1902-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 22) to incorporate the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 23) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 24) respecting the Windsor and Detroit Union Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 25) in further amendment of the Railway Act.
He said : As the matter dealt with in this proposed amendment is somewhat involved, this may be as suitable a time as any to offer a few words in explanation of the scope of the Bill. The object of the Bill is, if not to prohibit, at least very greatly to limit the power of a railway company operating under a Dominion charter to contract itself out of its common-law or statutory liabilities to its employees in the case of injury resulting from the negligence of the company or its servants. The whole trend of modern legislation upon this point, as regards employers and employees, is strongly in the direction of safeguarding the right of the workman, and to prevent any contract or agreement from proving a bar or hindrance to the recovery of compensation by the workman. While the Bill which I have asked leave to introduce is wide in its terms, and will, if passed, affect all railway companies operating under Dominion charter, yet, as a matter of fact, the only company really concerned at the present time is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. This arises from the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway has, in years past, obtained certain special legislation from the parliament of Canada, and I have not been able to ascertain that any other railway company enjoys similar privileges.

Tlie difficulty which it is sought to remedy had its origin as far back as 1874, when the Grand Trunk Railway Company obtained the passage of an Act to enable them to set aside a fund, and to form a superannuation and provident society for its workmen. They were entitled, under this Act of 1874, to formulate a scheme, to formulate rules for the transaction of the business of the society, and for the government of the members of the society. In 1878, they obtained further legislation authorizing them, in addition to their superannuation fund and provident fund, to establish an accident and life insurance fund, and to conduct the business of life insurance and accident insurance, with regard to their workmen, and in connection with their superannuation society.
Then in 1880, the Great Western Railway Company obtained similar legislation. In 1884, after amalgamation of the two roads, this superannuation and insurance society was applied to the whole system of the Grand Trunk Railway. This was again confirmed by an Act of 1888. Now the difficulty which presents itself is this : Under authority of these various special Acts the Grand Trunk Railway Company has formed a society known as the Grand Trunk Railway Insurance and Provident Society. They have passed rules, regulations and by-laws for the government of the society and the members of the society. Rule number 5 provides that every workman, the moment he enters into the employment of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, becomes a member of that society, and is bound by its laws. Rule 66 provides that all rules and regulations of the society shall be submitted to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and approved by them. But the most objectionable1 rule, or by-law, of the society is by-law 15, and it is under that by-law that the difficulty arises. Bylaw number 15 provides :
In consideration of the subscription of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to this society, no member thereof or his representatives shall have any claim against the company for compensation on account of injury or death from accident.
Under these various Acts the railway is empowered to grant certain money to this fund. I have heard it stated in open court that they do grant annually $12,500, and as they have approximately 25,000 workmen, they pay 50 cents for each man into that fund, and as a result they claim they have absolute protection from all common law or statutory liability towards there workmen. Now they do provide some insurance, but they charge the workmen for the insurance at the rate of 40 or 50 cents a month; for the vast majority of their 25,000 men the rate is 50 cents per month, or $6 per year. For this they provide, in case of sickness, an indemnity of $3 per week for 26 weeks in the case of permanent disability, a sum of $100; and in the case of death, a sum of $250. They do not give
as much as can be obtained by workmen doing similar work, from any one of the score of friendly or benevolent societies doing business in Canada to-day.
Now this matter has lain dormant for many years. I think it is only within the last eighteen months that the question has really arisen. During that period it has been 'decided by a trial judge in the province of Quebec, by a trial judge in the province of Ontario, and I think likewise by a trial judge in the province of British Columbia, that under that by-law 15 the workman is absolutely precluded from recovering against the railway company, even in case of the negligence of the company or of its servants. If I were to venture my own opinion in the matter, I would have no hesitation myself in saying that by-law 15 is not authorized by any enabling of the Acts ; but it has been decided otherwise by trial judges. The difficulty of the situation is this, that where you have as plaintiff a disabled or injured railway man, or the widow of a deceased railway man, they are not in a position to carry this matter further and get the decision of a higher court upon it. As long as the matter is involved in doubt, or as long as the present decision stands, these 25,000 workmen in that company are absolutely debarred from recovering damages against the company in cases of Injury resulting from negligence. The Bill which I have brought in is framed largely on the lines of clause 10 of the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Act and a similar clause is to be found in the English Act, the Employers Liability Act, and no doubt in other provincial Acts with which I am not familiar. It does not preclude agreements between the employers and their employees, but it simply provides that no agreement shall be allowed to prevail as a defense unless, in the first place, there is consideration on the part of the workman for entering into such an agreement other than the mere fact of his being taken into the employment ; and unless the agreement is reasonable, just and adequate in the opinion of the judge who tries the case ; and unless, in the opinion of the judge who tries the case, it is not improvident on the part of the workman. The onus of establishing the reasonableness and the adequacy of the consideration is thrown upon the railway company. That, Mr. Speaker, is in brief the Bill which I ask leave to introduce this afternoon.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to say that I made some inquiry a few days ago about some matters moved for in the House, and so far as I know they have not been brought down yet. I am particularly anxious to get the correspondence between the depart-

rnent and Mr. Devlin relative to what lie said about members of this House, also about the number of immigrants that were brought to this country for the last ten years, also about a report with reference to the work of the Experimental Farm, also with reference to the Belleville post office and the dismissals that took place there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I presume the hon. gentleman refers to Orders of the House which have already passed ?


Uriah Wilson: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) is not here to answer, I will see that the officers of his department are communicated with at once on the subject.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that the information the House ordered in regard to the Experimental Farm has been already sent to the House through the ordinary channels.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['Post office and custom-house-an ordinary public building.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.00 a.m., Wednesday', 'Wednesday, March 5, 1902.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We expect that the cost of the building will reach $300,000, with the site, furniture, heating system and so on.


Mr. CLARKE.: What will the site cost ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WrORKS. $24,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the building $275,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We expect the building will cost about $250,000. There is in addition the expenditure entailed in supplying the heating system, fitting up, fencing, wiring for electrical purposes and so on.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Wire pulling ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been none. Both sides have agreed that this building must be erected.


Mr. BELL.: WTho was the land purchased from ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: From Mr. Frederick D. Corbett, merchant of the city of Halifax. It is on the site of the old city market building, right opposite the existing Dominion building.
Public buildings in Nova Scotia-Arichat- reconstruction of public building, $1,000.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the positiou there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: There is a building there over fifteen years old, which is in bad shape to-day. It will take about $400.
Halifax-new public building, $50,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have bought a site for the building. The plans are prepared, tenders are now being called for, and in a few weeks they will be in.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it for an elevator 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We want elevators elsewhere.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The building is a customshouse, and will probably be used for other purposes as well.


Uriah Wilson: Would the Minister of Finance please tell us for what other purposes besides a customs-house ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: While the main purpose is to transfer the customhouse from the present building to the new one, other public purposes of the city of Halifax will of course be served by it. If there should be any spare rooms, some other branches of the service may be placed there. While it is called a custom-house building the department would not want to confine it absolutely to customs purposes if any other branch could be accommodated within the same building.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it intended to have the work done by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, tenders are called for.	.
New Brunswick-Marysville public building, $9,500.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is this building for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract now, the contractors being the Messrs. Simmons, and the contract price is $6,842. Besides that we have paid $1,000 for the site, and there is the fitting up and so on.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is that the total cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the whole cost of the building.


James Clancy: What is the population of Marysville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Marysville is a thriving town in New Brunswick. The population, which is increasing every day


Mr. GIBSON.: The population is about
2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And increasing rapidly.


William Gibson: And increasing rapidly. A lot of people are coming from outside towns to work there. Abo.ut 600 people work in the cotton factory there who live a mile or two away. We have supplied the government with a building for post office purposes for the last 35 years, and I think we are entitled to a post office.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the estimated Mr. CLANCY. I would like to ask the cost of this building ?	hon. Minister of Public Works whether the


Uriah Wilson: lion, gentleman or the government has some fixed policy in expending money without taking into consideration only the population and the general prospects of the place. It is a very easy matter now for any hon. gentleman to state that he has a thriving village or town ; in fact, if my memory serves me, the hon. Minister of Public Works always has a thriving town where he is putting up a building. Perhaps it would be convenient for the non. gentleman to state whether he has any policy upon the question of putting up any public buildings in all the small towns and villages in Canada. If that gate is opened I am sure there are many hon. members on both sides of the House will be able to supply a similar reason ; if it is not open, the hon. gentleman should explain why he has given this reason.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In former years there was in this parliament a gentleman who was the Minister of Finance in a Conservative administration. That gentleman was called the Hon. George E. Foster. He was representing the riding of York, New Brunswick, and when he was the member for that riding he placed in the estimates an amount of money for the erection of a public building at Marysville. I have simply inherited the obligation of expending that sum of money. .1 am spending it. I hope that I will spend less than Mr. Foster would have done, because he was known to be a very expensive man. In other words, joking apart, I found in the estimates when we took office a sum of money for the erection of a building at Marysville. Now, I am simply carrying out the pledge that was given under the late administration, and the wisdom of which I fully recognize.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman's memory appears to be very clear about one part of it, but there is another part of it which the bon. gentleman has forgotten. Does the hon. minister not know from the same source that he obtained the information in regard to an estimate being put in for that public building at Marysville when Mr. Foster was Minister of Finance and represented the riding of York, that the people of Marysville were to contribute half the cost of the building ? It was explained to this House on a former occasion that the people of this town or village, whichever it may be, were to contribute a portion towards the erection of a public building there. Now, the hon. gentleman states that he has undertaken the whole cost, so that he will find no reason for the explanation he has given in the promise that was made in the past, as the circumstances are different. He should now offer some explanation of his policy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no trace in my department of any * promise or engagement whatever by which
I
the town of Marysville undertook to pay half the cost of the building.


William Gibson: I have never heard of any promise being made such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has referred to, to contribute half of the cost of a public building at Marysville. I think if there is any place in the Dominion of Canada that deserves a public building, it is Marysville. We have a large cotton mill which gives employment to 750 hands and we pay out in wages $45,000 a month. This is not n village; it is the town of Marysville of which I have the honour to be mayor.


Mr. LENNOX.: I understand the hon. Minister of Public Works to give as a reason for this estimate that the Hon. George E. Foster had made an appropriation while he was in office. I do not understand the hon. minister to give us any other reason for placing this amount in the estimates. The information I understand this committee to desire from the hon. minister is the ground upon which he can justify the expenditure of this money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that my hon. friends are a little too exacting in asking for reasons now, for erecting a building which was approved by their friends in office when a vote is placed in the estimates. While I do not hesitate to say that it is a good thing to have public buildings in thriving towns and villages provided they are not too expensive, yet we must not spend too much. It shows that we are progressing and it gives confidence to the country. I believe it is a good argument to say that when the faith of the country has been pledged by the late administration, as far as it could, we should recognize that pledge when we think it was wise to give it.


James Clancy: It is very extraordinary that the minister will not answer the question put to him. The minister cannot say that since he has presided over the Department of Public Works he has carried out all the grants that were put in the estimates by the former government. Therefore, his argument on that score does not amount to much. If the hon. gentleman says that he is making a special exception in this case that might be an answer to the question put to him ; but if he is not making a special exception in this instance, then we desire to know if it is the policy of the government to erect public buildings in all towns similar to this. Th'e hon. gentleman knows that this policy will lead to a very great expenditure. There is no hon. gentleman on either side of the House who would not think it very nice to have a public building in the principle town of his riding ; but, if the Minister of Public Works commences to pick up places here and there we will have a just cause to complain. If the hon. gentleman carries out that policy then I can present to him a couple of places

where the reasons for the erection of a public building are quite as strong as they are in Marysville.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Each case should be judged on its own merits. I do not think there is a general rule which can be applied. It depends on many things.


Mr. INGRAM.: Politics.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) must not forget that when his party were in power there was a lot of politics done.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes ; I did a lot of it with them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: And when they are on this side of the House again they will do just the same thing ; in fact they will do worse than we do. The principles then will be the same that govern us to-day, and each case will have to be judged by itself. This is a most meritorious case. The Hon. Geo. E. Poster is a witness to that, and I cannot call a better witness to my aid. I am willing to say that we must not erect too many public buildings. But my friends do not forget that a great many public buildings were erected in the past, and we have some members on this side of the House that have their two eyes open to the magnificent public buildings that were erected in the Conservative days. They have placed their claims before me and if I were not an energetic man I would have to ask for a great deal more money than I ask now. But I face the music manfully, and I only decide to give money to meritorious cases like this one.


Andrew B. Ingram: When I mentioned the word ' politics ' I had in mind the arguments used by the supporters of the government when they were in opposition and which were very similar to the arguments used by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) to-day. The Liberals when in opposition charged the Conservatives with allowing party politics to have more to do with the investment of money in public buildings than the circumstances would warrant. The principle pursued by the Con servative government is being pursued today by the present government. If it was wrong then it is wrong now, and if it was right then it is right now.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It was right then.


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, very well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the site been purchased for this building ?
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS Yes.	I


James Clancy: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was not given by the municipality ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the cost of the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One thousand dollars, which has been paid.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Prom whom was it purchased ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Prom the Gibson Company who are the sole owners of the whole town.


Some hon. MEMBERS: The whole town ? The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS. Nobody can buy a piece of land outside of them.


James Clancy: This is a donation to the Gibson Company, and if they owned the whole town they will necessarily own the post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not a donation.


James Clancy: The minister has practically said so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a donation to public opinion.


James Clancy: It was hardly worth while to go to the form of conveying the land to the Crown. You might just as well have built the post office and donated it to the Gibsons.


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the population of that town ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The population is 2,000 souls now.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What is the postal revenue of the town of Marysville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1890-it will be more now because we have made a great deal of progress during those two years-the postal revenue was 81,398.92.


George Taylor: Was that the gross revenue ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Mr. FOWLER.: With reference to this building in Mr. Gibson's county, I would like to ask if there has been any conveyance of the site upon which it stands ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the sight has been conveyed to us.


George William Fowler: I understand that it was against Mr. Gibson's policy to sell any land.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but I declined to do anything before I got the deeds.

Richibucto public building, $5,000.
'Mr. CLARKE. Is this as meritorious as the other case ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, 1 should think so. The site has been bought for $805 and we intend to erect a commodious and cheap building costing about $6,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the population of Richibucto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 3,986 souls. It Is a large town.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, apparently the larger the town the smaller the appropriation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a good deal of French population in Richibucto and they are very modest indeed. They do not ask for more than that.
St. John's Dominion Public Buildings-Improvements and alterations, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What public buildings is this vote for ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS The customs-house, the post office and savings bank.


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


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount which is voted in the estimates.
St. John immigrant building, $10,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is this building for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For immigration purposes. During the present winter, although the building is not completed, we have had several thousand immigrants in it. My hon. friend does not forget, I am sure, that St. John is a terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it is our winter port, and the building is a most useful one.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much has been spent on that building altogether ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $33,000 all completed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Including the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has the site cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been given to us by the city.


George William Fowler: Is the building being built under contract, and if so, what is the name of the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, by J. H. Pullen, of St. John.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there an immigrant building in Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What did it cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot give the exact cost of it to-day. If my hon. friend wants the information, I will take a note of it, and give it to him later.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask what the exact purpose of the building is ? Do you keep the immigrants there for a short time after their arrival, or is it for shelter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Some ships which have arrived there during the past winter have carried a thousand immigrants.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were they for the United States or for Canada ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some for Canada and some for the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In return for the accommodation afforded to immigrants going through to the United States does the government require the steamship companies carrying them to pay part of the cost of the maintenance of this building; or is it the policy of the government to pay ail the cost, both of erecting the building and of maintaining it for the accommodation of these people ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the past the transportation companies have not been called ujion to pay any share of the maintenance of the building. I admit that the immigrant trade, if I may call it so, is a good one for our transportation companies and for our towns and cities. It is a trade, just as much as any other trade; and thus far the government have not asked the transportation companies to contribute anything towards the erection of these sheds. St. John being a winter port, the government thought it was a good thing to equip it with all the implements of civilization.
Maritime provinces generally-Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, etc., $12,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 

Quebec-Dominion public buildings, renewals, improvements, repairs, etc., $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the same vote as before.


Mr. MONK.: How is that divided ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is spread all over the country, in various small sums of $300 or $500, for repairs which are not of such importance as to call for a special vote in the estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the minister state how much was expended in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the Montreal custom-house $59.25; on the post office, $396.50. We had a special
vote for Montreal.



[Stage Direction]
Mr; MONK. Are we supposed to spend that sum every year-$12,000-neither more nor less ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and generally we are short.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know that apart from this you vote special sums for repairs in Montreal, Quebec and other places.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, other votes cover large expenditures. This vote is to cover expenditures for small repairs wherever they may be required.
Drummondville public building, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under contract to complete.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What will the total cost of this building be when completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think there is a great deal to support the contention of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that we ought to be informed what is the policy of the government in regard to these public buildings. I have no objection to the erection of a public building in Drummondville; but there are many other places in the province of Quebec which could rightly claim a public building. What are the conditions to which they have to conform ? Elect Reform candidates ? That seems to be the rule in our province. I think we are entitled to a statement from the government as to what their policy is in this regard, and what are the conditions to which parties must conform in order to obtain the erection of a public building. I heard the case of Marysville discussed a few moments ago. The hon. minister will remember that last year I called his attention very particularly to the town of St. Laurent in the county of Jacques Cartier- a large place, whose population is increasing more rapidly than that of Marysville, and where the necessity of a public building has been felt for a long time. It has very large educational institutions, is a distributing centre for postal matter and is a place which in every respect would warrant the government in erecting a public building there. My hon. friend did not fail to recognize that last year and promised to look into the matter, and I called his attention to the fact that there was a public building there, which had cost a great deal, and was available to the government at a low figure. I have no objection to a building in Drum-mondsville or Granby, but when there are other places equally as well if not better entitled to consideration, we ought to know the policy of the government. Must the localities furnish the site or any of the money and what should be the population and conditions of trade ? We should have a fixed rule, and the localities which conform to that rule should be able to obtain Hon. Mr. TARTE.
a hearing from the government. Otherwise it becomes simply a question, as the hon. minister said a moment ago, of deciding each case on a different principle, and the locality with the strongest pull is the one that will get the public building. That is a very bad policy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are all of the same opinion with regard to fixed rules, and that is that they are no good. There is no business man who will say that he has always acted on fixed rules.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then general principles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The general principle I endeavour to follow faithfully is to listen to every representation made to me and then make up my judgment without too much bias. My hon. friend is right in what he says about St. Laurent. Only we have so many things to do that we cannot do them all at once. St. Laurent is a fine village, and I have no doubt the time will come when it will have a magnificent public building. But that does not take anything from the merits of Drummondville. The merits of St. Laurent are one thing and of Drummondville another. When the building at Drummondville is completed, let us hope that within a short period we will have the pleasure of going to St. Laurent and seeing a public building there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the population of Drummondville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Over 2,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What will the building cost ?
^ The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. $15,000 all told. Drummondville is a town which is coming to the front very fast indeed. There is a prosperous wave in that locality, several manufactories have been started, there is a good water power in operation, and the government of Quebec is doing a great deal to make the place progress.


Mr. OSLER.: What is the revenue of the post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The postal revenue in 1S99 and 1900 was $2,322. There were money orders issued for over $15,000, and this year instead of $15,000, $22,000 of money orders are issued.
Granby, public building, Quebec, $11,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is to be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 

Grosse Isle quarantine station, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is required for some extensive improvements. There were no water works or bath or electric lighting and we are equipping the station with these, as it ought to be. This

sum -will complete the work, and this station will be not only the best in this country but on the continent. I am informed that during the last five years we spent about $60,000, and a much larger amount was spent the preceding five years.


Robert Laird Borden: How many immigrants in the course of a year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only those who are sick are quarantined there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many were quarantined there last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not now on the question of quarantine, and I am only the contractor for the improvements.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say off hand, how many people were quarantined, but every year a certain number must be quarantined. I have not got the data here, but will have all the information when the quarantine item comes up for discussion. In the course of a year the average is 40 or 50, but there must be accommodation for a great many more because sometimes we will have to land a shipload of immigrants, 1,200 or 1,300, at a time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During last season one ship was quarantined which had on board over 2,000 souls.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have spent about $60,000 for the purpose of accommodating between 40 and 50 immigrants.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is an unfair representation of the facts because although we may not have on an average more than I have stated in a year, yet at any one time we are liable to have more than one shipload of immigrants in quarantine. On one occasion there were 2,100 people in Grosse Isle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: On the ship ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They had to be landed on shore and were kept in quarantine for over a month.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What ship ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot remember. It was a year and a half ago. The same thing occurred at Halifax on another occasion. The two ships came in one after the other and probably over 1,500 had to be accommodated at one time or another. Generally we have nobody there but are liable any moment to have this large number coming in on us, and we must supply the accommodation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to know which of these lion, gentlemen is correct. The hon. Minister of Public Works told us that the place cost about $60,000. We asked the hon. Minister of Agriculture how many people there were retained there last year, and he did not know, but said that there were forty or fifty the year before.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What I intended to say, and what I think I did say, was that there was an average of about forty or fifty a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, what was there incorrect in what we stated ? If we paid $60,000 and also the amount necessary to maintain the station, that being under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, I do not think we misrepresented the facts when we said that we were paying dear for the immigration we get.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not a question of immigration. I am sure that when he thinks over the matter, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will not insist upon the position he has taken. Would he wish to have small-pox brought into the country ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We do uot want immigration to cost so dear as this.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we have a quarantine, that quarantine must be equipped. Suppose that a ship comes with one or two thousand or even three thousand souls on board, you must have an equipment capable of handling that number. I have personal knowledge of cases when a thousand immigrants were located there. What would the country say and what would parliament say if a ship loaded with people, including some smitten with dangerous diseases, should come to our shores and no proper system of quarantine were provided ? In every part of the world there are quarantines. And I make bold to say that, under the late administration, there has been half a million dollars spent there. There are quarantines at St. John, at Halifax-there must be at every great port in the world.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What has that to do with the question under discussion ? We are talking about this quarantine station and about this proposed expense, not about what has been done elsewhere or in years gone by. The hon. minister finds it very convenient, when he gets into a hole, to say : You did the same. That is no argument. There is only one question to be considered, and that is whether this is not au enormous sum to spend, considering the public benefit derived. What information is it to me for the hon. gentleman to say that a great deal of money has been spent at Halifax and at other places ? Do we need to spend this amount of money at this particular station ?-that is the question. If it can be shown that the money can be spent in this way to the public advantage, we have nothing to say.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We require to equip our quarantines better than before, because we have a larger immigration than before. This is necessary to protect the health of the country. I think my hon. friends will admit on thinking it over, that their objections are not well taken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these immigrants assisted immigrants ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That lias nothing to do with the vote of $10,000 for quarantine. I do not know whether these immigrants are assisted or not. Tlie Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton), who will be in his place in a few days, will be able to answer as to that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we are entitled to an answer to that point either from the hou. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) or from the minister in charge of immigration. Another thing we are entitled to know is whether any means are taken on the other side, whence these assisted immigrants come- immigrants who cost us so dear-to inspect them before they leave port.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will see that it is not competent for me to answer his question. The quarantine for which I am asking money is the only one on thq St. Lawrence route during the summer months, and that quarantine I am equipping. When the immigration vote comes up, the hon. Minister of the Interior will be able to answer the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: But, in order to know whether this is a proper amount to vote or not, we should have the information which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asks for. How are we to know whether such a large sum of money ought to be spent at this station unless we know under what precautions assisted immigrants as well as others are taken on shipboard for Canada. If it is only for immigrants that this is desired


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: No, not only for immigrants.


