps ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: We are getting out what I hope and trust will be a first class map of the Dominion of Canada, the only first class map that has ever been got out. The Geographical Department have spent a vast amount of time and taken a great deal of trouble to make it correct. The map will be 81 feet long by 5 feet wide. It will 'be engraved on copper, and I think It will be a thoroughly first class production and the best workmanship that it is possible to get out in Canada. There is a firm in Toronto that does engraving on copper and it is capable of doing first class work.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a good deal of the country still unsurveyed. I think there is a paper by the late Dr. Dawson, director of the geological survey, which gives a full statement with regard to the unsurveyed country. In respect to further

surveys, while I am not disposed to urge undue expenditures on any of these matters-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Without prejudice ?


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon.
*gentleman (Mr. Mu loch) desires me to discuss that again I will be very glad to do it. If I may be permitted to observe, I think that particular country might be surveyed and very much less of a debt piled up in this country if due regard were had to the public interest in the expenditure of public money by the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member. I would say that as far as is consistent with due regard to economy those portions of the country which are referred to by the late Dr. Dawson should be looked after in the early future. You cannot have an accurate map -of the Dominion of Canada without proceeding with these surveys, and 'while I hope that the hon. gentleman will bring down the best map that we can have at the present time, it will not be a very accurate map as far as these particular portions of the country are concerned.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I apprehend that it will be a great many years before we can bring down a map that will be accurate as to all parts of Canada, but there are a great many portions of the Dominion in regard to which it is now possible to give information which it was not possible to give some few years ago. The method of surveying by photography has rendered it possible to secure a large amount of topographical information at comparatively small expense which a few years ago would have been absolutely impossible. The survey of the Alaskan boundary was carried on by the photographic method which is a development of modern surveying and for which I believe our own .surveyor general, Captain Deville, deserves the greatest amount of credit. We have of late years ibeen able to get a large amount of topographical information, which, under the old system, it would have been impossible to get, and it would have cost an enormous sum of money and a tremendous amount of time and work to have got that [DOT]information. We purpose having an accurate map made, as accurate, as the present information will enable us to make it. There has heretofore been neglect in not getting out a first class map of the Dominion, but I am satisfied that when the members of the House see that map they will be satisfied with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will the map be issued ?*


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The geographer told me he hoped it would be out inside of a month. It is my intention to send a copy to each member of the House of Commons and of the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope it will not contain any mistakes like those in the Ontario school books, where the High School Geography says that the population of Winnipeg is 28, 000, while the common school geography gives it correctly.


Robert Laird Borden: Before we leave the Department of the Interior I may say that I have found the document to which I referred a moment ago. It is dated the 15th of April and would have been received only very recently.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not received it yet.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a document signed by a long list of names, and they set out the objections which the miners have to this concession. Of course they are dealing with it in its original form and what I wanted to know from the minister was whether the concession in its amended form met the objections set forth in this memorial.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If my hon. friend will let me have a copy of it I will have the question answered.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest to the minister that he would bring the memorial down so that we may have it printed. It is perhaps impossible that we can discuss it with any thoroughness this session, but we may want to do so at some other time and it would be convenient to have the document printed.	,
Additional plant for Printing Bureau, $7,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were promised information as to the amount of printing that was done for each department outside of the Bureau.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I called the attention of the officials to ' Hansard ' containing the hon. gentleman's remark and I have been furnished with the following memo, on the subject:
How much printing was done outside 7
The amounts for the last fiscal year are given in the Auditor General's last report-Part B, pp. 1-6. in the second column. The amounts for engraving and lithography are, however, included. The amounts for printing separately are as
follows by departments :
Interior	$47,327	69Intercolonial	Railway	
61,193	37Agriculture	
34,241	6SReports-Legislation	
11,999	53

The details of these amounts are given in the Auditor General's last report at the following places :-
Part L, pp. IS, 46.
Part W, pp. 150, 207.
Part D, pp. 88, 19.
Part T, pp. 58, 59, 64, 67, 62.
The number of hands in the Printing Bureau is 446.

I have been informed that all the reports for the present session have been printed at the Bureau and that during the current year the outside work is chiefly binding and press work and mostly in the city of Ottawa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not quite the information I asked for. If we had sufficient time we could go through the Auditor General's report ourselves. .
Department of Marine and Fisheries. $S,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to refer to a statement made in the House by the Minister of Justice while I was absent the other night. In connection with this settlement of the Noble Bros, claim, the Minister of Justice made the following statement :
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.
I want to say, with reference to that, that I know the Nobles and Mr. Elliott and all the parties concerned, and there is not, in my judgment, one solitary word of truth in that statement.