Robert Laird Borden: It is mainly used for immigrants, I understand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not principally.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) must be mistaken.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A good deal of the expenditure is necessary on account of immigrants, of course.


Robert Laird Borden: It is used, as I am informed-and I say it with all deference to the hon. minister-mainly for immigrants.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Quarantine work has no reference to immigrants or any other particular class of passengers arriving there. All passengers whether immigrants, or those travelling first-class, are quarantined exactly alike. As a matter of fact, I suppose, a larger number of those arriving by vessel arrive in the steerage than first or second-class. In that sense, it may be said that we are dealing Hon. Mr. TARTE.
principally with immigrants. But. if a thousand first-class passengers should arrive, this accommodation would be required just the same as for a thousand immigrants. The accommodation is required to be more extensive than is commonly used, because we must provide for contingencies. This was done by our predecessors, just as it is done by us. As to this vote and the votes of the last year or two for equipping our quarantine stations, I may say that our requirements have increased. We have been recommended by our medical authorities to provide more bathing accommodation for the people who are retained there. It is due to this that not only at Grosse Isle, but at other quarantine stations, the expenditure for equipment is greater than it used to be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In cases of -this kind I am only a builder. The Department of Agriculture sends me a statement of the work to be done ; that is discussed with my chief architect and other officers, and I simply carry out the work for the Department of Agriculture. I trust my hon. friends will not persist in their objections. The season is about to open and this work has been begun. The quarantine must be equipped. It costs money, no doubt, but that is unavoidable. This vote is to complete the equipment of this important station, which is necessary to protect the health of the country.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: If I remember rightly, the expenditure on this station in the past has been enorufous. It must represent a total of about $600,000 or $700,000. If I remember rightly, it is only a few years ago that nearly $120,000 was expended for fumigating purposes. There was a demand from the Department of Agriculture also for a wharf at Grosse Isle to accommodate vessels drawing twenty-eight or twenty-nine feet of water.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has not been built.


John Graham Haggart: So I understand. But a demand upon the government for such a wharf was made by the Department of Agriculture. The construction of that wharf would involve an expenditure of about $120,000. This question arose with the government at that day, and I suppose it lias been considered by the Minister of Public Works since, whether it would not have been better to abandon the station altogether and to take up another station which has been recommended as nearly as good, and where the expenditure would not be nearly as large. This seems to me an enormous sum of money for the small number of immigrants and passengers coming to this country who need to be accommodated there. It is not only on the buildings, but it is on the staff required at that particular place. I know that the duty of the Minister of Public Works is only ministerial, and that he has to carry out the request of

the Minister of Agriculture, who states that his officers have demanded this large expenditure there for the safety of the country and the prevention of epidemics. The expenditures have been very large in the past, and it behooves this House and the Minister of Public Works to look very carefully to see that no useless expenditure is made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think this will be the last expenditure we shall ask for. I may add that the expenditure we are incurring now has been decided on only after complete discussion between Hr. Montizambert, who is a very experienced officer, and my chief architect, and a good deal has been struck off the sum originally proposed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What do the improvements consist of ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were no waterworks, and no sewerage. Indeed the quarantine station was in a very bad condition. The ventilation was bad, there were no water closets in the building. It was in an awful state when I was there myself two years ago.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it advisable to land immigrants at a place like that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that the quarantine at Grosse Isle as well as that at St. John, when I saw them, were both in a very bad condition. It is because the buildings were in a dilapidated condition, and because we thought the quarantine station in such a condition constituted a danger to the country, that we felt obliged to ask for this large expenditure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Public Works excuses this very Ifirge expenditure by saying that he is only the builder. I think that is a very good excuse, and that the blame rests entirely on the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture told us a few minutes ago that in order to complete arrangements there it was necessary to provide bathing accommodation for these immigrants. Well, surely, a lesser sum than $10,000 would be amply sufficient to provide bathing accommodation for these gentlemen, unless their bathing is much more expensive than that which we resort to ourselves. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works, upon whom such large demands are made by the Minister of Agriculture in favour of these immigrants, what is the work that remains to be done. Last year we had a discussion on a similar item and we had the same explanation-there were no waterworks, the buildings were in a dilapidated condition. We have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that we must provide baths for the immigrants, and it is going to cost
$10,000. I think $5,000 would be amply sufficient, unless the Minister of Public Works gives us details now showing that it is not sufficient. I would like to know whether that work has been let by contract after tenders called for in the newspapers; if not, I am disposed to move for a reduction of that item.


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) overlooks the fact that this quarantine station is not only for immigrants but it is also designed to protect the whole country from disease coming in on the crews of ships. Last year a steamer was detained there forty days with over 300 immigrants on board. I believe the negro stoker on boaid the steamer had small-pox, and as a consequence 400 people were detained there over forty days. Several cases of that kind happen in the course of a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We do not refuse money that is necessary, but we want to know what it is used for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The member for Jacques Cartier who spoke a moment ago ought to know better than to speak like that. What is the use of a man who is one of the leaders of the House saying that immigrants should not take expensive baths ? We know that. Our baths are not quarantine baths. But we all know what a quarantine is, the hon. gentleman knows what a quarantine is, and what is the use of his trying to throw dust in the eyes of the public by speeches such as that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that is in order. I do not think it is in order to say that I am throwing dust in the eyes of the public.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, if the hon. gentleman had not done so, I certainly would not have referred to it. But I won't doi it again. But we all know that a quarantine station does not provide bathing for gentlemen, there is a vast difference. The expenditure last year was divided up among the following items: We have arranged for the installation of an electric light plant which is to cost $11,868. The grounds are very extensive grounds as my hon. friend knows. This is an island on which there are twenty-five buildings. We have built a new dwelling for employees, costing $8,000; water service, $2,260; repairs of building for police, painting, &c., $1,299; sidewalks, $1,275; dynamo building, $1,664; repairs to building for medical officers, $934; general repairs to buildings, $5,740. These are the largest items.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I should judge from the figures just presented by the minister that the sanitary condition could not havd been as bad as he pointed out a few minutes

ago. If I caught his figures correctly, _he only spent $2,000 for waterworks. There could not have been a very urgent case for sanitary improvement when only $2,000 or thereabouts were spent for waterworks.
I did not notice in the figures the minister read any expenditure for drainage purposes. Now, first-class sanitary arrangements would require a first-class water supply and first-class sewerage. If the sanitary condition was as bad as the minister says, a very small sum has been expended so far to improve that condition. We were discussing this matter a few nights ago, and if I may be permitted to refer to it, we were told then, under the immigration estimates, when we wanted to get some information, that we should wait until we discussed quarantine; while to-day when quarantine is up for discussion we are told that we cannot discuss immigration matters. I would like to ask the hon. minister, if it is in order to ask it now :	Would
it not be a better plan to have a more rigid inspection of immigrants before they leave Liverpool, or the point at which they embark to come to Canada ? I would also like some specific information from the hon. Minister of Public Works as to the amount that has been expended during the last two years for drainage purposes and also on account of a proper waterworks system.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: 1 would like to say, about the inspection of immigrants before they leave the point of departure, that even if that were undertaken, it would not relieve the department of the responsibility at the quarantine stations to any appreciable extent. Immigrants and other passengers would still have to be inspected at the quarantine port of debarkation and in case of disease occurring between one port or the other, immigrants or any other passengers would still have to be examined and would still have to have all this accommodation to receive them at the quarantine station, whether they had been inspected before leaving the ports in the old country or not. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman and to the committee that the proposition, while a fair question of debate, in regard to immigrants, as far as quarantine is concerned, would not relieve the quarantine station of any responsibility, and I do not think of any expense. In regard to the demand for this vote, while I have not the details of the matter in the way that the hon. Minister of Public Works has, I would say that all these propositions were laid before the director general of public health, Dr. Montizambert, who has been for thirty-three years at the head of that service, practically, ever since the service was inaugurated and who has made far greater demands on my department and on the Public Works Department than have been complied with. There has been the demand Mr. CLARKE.
which the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) spoke of in regard to a wharf. There has been a demand for a much larger wharf at Grosse Isle, for one which would cost $75,000 or $100,000, but we have preferred to go on and try to do the work without that expenditure. The work is done just as effectively but not quite so conveniently as it would be with the wharf. But, we believe that it can be done effectively without that expenditure, and the hon. Minister of Public works has so far refrained from asking the House for that and some other expenditure of the same kind. In the case of an expenditure which involves the safety of the public health we would not have felt ourselves justified in refusing to take such precautions as the director general of public health deemed necessary for the safety of the public health.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if lie would give some more extended information as to the necessity of this building on which $8,000 was expended to provide accommodation for the employees on the island. Is there a larger number employed by the government now than formerly ? How were they housed previously to the erection of this building which has cost $8,000? I would like also to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if the demands made by Dr. Montizambert for the improvement of the sanitary conditions at the station have been complied with ? We have pointed out to the lion. Minister of Public Works that in the estimates only $2,500 or $3,000 has been expended for the purposes of drainage and the improvement of the water system.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is not that at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The items of this expenditure were before me while in consultation with the director general of public health some months ago, and they were then sent over to the Department of Public Works. I cannot carry the details of them in my mind, but there is no doubt that they are in the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just put my finger on the detail of the expenditure that was incurred last year. During the fiscal year of 1901 a system of waterworks and drainage was installed in the sick division.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the amount of the cost. I am simply giving a summary of the work that has been done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You gave us some figures a few moments ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two tanks were housed, and a itew pump

building was erected in connection with this work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What did that cost ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year we had a vote of $30,000, out of which we have spent $21,000. There is no minister who can carry in his mind all the details of these expenditures.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You gave an expenditure $20,000, $8,000 for the building and $12,000 for other things.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Baths, basins, sinks and water closets were put into the hospitals and officers' dwellings. A new forge was built. The large hospital and the small pox hospital were reshingled; the first class detention building painted. Repairs were made to the telemeter, disinfection building and to the fire pot of the boiler for pump. Repairs were made to the wood, paint, plaster and other works of the different buildings. Some carpets and furniture were supplied. The steamer ' Challenger ' was overhauled and painted. Plans and specifications prepared by this department. The waterworks and drainage superintended by Mr. John Cowan, an old employee of the department, and the remainder of the work was supervised by Mr. Belaud, the contractor for waterworks and drainage were Messrs. O. Picard & Sons. We have speut on these works up to the first of February $28,000 out of the $30,000 that were placed in the estimates. We are asking for $10,000 additional to complete these works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think the lion. Minister of Agriculture has been quite fair to this committee, and I think the hon. Minister of Public Works has been placed in an unfortunate position by the statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture that this money was required to fulfil the requirements of the health authorities in respect to baths. We spent last year over $20,000 aud in that expenditure, which is found detailed at page V-68 of the Auditor General's Report, we find that everything that is required under the head mentioned by the hon. Minister of Agriculture was furnished during last year, and that is why I think this committee is entitled to know what the $10,000 additional is wanted for. I can understand that every detail of the expenditure cannot be kept in mind by the head of the department, but it seems to me that such an item as $20,000 for the instalment of waterworks should remain in the memory of the ordinary man for at least a few months. We had, last year, such expenditures as these: two Brussels rugs at $27, two Axminster rugs at $38, one mattrass, $18, one chamber set, $55, and in connection with the water accommodation we had sinks at $23 each aud bath tubs, 4 at $45 apiece, which seems a very large price to pay. Of course, I suppose, that the better class of
immigrants, or perhaps the employees, or the minister himself when he goes down to pay his annual visit required needle and shower baths, two of which were purchased at $145 ; flusher closets, 2 at $32 apiece and lavatory basins, 7 at $168. If we look over the expenditure we find that there is no ground whatever, as far as we can see, for granting an expenditure of $10,000 for the reason which has been given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I am ready to admit with the hon. Minister of Public Works that we must have a properly equipped quarantine station, but, when we see these extravagant expenditures, and are asked to vote $10,000, and are merely asking the head of the department to tell us what it is for, the department should have some information upon the subject.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) should know that these shower baths are used by the immigrants. They cost more than the ordinary shower baths. It seems to me that in this case the House will not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a large quarantine station and not with an ordinary private house. I have already explained that out of the $30,000 voted last year we have spent $28,048.57 for water works, for drainage for baths, for new pumps for basins and sinks and water closets in the hospital and officers quarters. The large small-pox hospital has been re-shingled. I made a mistake in giving the details. What I read from my notes was work that was to be done and not work that had been done. We made a contract for electric lighting amounting to $11,868, and we have paid to the contractors $5,500, leaving a balance due of $6,363. That will be taken out of the vote of $10,000. In addition to that there is $1,000 for electric light fittings not included in the contract. There is for water service $2,160 and for repairs $1,299. What I read first was a list of works which had been asked for and practically granted but for which we had no money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood from the minister that the quarantine station was in a very unsanitary condition and that there was not sufficient drainage. The minister states that there is $2,160 for water service and for electric light $12,868. What I want to know is how much will be spent in drainage to put the buildings in a sanitary condition


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that about $4,000 has been spent for drainage, and that we are doing work now that will cost $3,160.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where are the figures for that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect has given this information to me. These sums have been paid out of the vote of $30,000 of last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much did the director general ask for these sanitary improvements ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know how much he asked for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The director general asks that certain sanitary improvements should be made, and it is left to the Public Works Department to say what they will cost.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the sanitary improvements asked for by the director general have been made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Most of them have been made but there is a certain amount still necessary to finish the whole plan of improvement. The amount which is now asked for is to pay for the work which was asked by the director general of public health. The vote taken last year did not quite meet the requirements, and we have to have a supplementary vote this year to cover the balance. That work is not absolutely finished although it is very nearly finished, and when it is finished I believe the station will be in a thoroughly good sanitary state.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Had the minister no idea of the cost that would be entailed on the public by carrying out the demands made by the director general of public health ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These estimates were made by the Public Works Department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: ' Was there no estimate made, by the Department of Agriculture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not undertake to make estimates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the Department of Agriculture had no idea of what expenditure would be entailed by the improvements asked for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We discuss that with the Public Works Department and we leave it to that department to make the estimates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have not yet been able to get the information that we have asked for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think I gave all the information that was asked for, but I will give all that is in my possession. We spent $28,048.57 up to the first of February out of the $30,000 which was voted last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much for drainage ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $4,000. We owe to the contractor for electric light, $0,668 ; we require electric light fittings to the amount of $1,000 ; to complete our water service we require. $2,360; and for repairs, painting, drains. &c.,


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: we require $1,190. Other demands have been made upon us, but for these I am not asking for money. I made a mistake is saying that part of this $10,000 was to erect an $8,000 building. The $10,000 is to be employed for the objects which I have mentioned.
L'Assomption public building, $5,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the site been chosen for this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have bought a site, for which we have paid $1,150.
ill-. MONK. Who from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From a gentleman of the name of Vital Racette. I do not propose to ask for an expensive building. 1 do not expect to expend more than $5,000, including fittings and all. L'Assomption parish contains a large population, and I may say that I have some love for the place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the population ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two thousand six hundred.
Mi-. MONK. Is the work given out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the plans are not yet made. We have simply bought the site.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose the work will be done by tender publicly called ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection to a public building being erected at L'Assnmption, but I reiterate what was first mentioned here by the hon. member for Bothwell, that 1 thiqk we should know what are the general principles-the minister objects to the term fixed rule-which govern the government in the distribution of public buildings throughout our province. I am glad to see a public building proposed for L'Assomption, which is an important place; but there are other places which I think have equal claims. I could mention a place in my own constituency. Take Cote St. Paul, which has a large manufacturing population, which is situated on the Lachine canal, and which is just as important as this place. Then, there are very important factories situated in the neighbourhood of Verdun, which is a growing locality. I believe there is a public building at Laprairie, but there is noue at Longueuil, nor at Chambly, both of which are important places. I think we are entitled to know what are the conditions we should fulfil in order to lay our claim before the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the plea which the hon. gentleman has made for St. Laurent might well guide


me in this case. St. Laurent is an important place; it has a college. L'Assomption also has a college, one of the largest in the province of Quebec; it has eighty stores, six hotels, a telegraph office and two convents, and it is a shire town. I cannot give public buildings to all the towns which should perhaps have them; but the expediency of not spending too much money cannot be lost sight of. L'Assomption is an old village, it has not received anything in the past, and we thought we might vote a small sum for a public building there. I would like very much indeed to give public buildings to other towns as deserving, but their time will come.


Richard Blain: What was the revenue from that place last year ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The total revenue from the post office was $910. The money orders issued were $4,881.


Richard Blain: Would it not be very much cheaper for the governtnent to rent a building which is already constructed, instead of putting a large amount of money in a new building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are many places where we rent buildings; but I may say that there are not merely dozens, but hundreds of demands for public buildings in my department. When I hear speeches in the House against public buildings, I would like some of my friends to persuade their own people not to ask for buildings. It is very well to preach economy here, but our pigeon holes are full of petitions asking for public buildings; and when I have plans prepared, I would like to see around me economical people, such as I see here, advising me not to have expensive buildings. The life is almost taken out of me sometimes because I decline to erect expensive buildings. I have to face a good deal of pressure on account of the numerous demands made upon me, and because people want fine buildings. They say, we are erecting fine houses for ourselves and fine stores, and you want to pursue a cheese-paring policy in regard to public buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps some of the hon. gentleman's difficulty arises from a circular which the hon. gentleman's colleague the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) sent out in the spring of 1900, calling on his friends to make suggestions for the construction of public buildings ; and I have no doubt that the hon. minister has reprimanded his colleague for taking that step in his absence, because at that time the hon. gentleman was in raids. Of course, if he had been here it would not have been done. That may to some extent account for the difficulty which the hon. gentleman has iu denying the demands so frequently made upon him now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is a pity that the Minister of Public Works puts an improper


Joseph Israël Tarte: construction on what I said. I am not opposed to public buildings, but I want to know what is the proper path by which we can reach the heart of the Minister of Public Works when we want* a public building. This circular, which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has alluded to, never reached me. I never got one, although two or three public buildings are required iu my constituency. If the Minister of Public Works would only tell us that there are absolutely necessary conditions precedent, without which he cannot entertain a demand for a public building, we will know where we are. But as a man of business, he will admit we ought to know what are the principles that guide him.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I frankly admit that if I had been here I would not have felt under any necessity to advertise that I wanted applications for public buildings. My hon. colleague, as a prudent man, wanted to know the needs of the country, but if he had been a little longer in the Department of Public Works and had read as much of the correspondence as I have, he would have known the needs of the country quite well enough not to require any more knowledge. I can assure my hon. friend that I have not a bad heart, and if he will approach me in one of his good moments, and when I am not in a bad humour, we might agree.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman takes the case of Marysville as the standard by which he intends going on granting public buildings. If that be the case, I think he had better make some further inquiries, and he will find that he is not living up to that standard. Take my own county, which is perhaps a fair average of the counties of this Dominion. It has four towns, and I will give the hon. gentleman the gross postal revenue in each, which ought to be a fair indication of the business done and the necessity for a public building. In the town of Marysville the hon. gentleman tells us that the gross postal revenue, according to the last returns, is $1,398. Compare that with the four towns in my own county. The town of Wallaceburg, with a population of 2,700, has a gross revenue of $3,207, as against $1,398 in the town of Marysville. The town of Dresden, with a population of 1,000, has a gross revenue of $1,948. And the town of Thamesville, with some 900 of population, has a gross revenue of $1,080. Then take the little town of Botliwell, with about 800 inhabitants, its gross revenue is $1,078, as against $1,398 in Marysville. And I venture to say the hon. gentleman would not dream of erecting a public building in any one of these three places.
Let me go a little further and take the money orders issued and see how Marysville compares with the towns I have meu-tioned. In Marysville the number of money I orders issued was 50, and the gross stun in-

volved only $748. But in Wallaceburg, which has been asking for a post office since many years, the number of money orders issued is 1,204, and the gross sum involved $14,523. Take Dresden, there were 852 money orders issued as against 50 in Marysville, and the gross sum involved was $13,411. Then in Tliamesville, 370 money orders were issued and the sum involved $5,S70 ; and finally in Bothwell, which has only 800 inhabitants, there were 1,250 post office orders issued, and the gross sum involved was $14,909.
Now, let us take the number of orders paid. In Marysville the number was only G4 as against 653 in Wallaceburg, 552 in Dresden, 286 in Thamesville, and 352 in Bothwell. Take the gross sum involved in each :
Marysville	$ 555
Wallaceburg,	 9,431
Dresden,	 7,256
Thamesville	 3,816
Bothwell	 4,444
If these returns indicate anything they certainly indicate that the hon. gentleman lias chosen one of the least deserving places in this Dominion in which to erect a public building. I know of no more vicious case than this one to show the utter want of regard for the public needs and the public weal which dictates the hon. gentleman's policy. The sole principle which guides him is party necessity. Wherever there is an election to be gained, wherever it suits the purposes of the government, he is quite ready to put up a public building, regardless entirely of the needs of the public or the requirements of the locality.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are certain ridings which are unlucky, and the riding represented by my hon. friend is one of them. He has explained that in his riding there are four towns which ought to have had public buildings long ago. Well, that riding was represented in parliament by a Liberal, the Hon. David Mills, for many years, and no public buildings were then allotted to it. The chances of war have given us my hon. friend, but he is on the wrong side.


James Clancy: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I was not saying whether there should be public buildings there or not, but I was pointing out that there should be some broader ground of public policy in determining what places were entitled to public buildings than what the hon. gentleman has given us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend gave us the names of four towns, each of which, in his opinion, is better entitled to a public building than the town of Marysville. Well, I was simply reminding him that the riding of Bothwell was for many years represented with great Mr. CLANCY.
ability by one of our friends, the Horn David Mills. During those years my hon-friends opposite were on these government benches, and yet it never occurred to them that any one of these four towns was worthy of a public building. I do not see, therefore, how they can find fault with us. We have given ridings represented by opponents public buildings. I do not say-because I am not in the habit of saying what I do not believe to be true- that the representative of a riding has no influence at all; that would be a foolish thing to say. Now that hon. gentlemen on the other side have supplied all their ridings with public buildings, they must not be surprised, if we, on coming into power, pay some attention to ours. That is the position I take without hesitation. Let us be fair to our hon. friends on the other side, but-we should be great fools if we did not think of ourselves. If hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side, they would say exactly what I say now. Of course, we must not squander public money on useless buildings-wo all agree to that. I do not object to being criticised ; I do not object to the brake of the opposition being put upon any minister-far from it. But there is reason in all things. The Liberal party has been long in opposition, and ridings that have been for so long neglected by the government have rights that I, for one, will endeavour not to forget. As to the item of Marysville. I would remind my hon. friends opposite that their reproaches come not merely with little grace, but with no grace whatever. I found a vote for this work in the estimates when I took office, a vote put there by the late Minister of Finance-and I have simply carried it out.


Richard Blain: I understood that the policy of the late government was to distribute these expenditures for public buildings upon a principle based upon the revenue and population of the town.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Not much.


Richard Blain: Perhaps I could give these hon. gentlemen quotations from their own speeches on that point. Here is the policy as it was explained by the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). This is from the debate on the Richmond post office.


An hon. MEMBER.: What year was it 7


Richard Blain: Of course, hon. gentlemen opposite will understand that they do not occupy the same position now as they did then. This was the year 1894. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) said :
I know that the hon. ministers and members on that sidethat is the conservative side

Voted that public money should be expended upon these buildings on some principle based

on the revenue at the points where these buildings are being constructed and the population to be served.
Then another distinguished gentleman on that side (Mr. Charlton) said :
In a little place like Richmond, with a moderate revenue it strikes me the economical plan would be to rent quarters. And the accommodation might be had at a cost of $200 a year.
The policy of the Conservative party as described by the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries is in marked contrast to the policy of the present administration, who say that it depends upon what the county does in sending a representative to support the government, how it shall De considered in the distribution of money in the construction of public buildings.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Unfortunately, in that, as in a good many other cases, the practice was vastly different from the precept avowed.
I have the honour to represent one of the richest, oldest and most populous constituencies in Ontario, and my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) represents another. Ingersoll and Woodstock, the chief places of these two very large and wealthy constituencies, remained for very nearly forty years without a public building of any kind, sort or description, while, almost within sight of us, was the village of Cayuga, with 150 families, which was thought worthy of a public building. That was a very fair sample of the way government favours were distributed during the period which the Conservatives were in office.


Robert Laird Borden: The argument of the hon. Minister of Public Works, which was hailed with such delight by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), and the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), amounts simply to this-and it is well that we should understand it-the constituency represented by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), we will say, was not treated fairly by the late Conservative government because it was represented by an opponent of theirs, Hon. David Mills, and so went without public buildings in places that were much more deserving than is Marysville ; and now, because that constituency happens to be represented by a gentleman who is opposed to the present government, that injustice must be continued.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what the hon. gentleman's argument amounts to. He says that the Conservative party treated that constituency unfairly in the past, because it was represented by an opponent of theirs. Then the Minister of Public Works very frankly tells us in this nousewhat has been said by himself and his colleagues on many a public platform-that the representation of a constituency is not without its effect in the distribution of public moneys. The public moneys, under this administration, are not to be distributed according to the public requirements, but according to the political complexion of the gentlemen who represent the constituencies -at least, that is to be taken into consideration. Now, if there is one principle which is more unworthy of the government than another, or more unworthy of the Minister of Public Works, it is that which he defends to-day, and which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has defended.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I simply called attention to the discrepancy between Conservative practice and Conservative precedent.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), in my humble opinion, would have done better to have stood up and told his colleagues that when this party of purity came into power public moneys were to be distributed according to the needs of the country and not according to the political complexion of the representatives of the constituencies. From the record in the past of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce we might expect some repudiation of the views expressed by his colleagues jo-day. But, instead, he merely throws a taunt at this side of the House with regard to what was done by Conservative administrations in the past. The conduct of Conservative administrations is not the question here. The question is, what is right and best to do to-day ; and, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no better ground for defending the present administration than to say that some such thing was done unjustly in the past, it seems to me, with all deference to the hon. gentleman, that it would be better for his own reputation for him to keep his seat. I say again that the argument of the Minister of Public Works is a most vicious argument. Let us concede even, for the purpose of this argument, that the Conservative government did wrong in the past. What has that to do with the question of what is right and best at the present time. Because previous governments did wrong, does that fact of itself justify the present government in following their example ? I venture to say that, whatever has been done in the past with regard to the distribution of public money, the standard in the future should be that the money expended in this country for public works should be expended on some broad and systematic policy according to the needs of the constituency, and absolutely apart from the question as to whether a constituency happens to be represented by a supporter of the government or by a gentleman on this side of the House.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will say this to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that, for a period of nearly thirty years, the Liberal party was treated, systematically and deliberately, by the predecessors of the hon. gentleman with the grossest injustice. And one of the first duties that fell upon us when we assumed office was to see that justice was done to our supporters and to those constituencies which had been deprived of their rights for a great many years. When I gave the illustration of the counties of South Oxford and North Oxford, I gave those because they were extremely notable illustrations of the systematic injustice that had been dealt out to Liberal constituencies for no worse crime than returning Liberal supporters. Now I am glad to see the hon. gentleman's education is beginning. I daresay after they have spent eighteen years in opposition, as they are very likely to do, they will come to something like a glimmering understanding of the principles on which governments ought, in an ideal fashion, to be conducted. I do not disapprove of the statement he makes that it is desirable that regard should be had in all these cases to the amount of the population, to the amount of the revenue, and to various other things which we have often pointed out as having necessarily and properly a large influence on such questions as the erection of public buildings. But I have to tell the hon. gentleman that, as I have said just now, it is the duty of a party which has been long in opposition, when they get into office, to rectify the injustices which were deliberately inflicted by the party in power.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that the hon. gentleman has improved very much upon his predecessors. According to him, the first duty of a party coming to power, after being out of power for eighteen years, is, not to conduct the government in the best interests of the country-


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: But he said it by implication-but to look after thp interests of the party that had been in opposition. Now this is the gentleman, if I mistake not, who preached political purity and high standards of government for eighteen years. Now we understand that his ideal is this, that when his party gets into power the first thing to be looked after is, not these high standards about which he told us so much during eighteen years, but the interests of the Liberal party. Well, he has looked after them pretty well in some respects, I believe. But still possibly principles of that kind, even if they are professed by hon. gentlemen on the other side, had better not, for the credit of the country, be too loudly proclaimed in this Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
House. I think it would be better to put on some semblance of political decency with regard to this matter, and not to say in this House that because a constituency has been represented by a Liberal in the' past and therefore has not received justice, it shall, because it happens to be represented by a Conservative now, receive, not the justice which it should receive, but the continued injustice which it has received in the past, and that for no better reason than that it happens to be represented by a gentleman on this side of the House. That is the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is not.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad I have been able to provoke so vigorous a disclaimer from that hon. gentleman, and I trust that when he thinks the matter over a little more calmly he will come to the conclusion that it is not wise in this House to lay down the doctrine of party spoils in so open and flagraut a manner as he has just presented it to the House to-day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Politics are indeed a very fine game.


An hon. MEMBER.: It is a bluff game.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we have a proof of it just now. For over twenty-five years I have seen the game from the press gallery of this Plouse, and history repeats itself. When the Conservative party was on this side of the House the Liberals said a great many things that the Conservative opposition are saying now. Now, if my hon. friends opposite will excuse me for saying it, they do not always feel very comfortable at the present time. They are afraid of the war, and after the speeches that my hon. friends opposite are delivering to-day, they will not feel any more comfortable in the event of their resuming office in the future. As I say, politics is a fine game, it is an amusing game. My hon. friend has taught me a lesson, he has invited me to decency. Well, I have a good deal of respect for him, but I have always tried to have some respect for myself; and I am quite sure that in what I have already stated to the House, and which will be read by the country, I have not been transgressing decency. I have said this much, and I say it again, that the representatives of the party in power have naturally more influence with the government than the representatives of the party opposed to the government. That is very clear, and what is the use of denying it V I do not make any personal allusion, but what is the use of resorting to hypocrisy V People do not take any stock in that now, it is too late in the day. The government in power is very largely guided

by the advice of its own political friends, because those political friends represent public opinion for the time being. But that does not mean that the public interest must be ignored because that interest happens to be located in a riding represented by a member of the opposition. Nobody has intimated anything of the kind. There are to-day very large public works going on in ridings represented by supporters of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. We have not been hard towards members of the opposition. In point of fact we have been reproached many times by our political friends with being too kind to Conservatives. Beveral times I have been accused myself of being an old Tory because I did not do what some of my Liberal friends wished me to do, because I did not give them enough. Responsible government is the government of the people by the representatives of the people, by the majority of the people. Our friends opposite must not be offended if we invite them in the most kindly way to take their medicine patiently. They are in opposition, they are doing a useful duty in criticising us, they are doing it well; but they must not forget that the party which is in office to-day represents a majority of the people in the country, and that part of the country represented by the majority has to be attended to.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just one interesting observation of the hou. gentleman which I would like you, Mr. Chairman, to note. He states that criticisms of this kind were very frequently heard some years ago on this side of the House from gentlemen who now sit on the government side of the House; and then he tells us in the same breath that he does not like hypocrisy. I do not know what the hon. gentleman had in his own mind when he made that statement to the House. We are not putting forward these criticisms without meaning them-if that is what the hon. gentleman desires to suggest. We are putting forward in all earnestness the principle that the public money of this country should be distributed according to the public needs of the country. I do not know whether my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works agrees with that; apparently he qualifies it by saying that the principle must be modified by the question as to whether the member representing the particular constituency supports the government or not. With regard to that principle we entirely disagree. I will not say anything further about it except to state that so far as I am concerned I do not believe that is good policy for the country. It is a policy which was not supported by hon. gentlemen in opposition, but it does apparently have some weight with them now since they have acquired the responsibility of power.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I think we are indebted to the Minister of Mr. SPROULE.
! Public Works for several confessions. Not long ago he took the public into his con-iidence, in Montreal, I think it was, when he told them that the cabinet was largely engaged in fighting each other like blazes. To-day he announces that the supporters of this government, and this government themselves, adhere to the doctrine that to the victors belong the spoils. I suppose most of their time is taken up, since they have no legislation for us to consider at this session, in fighting among themselves for a share of the spoils.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have only one thing to say, I shall never make any more after dinner speeches.


Edmund Boyd Osler: So far as I can see there is absolutely no public interest to be served in this vote. If there ever was a vote purely and simply meant to serve a local interest, a political interest, it is such a vote as this, and such votes as we have had on several of these items this afternoon. What public interest is there to be served bv an expenditure of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 of public money in a village on a post office where the whole revenue is under $1,000 ? Can it be justified in any way except as a pure and simple expenditure of public money for party purposes ? There cannot be any more glaring deviation of public money from the right channel than in such a vote as this. It was rather refreshing to have from the various members of the government, as they one after another got up to justify this vote, the admission that when they were in opposition and objected to such votes, they were ideal statesmen. They never thought for a moment of putting into practice their ideals when they came into power. I do not think, in the whole list of estimates, there are better subjects for criticism than these items of expenditure of large sums of money in small places where they are not required and where they can only be made because of some local political influence being brought to bear.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if the department is in the habit of preparing plans and specifications for public buildings when they are undertaken ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We generally prepare the plans, but on some occasions when we are busy we employ outside help.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is another important matter in connection with the construction of public buildings that has not been discussed to-day. While I do not differ with the government as to their satisfying their friends by erecting public buildings, it seems to me that when the department prepares plans and specifications, it should also arrive at some conclusion as to the time it should take to construct a public building.
<667

We have a large number of public buildings constructed in this country from time to time, and there is no stated rate of pay for the architects or clerks of works employed by the Department of Public Works, because I find in the Auditor General's Report and referring to Vancouver, that the architect and clerk of works get $120 per month. I find that in Woodstock the architect receives $100 a month; I find that in Nelson the pay is $7 a day, and I find that in Toronto as high as 71 per cent, 7 per cent, 31 per cent, 1 per cent, and large lump sums are paid to an architect for superintending public works. If the government does not pay some attention as to the time that it requires to erect a public building, it will be paying all over the country, in every town, city and village, in which it constructs a public building, large sums of money to these architects for a useless waste of time in superintending these public works. Therefore it is not in the public interest that these men should be continued for these long periods. Take the Auditor General's Report to-day, and you will find, under the heading of ' Public Buildings,' from the 1st of July to the 30th of June in the following year, twelve months' pay for an architect for superintending a public building that ought to be constructed in at least six mouths' time. These items, taken altogether, are very important, if the hon. gentleman desires to satisfy his friends by erecting public buildings. For instance, in Wallaceburg, for a building that may cost $8,000 or $10,000, an architect is paid $2,000 for superintending it. Perhaps this practice has been abused under the Conservative regime and if it has it is certainly being abused under the present administration, because it is not a proper thing to do.
Levis cattle quarantine station-renewals, improvements, repairs, etc., $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Plow much was expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five thousand dollars last year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No special work, but just for general repairs.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these expenditures being made on the advice of somebody ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, always on the advice of the Department of Agriculture. In this case, as in all other cases, I am simply the builder. Demands are made upon me.


Mr. SPROULE.: I understood the hon. minister to say that he spent $5,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that he proposes to spend $5,000 this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, $3,000 this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would buy all the buildings on the place.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These buildings were erected twenty years ago and they require a good deal of repairing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you require $8,000 to repair buildings not worth $2,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were built a long time ago, and they are always requiring repairs.


Robert Laird Borden: What are they for-cattle ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: To what extent do we import cattle ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The list that has been sent to us of the work that is to be done this year includes two new stables, $1,250; rebuilding fences, $1,793; repairing roads, $1,000; superintendent's office, $308; other employees' residence, repairs, $275; repairing old stable, $60; sidewalks, $2S7; small repairs, $266. The whole amount that we were asked for was $5,500, but we have cut it down to the amount I have just asked for now.


Haughton Lennox: What are the roads on which it is proposed to spend $1,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are roads communicating between the different buildings. I have been there often. There are at least ten or twelve acres of property.


Robert Laird Borden: It is for thoroughbred stock that is imported ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As a matter of fact, there is very little stock imported except thoroughbred stock, but all stock arriving has to be quarantined for ninety days, and the accommodation is required for this stock. There has to be a yard for each particular lot of cattle with a space between, so that the animals in one yard cannot come in contact with, or even within easy reach of the animals in the adjoining yard. This fencing has been in very bad order, and last year a report came that it was necessary to reifiace it. The buildings which were erected twenty years ago have had very little done on them for many years, and were in such a very bad state that the importers were complaining.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What quantity of stock was imported last year ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking from memory, about 1,500 or 1,000 head of cattle, sheep and swine.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were they all imported from Great Britain ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One lot I think came from France, but all the rest came from Great Britain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This appears to be an enormous sum to replace fencing on ten or twelve acres of ground.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring over the details to the hon. gentleman and he can see for himself what the cost is.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see how you can spend all that money for fencing a plot of twelve acres.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking from memory there are forty acres in the lot, so that it is erroneous to say that it contains only twelve acres. The buildings have to be placed at some distance apart and have all to be fenced around. It is a rough piece of ground and we have to grade roads so that provender can be carried to the cattle. For a long time there were no roads and the inconvenience was found to be such that the importers requested that we should make these improvements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would appear, by these estimates, to intend to build sidewalks on the streets of the town.


Th MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not on the streets of the town. There is some planking necessary around the grounds to enable the attendants to go dry shod from one building to another, and that is called a side walk.
L6vis public building, $5,000.
Ml1. MONK. Is this work under contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. No site.has been purchased and nothing has been done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why are we asked to vote the money then ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because I expect to go along now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the minister made choice of any site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. There are some changes to be made by tlie Railway Department and I was in expectation of being able to secure the old freight shed for a site. No choice has been made yet, and I do not know whether I will be able to get the freight shed site as I have not been able to confer lately with my colleague who has been away practically for the last three months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course the contract will be given by public tender when the building comes to be erected.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.
Montreal examining warehouse, $15,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That building will have to be changed altogether inside, and we are adding another story to it. It is too dark and cannot accommodate the trade which is increasing every day. I went there a month ago with one of the architects and Mr. Miles, the President of the Montreal Board of Trade. My officers believe they can carry out the work for $30,000. The estimate is as follows Addition to building, $6,000 ; altering main building inside, $12,000 ; fittings, $4,000 ; light, $500 ; furniture, $1,000 ; heating, $1,000 ; contingencies, $500. Although I am not an architect I am about sure that the addition will cost a little more than $6,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have the assurance of the minister that these repairs, if absolutely necessary, will be carried on by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work cannot be carried on that way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why not ? There is very keen competition in Montreal among builders and I really think we are not getting the worth of our money in the repairs we have been executing on public buildings in Montreal during the last four or five years. I feel convinced that if the minister will make specifications of what repairs are necessary, and will invite tenders fairly and publicly he will effect a considerable economy. Why should not the government do that ? Private individuals and companies do that. We have architects in Montreal-and the minister has some of them at his disposal in his department-who are continually making repairs under such a system as that. We will vote the money at once if the minister gives us the assurance that there will be specifications deposited where contractors can see them and tenders invited fairly and publicly.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOKS.: In the case of work like this no railway company, or no other company would think for one moment of calling for public tenders. Neither would a private person do it. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) himself owns houses and when be has repairs to make he does not call for tenders. When you start out on work like this you never know what you will have to do. There is not a man in this House who owns property who will call for

tenders for such repairs. I have tried that system in repairing wharfs and breakwaters, and I have always found myself in deep water because it is impossible to know before hand the extent of the repairs.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You are adding a story to that building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is only a small part of the work. The Canadian Pacific Railway is improving their, station in Montreal and there was no tender asked for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg your pardon, it was done by tender and contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, I know the contractors.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The material may be obtained by contract, but the work is done by day's labour. In this case I believe that I will spend less money if I do the work by day's labour. I cannot understand the argument that has been made often in this department that the government cannot carry on work by day's labour, just the same as contractors can. I decline to admit that because experience has proven that it is not true. I say more : It does not give him any pleasure to carry out work's by day's labour; it gives him trouble. But I say that the system of the public tenders as carried out in this country is a bad system. If tenders were asked from a picked list of contractors as is done in Germany and in France it would be well and good; but when everybody who can find a deposit is allowed to send in a tender as is the case here, that is the worst possible system. 1 say, after five years of experience In the department, that the poorer the contractor is the lower tender will he send in. He does not know his business; he will try to buy his matei'ial on credit. Several important works are to-day delayed because they are in the hands of men who should not have been allowed to tender. What is the position of the minister when an incapable or unworthy contractor does not carry on the work properly V If I take the work from him, I have to ask for new tenders, which means two or three months of delay. The system of public tenders which we have is a bad one, and every time we have repairs to be made, I do not hesitate to say to the House on my responsibility that it should be done by day's labour. Of course, large works, like the Halifax public building, for instance, I would not wish to do by day's labour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the principle is a sound one, why not 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see why not. I have to educate the public and parliament first-that is the