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say so, and I am in a better position to know than the hon. minister or the hon. gentleman who interrupts me. I was here in the department at the very time and heard Mr. Noble declare to the minister that they were not violating the law in any way; and within five minutes of the time that statement was made a telegram was laid down on the Table giving the information that the fishery inspector had seized those boats, because they were fishing illegally. I have this to say with regard to the fishery inspector. I have known him since childhood, I believe him to be an intelligent, respectable truthful and honourable man, who would be above entering into a conspiracy to injure any one carrying on work up there; and I think I know the source from whence that statement comes; and it comes with very bad grace from the parties who gave that information to the hon. Minister of Justice. If he knew the parties and the facts as well as he should, he would never have made the statement he did in the House of Commons against the fishery overseer who was doing what the department instructed him to do, and what any overseer ought to do. He reported the result to the department, and the department handled the case after that. Therefore it was out of his hands. If any injustice was done to the Nobles, it was done by the minister in charge of the department, and not by the overseer; and a statement of this kind in the House of Commons, traducing a respectable man's character, does not come with very good
grace from the hon. Minister of Justice, unless he makes sure that the statement is absolutely correct. When the overseer endeavoured to stop that illegal fishing, he was dealing with a crew who had been practically outlaws on the Georgian Bay for years; and he did what he was instructed to do by the minister, and reported the result, after which it was out of his hands. To say that it vwis a conspiracy is to do a great injustice to the overseer, and it is not waranted by the facts.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-To provide for the salary of Mr. R. E. Tyrwhitt, technical officer in the hvdrcgranhic survey, $900.


Robert Laird Borden: This was not
voted before ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No. This is a young man who was appointed temporarily some years ago. He has proved to be a very good officer, and this is to appoint him permanently.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is a son of an old member of this House, and a very deserving officer.
Amount required to pay balance of contract for steamer to replace ' Newfield,' $93,570.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did the steamer cost ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. The	total	icotet is $193,570.


Robert Laird Borden: Where was she purchased ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. At Paisley, Scotland. We advertised for tenders, and the contract was let to the lowest tenderer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this steamer now in use ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Oh, no. She will not be here 'for perhaps two months. We shall have to send a crew to bring her over. She will be used on the coasts of Nova Scotia.
To provide for the furnishing, outfitting, dis bursements and cost of sending crew to Scotland for steamers under construction in Paisley, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose this sum is arrived at on some estimate of the hon. minister's officers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. This is to cover the cost of bringing out both of the new steamers. One is to be launched in a couple of weeks. We expect a cable almost any minute notifying us to send a crew over.
I made careful inquiry of the officers of the department, and they say that from past experience this is the most economical and satisfactory way of bringing the boats out.

Further amount required tor building and maintenance of fish breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries, $27,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hatchery in Georgian Bay included in this ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have called a conference of the provincial governments to meet the Dominion government here on the 20th instant, when the whole matter of jurisdiction with regard to the fisheries will be considered. If settled satisfactorily, this work will be gone on with, but we will first get all the information possible with regard to the results of the various hatcheries in our own country as well as some of the United States and other places. My intention is out of this vote to establish a hatchery in Ontario, but where it will be established will have to depend somewhat on the report of the officers in the fishery branch as to what is the best locality. In Quebec they want a salmon-trout hatchery. In New Brunswick the experiment at Pietou of the lobster hatchery has been very satisfactory, and we may establish two small hatcheries there. The opinion of the inspector, who is a particularly good man, is that it would be greatly in the interests of the lobster industry if the hatcheries were established.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister was not perfectly frank when he referred to the matter before. He gave me to understand that in the supplementary estimates I would find an item for the purpose of establishing a fish hatchery in Georgian Bay. Now he says that he will await the result of the conference and then decide on the best places to put hatcheries.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not intend to mislead the hon. gentleman. I thought he wanted the name of the particular locality on the bay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister neither admits that it is to be on the bay at all nor in any particular place in the bay. I referred to the advantages of the locality. 1 understood him to say that the government had been considering the matter and it was the intention to establish one there and that when the supplementary estimates came down, he hoped hon. gentlemen who were interested in the matter would be satisfied.
The' MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. This does include a sufficient amount, according to the estimates given me by the officers, for the establishment of a fish hatchery on Georgian Bay, as well as the others I referred to. As regards the conference, I meant to give the impression to the House that upon the result of it would probably depend whether or not this money would be spent. If the result is that the fisheries revenue and the full con-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
trol are handed over to the provinces, why,
I suppose, the provinces will look after the hatcheries. But if the position is, as I hope it will be, that they will be left to the jurisdiction of the Dominion, either by amicable arrangement or after reference to the courts, then my intention is to spend this money as I have indicated.