Joseph Israël Tarte: whole trouble. I do not hesitate to say that the work which we are carrying on at Sorel, building cars and dredges, is better carried out than it would be if it. were done by contract. The government has no interest except to do the work well. The contractor expects to realize a profit of 20 per cent, because he has to buy his plant, Ac., but when a government has the plant, it can put into the work the profits which any contractor would wash to make.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very sorry to hear the lion. Minister of Public Works enunciate that doctrine, because 1 believe that in the city of Montreal repairs amounting to $lo,-000, and consisting principally of putting an additional story on the examining warehouse, ought to be given out by public tender. The law requires it, and m the city of Montreal no institution nor individual would think of carrying on such works without inviting public tenders. The hon. gentleman has mentioned the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is well known that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have accredited contractors who sometimes undertake alterations without submitting the price; but they are really clerks of works, and they usually exact contracts from those under them. The hon. gentleman has referred to the extension of the Windsor Station in Montreal. I repeat that in that case there were large contracts for plumbing and heating, given to Lessard & Harris by tender.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 do the same thing. While carrying out the work by day's labour, I ask for tenders for plumbing or steam fitting.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. gentleman will make specifications for these repairs and invite public tenders, he will find that he can get the work done by able and responsible contractors for half the cost at which it will be done by day's labour or by calling on two or three friends of the government for prices. Now, we spend about $60,000 a year on repairs in Montreal, and I venture to say that there is no city in the Dominion of Canada where the service of the government are so badly accommodated as in Montreal. If we spend so large an amount annually on repairs and improvements in Montreal, we ought surely to be able to get something better than We have at present. If I had the time, I could show, by reference to the public accounts of last year, that money could have been saved if the minister had followed the plan which is followed by everybody else in Montreal, of asking for public tenders. I regret that the minister evidently intends dealing with these repairs, for which he asks $15,000, without the condition of calling for public tenders. If he would attach that condition to the vote, I would be ready to concede it at once, because 1 know that the improvements are necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am dealing with the repairs in Montreal in the same way as my predecessors have done, and they are under the charge of the same officers. Mr. Desjardins is an old officer whom I left in office, although not a political friend of mine. He was appointed by my predecessor Mr. Ouimet, but I left him in office, because I believed he was an honest man, and I believe so still.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You are not to be bound by everything that was done by the previous government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am fully responsible for what I am doing; but I say that the repairs are being carried out on the same system that prevailed in the past, and it is the only system on which they can be carried out. We have in Montreal the examining warehouse, the custom-house, the inland revenue office and the post office. Now, how could you possibly ask for tenders for every small work costing $50 or less-for a little painting or to repair something that has got out of order ? It is practically impossible to find out in advance all the repairs that may become necessary. We are nearly all owners of houses, and there is not a man here who does not spend a large amount of money on his houses. Can he tell to-day how much money he will have to spend during the coming year ? , He cannot. My hon. friend is altogether unfair to the officers in charge of the work in Montreal. I follow them closely, and I say without hesitation that they carry out the work cheaply and well. I think my hon. friend is right when he says that the post office is not in good shape. The reason is, if I may say so, that there has been, in the past, a division of power. The Postmaster General's Department has done part of the cleaning and my department has done the rest. That has caused a very bad state of affairs-I grant that. We have arranged to put a stop to that. I have provided for a lodging upstairs, for a caretaker for the building. In future, I think we shall have better results, while expending less money. '


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. minister please say what is the result, usually, of carrying out these public works by day labour ? Does he find that the estimates are exceeded or is the work done within the estimates made by his officers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At times, the estimates are exceeded. That is the case, for instance, in the addition made to this building. Any one who knows anything about repairs knows how that may easily be. When you start, you think the structure is good, but may find you are mistaken. In this case the architect was obliged to go to a depth of fifteen feet for his foundation. He could not have foreseen 22
that-nobody could. In cases like that, it is impossible to carry out the system of tender and contract. As a rule, the estimates are found to be all right.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the specific case of the post office at Montreal, I understand that there was a division of authority and that the results were not good-which is quite likely. But, in that case, what was the difficulty ?
The Minister of public works.
There was no difficulty. I understood my hon. friend to complain that the Montreal post office was not kept clean. That was true. I explained how that was and that I had provided lodging for a caretaker who would have responsibility for the whole building.


Mr. BENNETT.: The expenditure of $10,000 or $15,000 in the Montreal post office without the formality of calling for tenders is a very trifling matter compared with the startling announcement that the minister has made within the last few minutes. Practically he has told us that, from this out, he intends to confine himself to the principle of getting tenders from his friends without the formality of public competition. The Department of Marine and Fisheries introduced that method under the late minister to a certain extent, and perhaps it is to be the rule now in the other departments of the government. Last session, I called the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of Public Works was spending vast sums of money at Sorel without calling for tenders. I am not going to say that the work done at Sorel costs more or costs less than it would have cost under public tender and contract. But I am surprised that some hon. gentleman on the other side has not stood up and told the hon. minister that he must call a halt on this line of procedure. What is the minister doing at Sorel according to the last Auditor General's Report ? It will be news to some hon. members of the House, and perhaps to some hon. members of the government, that, at this place, the Minister of Public Works employs an army of men, the expenditure for whose work runs not merely into the thousands but into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Have we come to this pass, that the Minister of Public Works can employ hordes of men, building and repairing boats as he pleases-for there is no explanation up to this time as to what has actually been done ? According to the last Auditor General's Report the minister spent about $125,000 in this way. Last year I brought to the attention of the House the case of the construction of a tug at a cost of about twice what was really necessary. The machinery was . on the upper lakes, having been taken out of the old hull. A new hull was built at Sorel and was then towed around to the upper lakes. The cost would have been fifty per cent less



if the hull had been built at Midland and the machinery placed in it there. Here at page V-19 of the Auditor General's Report, we have some account of the expenditure at Sorel, amounting to this enormous sum of about $125,000-and it is an enormous sum to be expended at the sweet will of the Minister of Public Works. What is the procedure at Sorel ? I will be bound to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bruneau) who represents Richelieu, in which riding I understand Sorel to be, simply turns on his party friends in season and out of season. To do what ? To work at whatever work can be provided. The principle of competition is set at defiance. Yet, not an hon. gentleman on the other side rises to call the minister to account. That hon. gentleman, this afternoon, has made the startling announcement that he does not intend to be held to the system of tender and contract in a matter involving the expenditure of $15,000 or $20,000. Then what is the hon. minister going to do with the case of the French River canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be all open.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Humphrey Bennett: We heard before recess from the Minister of Public Works, who is nothing if not candid, the frank and exultant avowal that he had initiated a new system of dispensing with calling for tenders for government contracts, and had thus secured control of an amount of patronage undreamed of by his predecessors. From his point of view the hon. minister is rather to be congratulated on the success of his experiment. During the past four or five years in which he has been at the head of the Public Works Department he has taken the bull by the horns, and certainly can have no cause of complaint of the result. We on this side probably have not as much occasion to quarrel with the hon. minister on that score as some of his colleagues. Those who were in this House in the last parliament will remember liow the House was startled when the Drummond County deal was taken in hand by the hon. minister. On that occasion there was question of the adoption of a line of policy involving a large expenditure, and coming naturally under the control of the Minister of Railways and Canals, but that unfortunate minister seemed to have been pushed to one side and in his place the Minister of Public Works conducted the negotiations and brought the deal to a successful issue. True the scheme met with rather a mishap when first presented, but on the second occasion, thanks to the vigilant care and attention of the Minister of Public Works, it went through. The hon. gentleman who, I am


William Humphrey Bennett: glad to see to-day enjoying such good health, had occasion to absent himself one session, and his place was taken by the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock). I am sorry that some of the ministers from Ontario are not in their places to-night, because I should like them to hear what I have to say, even at the risk of offending them, regarding the invidious distinction that the Minister of Public Works enjoys to-day in the province of Ontario. In the riding I have the honour to represent, we tendered a banquet last year to that lion, gentleman, in which all joined irrespective of politics, and I think he was well pleased and so were we. But I have not heard of any banquets having been tendered any of the ministers from the province of Ontario. Were the Minister of Public Works to pass down any street in our town, he would be recognized at once by every one, but I cannot say the same of his colleagues from the province of Ontario, with the exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), whose doleful countenance, by reason of his picture having been before the public for the past twenty years, is rather familiar to our public. But were the other ministers from the province of Ontario to pass down the street of that town or any other towns on the shores of Georgian Bay, I doubt whether they would be recognized any more than any ordinary stranger. If there is a town in the whole country that has done honour to the Minister of Public Works in the shape of banquets, it is Owen Sound. Go to Collingwood, and you will find the same treatment accorded the Minister of Public Works there. Even if you go to that centre of Conservatives in Ontario, Toronto, you will find that the Minister of Public Works is really the only man in the public eye there to-day. The chief reason is that he is the power behind the throne, and both political men and the people recognize the faet that without his assistance we cannot hope to get anything in that great province. It is true that the ministers from Ontario have not much patronage at their disposal. There is first the Secretary of State (Senator Scott), who dispenses out the tape and the sealing wax, and whose countenance would be perfectly unknown, except by very few, were he to pass down King street, Toronto. He has no patronage at his disposal at all. Then we come to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who wanted to let the House know that he was still alive this afternoon, and broke for a few moments into verse. Perhaps he wants to spend the last of his days in this House because last session he and the late Minister of Justice were consigned to oblivion even by the back-bench members opposite. It was said last year that the Minister of Justice was soon to disappear from the scene, and now it is on the cards that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is about to be shelved into the lieutenant governorship of Ontario.

So that the great province of Ontario, which pays the bulk of the taxes of this country, is practically without representation in the cabinet, at least in the matter of patronage. Take the two great toll gatherers, the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), and the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), whose daily duty it is to see where and how they can best exact taxes from the people- neither of these two has at his disposition any patronage at all. The Postmaster General is deserving of our special sympathy. Here is the Minister of Public Works taking the stand that it is within his power to give out contracts by days labour, as he does in Sorel to the tune of $125,000 per year, and yet the Postmaster General is helpless to give even a penny increase to a mail carrier. He has appeals from the letter carriers in all the great cities of the province, and he cannot move hand or foot. Yet the Minister of Public Works can deal out patronage by the hundred thousand dollars, aggregating in the year to millions of dollars, without any vestige of tender, and not a question is asked by hon. gentlemen opposite as to whether or not there is to be public competition for these loaves and fishes. Occasionally an hon. gentleman opposite will make a protest, and sometimes the kick results to their benefit. Why, I recollect that last session the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton), in a moment of audacity, dared to remonstrate with the Minister of Public Works with regard to one of his expenditures. What was the result ? With a good deal of finesse, the Minister of Pub'-lic Works managed to get him out of the way by having him appointed to a judgeship.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was not treated very badly.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is what I am pointing out. There are some gentlemen behind the Minister of Public Works to whom this example may be an incentive to go and do likewise. If they will only rebel against some of these expenditures they too may be slated for positions. I saw the other day that the junior member for Hants (Mr. Russell) is soon to be translated to a judgeship. It might be wise for him to make a spasmodic kick against the principle just laid down by the Minister of Public Works and obtain his reward all the sooner. Then, if the newspaper rumours are correct, the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Sutherland) is to be given a judgeship at an early day in order to smooth away some political troubles in his riding, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice promised the other day that there was to be a house-cleaning in the Ontario judiciary, and that a number of county court judges were to be retired, there is a vista open for the gentlemen of the legal profession on the other side of county court judgeships if not of Superior Court 22J
judgeships, and it would be well for them to take time by the forelock.
I congratulate the Minister of Public Works on the stand he has taken. In the first place, he has usurped the prerogative and rights of the Department of Railways and Canals. He went into the arena and tilted against his colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals, and dispossessed him. of what was most valuable in the Railway Department. And this summer the hon. gentleman made an incursion into the Department of Canals. The newspapers were filled with the accounts of the trips taken by the Minister of Public Works up French river with the view of bringing about the construction of a large public work there. The hon. gentleman really seems to bear a charmed life. He can do whatever he pleases. When the fight gets a little warm he simply smiles serenely, and the First Minister comes to his assistance. A few years ago, in Montreal, when a great political club, the Club Letellier, demanded that the head of the Minister of Public Works should be placed on a salver


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly not. The minister sits there and smiles and knows that neither the premier nor any one else can put him out of his position. The papers have lately been discussing the separation of a pair of twins, which operation was performed in Paris, with the disastrous result that one of the twins died. The right hon. the First Minister will no doubt bear that in mind whenever there is any suggestion of his severing himself from the Minister of Public Works. In that event the consequences, I am afraid, would be even more serious, for, I believe instead of one they both would die.
But the Minister of Public Works was not content. Knowing the weakness of the Ontario ministers, he went to Ontario and ousted them from their own ground. When the party suffered such a defeat in the province of Ontario in the last election, when it came back with so many empty saddles, the Minister of Public Works decided that he himself would look after any future elections. He went up to North Bruce, but I did not hear of his being in West Durham at the last election. Perhaps it was because of the North Bruce defeat.
There is not a single matter that the Minister of Public Works brings before this House in open defiance of this cabinet that he does not put through. And he has proved that in the past. What happened in relation to what was known as the Kettle River Bill ? Here was the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in connection with an American company, which was pressing down to the border on the southern side of British Columbia. Day after day that

question was debated in tlie Railway Committee. It was a question of policy on tbe part of this government whether lines should be constructed from the American side into Canadian territory. A day was fixed when the Minister of Railways and Canals was to make a statement, and he stated at the time that the policy of the government was that the line should be constructed. That was directly adverse to the wishes of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House at that time, will remember that memorable scene. The House voted, the yeas were called for on the Bill, one after another minister stood up on that side of the House and voted that the Kettle River Bill should be granted. But when it came to the Minister of Public Works he voted against it; and when the back benches were looked at, behold, to the humiliation of the premier, the Minister of Public Works had actually stolen from the premier himself his best and strongest supporters. Hon. gentlemen here remember that night when the Canadian Pacific Railway magnates were sitting in the gallery, and the Minister of Public Works kissed the tips of his fingers to them as much as to say, I am the whole government. There is not a doubt he was the whole government on that occasion.
Now there is great jealousy in the province of Ontario of the Minister of Public Works, and when by chance, owing to the illness of the Minister of Public Works and his absence in the old country, the Postmaster General was assigned to discharge his duties, what did the Postmaster General do on that occasion ? He caused to be sent out all over the province a famous circular asking what they required in their different ridings. Well, I think there can be no doubt that a great many answers were given to the Postmaster General. Whether the Postmaster General's information was acted upon afterwards I know not, but I do know that the Minister of Public Works was not at all pleased with the action of the Postmaster General on that occasion. For what did we see ? Why, we saw the Minister of Public Works threatening to do, what ? When the Postmaster General said it was the policy of any country, at least in modern times, to combine the postal and telegraph departments together, what did the Toronto 'Globe' say V Why, it said that that was right, and that the Postmaster General should have charge of the telegraph department. I would like to ask the minister of telegraph lines, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works, if there is any prospect of the Postmaster General getting control of that department. Why, everybody knows that the Minister of Public Works has this matter right under his thumb, and that he has the whole control of this department. Yet, Sir, there is not a minister from the province of Ontario who will dare to stand up in his place and Mr. BENNETT.
condemn this principle, the principle that, while they were in opposition, they demanded should be carried out in its entirety. The Minister of Public Works snaps his fingers at them, and he expends, as he does at Sorel, $125,000 in day labour, and here is $15,000 at another point.
Now take the question of dredging, and that is rather a tender point with some gentlemen on the other side of the House; because, while none of them are owners of dredges-because if any gentleman on that side of the House owned a dredge he would be contravening the Independence of Parliament Act were he to engage in the work of dredging-the result is that some of them are owned by very near relatives of members of parliament. It may be avoiding the Act; but the general public don't think conduct of that kind is altogether free from reprehension. Now, what does the Minister of Public Works do on the question of dredging V This dredging work is not let out by public tender at so much a day, these dredges are hired for a time, and the work is given in that way. I am not going to say the work is not properly done, because I am not in the possession of information to justify me in making that statement. But I do say the whole principle is wrong, there should be public competition in all these matters, even when it is a question of this paltry $15,000. But it is the broader and greater principle that the minister has taken up this afternoon, that he for the future intends in his department- and I assume it is to spread in other departments-to act on his own will and pleasure, and is going to let out the public works he likes at public competition and open tender, but such as he does not like, he proposes to let out in the other way.
I quite agree with the statement of the Minister of Public Works, made, I think, in the city of Montreal, about the cabinet fighting like blazes. I think they should. I think when a Minister of Public Works infringes as he does on the departments of these other ministers, when he, in open day, red-handed, comes in and takes up the work of their departments, it is high time for these gentlemen to make a protest, as the Postmaster General made a protest, and as the Minister of Railways and Canals has made a protest too. In all this fighting, in all this tearing of hair, so to speak, that is going on, there comes up one feeble voice, and that is the voice of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Now, the Minister of Railways and Canals has caused to be published in the papers within the last day or two a statement that be is not going to retire from the cabinet. Well, it may be he is not going to retire of his own free will, but it must need be that the Minister of Railways and Canals believes that he is standing on slippery ground, or he would not pay so much attention as he does to the rumors that are

cent around the country to the effect that he is to be deprived of his position.
I am surprised that some gentleman on that side of the House don't enter a feeble protest. The other day, they had taken a minister away from the province of Prince Edward Island, there was a gentleman who name here who had held the rank of premier in Prince Edward Island. Yet despite the fact that the bulk of the representatives from that province are in accord with this government, in the most brutal way, this portfolio is taken away from that province. Then there is the great province of New Brunswick. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) came in here only last session with a great flourish of trumpets. He was to occupy a seat in the cabinet, but instead of his having the seat, the only gentleman who does occupy a seat in that cabinet is being assailed from behind, and he finds it necessary to rush into print in order to define his position while he is out of the House.
Now I hope that the Minister of Public Works, for the good of the country, will retract, or at least soften a little the statement he made this afternoon, I hope the Minister of Public Works will not alarm the public, because this statement will alarm the public. If the people of the whole Dominion are to be told that the Minister of Public Works is about to bring down large sums of money to be voted away, and that he is not going to ask parliament to harness these grants with the condition that open tenders shall be asked upon them, then I say it is going to be a matter of much comment and of great surprise to the people of the country. But how much greater will be the surprise when, from the great province of Ontario, with five ministers, there is not a single word of protest made by any one of them; and how much greater still the surprise that, with the array of talent from that province, there is not a single gentleman on the other side of the House who will stand up and protest against that principle. I have recalled the case of the late member of Kingston having made a remonstrance, and from the fact of his remonstrance having been beneficial, it may perhaps prompt some other gentleman on that side of the House to do the same. It is the principle that is being followed to which we object. I see my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) who came into this House on a narrow majority, and if what I am informed is correct, his presence in this House was due greatly to the fact that a large public institution in the town of Cobourg just at the time of the general elections was being constructed by day's labour. This pernicious principle, this principle that hon. gentlemen have contended against in the past, is a principle that I hope, and still hope, some gentleman
opposite will rise and condemn in its entirety.


Mr. McCOLL.: I understand the subject under discussion is as to whether public works should be done by public tender or whether, in certain cases, they should be done by day labour. It was said by an hon. gentleman this afternoon that in the city of Montreal there is very keen competition among contractors and that from that fact no doubt public work could be done with a large saving of expense by putting it up to public tender rather than by doing it by day labour. If that be true and if there is any saving by doing this work by public tender, you will often find that the saving in that way is at the expense of the labouring man and that is something that I do not think any hon. member of this House would wish to see. Now, independently of the question as to whether absolutely new works should be done by public tender or not, 1 submit that in the case of repairs to old buildings and the like of that it is far better to do it by day labour. Any one who has had experience in the matter knows how very difficult it is when you undertake to remodel or improve a building or to make additions to get plans and specifications with sufficient detail to provide for all the work that has to be done. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) who has just spoken, referred to the work which the provincial government has within the last two years been carrying on in Cobourg. It was known by many hon. members that some years ago the provincial government bought the old Victoria College building and that within the last two years they have been refitting that building for the purposes of an asylum. The way the work was done was this : the provincial architect made plans and specifications so far as he could of the changes that were necessary. An efficient man was put in charge of the work. The work was done by day labour, and while that work was going on I had an opportunity of visiting the place from time to time and what did I see ? I noticed that in many cases changes had been made even after the work had been commenced. A door would be changed to another location from the place it had been originally designed to occupy, showing clearly that it was impossible in a case like that to keep to the plans and specifications though they were prepared in the best manner possible. The architect would come down every two weeks, or every month, look over the work and suggest any changes that he considered necessary and proper. I have yet to hear any complaint, even among Conservatives, to say nothing of Liberals in that riding, as to the way in which that work has been carried on. The principle of tender was to a certain extent carried out. When materials were wanted, where it was practicable to put them up to tender, that was

done, and the materials in that way were purchased at the lowest price. I believe that on account of this work being done by day labour it has been far better done and at no greater expense than if it had been done by tender.


An hon. MEMBER.: And you were elected.


John B. McColl: It has been said by one hon. gentleman that I was elected by a narrow majority. But I see the hon.member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) in his seat, who lives in the adjoining riding, and he will know that my majority did not depend on Cobourg. True, I succeeded in getting a majority in Cobourg, but my total majority was 135, showing clearly that I was not elected on account of my majority in the town. Perhaps that will be considered a very narrow majority in a close riding such as this is, but we think it is a very good majority because my opponent had been elected in the riding, the same gentleman, since 1881 and during that time he had a number of by-elections and in every instance his majority was under one hundred, in the majority of cases ranging from 30 to 50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there was any argument needed to strengthen the conclusion that the system of doing work by day labour is wrong, the hon. gentleman (Mr. McColl), who has just taken his seat, has furnished it in his closing remarks that his riding has been represented since 1881 by his opponent and that this is the first time in the history of the constituency that it was carried by a Liberal, associated with the fact that at this particular time there was this work being done by day labour by the hon. gentleman's own friends and the admission that he makes himself that he frequently visited the work. Put these things together and he comes here as the result of it. Alluding to the admission that the system is a good one, it certainly is a good system for the purpose of manufacturing votes and sending the hon. gentleman down here. I think the hon. gentleman, when he reflects, will wish that he had not spoken, because, instead of doing his cause any good, he has done it very much injury. I was surprised at the announcement made by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I have always given him credit for being a very clearheaded man, and I have no very strong grounds to change that favourable opinion of him ; yet, when he announced that the system of constructing public works by tender was objectionable, and could not safely be carried out, I could not agree with him and I think the country will hardly agree with him. He said that if work were done, as it is done in England, or in France, it would be all right. Is he not here to adopt the English or the French system, if they are better than ours, of doing


John B. McColl: work by public tender. Surely, if he discovered that there were objectionable features about our system he might have eradicated those features and improve the system of letting contracts by tender. If he found it serviceable and that it resulted in an economy of public funds he should have done it. But, he does not attempt to adopt this system. On the other hand, he has come to the conclusion that the letting of contracts by public tender is all wrong and that it is preferable to do work by the day labour system. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) places in my hand the Auditor General's Report and he gives me an opportunity of presenting to the House and the country an example of the benefits of the day labour system which the hon. Minister of Public Works has adopted. I have here the exependitures that were made down at the shops at Sorel. That is a place where the hon. minister spent last year over $125,000 by day labour. It was not as the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) recently said to patch up an old building at all. There may be some excuse if you are repairing an old building for not letting the work by tender, but this was not the patching up of an old building. It was building dredges and doing other work in connection with the shipyards at Sorel. Many of these works could easily have been let by tender because plans and specifications for them could have been got up beforehand and any one who understood the business might have been given an opportunity of tendering, with a reasonable hope of doing the work and knowing what he was doing. I find that there is no less than six hundred day labourers employed at Sorel. Imagine for a moment that there is a contest going on to elect a member, the same as there was in the riding of the hon. member for West Northumberland, "where there was a public work going on which was so useful to him, imagine 600 men in a riding employed under a government foreman, and what chance has the opposition candidate to be elected ? The Minister of Public Works has great ingenuity and great resources, and much stratagem while he is engaged in an election campaign, and no man better than he can use 600 voters under such circumstances to support the government candidate. Every one of these men are paid agents-I do not mean that they are paid in a wrongful way by being bought-but they earn their daily bread because of the employment afforded by the Minister of Public Works, and they are, to a certain extent, at his mercy, and we know that they have to vote as he wishes. Therefore, in such a constituency the opposition candidate has to start with a vote of 600 against him, not to speak of the relatives and friends of the workmen who may vote with them. The Minister of Public Works tells us to-day that the carrying on of public works by day's labour

is the better system, and that the contract system has been a failure, hut if he finished the sentence with the words which no doubt come to his tongue he would have added that the contract system was a failure-when he wanted to carry an election. Those men are employed on the work at a good round wage, and their work may not be very hard, but there are always a large number of applicants for any vacancy, and so the whole thing is engineered in order that every man who is working as well as every man who desires employment must be friendly to the government. The Minister of Public Works has spent $125,000 of the people's money in one year by the day's labour system, and let any ratepayer in the Dominion look over the pay sheets, and he will see the condition of things. The minister tells us that that money was economically and properly spent, but in my judgment the very reverse is the case. The announcement of the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the tender and contract system has been a failure will be startling news for the country. When these gentlemen now on the treasury benches sat in opposition, the principle to which they most pinned their faith was that all public money, no matter how small, must be expended under the tender and contract system. They told us that was the only guarantee that the public expenditure would be safeguarded, and that those who were not friends of the government would have a chance of sharing in any public works. But the Minister of Public Works has changed his view on this point since he got into office. I believe that the people of the country will not endorse the Minister of Public Works in the views he has expressed to-day on this matter. I believe that the people of the country will say that the tender and contract system is the best means that has yet been devised to safeguard the expenditure of public money. I believe further, that a very large percentage of the ratepayers of Canada will differ from the minister on his day's labour theory. We have had unfortunate experience of the day's labour system all over the country. Look at that vote for building fences around the Levis quarantine station. I went all over that ground at L6vis and I saw these fences, and I believe that any practical farmer will tell you that these fences, for which a vote of $1,000 is asked, could be put in proper order for $200. Last year we spent $5,000 on this quarantine station, the year before we spent $5,000, and we are going on increasing our expenditure year after year. Under what system is that money expended ? It is expended on the day's labour system, that beautiful system that the minister has declared to the world to be the most economical and to give the best results. We are entitled to know how many rods of that fencing is to be done, of what material the fences is to be made, and what are the
specifications. The minister handed me over his book, but the chairman was so anxious to call out that the item was carried that I did not wish to cause delay. I am now sorry that I did not read out the information in that book to the House and thus do what the minister himself ought to have done. I remember very well that some years ago, when there was a vote for a post office in Renfrew or in the adjoining county, and when the Liberals were in opposition they took the whole night and a part of the day censuring the government for building a fence and a piece of a sidewalk. They wanted to know whether the fencing was hardwood or pine, what was the height, how much the lumber cost, and whether it was done by day's labour or by contract. They spent a whole night on that, and now it comes about that the Liberal government is spending five times as much in building sidewalks and fences around a piece of land twelve acres in extent, and they cannot or will not tell us what kind of fencing this is. As I said, I went over the ground at LSvis last year, and I believe if they asked between $50 and $100 for this work, instead of $1,000, they would have plenty of money to repair the fences. But I rose specially to call attention to the fact that the minister of the great spending Department of Public Works, has declared that the tender and contract system is a failure, and he gave us to understand by implication, although he did not say it in so many words, that he intends in the future to spend the public money by day's labour as much as possible. Well that is what he is doing at Sorel. If he carries out his intention he will have an army of his own friends engaged on public buildings in many of the constituencies throughout the country. If there is a by-election he will be sure to manipulate all that patronage for his own benefit. The government always manages that business very nicely. It was so in West Durham, it was so in Quebec, it was so in North Grey when they were trying to carry an election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: In West York.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no doubt from what I heard that the government were preparing for that kind of work in West York. The hon. member (Mr. Campbell) told the people that he was going to get them a post oflice and do numbers of other things if he only was elected. The reason he gave was that the Minister of Public Works and he were on friendly terms, and. that his opponent did not enjoy that distinction. It was something like what Mr. Hardy said at Owen Sound when he promised to get the people hot justice rather than cold justice. The election in West York was carried by such plausible promises as well as by other means, and it certainly was not carried by prayers, because the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us that elections are not carried by prayers.

We want to know now, is the Minister of Public Works going to carry out the promises made by the member for West York (Mr. Campbell) during his election. The people of the country are getting a little sceptical of the promises made by the government and its supporters and they are anxious to see the goods delivered.


Mr. COWAN.: You did not stay very long in West York.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not notice my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) there at all. X was told that if he ventured to come there it might be too hot for him. I was in hopes of meeting my genial friend there, but I have no doubt he found it more convenient to stay outside the limits of the county. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I am still in favour of letting contracts by public tender. I believe it to be the best system if it is properly carried out. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has referred to a matter which is of considerable importance. In looking over the various portfolios held by the ministers, coming as I do from the province of Ontario, it is deplorable to find what little say the ministers from that province have in the management of the country, and in the expenditure of public money.
Look at the different departments. The fisheries were declared by the Privy Council to belong to the provinces; therefore the Department of Marine and Fisheries is comparatively speaking only an artificial department to-day with very little money to spend and very little patronage; and the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has that department. Then, the Department of Trade and Commerce is held by the hon, member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). That also is one of the; artificial departments, which the hon. minister himself a few years ago declared to be practically worthless, and to be retained only in order to provide a place for a friend of the government, though he manages to occupy the place very nicely and to draw the salary attached thereto; but there is no money spent and no patronage in that department. Then, there is the Department of Customs. It is true, the Minister of Customs has some patronage, but he spends very little money. The Postmaster General has a very valuable department, but he spends very little money, except in the way of giving contracts for carrying the mails. The Department of the Secretary of State is another artificial department. On the other hand, look at the great wealth of the province of Ontario, which is very properly called the first province in the confederation.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Next to Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, out of deference to my hon. friend, we will except Prince Ed-Mr. SPROULE.
ward Island. But the people of the province of Ontario furnish a great portion of the money that is spent by the government- that great province which is numerically so strong, and also so strong in its enterprise and ambition; and yet Ontario is not represented in this cabinet by a single minister who has control of the spending of any considerable amount of money. Where has it gone ? To the other provinces. Let the people of Ontario consider this. Why, the ministers from the great province of Ontario are relegated to about the lowest positions in the cabinet, where they have no money to spend, while the spending is left to the ministers from the other provinces, principally to my genial friend the Minister of Public Works, from the province of Quebec-and he loves to spend money. If there is one thing more than another that seems to be prominent ill his nature, it is his disposition to spend.


An hon. MEMBER.: Except electioneering.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the next best thing he likes I will, by way of parenthesis, say one thing in his favour, that I believe lie makes a great deal of his expenditure where money ought to be spent- I give him credit for that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would ask the hon. members to confine themselves as nearly as possible to the resolution before the committee.


Mr. PUTTEE.: For my part, I entirely dissent from the oft-repeated statement made this afternoon that the day labour principle is a wrong one or a bad one. It is easily conceivable that the administration of a principle may be wrong, and if the gentlemen wish to put it in that way, that would be a fair question for discussion; but to say that the principle is bad is not borne out by the facts. Evidence has been fast accumulating in the last few years endorsing the position that has been taken by the hon. Minister of Public Works when lie stated that he believes he could do work better and cheaper by the system of day labour, or the direct employment of labour, than he could by the contract system. Since the city of London about twelve years ago went wholly into this method of doing its work, most municipalities in the old country and the progressive municipalities in this country have taken hold of it, and it has been successful almost without any exception. Hon. gentlemen speak as if there were no drawbacks to the contract system-as if it were all perfectly satisfactory. I will venture the opinion that at least half the contracts which have been carried on under this government, whichever party is in power, have been unsatisfactory, resulting in more trouble and expense than you could imagine under any other system. The Minister of Public Works this afternoon, in speaking of the additions that have been made to this building, stated that they had been done by the day labour system, and that their cost had exceeded the estimates. He also said that circumstances had arisen which they could not see beforehand. If that work had been done by contract, what would have become of those matters which were unforeseen ? Would the contractor have attended to them for nothing ? He would either have been paid extra for them or the work would have been slighted. In the doing of work by contract, the contractor has to make money, and he has either to make it out of the labour, or out of the material, or out of the government. I do not by any means believe the statement that the people of this country are opposed to the direct employment system. Every trades council of this country- and there is one in nearly every city-is on record many times in favour of this system; the Dominion Trades Congress, which represents them all, is also on record in favour of it; and these are the men who do the work
-not the men who farm it out, but the men who actually do it, and these are the men who feel the pinch when the contractor has to make his profit. I want to tell the Minister of Public Works that if he puts this system into more active operation throughout this country, he will have the support of the people. The question of the direct employment of labour is very closely allied to that of public ownership, and I believe the public ownership idea is taking a strong hold of the minds of the people of this country. When some of these remarks were made this afternoon, I took from the mail an official communication from the city of Winnipeg, in which it is proved by figures that in the last few years that city has been performing one large public service which it took over, at 60 per cent less than it cost before, and another important service at 45 per cent less than it cost before; and all who have been in the city of Winnipeg know that these services are better carried out and the public are better served thanever was the case under the contract system. I firmly believe the people of the country are willing, even if the members of this House are not, to support the Minister of Public Works or any other minister who puts this prinicple into more general use.


Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).: I listened last session with a great deal of interest to what ! certain hon. gentlemen opposite had to say on the system of doing government works by day labour, and have followed their re-i marks this session with no less interest. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) gave two reasons why he objects to the principle of day labour. The first was that the men employed by the government got bigger wages and had a better time, and the second was that that method was cheaper and brought greater political benefit to the minister in charge. Well, I believe in the principle of day labour, and I desire to say that the Minister of Public Works, in carrying out this principle to the extent he does, is doing what the trade unions and labour organizations all over the country have been asking him to do for many years. What hon; members opposite have to prove, it seems to me, is not whether the government are deriving political benefit from the system, but whether or not the country is being deprived of any benefit and is suffering any injury by it. What does it matter to me if the government gain votes by conducting public works on the day labour principle ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Ralph Smith: Hon gentlemen are laughing rather to early in the day. AVhat does it matter to the country if the government does gain votes, provided the work is well done and economically done. The Minister of Public Works has repeatedly told us that the work is better done, that It

is in every way more satisfactory, and we must accept his statement until his critics prove the contrary. As a matter of principle, X believe that so far as practicable the day labour method ought to be adopted, and let me tell the hon. minister that in adopting this method he is carrying out the views of organized labour in this country. When he sees that the labouring men are paid good wages, under the supervision of competent men, who will see that they give value for the money, he is doing what the people will support him in doing. I quite understand that it is not possible to carry out all the operations on government works by the day labour system, but there is a large percentage of that work which can be done on that system with great advantage to the country, and the greatest possible advantage to the people. So far as the views of organized labour are concerned, I can assure the Minister of Public Works that in the methods he has adopted he has the support of the people of this country.


Mr. SCHELL.: During the discussion this afternoon, it was frequently stated that no evidence has been brought by the Minister of Public Works or by any one supporting his policy to show that the day labour system is cheaper and better than the contract system. Let me cite to the House some facts which will show that the position taken by the minister is in the interests of the country. I take my particulars from Yol. 2nd of the Auditor General's report, page V-212. Up to the present, the question has been one of sentiment rather than of fact, and the opinion which has prevailed in the country has been that the day labour system was not as cheap or as satisfactory ns the contract system. Well, every one judges by his own experience and personal knowledge, and I have some sympathy for hon. gentlemen opposite who speak from the knowledge they acquired when they were in office. It was they who built the Curran bridge, and they bulit it by day labour, and no wonder that system should appear to them very expensive when they look back to the history of that work. But I propose to cite two cases which will illustrate the difference between the cost of a public work done by day labour, when there was something to be made out of it for the boy, and one done by this government, when there was no question of anything of the kind. I refer to the building of two wharfs in the county of Glengarry-one at Summers-town by the late government and the other at Lancaster by the present government. The wharf at Summerstown was 85 feet long. The approach to the wharf was built of clay, shovelled up from either side, and simply dumping into the water 22 feet from the end of that dump, the cribwork was bridged over by timber on to the main pier, making actually not more than 63 feet and 22 feet of bridge work, or 85 feet alto-Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
gether. The head of that pier was 22 feet wide and 120 feet long and the depth of water was 7 feet 6 inches.
At Lancaster, two years ago, there was another wharf built, 269 feet was the length. It was built entirely of stone. The stone was drawn from two to four miles, and there was not one load of earth in the entire approach. The depth of water was 8 feet 6 inches. The area of the landing head was about three times that of Summerstown wharf, the area of the approach was more than three times as long, and the cost of the wharf at Summerstown was $15,417, while that of the work at Lancaster was only $5,013. I submit to this House that here is a case that will stand comparison with any case which the opposition can bring forward. Here was the case of one wharf of less than one-third the size and built with a great deal cheaper material constructed by the old government, and it cost three times as much as this one constructed by day's labour under the direction of the present Minister of Public Works. There is no disputing these facts. It is not necessary that we should spend the whole afternoon talking about an abstract principle, when we have evidence to show what is being actually done. Because one administration did not, could not or would not, conduct public works cheaply that does not prove that this cannot be done by any administration. On the contrary, the fact is that these works are being done cheaply to-day, and the figures that I have given are proof of it. I venture to say that there is not a contractor who could see five cents of profit in that wharf at Lancaster, and the contractor wants to see a profit in every job he undertakes. If public works are conducted properly-and that is the kernel of the whole matter and I know that in my own county they are conducted properly- the principle at which we should aim is being carried out. If you have a foreman and an engineer to look after the work, this method of day's labour will give good results. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) complained that $125,000 was being spent for day's labour at Sorel. According to the figures I have given, the same work under the previous government would have cost $750,000.
Mi'. BROOK. You had better make It more than that.


Jacob Thomas Schell: No, I will not go a cent more. The hon. member for East Grey assumes that this work is done improperly. I have as much right to assume that the figures I have given are a fair comparison of the two administrations.


Mr. BROOK.: Will the hon. member (Mr. Schell) please explain how a work costing $125,000 under this government would have cost $750,000 under the old system ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: Because under the old system it would cost six times as much. 1 have given the figures-


William Rees Brock: Give us the facts.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I have given the facts also, and I defy any hon. gentleman to controvert anything I have said. If the former government had done things at Sorel on the same basis as they did them in the county of Glengarry, this work which now costs us $125,000 would have cost us $750,000. Merely because this amount spent at Sorel $125,000 is a large sum, these hon. gentlemen hold up their hands in horror. But they have not shown that any of this expenditure was extravagant or wrong.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have listened to a very interesting discussion. The item under debate is $15,000 for the Montreal Examining Warehouse-addition to and alterations, including fitting, furniture, &c. The item seems very simple and clear, but the discussion has gone far beyond it. My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has gone all over creation. I do not intend to follow him. I hope the province of Ontario will not be alarmed by what he says. The poor, down trodden province of Ontario, represented by such feeble men as Sir Richard Cartwright, Mr. Mulock, Mr. Paterson and others-men of such inferior calibre-and with only five representatives in the cabinet. Hon. gentlemen who have spoken have said that Ontario was ahead in everything. If they will look at the figures, they will see that Ontario is ahead in expenditure also. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) complained that last year I spent $125,000 for day's labour. The hon. gentleman has made a mistake. I spent about four times that amount. I would ask the attention of the House to what we have done at Sorel, and what we are doing there. I did not invent the shipyard at Sorel-it was there when we took office. The government is spending upon the channel between Quebec and Montreal, about $75,000 to $90,000 a year. When the ship channel was handed over to the government in 1888, there was handed over also an inferior fleet of dredges, stone lifters and other craft. With this outfit, the work on the channel was conducted at a great disadvantage. The trade of the country was expanding and the people insisted that we should develop the country's waterway. What was I to do ? Was I to import dredges ? Hon. gentlemen oposite are daily reproaching the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) because, having no equipment to build cars and locomotives, he has been obliged to import cars and locomotives from the United States. Was I to do the same 7 Not by any means. I did not take that course, nor do I intend to do so. Whether I am here for a long time or a short time,
while I am here, every piece of work for my department that can be done in this country shall be done here. That is the policy I carried out in Sorel. We have built a magnificent fleet of dredges there. Ought I to have imported dredges as my predecessors did. There are three dredges-in the maritime provinces, the ' St. Lawrence,' the ' Canada ' and the ' George Mackenzie,' which were imported from England. These dredges cost in round numbers $120,000 each, and their capacity is not more than 1,000 yards a day. We have built at Sorel dredges with a capacity of 7,000 or 8,000 yards a day each and with less cost, built them by Canadian labour and of Canadian material as far as possible. If I am wrong, I am prepared to stand by the wrong I have done. The great work of deepening, widening and otherwise improving the channel between Montreal, Quebec and the gulf could not possibly be carried on without a shipyard. Anybody who has had experience in work of that kind knows that if you have dredges, stone lifters and tugs, accidents and breakages occur every day, and you must have a shipyard, just as every well equipped railway company must have a workshop for the repair of its locomotives and cars.
I have done that, and my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would have done the same thing. And where is the wrong of doing these works on Canadian soil, with Canadian hands ? What wrong, I ask again, have I committed ? I have done right, and my hon. friends opposite are mistaken in their criticism. We are carrying out a great public work. My hon. friend says we are employing in Sorel 600 hands. We are not employing quite as many ; on an average we employ about 400 hands, sometimes less but never more, in building dredges, tugs, and in works of all kinds. Now these are Canadians, and as I say, the work is done on Canadian soil. Now if there is any other way in which that work could be done I would like to know it. I would like to know how the St. Lawrence can be deepened and widened except by having a shipyard in which to make the repairs that are necessary.	.
If my hon. friends will allow me to say so, they are altogether mistaken in saying that it is in the interest of a government to carry out works by contract. A minister who was not entirely honourable would make a lot of money out of contracts, and by giving extras. That could be done. He cannot make a dollar in giving out a work by day labour. He has no chance to do anything. The labour is paid every day, and the minister has nothing to do with it. Why, I ask again, should the labouring men of this country be deprived of their honest earnings in order that the contractor might earn millions ? Politically there is nothing to be gained from day labour. But, on the other hand, the contract system gives a lot of