Mr. FARQUHARSON.: Does the hon. minister mean to pass by Prince Edward Island ? We expected a hatchery.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It was not the intention to pass by Prince Edward Island. I have caused inquiries to be made, but the report has not been yet received to warrant me in saying at the present time that this season we will establish a hatchery there. But if the decision of the conference is satisfactory and the report is satisfactory, that work will be carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That, I take to mean, that if the fisheries are left within the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, they will establish these hatcheries. But the hon. gentleman does not tell us where these hatcheries are to be or how many. In fact he gives us no information about that question whatever.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know what more information I bould give than I have already given. I have stated that this amount was intended for the purpose of establishing hatcheries, one in Ontario, one in Nova Scotia, two in New Brunswick and one in Prince Edward Island. But I shall certainly only spend the money on being satisfied that the localities are suitable for the purpose. And I informed my hon. friend-and that is all I could have said before-that I am taking this vote with the expectation that the officers of the department, after investigation, will submit a report as to the most suitable places in the several provinces.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Has there not been time since last year to find all this out ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No vote was taken last year.


Robert Laird Borden: Why -are the legal expenses of arbitration delayed so long?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The matter was brought to my attention a month or two ago by some of the solicitors connected with the matter. I communicated with the Hon. Edward Blake, who was acting for the Dominion government. If my memory serves me well, the arbitrator appointed died and a delay took place. And now we have had a report from Mr. Blake with his opinion with regard to the matter and that has been submitted to the solicitor interested in this case. So, it depends on them what progress is made.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of the arbitration itself ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is in statu quo. I have sent a copy of the opinion of Mr. Blake to the parties interested, and it is for them to take the next action. I believe another arbitrator has been appointed by Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been really nothing done.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Except what I have stated.
Excise-Travelling expenses, rent,, fuel, stationery, &c., further amount required, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this further amount required ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE. (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: Owing to licensing of new establishments, the expenditure for travelling, &c., is increasing. The expenditure for the first eight months of current fiscal year has been at the rate of a little over $57,000 per annum. The vote in the main estimates is no tv $50,000. The revenue for the past ten months has exceeded that of the same period of the last fiscal year bv over $680,000.	J *
Excise [DOT] Weights and measures - Further amount required for the purchase of standards the metric system of weights and measures and to pay the salaries, travetlling and other expenses of inspectors, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this further amount required ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Last year the department procured five sets of metric weights to be placed in the hands of inspectors of weights and measures at the most important centres, viz : Montreal, Quebec, Hamilton, St. Johns and The cost of these five sets was 5Mdb.20. The department now purposes secuiing and distributing to the same inspectors five sets of measures of length and capacity at an estimated cost of $2,000 It has become necessary that the department should appoint, or promote, from the service, a chief inspector of weights and measures at an estimated salary of say $2,500.
The travelling and other expenses of said chief inspector in connection with the instruction of subordinate officers as respect the metric system and to bring about a more uniform inspection throughout the Dominion, it Is estimated will cost $2,000. To provide for a provisional allowance for the 'inspector to be appointed in the Yukon, $1,800. In the main estimates $1,500 was provided for the salary of an inspector for the Yukon, but no special provision was made for extra cost of living. The salary estimated at $1,500 may be exceeded, as it is difficult to secure a competent man at this salary to undertake the work, more particularly as he would be required to act 156
as inspector of electric light without additional compensation therefor.
The department has expended up to this date the sum of $1,642.57 for model metric sets which have been distributed to univef* sities, colleges, high schools, seminaries and *to various boards of trade. There is an *item of $500 in the main estimates for a further supply of these sets, but I am of the opinion, from present requests still unfilled, that possibly a further sum of $500 may have to be expended for this purpose. It is believed that the distribution of these metric sets is bringing about a good understanding of the metric system amongst the pupils of our educational institutions and that the money expended thereon is well spent. Each set costs $7.79.
The estimate of the expenditure of this sum of $10,000 is practically as follows :
Five standard sets of length and capa-
_	$2,000
Salary of chief inspector	 2,500
Travelling and other expenses	 2*000
Provisional allowance for inspector in
Yukon	   gQQ
Additional model metric sets say	 '500
Unforeseen expenditure	 1200


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the intention to introduce the metric system generally ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose we shall have to follow the example of England and the United States, 'and. we are preparing .to do so by distributing these metric systems throughout the schools of our country. At present the system is optional, but perhaps within a year or two we will have to make it the legal standard for the whole country. So We are affording the means of teaching our inspectors throughout the Dominion how to inspect these measures of weight and length. We have already been requested by some people in the trade to inspect measures of the metric system. We must therefore have a standard of the same nature, and we need at least one, or two, or three of our officers to be competent and ready to inspect these measures. The system being optional now, every merchant or trader can use the metric system if he chooses. We recognise the fact that within a short time we shall have to adopt the metric system There are already, if I am not mistaken! two or three Bills before the American Congress to adopt this system, bringing it into force gradually.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is a mistake to have two systems of weights and measures in the country. It is not many years ago since we spent over $20,000 to purchase standard weights and measures for general use. I understand the minister to say that this system is an optional one. I think it would be wise for the government to decide whether they intend to introduce it in the future or not.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There are not two systems at present in use, for while one is only permissive, the other is a compulsory and legal one. I am not in a position now to state what I shall do with regard to the adoption of the metric system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the opinion of the government ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think the government has formed any idea with regard to that subject, except that we shall be compelled to follow the example of other nations. If we wish to trade either with England, or France, or Belgium, or the United States, or Ger-lmany, we will have to use the same system of weights and measures that those 'countries use. I appreciate the difficulty we would have if we had in use at the same time the metric system and our present system. To introduce the metric system and make it universal would be a revolutionary measure in that branch of business. We cannot expect our people 'who have been long accustomed to the old system, readily to adopt the new system. Therefore we are commencing to educate 'them to the use of the metric system, by distributing the sets of weights and measures throughout the various educational institutions of the country. Last year we purchased fifty sets. I am receiving quite a number of requests for them, even from members of parliament, who wish to distribute them among the schools in their constituencies.
To provide for the inspection of hinder twine, .-$2,500.	*


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a usual vote ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) introduced a Bill this session putting binder twine on the list of articles to be brought under inspection, and as the item is a new one there must be a corresponding appropriation to provide for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the inspector visit the various institutions where binder twine is made and the establishments of the wholesale importers as well ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that is the intention, but I would not like to speak definitely in the absence of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the object, however.
Additional for commercial agencies, including expenses in connection with negotiation of treaties, or in extension of commercial relations, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these commercial agents to be appointed ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is carrying out the policy announced at the opening of the session, of enlarging the scope of our agencies. I think the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has not yet determined all the places at which these agencies shall be located. There will probably be two additional agents in England and some in the colonies. The locations have not as yet been agreed upon. The item can stand, if the hon. gentleman desires it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not want it to stand.
I think it would be a good plan if you appointed a great many more commercial agents than you have. I understand that some of the business men of Toronto were down here urging that this should be done, and I would ask if the government could give any information upon tbe subject.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government fully appreciate the importance of all that had been said on the subject, and in voting this amount the desire is to make a beginning. No dou'bt this will only be the beginning of a larger scheme and tlia'tl in later years we will have to vote additional sums. I think, however, this will be sufficient to enable us to make a fairly satisfactory beginning.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would be the duties of these agents ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will perform the general duties of commercial agents, going out into different sections of the country, interesting the people in our manufactures, and bringing to their notice the many good things that we have to offer. A good deal of work can be done in that way.


Albert Edward Kemp: What does the negotiation of treaties mean ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is merely the form of the old vote. It really does not mean anything in particular.


Albert Edward Kemp: Our agents have no right to negotiate treaties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, this does not contemplate any treaty negotiations, but it is the usual form of the vote.
Steam servios between Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, $12,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a new appropriation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an additional appropriation. The trade in that region lias been ratber going away from us owing to the lack of efficient steam communication from Vancouver to Skagway. The design is to get a more efficient steam service.
Department of Agriculture-To provide for the promotion of F. C. Chittick to a first-class clerkship at $1,500, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $150.


Robert Laird Borden: Sometimes we are told that the whole salary must be put in where there is a promotion, as in this case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is the difference bet^ween what is already voted in the main estimates for the same clerk and the amount which the promotion would entitle him to.