trouble. When a contract is given a minister always has a great deal of trouble. I say again, backed up by an experience of five years and a half, that on many occasions public works are better carried out by day labour than by contract. I do not lay down the rule that the system of tenders must be put aside. I never said that, I do not say it now. But I say that if X were able to find everywhere competent foremen I would not hesitate to carry out the largest work by day labour.
My hon. friends have forgotten past history. Doubtless the new members of this House are surprised to hear this debate. But this is not the first time a similar debate has taken place, we hear it every year. My hon. friends opposite forget their own past when they scarify me because I am asking $15,000 for some repairs in Montreal. The ex-Minister of Finance in the Conservative government carried out, in the city of St. John, works of repair and rebuilding a custom-house to the tune of $200, 000, by day labour, and he did not lose the confidence of my hon. friends opposite. I gave to the House a day or two ago a complete list of all the works that had been carried out by day labour. I do not mean by any means to shield myself behind the example of my predecessor. I say again that on many occasions a public work can be better done by day labour than by tender and contract. My hon. friend asked me why I did not change the system since I did not find it good. I am not strong enough to do so ; and my hon. friends opposite would not sustain me if I attempted to make the change, and if I attempted to make the system of tender perfectly safe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will if the hon. gentleman will convince me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are days when my hon. friend is pretty hard to convince. Suppose I were to prepare a list of the contractors whom I would invite to tender for public works. What would be the result in this House ? I never could get five cents of estimates through. I would be told that I had picked odt a list of partisans. No, Sir, I am not strong enough to do that. In England, France and Germany the system has been established, and it works well. Now, Sir, compare the two systems of day labour and of contract. Where are the scandals in connection with day labour that we have seen in connection with contracts ? There may be some mistakes, I do not say there are not. But if you look at what has been done in connection with large contracts you will find some pretty hard things.
I do not think that the time taken in this discussion has been wasted. My hon. friend said that I was extravagant in the expenditure of money. Permit me to say that he is wrong. I am not afraid of a wise ex-Hon. Mr. TARTE. *
penditure of money. I am rather sanguine of the future of this country, and when I am convinced that an expenditure of money will promote the progress and prosperity of Canada, I do not hesitate a moment. One thing that this discussion will promote is progressive ideas. This century is a century of progress. When I happen to be Minister of Public Works, and have around me men of great ability, I do not like to be told that any contractor in Ottawa or Toronto is more able than I am to direct a great public undertaking. I do not like it. I do not like to be told that the Canadian artisan is not quite as able to do work by day labour under my direction as he would be under the direction of a foreign contractor. So I say time has not been wasted in this debate. The country will listen to this debate. That large and important class of workingmen will not lose sight of what has been said to-night on both sides of the House.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: This question has been discussed nearly all the afternoon, and I do not think I can throw much light upon it. But I am certain of one thing, and that is that all the' work this government requires to be done cannot possibly be let by contract. There must be some work done by days' work. The messengers in this House, the pages, and all classes of employees around this building, must be hired by the day. So it is with a great deal of work which the Minister of Public Works requires to be done. I think a similar discussion took place last year, and I said then that I believed that work could be done cheaper and better by day labour in many cases than by contract. There is one trouble in day labour, and I think that is what hon. gentlemen on this side of the House complain of most. I understand that when the present members of the government sat on This side of the House they complained bitterly against the very thing that they are doing now.
Now, if that be true, they are not consistent, but the question is : Are they right ? I think under the circumstances they are right, and I think that it would have been better for this country to have work done by the day, but they must see that they have good foremen, not political hacks, not men that are working for themselves and their job, but men that would see that the country is well served and when a man does not discharge his duty, no matter how good a politician he may be, he should be discharged. One trouble arises as the result of the government doing all this work by day's labour because the government have a strong pull on every man that they hire by the day, just the same as the manufacturers control their workmen, as we all know. There is another point to be remembered. We all know that the contractors are the most liberal subscribers to party funds, and the gov-

eminent will be deprived of this assistance if the work is done by day's work. Now, I think this discussion has gone far enough.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in reference to the illustration which was given us by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) and referred to by the hon. Minister of Public Works as an example of what might be done by day's labour. That was the Curran bridge, which was cited as a justification for doing work by day's labour. Why, that whole job was done by day's labour and the contention of hon. gentlemen who sat on this side of the House at the time the inquiry took place was, that the cost of the work was three or four times as much as it would have been had it been let by contract. The whole argument against the government was that they did not let it by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The labour was given out by contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the Curran bridge 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, St. Louis had the contract for the whole of the labour.
Mi1. SPROULE. He was given a schedule of prices that would be acceptable to hire men at, and he made as much out of it as he liked, but the whole contention in that case and the whole force of the argument against the government was based on the fact that they had not done the work by public tender. Now, this is cited to-night as an example of what might be accomplished by day's labour. The hon. gentleman who just took his seat says that we cannot do all public work by contract. There is no person who ever contended that we could. The argument of hon. gentlemen now supporting the government, when on this side of the House was, that when the government departed from the principle of doing work by public contract they departed from a salutary and correct principle, and that just in so far as the government departed from that principle they did wrong. To-day, they are converts to another theory, the same as they are in many other lines, since they occupied the treasury benches. The hon. Minister of Public AVorks shakes his head. I never heard him advocating the adoption of the day-labour system before he became a minister of the Grown. But now, the hon. minister says that he has built dredges at Sorel and he asks if he had not a right to do it. So far as he could employ Canadian labour, put in Canadian materials and do the work at the proper price, I have no objection in the world, but I ask him, if that be correct, why he gave a contract to Mr. Bertram, of Toronto, for the
building of a dredge, and will he tell us what that work cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: The shipyard in Sorel was not well enough equipped then for the building of a big dredge like that, because our hands were full. AVe had too much work on hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: AVill the hon. gentleman tell us that he could have done that work cheaper than he had it done by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I could not say that I could have done it cheaper, but certainly as cheap.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The other feature of the argument which he presented was that he was employing Canadian labour. AVhat did Mr. Bertram employ-American labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, Canadian labour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: AA'hat material did he put in ? Did he not employ Canadian labour and put in Canadian material just the same as the hon. minister did at Sorel ? Therefore, that argument amounts to nothing, because, although the contract was let by tender to a man in Toronto, he employed Canadian labour and put in Canadian material. I think if we were to endeavour to convince the country that the contract cost more than it should have cost, the hon. Minister of Public AVorks would be the first to defend his action and to say that it was the cheapest contract ever carried out in Canada. I am quite sure it was. He says that he never brings in American dredges. I do not like to bring to his attention an instance of where he did, but I think he brought one into Collingwood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No, I did not say that I never brought in American dredges at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he did so. However, I am not going to make an argument out of that, because I think he did right there. It was needed, he had none of his own, he got a dredge where he could and he employed it. If there ever was an attempt made to educate the people of this country up to the belief that the proper principle of doing work was by tender and contract, it was made by the hon. Minister of Public AVorks and his friends, who are going back on that principle to-day. I only want to draw attention to the inconsistency of these hon. gentlemen in this particular, as in many others. I have a few words to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith). He presented to us the most astounding principle. What does it matter, he says, if the electors are bought up when you employ them by day's labour. What does it matter if the members of this House are all elected by corruption ?
*699


Ralph Smith: I -would like the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) to complete the sentence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I took down the hon. gentleman's words. He said : What does it matter to the country if the government make votes by spending money in this way ? What are they doing if they are makipg votes but corruptly buying them ? What does it matter if this House is purchased and put here ? What does it matter to the people of the country ? We have too many [DOT]evidences of corruption during the last few years. We are getting rapidly from bad to worse, and it is a question which may be very properly asked how much of the present system of spending public money is chargeable for the corruption we have in the country to-day ? When the hon. member for Nanaimo advances that most astounding doctrine that it does not matter, I can tell him that the great moral sentiment of the country will not agree with him, that -the great moral sentiment of the country is against that principle, because this country desires to be represented in an honest parliament, not a purchased one, not a venal one, not one bought with public money by day's labour. It does matter, it is a matter of very great importance not only to this House, but to the country, and we all hope the day is far distant when any other man will be found who will stand up in the House and defend a measure for buying up the electorate by spending public money in this way.


Mr. McCREARY.: Before this discussion closes I would like to say a few words as I have had considerable to do in carrying out the principle of day labour. It was my experience in a western city, the city of Winnipeg, for five or six years, being in the city council, to know how this system has worked out. Most of our work during the years from 1880 to 1895 had been done by contract. It was found that most of the sewers were defective in construction and material; it was found that large sums were claimed for extras, and expensive law suits resulted from this contract system. The people asked themselves ; Is there a better system to be adopted, and consequently the day's labour system was started at first on a small scale. It was found that it worked well. It was then inserted in all contracts given by the city that the minimum wage paid should be 174 cents per hour. Some of the contractors tried to evade that clause, but finally they were compelled to carry it out, and so the work went on. Many of our wealthy merchants who at first objected to the' day's labour system are now the strongest advocates of that system, and the consequence is that wherever work is done now in the city of Winnipeg it is done by day's labour. We were told that the asphalting of the streets could not be done by day's labour, Mr. SPROULE.
but we said :	Surely if the contractors
can bring experts from St. Louis or Detroit, we can hire them just as well. To-day we have our own asphalt plant, we have our own experts, and all that work is done by cur own men. We were told that we could not get the stone in proper shape, but we bought our own quarry, we built our own railway to the quarry, we got our own engines and cars, and at the present time we are laying streets in the city of Winnipeg as cheaply as anywhere in the United States or in England, (considering the cost of living), and in addition to that we are laying better streets. Then again, another good result followed. It was found that after the day's labour system was adopted we had no more defective sewers. There is no complaint to-day that sewers are caving in. I say, all honour to the Minister of Public Works if in this progressive age he is trying to carry out the principle adopted in the many progressive cities of the United States and of Great Britain- the principle of doing public works by day labour rather than by contract labour. There is another feature of this question that has not been alluded to. I refer to the charge made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I do not think he represents the Conservative party in that charge, because if he does it is one of the most disgraceful reflections on the workingmen of Canada that has ever been uttered in parliament. He said that the moment you employ a man and pay him $1.75 a day you buy him up politically body and soul for ever. Well, we have 1,500 men almost constantly on the pay roll of the city of Winnipeg, and we expend nearly $1,000,000 a year, and there is not a citizen of Winnipeg who will say that those men are bought in municipal or national politics, because they get a minimum wage of 174 cents an hour. If you can corrupt workingmen by paying them $1.75 or $2 per day, how much more could you corrupt the contractor who would be at the head of these men if he got that contract. If it is buying up and corrupting men to pay them a fair living wage under the day labour system, then it would be buying them up and corrupting them wholesale under the contract system. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) cast a reflection on the workingmen of Canada that they will resent at the proper time, when he made the statement that [DOT] workingmen employed by day's labour were bought up body and soul.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for East Grey did not make that statement. The member for East Grey did not say anything of the kind.


William Forsythe McCreary: Here are your words. You said that when the opposition candidate goes to a riding where 600 men are employed on government works by day's labour

he starts out with a majority of 600 votes against him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and I repeat it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The discussion arose this afternoon on an item of $15,000 for adding a new story to the examining warehouse in the city of Montreal. It is on behalf of the builders and contractors of that city and of the labourers themselves that I appealed to the Minister of Public Works to adopt what is the right course, and to let this work out by contract after calling for tenders in a proper manner. That would give to every man in the city of Montreal who is a builder, and to every workingman of the city of Montreal a chance of taking part in that work. I have heard nothing in the discussion to change my mind on this subject. Since this government has been in power-I do not know, nor am I responsible for what occurred before- it is a well known fact in the city of Montreal where there is such keen competition among the builders and where there are such able workmen; it is a well known fact that only a certain clique of builders can get any work from the government. That is what we object to. It is a well known fact that these contractors, or those who have charge of work for the government are often obliged to employ men who are not first-class workmen. That is the abuse X i>rotest against. There is not a corporation, there is not a business man in Montreal, or in Toronto, or in any of the large centres, who, if he had a story to add to a large building, would not call for tenders publicly and give the work to a contractor. I venture to say that the large amount of money spent by this government for advertisements, when it chooses to advertise for public tenders, might very properly be kept for other purposes, because I believe that if government works were properly advertised in the ' Canadian Official Gazette' every necessary opportunity would be given to contractors to tender, and these works would be executed for half what they cost under the present system. That stands to reason. Who is best qualified to erect an additional story to the examining warehouse in Montreal ? Is it not the man who Is accustomed to that work, who under proper conditions would be obliged to put his prices as low as possible in competition with other builders, and who would be obliged to do work of the first quality; or, is it the official sent down by the government who will start out on this work employing men who are half the time political friends of the government and half the time unfit for the work which they are set to perform-? It stands to reason that when the work is given by tender under proper conditions, it will be better done, more expeditiously -done and more cheaply done. X have heard a great deal from the Minister of Public Works in reference to the works he has
executed at Sorel. I do not know that any member on this side criticised the establishment of the works at Sorel. It is very proper for this government which has so culpably neglected the navigation of the St Lawrence notwithstanding the continuous demands made by the shipping interests and underwriters of Montreal; it is very proper that one of the members of this government who has had some energy should claim some merit for having established the works at Sorel. Nobody objects to that. Nor does any one object to the payment of the employees there fair wages no more than we would object to the payment of fair wages to those who are employed in Ottawa. But the principle which we condemn is that principle which leads the Minister of Public Works to purchase all the wood required in this ship-building yard without calling for tenders, and by reason for which we have to pay exorbitant prices for the supplies. It is undeniable that the minister could get wood of better quality probably, and certainly at a lower price if he advertised for tenders for the supplies required at Sorel. What we find fault with, and what we condemn also is, the purchasing of the hardware supplies without public tender. We condemn the system of placing these orders at exorbitant prices with favourites of the government and with men who are not even hardware merchants but who purchase the hardware required on commission. That is what we object to. In England and the United States when such supplies are required a list is sent to all those engaged in the trade, and each article has a fixed price opposite which the government will pay. Is not that a progressive system V Is it not a better system than which the Minister of Public Works has adopted of giving orders to political friends, without giving others engaged in the trade a chance to tender. We have many excellent hardware establishments in Montreal and why is not the same favour extended to alT? As to dishonesty, I believe there is no question but that every opportunity is given to a dishonest minister or to a dishonest government to derive indirect profit from the expenditure of public funds under this system. The workingmen of Montreal are interested in seeing that public money is expended wisely and economically because they are contributors to the public treasury just as much as we are. The workingmen have to protect them the clause which insures that they shall be paid a fair wages, and does the hon. member from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) believe for a single instant, that when work is given out in the slovenly way in which it is given now, the workingmen will be surer to receive fair wages than if it was given out by contract to the lowest tenderer under a contract which includes the fair-wage clause. The hon. gentleman from Vancouver (Mr. Smith? and the

hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary have stated that all these public works should be done by day's labour, but if they think that now, why did they not take the same position at the recent meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) made a report to that congress and among the many things which he considered necessary for the welfare of the workingmen he made no reference to the disappearance of the contract system. I find his name as president of that congress signed at the foot of a report, which purports to mention the grievances complained of by the workingmen of Canada. There is not one single word in that report in support of the theory which the hon. gentleman is contending for to-day, that public works should be done not by contract, but by day labour. On the contrary, if the members of this committee will take the trouble to read that report, they will find that in it my hon. friend practically approves of the contract system, provided the fair-wage clause is inserted in the contract and observed.


Ralph Smith: Will the hon. member read the statement ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is at page 17, clause 8, a statement under the heading, ' current or fair wages on government contracts.' I will with pleasure read the whole clause, but I do not think I would be justified in taking up the time of the committee in doing so. The gist of the report upon that particular point is that the government system of giving out public works by contract has been satisfactory where the fair wage clause has been not only inserted but observed ; and the report goes on to say that in cases where that clause has not been observed, the matter has been brought to the attention of the government, and the claims of the labouring men have been recognized and paid by the government. The labourers under the day labour system will not be paid higher wages than the fair wage clause provides for, and if the work is done by contract and the fair wage clause is observed, the workmen lose nothing. But my hon. friend had other grievances against the government. He signed a report which stated that the alien labour law, which this side of the House strove last year to have amended, had not been properly observed. There is also a complaint against Chinese immigration in British Columbia. But there is not a single word on the question which my hon. friend this evening seemed to regard as essential. I believe, as the hon. Minister of Public Works says, that this discussion has not been useless ; and if it is a consecrated principle of this government that public works ought not to be done by public tender and contract


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No one has said that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Public Works stated this afternoon that he believed as a general rule that works were better executed by day work than by public contract. I believe there are some works which cannot be executed by contract; but the item to which I called attention this afternoon is just one of those cases in which, if he has prepared his specifications and the officers of hist department estimate it at $15,000, I will find in the city of Montreal contractors who will do the work for a much lower figure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the use of making so much noise over such a little affair ! My hon. friend has tried to prove that I should do by contract certain works in Montreal. What is the size of these works ? Building alterations and additions costing $8,000. On hearing him, the House would have concluded that it would have been more like a work costing a quarter of a million.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the principle.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Now, the chief architect of the Department of Public Works is one of the most practical men that any minister could have at his disposal. Mr. Ewart started life as a mason; he has worked in the ordinary way that workingmen do ; he has learned his trade, and he has climbed the hill by his labour, his ability and his honesty. Now, he has prepared all the specifications of these works, and that small work cannot be carried out for less than $6,000. It is composed largely of alterations inside the building- taking down walls and improving the lighting of the examining warehouse which is now too dark. That work cannot be done by' contract, because no man who has any knowledge of building and repairing work could say exactly what it should cost. Then, there is $4,000 for furniture and fittings. These cannot be bought by contract. Surely the Department of Public Works can buy furniture and fittings to that extent. My hon. friend says that he does not object to the Department of Public Works having workshops at Sorel; but he insists that all purchases should be made in an honest way. I share his view ; but I say that there are a sufficient number of traders and merchants in any party to afford competition. But I would say more than that. On many occasions at Sorel we have bought goods from firms who are not friends of this government. Of course, when my officers are able, all things being equal, to buy from friends of the government, they do so. That is not only their right but their duty. But when we cannot buy all things with equal advantage from friends, we go elsewhere. For instance, Fotheringham & Workman are not the friends of the government, but they are a reliable firm, and we have purchased goods from them. But I say that

*where I am able to buy from political friends 1 do so, after having asked for tenders-not public tenders, but tenders such as all first-class firms ask for. Now, I am surprised that my hon friend, who lives in Montreal, does not remember what takes place there. I am not the only man who carries out large works by day's labour. The shipyards of Sorel are after all nothing compared with the large works which the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway have in Montreal, and. which they are carrying on by day's labour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. minister think that they purchase wood or any other material without calling for tenders ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will come to that point. But my hon. friend cannot deny that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are building locomotives and cars in Montreal by day's labour. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway do not advertise publicly for their goods. I challenge my hon. friend to produce one instance in which the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway advertise for their supplies. They have a purchasing agent just as I have, who goes from firm to firm and asks for prices. I am doing what all the large firms do and what any sound business man would do.


Andrew B. Ingram: Judging by some of the speeches made on the opposite side, we are charged with being opposed to a system of day labour. I want to remind the Minister of Public Works that some years ago the very position he now takes was taken by the Conservative government, and on that occasion he opposed the policy which he now advocates. I remember distinctly then making the statement, which I repeat now as a member of this opposition, that I was not opposed to day labour on certain works, because, in my judgment, you cannot on such works call for tenders and let them by contract. But on all new works, I take the ground to-night as I did then, that it is in the interests of the people to call for tenders and give the work out by contract. And in that contract there should be a stipulation compelling the contractor to pay the rates of wages ruling in the districts where the work is done. That was the stand I took then and which I take now.
Some hon. gentlemen have argued that the contract system is a very bad one, and that the day labour system has everything in its favour. But the minister himself says that the contract system has some advantage to the ministers and that the day labour system has none. From that statement I presume there must be some profit derived from the contractor who gets the contract, and I have yet to meet the contractor in this country who is willing to put his hand into his pocket and pay out his money for nothing. Unless there should be a minister whom he can approach in that way, in order 23
to secure a very profitable contract, there would be no profit to the minister in giving a contract to any contractor who did not pay something in order to secure it.
With regard to the day labour system, let me cite an instance to show how it sometimes worked. Some years ago a fire occurred in the western block and there was an election in Pontiac county. Well, on the building injured by the fire there were workingmen as thick as flies in summer on a sugar mound, and the main object in putting them on that work was to secure their votes at that election. And I remember making in this House the statement with respect to that very block, that a certain supporter of the government had been passing with me and observed the workmen lifting a stone and taking nearly an hour to lift it, and that he remarked that he did not at all approve of that style of doing work. The Minister of Public Works challenged my statement. I said if he wanted one of his followers behind him to be a witness against him I was quite willing to state who the gentleman was. But the Minister of Public Works did not insist. It was a very strong supporter of the government who had found fault on that occasion with the way the work was being done.
Let me give another instance. Every hon. gentleman in this House has seen that little summer house in the square outside. Well, no less than eight painters were employed on that little building, and no less than $600 spent repairing it, which practical men in the House said ought not to cost $100.
With respect to the platform of the Trade and Labour Council, I am one of those who are not particular about the good opinion of that council. Let me tell you why. There are men in that Trade and Labour Congress in whom I have not much confidence as there are others in whom I have considerable faith. I am somewhat of the opinion of a delegate, who was sent as a representative from Toronto last year, and who in Toronto declared on his election card as his chief plank that he was opposed to government ownership of that congress. The manner in which that congress is usually conducted is not unknown to the public. It is well known that the congress is manipulated by government employees, who are there to protect the interests of the government in order to get the support of the workingmen of Canada. And these gentlemen entertain so high a regard for me that when an election is on in my constituency, they take the stump against me. Yet notwithstanding their efforts I have managed to retain so far the confidence of those I represent.
I do not think that my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), who profess to be the leaders among the labouring men, entirely express the views of the workingmen when they say they are completely in



favour of the day labour system on all public contracts. Notwithstanding the plank in the platform of the Trades and Labour Congress, I maintain that there is a large number of workingmen who contribute their share of the taxes, and in whose interest it is that the public expenditure of the country shall be as little as possible. They are men who never expect to get employment on public works, and it is as much in their interest that these contracts should be let to the lowest tenderer, subject to a fair provision regarding wages, as it is in the interests of any other class of the community.
But how does that day labour system work ? In my constituency there is a public work being erected, but on that work not one Conservative workingman can find employment. I refer to the work at Port Stanley. That is not what the workingmen of this country want to be done. They do not want any distinction drawn between men of different politics. They do not want to see the employment exclusively given to Liberals and refused to Conservatives. For that reason, if for no other, I would oppose the day labour system entirely. I am in favour of doing by day labour work which cannot be given out to contract, but in the ease of all new work I believe in the contract system.
My hon. friend speaks of the public works at Sorel, but there is a great distinction between those works and a public building, say in the county of Bothwell. Suppose there was a post office being erected at Wallaceburg, will any man pretend that you can put that on the same basis as the works at Sorel ? In the one case I should approve of doing the work by contract, in the other case, I should approve of doing it by day's labour. That is my position.