Adam Carr Bell: Is that not a very large sum at which to start a first class clerk ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fourteen hundred dollars is the usual amount and he is getting $1,350 already.


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say that is all right but I want to understand it. I was told that the salary of a man advanced from a lower class had to be voted in that way. The hon. Minister of Agriculture is not doing it in that way. He has voted the salary of Mr. Chittick and he is providing for his promotion now to a first class clerkship. That means from a second class to a first class clerkship, does it not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did we not do it in the other cases ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know why we did not do it in the other cases.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not criticising this. This seems to be all right.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A salary of $1,350 as a second-class clerk has already been voted in the main estimates for Mr. Chittick. I wish to promote him to a first-class clerkship and give him $150 extra and therefore I have asked the committee to vote this amount. I think that when the Item appears in the Bill it will appear together with the original vote as placed in the main estimates, and the two together will make up the sum which he is to receive. Why this was not done in the other cases I cannot tell.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) That seems to be exactly right. That is the way I do It myself. It must be right, of course. That is not the way in which it has been done in the other departments.
To increase the salary of .James O'Regan, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $100.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You seem to give James O'Regan a double increase.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that Mr. O'Regnn has been applying for an increase of salary for a number of years. He is a very faithful and diligent officer, and I would be inclined to think that possibly no objection would be made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let it go.
156J
Junior judge-Leeds and Grenville, $2,000.
Mr. SPROULE, Has the appointment been made, and if not, who is likely to be appointed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Justice left me a note to say that the appointment is to be made, so that no one has been yet appointed.
Library of parliament, $500.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to the Speaker in connection with the Library, that I think it would be desirable to have more copies of the Statutes of Canada. I intended to mention the matter to Mr. Griffin, but I take the opportunity of mentioning it to the Speaker now. There is no reason why there should not be more copies of the Statutes, so that members could have them when they require them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I will be glad to bring the matter to the attention of Mr. Griffin.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many messengers are there in the Library ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think there are four.
Experimental farms, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it for 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to pay off an accumulation of arrearages.


Robert Laird Borden: The operations are not being extended, but there has been a deficit in the past.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There has been a deficit in the past, and the wages of all the labourers on the farms have had to be increased 25 cents a day.
St. Louis and Osaka exhibitions, $175,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What preparations are being made for these exhibitions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The preparations are only just beginning. I have had communications with regard to space and the opportunity for exhibiting at both exhibitions. The Osaka exhibition in Japan opens on the 1st of March next, and the St. Louis exhibition on the 1st of May next. The preliminary work in connection with the collection and arrangement of the exhibits is now beginning.


Rufus Henry Pope: Do you intend to send cattle to Japan ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Experimental farms, $22,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a supplementary vote for the current year, to pay off the accumulation of arrears that has been going on for several years back.


Rufus Henry Pope: How many past years is this supposed to cover ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The accumulation covers about three years.


Rufus Henry Pope: Do I understand that these men have not been paid for three years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, but one year has run into another, and we found this year that we had a very large arrearage to pay in the first two months of the year, which left us with a (deficit at the end of the year.


Rufus Henry Pope: This does not appear to me to be a legitimate proceeding. The minister appears to have been paying out money which he had no legitimate right to pay out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That has unfortunately occurred more than once in the past. Before I came into office supplementary votes of this kind were called for.
Fan-Ameriean exposition, $17,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there are any more arrearages of this land in his department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of any except the other vote similar to this.
Paris exhibition. S2.000.


Rufus Henry Pope: For what purpose is this money utilized ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to pay off one or two claims for exhibits which were slightly damaged on their return. We have been discussing the validity of the claims, and it was only recently that we found that they were justified.
Quarantine-public health, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is due to the small-pox difficulty along the American frontier.