Ralph Smith: I do not want to take up the time of the House-I am not in the habit of doing so. But after what has been said, I think it is necessary for me to make some little explanation. This is not the first time that the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has attempted to depreciate officials of the Trades and Labour Congress who are not in a position to reply to him.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have made no attack on them.


Ralph Smith: Last session, when similar matters to this were under discussion, the hon. member made special reference to men who were employed by this government as being representatives to that congress, and there is not an Ontario man in this House who did not know whom the hon. gentleman meant. Why should not an employee of this government be a representative to the Trades Congress ? Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) support the idea that, because a man labours for the government he ought not to belong to a labour association ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Vancouver) wish me to answer ? I can tell him that if he would not support the government's interest he would not be the government's representative.


Ralph Smith: I have said before, and I say again, that it is something to say for this government and for the independent men who work for it that those men are at perfect liberty to be members of that congress and to take part in the discussions which are intended to result in good to the workingmen of this country. Now, I desire to say a word, in explanation, to the hon. gentleman for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). That hon. gentleman preached me a little sermon about the moral standards of this government. I would support that hon. gentleman or any other man in keeping up those standards. But I confess that I do not think much of the moral standards of an hon. member who will criticise the statement of a fellow member and will give the House the impression that he sets forth that statement when, as a matter of fact, he reads only one-half the sentence in which it is set forth. When the hon. gentleman read half the sentence and passed judgment on the proposition, he did as unfair a thing as any hon. gentleman could do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I took down the sentence at the time and read every word of it.


Ralph Smith: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I had to rise and request him to read the sentence, and it was not until I did so that he read it. I will read the sentence myself, as I want it to be put down. What I said was this : ' What does it matter if the government do get votes, if they get them as a consequence of money well spent and of good service to the country ? ' Why, does not the hon. gentleman know that this is the principle that makes all votes ? The people of this country are voting all the time for a government that will give them good service and do good work. That was exactly what I meant. I repeat that the hon. Minister of Public Works has proven that the day's wages system renders to the people of this country good service, and, as a result, the people are sure to support the government. What objection would any one have to that ? I hope the hon. minister will maintain his principle, that he will take advantage of every opportunity to use it where it can be used with economy and with good service to the country. And I repeat again that the organized labourers of this country will support the government that supports that principle.
Public Works-chargeable to income-public buildings-Quebec-Montr ;al public buildings- improvements, alterations, repairs, &c., $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What repairs are these '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The general repairs to these other buildings, not the examining warehouse.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the state of affairs in Montreal as regards public buildings. The hon. minister will remember that during the last parliament I showed the large amount that we spent every year for repairs to the public buildings in Montreal, and also the large amount in rentals for offices of Dominion government officials. This is not only expensive, but it means that the officials are separated, instead of all being in the same building. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) when he comes to Montreal, and the other members of the government when in Montreal, are obliged to use a room in the post office building. I believe that all this could be cured and money saved if the government would listen to the complaint that is made in Montreal as to the insufficient size of the post office. I really think that, as Montreal contributes such a large amount to public revenue, the government should seriously consider whether it would not be rendering justice to the people by listening to these complaints. If the government would build a new post office or enlarge the present one, I believe it could provide better accommodation for its officials, and at the same time save money and give satisfaction all round.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am obliged to confess that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is about right. The Montreal post office is too small. My hon. friend and colleague the Postmaster General has under consideration a system of sub-post offices which he hopes to bring into effect in Toronto and Montreal. In Toronto, the post office is even worse than that of Montreal. That is not my fault-I have not been in office very long. One trouble about carrying out the project of the Postmaster General is that land in Montreal is so dear. I tried a few days ago to get an option on certain property. I acted with all the secrecy possible, and I find that the prices asked are very high. I think the system the hon. gentleman suggests would not be a success.
Quebec Immigrant building on Louise Embankment and Breakwater, and King's Wharf Building, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The foundations of the building are giving away, and we have to renew them.
Quebec Military buildings-new iron foundry, inclusive of electric light plant and sundry machinery ordered, $7,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this matter I suppose I am doing right, because we are asking for tenders for this work and the one last mentioned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you need a foundry there ?
23i


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for the cartridge factory. In this case I am building on plans approved and prepared by the Department of Militia and Defence. Military matters are calling for a good deal of attention of late years, and the Department of Militia and Defence require these works to be done. The money was voted last year, but we did not spend any.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this the only establishment for the manufacture of military material in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think so.
St. Hyacinthe drill hall $5,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has a site been chosen for this drill hall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, nothing has been done so far.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A part of this sum was voted last year, has nothing been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we expect to spend up to the 1st of July $5,000. _


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is aware that the question of this site is causing a good deal of discussion in St. Hyacinthe. I am not acquainted with the details, but my hon. friend probably is. Is the city going to contribute a site for the drill hall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend know where it is proposed to build ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not yet made up our minds.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think before voting such a large amount-and we will probably have to vote considerably more before the drill hall is finished-we are entitled to know where it is going to be. My hon. friend must be aware that there is a considerable difference of opinion in St. Hyacinthe as to where the drill hall should be located. If he is not able to give us some information to-night, and as he expects to find out in a day or two, I would ask him to let the item stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would ask the hon. gentleman not to insist upon that, because such an objection is never taken. We will take the money, and parliament has enough confidence in us, generally speaking, to let us choose the site after getting the money. I cannot accept that principle at all, because sometimes it takes considerable time to make choice of a site. I will consult with the military authorities, and I may have to go there myself. On several occasions I have gone and examined sites before making a choice.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not prepared to accede to the principle that we should be asked to vote an amount for a drill hall in a case where the site is in dispute, without knowing where that drill hall is going to be placed.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: How can you select a site without getting the money ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That can be very easily done. My hon. friend says that the Minister of Inland Revenue knows something about it, as I know he does. Perhaps the Minister of Inland Revenue will explain to us the position of affairs as regards these two conflicting opinions in St. Hyacinthe.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue will certainly give me the benefit of his local knowledge of the facts, and it will be my duty and my pleasure to ask his advice. Before making up my mind, the matter will be thoroughly looked into. But my hon. friend must not forget that in questions of this kind I am not the master, I cannot buy a site without going before council, who will discuss the whole matter. I could not undertake to say that I will make choice of a certain site, that I would recommend this site or that site, because my colleagues might not agree with me. Master of the administration as I am, it may happen that my colleagues do not agree with me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The usual course is to state what the building is going to cost. I think the minister is departing from a custom which prevailed during the time of his predecessors, of asking the town where an important building was to be put up, to furnish the site, or at least to pay a good share of the expense. That has been done in several towns in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What towns ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me it was done in London, I think it was done in Gananoque, and I think an offer was made by Brockville. But I know the previous Minister of Public Works made it a practice, when he intended to put up a public building in any city or town, to say to them : What are you going to do ? It will benefit your place, will you provide a site free, or pay a portion of the cost ? I think that might well be done. I think the minister is bound to give us the information in his estimates of what this building is going to cost, so that we may know to what we are committing ourselves.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to the site, I cannot possibly say where it will be. I quite grant that I may be asked to say how much we will spend. I think that we will not spend more than $20,000 or $25,000 on that drill hall. We have not many drill halls. St. Hyacinthe is an important district. There is a good mili-


Joseph Israël Tarte: tary spirit now and I think it is only fair to give them a chance in developing it. That is the reason why a drill hall will be very well located there. I intend having plans prepared for a building costing about $20,000 or $25,000, a good deal less than some of the Ontario armouries cost. Perhaps we are spending a good deal there, but I do not think we should be reproached for that expenditure at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, I understand the hon. minister has not obtained his information from his architect, but that this is the amount that is in his mind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we will spend that much and no more than $25,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is based on the hon. gentleman's own judgment ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we are entitled to some information from the hon. Minister of Public Works, or the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) on this question. Here is a question that has agitated the public mind in St. Hyacinthe for over two years. They are entitled to a drill hall and they know they would have had it some time ago had there not been a bitter discussion as to the site, and we are asked to-night to begin a work that will not cost less than $60,000 while leaving parliament and the people of St. Hyacinthe in the dark as to where that drill hall is to be located. If the hon. Minister of Public Works will allow me, I will read from the Liberal organ a short reference to that question, ' L'Union ' of St. Hyacinthe of the 11th April, 1901. It says this :
(Translation.) The ' Courier de St. Hyacinthe ' in its issue of the 8th instant published a short article which we reproduce here, for the information of our readers, who are anxious to be acquainted with all matters of interest to our city :
' From what has lately transpired, we have very good reason to believe that a sum of $60,000 is to be placed in the estimates for the erection of a drill hall on which work will be started this year in ward No. 5, and this with all due deference to Mr. Morison and other gentlemen who are opposed to it. It is further rumored that the sum. of $20,000 will, within a few days, be voted, to begin the work. The Dominion military authorities understand better the pressing needs of this city than some self-seeking gentlemen do, who rather than seeing the only ward of the city that is likely to make any substantial progress benefited by this improvement, would wantonly deprive the city of this boon.
Mr. TALBOT-(Translation). Shame !


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) saying ?
Mr. TALBOT-I said shame.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
(Translation). We congratulate our contemporary upon this authentic piece of news

which was, no doubt, drawn from the copious fountain of official news for the district of St. Hyaeinthe ; and we, particularly congratulate him upon his promotion to the important position of official organ of the Dominion government. We have on former occasions pointed out the tendencies of this conservative organ.
With the ' Courrier ' we rejoice in the fact that the government have at last made up their minds to spend public money in St. Hyaeinthe.
As we could never bring ourselves to believe that there were to be found in this city self-seeking men who had an interest in seeing the city deprived of the important improvement which the ' Courrier ' promises us on behalf of the Dominion government, we can-rot endorse the following portion of the short paragraph published by our contemporary : ' We know that the only thing which did come under discussion was the purchase of a site by the city ; the intention being to give the municipal council the right of having their say in the choice of a site, the more so as the ratepayers of the city were being called upon to defray the cost of it. And to our mind, it was but fair and just that they should have done so.'
It seems to me that the subject of erecting a drill hall at St. Hyaeinthe, which is entitled to that improvement, and there is no objection to it whatever, is one on which we should have clear and definite information. We are ready to vote the amount required and there will be no making mistakes. It is a large amount that will be required to complete the building. We are entitled to know on behalf of that important section of the population who require a drill hall where it is going to be built before we vote this amount.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has just read an article from a Conservative paper. I do not intend to be guided by the advice it contains.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Which paper ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: ' Le Courrier


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have read from ' L'Union


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: ' L'Union ' has simply reproduced an article published in ' Le Courrier


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And confirmed it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well ; ' L'Union which is not very well pleased with some of us now, has thought fit to reproduce, an article from a Conservative paper. I do not intend to he guided by newspaper articles in the choice of a site for a military armoury. I intend to be guided by the ordinary rules of business. I hope my hon. friend does not object to whichever site it may be built on. Has he a choice to offer me ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are not the government brave enough to come and tell us in parliament where they are going to build it ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Bravery has not much to do with this case ;
bravery is not in it at all. It is not a question of bravery ; it is a question of business. I will choose that site on the ordinary rules of business. I may have to go down there after the session is over. In the meantime I will ask parliament to have enough confidence in us to place this vote at our disposal. It is the first time since I have been in office that I remember of the opposition declining to vote money because a site was not chosen. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier belongs to the province of Quebec ; he should not ask us to deviate from the ordinary rules. The choice of a site is never made beforehand. I must get the money before choosing the site. I ask my hon. friend to think twice before placing any obstacle in the way of this vote. Suppose I were to go to council and to tell them that I had decided on a site. If council did not agree with me, I would be obliged to go elsewhere. Therefore, I am not in a position to state where the site will be.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I can understand the position of the hon. minister, but the government is not ruled altogether by the hon. Minister of Public Works, though I am prepared to admit that his views have very large importance. But, we have the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue who is from St. Hyaeinthe, and who knows that this controversy has been going on for the past two or three years. I think we are entitled to know from him what his views are upon the site of the drill hall at St. Hyaeinthe. It seems only fair. Why should he remain utterly silent ?


William Rees Brock: May I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works why he treats this matter, which is a Quebec matter, differently from the way in which he treats a Toronto matter when it comes up. When a vote is asked for dredging in Toronto harbour, the Minister of Public Works, and I think very justly, wants to know what Toronto is going to do. Toronto must have its money to do its share before he will do anything. When a drill hall had to be built the people of Toronto were obliged to plank down $100,000, or, at all events, to provide a site, and this matter was arranged before the Minister of Public Works condescended to put in an appropriation for the building of that drill hall. I will ask him why he makes this difference between the two provinces ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not making any difference. It is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier who is himself making that difference. If my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) will be good enough to refer to the next page he will find several items for public buildings in Ontario, Clinton, Cobourg, Deseronto, Fort William, London, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia and Toronto Junction. In all of these cases the money is voted before the site is chosen. It is just as in this case. It is always done as I am doing it now. If my hon. friend who is a

sound business man will kindly remember what I am saying, my position is this. My recommendation does not always carry. Suppose 1 recommend one site in St. Hya-cinthe and my colleagues say no, I would be obliged to go elsewhere. It is always done just as I am now doing it.


Mr. LANCASTER.: While the hon. Minister of Public Works is speaking of proposed improvements in the province of Ontario perhaps he will not find fault with me if I mention the St. Catharines drill hall. In 1900 a contract was made and an amount placed in the estimates, which, however, was dropped on account of some such dispute as seemed to have occurred in St. Hyacinthe as to the location of the building. In that case St. Catharines bought the site and St. Catharines is paying for it. They are waiting for an appropriation in the estimates in order to take the deed. The city of St. Catharines is ready to hand over a cheque for $5,500 for the drill hall site, in order that the work may be carried out as contemplated by the item in the estimates for the year 1900. St. Catharines is in a border county, and is about the same size as St. Hyacinthe, and I am not unduly pressing the minister when I ask, why St. Catharines has not been treated as St. Hyacinthe has been. I think the drill hall site met with the approval of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) when he visited St. Catharines this last fall. He came there I believe on behalf of the Minister of Militia and Defence to inspect the site. Can the Minister of Public Works tell me if there will be a vote for the St. Catharines drill hall in the supplementary estimates 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to the supplementary estimates I am in the hands of my colleagues. It is a question of money and in questions of money the Minister of Public Works has a good deal of trouble at times. I cannot say anything as to the supplementary estimates. They have not been discussed with my colleagues, not one word.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was pointed out to the Minister of Public Works was that St. Catharines, Toronto, and Gananoque, have provided the sites whereas St. Hyacinthe has not done so. Why is one place treated differently from the other ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the list of public buildings in Ontario he will find that not one town of twenty furnished the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have already cited three instances where towns supplied the site, and I am quite sure that I could find more if I went through the list. However, the principle is the same In one case the town is willing to provide the site and in the other case you do not even ask the town to do so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, it depends. Generally when the town gives the site the goveimment is asked to give more money and it does not save us anything. I know all about it. When the town is very anxious to get a public building the people come and say :	Now, Mr. Minister, if you are good enough, we will give you a chance to put up a fine public building and we will supply the site. You may rest assured that I am speaking gospel truth now. When they want an expensive building they make a pretense that they will give the site, and then it is rot always the best site in the town. We save nothing by it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In reply to my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) I may say that I did not visit St. Catharines officially. I am one of the hon. gentleman's electors, and while in the city one day some members of the council asked me to look at the various sites. I quite agree with those who opposed the old site as chosen by the council and which was also declined by the minister. After looking at several sites which the council had in view, I certainly personally-if I can speak personally-approved very much of one or two of the sites shown me. I think they would make splendid sites for that building. I may say, as one of the hon. member's electors and knowing the importance of the city, that I would be very pleased indeed if the Minister of Public Works could see his way clear to give us a new drill hall. It is something that is needed in that city and district. I believe that the site which has been chosen by the council will be very suitable indeed, and that when a good building is placed upon it, it will be very creditable to the city.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: An armoury was built at Dundas, and just before the last election we were led to believe that a drill hall would be erected. I believe a start was made then, but after the election the matter dropped and nothing has been heard since. I would like to know if there will be a vote for that in the supplementary estimates 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a general vote of $37,000 out pof which the amount necessary to complete the Dundas armoury will be taken.
Tbettord Mines-public building, $4,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the site been purchased?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Unfortunately I have been unable to secure a site. As in Marysville, the whole of the property is in the hands of the lumbermen and they have declined to sell me a site. They want me to take a lease for ninety years or something like that, but unless I can buy a site I shall not erect a building.


Mr. MORIN.: Will that building be occupied only for a post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend there as elsewhere, to have a room set apart for an armoury. That is not a bad idea I think. There is a customs officer there and the building will be used [ by him.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What will the building cost to complete V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend erecting a cheap building to cost not more than $5,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What is the population of Thetford Mines ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Four thousand I think. I have the figures here.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: You may have the figures, but not the people on the place. The minister is a little extravagant in putting such a building in Thetford Mines.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The population is 5,000, if the census is not wrong.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: You may find them there ten years from now if the place keeps growing. At present you will find them scarce.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1891 the population was 3,314. Surely the French Canadian boys have progressed to 5,000 now.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The population was more in 1891 than it was in 1892-3-4-5-6. The price of the mineral has been decreasing, and the people went away, but since 1898 they came back again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is all right, then.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It is all right, but they are not there.
Valleyfield public building, $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has a site been chosen in this case ?


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


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it the intention of the government to purchase for this building a property belonging to Mr. Loy, the late member of this House ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely the hon. member will not ask me to choose the site to-night. I may once more have to go to Valleyfield in a few days. But. joking aside, no choice of a site has been made as yet. Valleyfield is a thriving town, having to-day a population of 12,000. It is one of the most progressive towns in the province of Quebec, owing to the large industry which is so successfully carried on there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government received any offers of sites ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have not received any definite offer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Any offer at all ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Several suggestions have been made to me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the property I refer to been suggested to the minister ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know that Mr. Loy owns any property there. One site has been suggested across the river near the mills, and a couple of sites have been suggested to me on this side of the canal. I have not yet made any choice whatever. My mind is altogether free and unbiased.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the site I refer to been offered or suggested to the minister ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has not been offered to me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the minister able to say whether it has been suggested to him ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will not swear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will this building cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between $20,000 and $25,000. Valleyfield in a short time will be a city, and we must give it a proper building-not large, but decent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest to the minister that he follow the salutary custom of his predecessor, and induce some of these towns to contribute part of the cost or at least to furnish a site. I think a large town like Valleyfield should do so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hou. friend should not say it has been the custom or the policy of my predecessor. It may have been done on some occasions, but that has been the exception.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not speaking of the present government; but I do know that the hon. gentleman's predecessor, Sir Hector Langevin, as a rule-there may have been some exceptions-when an application was made from any town or village for a public building, almost invariably asked, ' what are you prepared to do ? furnish a site or contribute part of the cost,' and he generally got them to do something.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a statement in the department showing the number of public buildings in the country, and I make bold to say that when my hon. friend looks over that statement he will find that in not more than one case out of twenty have the towns contributed a dollar towards the cost of public buildings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman bring down that information ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With pleasure.
-Mr. CLARKE. Is there no public building in Valleyfield, with a population of 10,000 or 12,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not one.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There seems to be more necessity for a public building in Valleyfield than in some of the other places which we hare been discussing.
Public buildings, Ontario-Clinton public building, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A post office and custom-house. The population is 3,000, and Clinton is a thriving town.


William Humphrey Bennett: According to the census, the population is 2,547, against a population of 2,035 in 1891. It seems to be one of the Ontario towns that are going backward. What is the building going to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have bought the site there from a good opponent of ours, Mr. A. W. Wilkie. We will spend more than $8,000 on the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This vote is additional to what was voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I think it will be in the recollection of the Minister of Public Works that he told the committee a year ago that this building was to be erected on a new plan. It was to be not only a post office, but a residence for the postmaster, and the plan of erecting cheap public buildings was to be started at Clinton. He certainly did not give the committee to understand that he was going to ask an additional $5,000 to what was voted last year, when it was believed that a site could be purchased for $1,000 and a building of sufficient importance, a substantial brick building, could be erected at a cost of about $5,000. I do not desire to quarrel with the minister about the style or cost of this particular building. But as the minister had decided that this building should be erected on a new plan, so as to be a model of what we could do in the way of cheap buildings, we certainly looked forward to seeing how this plan would work. We were all interested in the success of this experiment, as many counties in Ontario and the other provinces hoped to secure public buildings at the maximum cost of $5,000 or $6,000. But I am afraid the minister has forgotten his good intentions.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am obliged to my hon. friend for he has just reminded me of what I forgot to mention. In this, as in the case of all public buildings we are erecting now, we intend having the postmaster reside in the building, which will be a great saving indeed. As to the exact cost of the building, it is difficult to say in advance. Last year I said it would not cost more than $5,000 or $6,000, but it may cost a couple of thousand more. The site cost more than we contemplated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the postmaster to take charge instead of having a caretaker ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman make any saving in the salary of the postmaster by having him reside in the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We make a great saving by not having a caretaker. A caretaker costs generally $300 or $400 a year. When the postmaster acts as caretaker, we generally give him a small remuneration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you propose to make him allowances for wood and light ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What process has a town to go through in order to secure a post office ? I find that we have voted $8,000 for a post office at Marysville. Also large sums for other towns, many of which have small populations as compared to Dun-das, which has never had a post office yet. The postal revenue of Dundas amounts to $4,345, while that of Marysville is only $1,398. At Dundas the money orders issued amount to $11,064 and at Marysville they are only $748. In Dundas the post office orders paid amount to $9,395 and in Marysville they are only $555. Yet Marysville Is getting a post office and Dundas is not. It seems to me the objections urged from this side tonight are very pertinent. Something more ought to be required of a town to entitle it to a public building than that it should send a representative to support the government. There ought to be some policy, based on population or revenue, which should be followed out, and not compel a locality to send a representative down to support thb government if it expects to be given a public building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not so exacting as that. My hon. friend, who shows a good deal of ability in debate, will have to find stronger reasons to convince the House that it is necessary to have a public building in Dundas. But is there not a public building there already?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Dundas has no post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has an armoury, on which we have spent a good deal of public money in the past. There ought to he some fairness even in public life. My hon. friend has already a public building, which has cost the country a large amount of money, and he now wants another.