Robert Laird Borden: I oberve that recently a vessel came into Halifax with small-pox on board, and there seemed to be a great deal of difficulty as to who should take charge of the unfortunate man who was suffering from that disease. As far as I can gather, the Department of Agriculture refused to assume any responsibility, and there was a conflict between that department and the local authorities. Will the hon. minister state how that dispute was settled, and what became of the unfortunate man who was suffering from smallpox ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The vessel to which I suppose the hon. gentleman has referenec was a fishing vessel from Lunenburg which went out to the fishing banks, where one of the crew took the small-pox, and then the vessel sailed to Halifax. The Department of Agriculture does not deal with vessels which sail from one


Rufus Henry Pope: port of Canada ta another, but only with vessels coming from foreign ports. I believe the sufferer was not a passenger but one of the crew, and I understand that he had paid his mariner's fees, and that he was taken charge of by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I trust that the House will not find fault if I ask for a vote for taking care of this unfortunate man. because I was advised that it was not legally the duty of the department to take charge of him ; but under the circumstances, as there was a conflict between the local and the Dominion authorities, I thought it was only proper that the department should take charge of him as he had paid his mariner's dues, and I gave instructions to have him taken care of.
Quarantine-Compensation for slaughter of hogs and sheep and all other expenses connected therewith, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the usual vote ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is an addition to the usual vote. The vote asked for this year is $15,000, and this is to clean up the arrearages in the same way as we have been doing in connection with the experimental farms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What percentage of the slaughtered animal do you pay for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the animal is diseased

I am speaking from memory-we pay one-third ; when only in contact and liable to partake of the disease, we pay one-sixth.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-TIME OF PROROGATION.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: When does the hon. minister expect to reach prorogation; to-morrow or the following day ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I suppose the hon. member means to-day or tomorrow-we are now in Wednesday. I hardly think it is possible for us to prorogue to-day, but it will depend somewhat on the progress that is made.


THE CASE OF J. M. HURLEY.
The MINISTER OF MARINE A.ND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: With the permission of the House, I desire to mention this one matter briefly. When the estimates of the Marine and Fisheries Department were under consideration, the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr.' Porter) stated that he had some information with regard to one of the fish-

eries inspectors taking part in an election. The hon. leader of the opposition also made some remarks, and I gave my promise that I would write to the officer referred to. I wrote inclosing him a copy of the remarks of the kon. member for West Hastings, and have received his reply and also the affidavit of the party who was alleged to have been influenced by this officer to sign the protest against the hon. member. The hon. member for West Hastings has spoken about it once or twice, and if he had been present when the estimates were up I would have been pleased to lay the information before the committee. I believe this should be done, and I think every one will recognize that it is only due to the officer whose conduct has been called in question that his letter should be given. This is the letter :
Belleville, Ont., March 6, 1902. The Hon. James Sutherland,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Hon. Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated Ottawa, March 3rd, respecting the statements made by Mr. Porter, M.P. for West Hastings, that X took an active part in the recent by-election in that riding, and that I solicited the petitioner to sign the petition against him.
In reply to the first statement, I beg to say that I took no part, directly or indirectly, in the recent election contest in West Hastings, nor did I ask any man to vote or not to vote. I may say further that I did not attend any meeting, either public or private.
With regard to the second statement made by Mr. Porter, I beg to say that I dil not solicit the petitioner to sign the petition against him, nor did I ask any one else to sign it nor did any one consult me about signing the petition.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,


J. M. HURLEY,
[Stage Direction]
Fishery Officer.
The following is the affidavit of the party referred to :
In the matter of the West Hastings Dominion by-election.
I,	Comellius Mullins, of the city of Belleville, in the county of Hastings, sailor, make oath and say :-
1.	That I, am the person whose name is signed to the petition filed herein against the return of Mr. E. Guss Porter, as member for the West riding of Hastings.
2.	That I have been advised and believe that certain charges have been made against Mr. J. M. Hurley, Inspector of Fisheries, to the effect that it was by his inducement and representations, I was prevailed upon to sign the said petition.
3.	That the said J. M. Hurley did in no wise try, procure or endeavour to procure my signature to the said petition, nor did he have anything to do therewith, nor was the question of election of, or protest against the return of the said candidate ever spoken of by him to me.
And it was not on his inducement or procurement, or by ai^y request on his part that the said petition was so signed by me.

[Stage Direction]
Sworn before me at the city of Belleville, in the county of Hastings, this 6th day of March, A.D. 1902.
E. J. BUTLER Commissioner, &c., H.C.J.
I am sure hon. members will be pleased to know the state of affairs, and no person, 1 am sure, will be more ready than the hon. member for West Hastings to accept the facts with regard to the case.
Robert Laird Borden: I am sure that every one will be glad to know that this officer did not take part in election contests. But there is just one observation I would like to make, and that is, that a great many officers of the government have been prepared with evidence equally cogent of their freedom from political partisanship so far as taking part in elections is concerned, but who, nevertheless, have been dismissed without being given an opportunity of making their defence before an impartial or indeed any tribunal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.20 a.m., Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 14, 1902.