Edward Frederick Clarke: AVhy not erect a post office attached to the drill hall, and have the two in the one building ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The armoury was just started a few weeks before the election. A few bricks have been laid and nothing else done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will no doubt be completed yet.
Cobourg towards construction of armoury,

Mr. SPllOULE. What about that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am trying to find a site, but so far have not been able. Not having the site, I have not spent any money, which must be pleasant to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the system of voting money every year without using it, is entirely wrong. Unless it is clearly shown to the minister that it is absolutely necessary a public building should be erected in the near future, the vote should not be taken. You keep that vote standing from year to year and do nothing with it. If by the accidents of life, that constituency should become vacant, you can use this vote to carry the elections and it thus has a corrupting influence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is impossible for any minister to spend all the money in the estimates. To do so would require an immense staff to prepare plans and no minister would undertake'the work. Moreover we must not forget that we are only in the month of March, and the money was only voted last year. I have not had time to spend all the money which was put at my disposal.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is this for the erection of a new building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know. If I can get an old building which would suit our purpose, I would not build a new one.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The minister ought to know whether he is going to put up a new building or purchase an old one. Has he entered into any negotiations with reference to the purchase of an old building in the town of Cobourg ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not negotiated with anybody but suggestions have been made and an old building has been talked of. I have not negotiated either for the price or the purchase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was it offered for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not say. I have not paid much attention to that work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the site has not yet been selected ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, not yet. I want to say here that I think the Minister of Public Works ought to be prepared with more definite information before he asks us to vote money. He evidently has come to no conclusion beyond the fact that he wants a building. Whether he will purchase an old one or build a new one, and, if the latter, what the site is to be, he does not know. If the hon. gentleman were in opposition he would be loud in his demands for more specific information before the money was voted. It has been usual to give this information, and to fail to give it now is to depart from a very salutary principle.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman has put the case as fairly a# he generally does. Suppose a gentleman living in Ottawa were to make up his mind to remove to Toronto. He might decide to own a house there, and, for that purpose, to spend, let us say, $15,000. If he could find a suitable house at a fair price, he would buy, but if not be would purchase a site and put up a building of his own. The Minister of Public Works is in the same position. An armoury is wanted by the military authorities. If I can buy a property already in existence, suitable and in good condition and the price fair, why should I not buy it ? If I cannot find a suitable building at a fair price, I will have to find a site and erect a building. It is not fair to ask a minister in advance what he will do in a case of this kind, because he does not know. I have not been there and do not know much about the matter. When there is any difficulty I generally go to the place, try to understand the case and settle it.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I must confess that the minister is adopting a very strange course. I have been in this House a good many years, and have seen the Minister of Public Works in years gone by come here with plans and specifications and estimates, when he wished to get money for a new building. That system is being departed from and we are asked to vote large sums of money on the mere statement of the minister that he will decide afterwards what he will do with it. Why should not all these questions be settled before he asks us to vote these large sums of money ? It looks to me as

if there was a job in connection with it. I think we could turn to the files of the newspapers and show that the fact that there is a contemplated job is recognized by the editors of the papers in Coburg.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why should the hon. gentleman say, ' No ' so emphatically, when he tells us that he does not know what he is going to do ? I am afraid that some building will be unloaded on the country by political friends of the hon. gentleman. Why should the volunteers be put off with an old building ? It is impossible that an old building can be as suitable for the purpose as a new one. No matter what friends the hon. gentleman may have who happen to have an old building on their hands, that does not alter the fact that the volunteers there are entitled to a new building that will give them proper accommodation. I think the hon. minister should furnish us with more definite information before he asks us to vote $10,000, with the probability that lie will go up there and have an old building pawned off on him in exchange for the country's money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I venture to tell the hon. gentleman that it has never been the custom of the department to bring plans' here when asking for votes of money. So, my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) is wrong in saying that this was the custom in the past. That point settled, let me say to the hon. gentleman also that I would not be a part to a job. I do not think the House can reproach me with knowingly having been a party to any dishonesty since I took office. I have tried to keep my hands clean, and I shall continue to do so in the future. I am sure that my hon. friend does not wish to import into the House party differences and difficulties and troubles ? I have received clippings of newspapers warning me of a job in this matter. There will be no job. There may be an old building there that is thought too little for this purpose. I have not seen it. If it is no good I will not purchase it. There are two parties in this business, the Department of Militia and Defence-and I would not think of buying a building for their use without their consent-and my own department, each department with its own architect and its own minister. There is no fear that there will be a job.


Mr. WARD.: Will the hon. minister say whether it is intended to provide an armoury alone or an armoury and drill hall combined V


Matthew Henry Cochrane: On Monday evening the estimates were brought down, and amongst the items we notice the sum of $10,000 for an armoury in Cobourg. This of course is a revote, as no expenditure has so far been made. This will of course bring up the


Matthew Henry Cochrane: question of a site, and also make the Tammany politicians more active in working off the old Sutherland building on the government at an exorbitant price. All sensible persons will agree that the south-east corner of the market property is the best place for the new building, which will require to be well equipped and up-to-date. This site-
Now, here is a very important point

This site has we believe been offered by the town, is acceptable to the government, and will no doubt be the site, unless the speculating, grabbing politicians, who have been trying to work the Sutherland building deal, interfere, and fill their pockets with the public money, which was wisely intended for the benefit of the militia of this country in giving them a home and store-room for their arms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that site offered by the town free ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I understand so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I read a day or two ago the extract the hon. gentleman has quoted. It was sent to me. I am very thankful to those who take so much interest in me. The extract is from a Conservative paper. I understand that there are people there who would like to see an expenditure of $30,000 or $40,000 for the armoury and drill hall combined. Before asking parliament for such a large amount of money I shall pause. I am asking for the modest sum of $10,000 for an armoury, which the military authorities here in Ottawa would have to approve.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The people are not so much interested in the hon. Minister of Public Works, perhaps, as in the proper expenditure of the public money for the purpose for which it is voted. I fail to see that he must bring himself so prominently before the public on every occasion, and complain that we are critising him. He is a servant of the people, and is there to spend their money for the people's interest. As far as I am concerned, I care but little where the money is spent, whether in a town in Quebec or in any other portion of this Dominion, if it is properly spent. I object to the people's money being spent for an old building belonging to any political heeler of this	or any other	government.Mr.	SPROULE.	The	minister	is asking
for $10,000, but he does not tell us what this building is going to cost including the site.
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
I shall not spend more than $15,000 for an armoury in Cobourg.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course he has no knowledge yet whether that will be used to purchase an old building or to build a new one.
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
I will decide the case on its merits after I have carefully investigated it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I think before we vote this money the government should investigate the question on its merits, and give us the information, otherwise we are not justified in voting public money on his statement. I say again that no opposition is justified in allowing a vote of public money to pass unless we have some specific information of what the cost is going to be. Supposing we vote that money to-day, and the site should cost $10,000. The minister can give us no information now as to what it is going to cost. If my understanding is correct, the statement I saw in that paper was to the effect that the site is offered free,* but he is not prepared to accept it. But he wants so much money put at his disposal, and then he will use his own judgment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asking the House to vote this money on the ordinary rule we have always followed. My hon. friends are trying to make political capital out of this, they are reading to the House articles from Conservative newspapers. It is their right, I do not complain. But it is our right and duty to stand by the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure. The money has always been voted on the same principle to my predecessors in the Department of Public Works. I shall not tie my hands. Indeed my colleagues would not allow me to make any definite statement here, because it rests with them as much as with me. Before buying a site, before accepting even a tender, I have to report to my colleagues, and an Order in Council has to be passed. I am binding myself to a definite statement when I say that I shall not spend more than $15,000. I say again that I am asking parliament to vote this money on the ordinary principle of getting the money first and then deciding on the site, on my responsibility to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says some Conservative papers are complaining about it. Does he pretend to say that overtures were not made to him with regard to it ? He admitted a few minutes ago that suggestions were made. If a site is offered free, will he not tell us whether he will or not accept it, provided it is a good site and suitable for the purpose?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is an old Latin axiom which says : Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. I fear there is some foreign influence at work in this case. I am suspicious of presents offered to me from the other side of the House. I want to look at them carefully.


John B. McColl: The government have at the present time in the town of Oobourg a site on which was erected a drill hall many years ago, and which was burnt down some twenty years ago or more. The militia authorities say that it is not a suitable site now upon which to erect a new armoury from the fact, that the ground is low and
cannot be drained, and that consequently the dampness would injure the arms that would be stored there. Two years ago when this question first came up some persons in the town assumed that the town would have to give a site. The town now owns a piece of property near the market square. They said if that were a suitable site they would be willing to give it. But it is open to the same objection as the site the government now owns, because the militia authorities say that the new guns they expect to get would be injured if stored on that site. The government will have this present site to sell for what it is worth, and can apply the money on the purchase of a new one. This site the government now owns was given to them by the town of Cobourg many years ago, and at the same time the town gave a grant of money to erect a drill hall, the one that was burnt down. But the government that had charge of it did not keep it insured, and when it burnt down it was a total loss. The town has lost the use of au armoury and drill shed during all these years, besides the money they contributed towards it twenty-five or thirty years ago. They have been agitating several years for this armoury, which is admitted on all hands to be an absolute necessity. I remember that during the session of 189(3, before the Conservative government went out of power, a deputation from the town of Cobojirg came down and interviewed the then Minister of Militia about this armoury. I think the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) was present at the time; and I myself was a member of the deputation. We then received a promise form the Minister of Militia that an appropriation for an armoury would be given, and it was reported by my opponent in the election that in the supplementary estimates of that session an appropriation was made for the purchase of a site. Whether that was true or not, I am unable to say, because, as hon. gentlemen will remember, the supplementary estimates that were prepared by the government at that time were never presented to parliament, owing to the fact that the House dissolved before they had aii opportunity of bringing them down. So I say that the preceding government was committed to the purchase of a site for this armoury and admitted that the old site was not a proper one. I may say that some of the arms that were stored in the old drill hall had to be moved before the place burned down because they were rusting on account of the dampness of the location. Now, with regard to these newspaper articles, I may tell the House what they mean. There is one local militia man who said to me : ' Don't have an old building under any circumstances, get a new one.' He said he had been told by officers of the department : ' You get the government started, and they will put you up a $30,000 building.' That is what they have in their mind, and

if tlie old building tbat is now suggested were purchased, then the total cost including repairs and equipment would come within the estimate, $12,000 or $13,000 at the outside.
Now, as far as I am concerned, I want no $30,000 spent for an armoury in my riding. I would not ash for it because I know the sentiment of the people would be against such an expenditure. I would consider it unnecessary. Ten thousand dollars for a building is what I would ask for and that with $2,000 for a site would be considered fairly sufficient. 1 realize that under present conditions it costs more to build than it did a few years ago. The Militia Department prepared a rough sketch some two years ago. It was handed over to the Public Works Department and it showed the accommodation they required in this armoury. If that is all the accommodation required, this old building that is referred to would give much more accommodation than the accommodation which they have pretented they require and it would not cost more than $10,000 or $12,000. The idea is a $30,000 building, but I do not think it is necessary to have any such expenditure.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What has the old building been used for 7


John B. McColl: In the first place, before we had the post office at Cobourg, part of it was used for a custom-house. It has been used since that time as storehouse.


William Humphrey Bennett: For ice ?


John B. McColl: No, for grain. An American firm came over a few years ago and started growing what are known as fancy peas and it has been used as a storehouse for that purpose. At the present time people are living in it and one large portion is used as a ballroom. It has an excellent floor. In regard to the question of a site for a public building of that kind in out-town the number of desirable sites is very limited. We can get plenty of sites which all the military men object to because they a'-h too far out of town. I had a man in my office on Saturday who had heard of this proposal and who said that he had a site for the building. It is a good and desirable site if it suits the military men, but these sites are too far out for them. They want something on one of the principal streets near the centre of the town and in order to procure a site of that kind the department would be obliged to buy up a dwelling or a store or other business place which would make it very expensive. The Militia Department sent up two officers tof look after the available sites but they have not yet reported. Col. Montizambert, the district officer commanding from Kingston, and Col. Greer, of the 40th Regiment were the officers.


John B. McColl: Deseronto public building, $16,000.


Uriah Wilson: How much money has been spent on this building and how much will it cost to complete 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was awarded for $25,087. The probable cost of the building with the site, furniture, heating system, &c., will be $38,000.


Uriah Wilson: The whole building finished will cost $38,000 7


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


Uriah Wilson: And it is all under contract 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The fittings are not under contract.


Uriah Wilson: Is the whole contract given to one contractor 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have just said that the contract for the erection of the building has been given for $25,687. There is nothing else given out by contract yet, because the building is not completed.


Uriah Wilson: Is the remainder of the work to be given out by contract, or will it be done by day's work 7 The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The heating will be given by contract.


Uriah Wilson: Who is the contractor for the building 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contractor is Mr. Richard Sheehy, of Peterborough. The contract was given on the 25th June, 1901, to the lowest tenderer.
Dominion public buildings, renewals, improvements, repairs, etc., $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the general vote for all public buildings in Ontario.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include furniture and all that sort of thing 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Fort William public building, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A site has been given to us but we have not been able so far to go on with the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Post office, custom-house, &c.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the estimated cost 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say frankly that I have declined to go on with the work because the people of that town who are enterprising have asked me to put up a pretty expensive building. I

have waited to see how the cat would jump. They are very aggressive.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Aggressive is a mild word. A site has beeu given. Every time that they approach me they say : We have given you a site; you must put up a large, fine building. I would rather not have a free site at times and have a little more freedom.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think because a town gives a site that should trammel the minister. I think he should have perfect freedom to exercise his judgment as to the needs of the place and keep it within that no matter whether the site be given or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do. I had supposed that a building that would cost $15,000 would be sufficient for Fort William unless the country goes ahead very quickly. There are large works going on, I may say, at that point. At this very moment the two railway companies that are centering there are contemplating large additions to their elevating power which will necessarily bring in population. I supposed that a $15,000 building would suffice.
Kingston Royal Military College-additional buildings, namely : gymnasium and hospital $6,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is under contract and going on now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought they had a gymnasium years ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work.
London drill hall and armoury, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to the question of the payment of architects fees. I notice the architect is paid 2i per cent on the work. There is a difference all through in the amounts paid for architects and clerks of works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What place V


Andrew B. Ingram: This is in the case of the London armoury. I was trying to get at the arrangements made for paying architects and clerks of works in different places. In London the architect is allowed 21 per cent on the cost of the armoury. He receives much less perhaps for his work in that case than another architect would receive for a work that would not cost half the amount that this one will cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In what other places ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The architect for the London drill hall receives 24 per cent on the
estimated cost of $60,000, while the man in Nelson is paid $7 per day. It would be to that man's advantage to have the contractor employ few men in order to stretch the time for construction, because he is receiving $7 a day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am' sorry to say that in British Columbia, public works cost a fearful amount of money, nearly twice as much as in other provinces. It is the fact that the work in British Columbia is nearly 100 per cent dearer than in any other province, and it is not fair to make that comparison.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, take Vancouver, or Victoria, or Nelson, and in none of these places do you pay the same wages for the same services. In Kingston you pay a clerk of works $2.50 a day ; in Sarnia $3 and in St. Thomas $3. On what principle do you make that distinction. The only proper way is to act on the percentage system, and pay a lump sum. In my own town the architect goes down in the morning and examines the building, and sees that the work is going on. He receives $3 a day and he does not complain that few men are employed because the longer the work is going on the more he will receive. He was also the architect of the city hall for which he got a percentage of the estimated cost, and he went to the contractors and said ; You must put more men on the building, and he put them to the inconvenience of crowding the building with men in order that he might get his percentage quicker. The department is not taking the proper course here. They should first find out how long it should take to construct the building and give the contractors reasonable time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do so.
, Mr. INGRAM. No one will pretend that ' in the city of St. Thomas it takes a year * to construct an armoury worth $29,000.
i The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. It s takes a year to construct a building like 1 that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why, we have buildings
[DOT]	there that cost a great deal more and they did not take half the time to erect, but the
j architect got a percentage on the estimated t cost. These items that I have mentioned
-	will amount to a very large sum all over . Canada but other incidental expenses are r incurred through a building not being put
-	up within a reasonable length of time.
1 The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I " do not think that the hon. gentleman has f convinced the House that when an architect is paid $3, he is paid too much.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I am trying to impress on the minister is that the principle
-	j is wrong. I say that the architect should be e j paid a percentage on the estimated cost, and

that you should not have one rule In one place and another rule in another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have had architects asking 4 and 5 per cent in some cases, and we are trying to make the best possible bargain we can in every case. The scale of wages prepared by the Department of Labour for the building at Nelson is $6 a day for foremen, and we are simply paying $1 more to the architect. It is not our fault that wages are high there.


Andrew B. Ingram: You pay $7 to an architect in Nelson and $120 a month to an architect in Vancouver. I suppose the living expenses are about the same in both places.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must not forget that Rossland and Nelson are in a new part of the country, whereas Vancouver is a large city, and the conditions are more settled there. The contractors are bound to complete the work within a specified time and the chief architect who knows his business will not grant them any more time than is necessary.


Andrew B. Ingram: These architects who are paid $7 a day or $3 a day do not give their whole time to the work. The minister must not forget that. In my own city the architect goes to the building in the morning and he attends to his private business just the same as if he had not that work at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is always finding fault with the way we do work in his city.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am objecting to the principle the minister follows, and I do not care whether it is in my own city or in any other place if I believe the system is wrong. I am not accusing the minister of doing something that has not been done in the past. I believe the policy has been pursued by both parties, and I am objecting to it on principle. It is not a personal matter with me.
Sault Ste. Marie public building, $10,000.


David Henderson: I observe the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment) is not in his place, and I regret it very much, when this vote is being considered. The minister must know the circumstances of this case very well, and I think he will admit that the town of Sault Ste. Marie has very great reason to complain that this public building has not been erected. I use language none too strong when I say, that the accommodation provided in Sault Ste. Marie for the post office is a disgrace to that enterprising town. I would not go so far as to say that it is a disgace to the government, but I do say that it reflects very much on the government of the day that they have not provided better accommodation there. I do not know what the reason can be. They have the money because it was voted last year, and why has it not been Mr. INGRAM.
spent ? Why has the money not been spent 7 Why has nothing been done 7 Why has a site not been secured 7 Surely there must be some reason, and the people of Sault Ste. Marie are wondering why they are neglected when other places are being accommodated with public buildings, especially as the parliament of Canada has voted money for the purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I altogether share the view which has been stated to the House by my hon. friend, that Sault Ste. Marie has a right to a public building. To all the ' whys ' which he has asked, my answer is that we have moved on. The site has been bought, plans are prepared, and tenders will be asked for within a month. I am glad on this occasion to be backed by my hon. friend, who has the same confidence that I have in that thriving town.


David Henderson: I do not think that the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie are aware that a site has been purchased. It is not known by the public men there, and I confess it is a matter of surprise to me to hear it. May I ask what the cost of the site will be 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not will be, but has been. It has already been bought and paid for. The site has been bought by an order in council of the 10th of January, 1902, for the sum of $9,600, from Messrs. J. Dawson and W. H. Plummer. It is situated at the corner of Queen and East streets. Its selection has been approved by all the business men whom I met when I was in the town about two months ago to see it, and it certainly is the best that could be secured.


David Henderson: I understand the present vote of $10,000 is practically a revote; and if the site is costing in that neighbourhood, where is the money to come from for erecting the superstructure. It seems to me that the minister is simply putting the matter off again, and that the people of Sault Ste. Marie will find themselves twelve months hence in just about the same position they are in at present. If I am wrong in that, I would be very glad if the minister would put me right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When these estimates were prepared, the site was not purchased, and that is the reason we have only a re-vote, but in the supplementary estimates we shall have to provide for an additional sum of money.


David Henderson: I am sure that the people of Sault Ste. Marie will be sincerely thankful.
Toronto Dominion public buildings-improvements, renewals, repairs, &e., $7,500.


Mr. KEMP.: I would like to inquire of the Minister of Public Works what the policy of the government is in regard to the Tor-

onto post office. It is well known that the facilities are altogether inadequate for the business done. It is the largest post office in revenue in the Dominion, and the building is not a credit to the country or to the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully recognize that the post office of Toronto is not what it should be. I was there a short time ago, and was not pleased with the state of affairs. The building is in a bad condition and should have been changed long ago. The Postmaster General, who is my ' boss ' in matters of this kind, has under consideration a plan for sub-stations. He has already one in King street, and he intends building another in the western part of the city. If his plans succeed, and I think they will, it may not be necessary to enlarge very much the main building. Of course, we shall have to put it in better shape, and I will certainly ask my colleagues to place a sum in the supplementary estimates for that purpose. The sub-stations will be main post offices to which mail matter will be directed, and from which it will be distributed. The same system, I suppose, will be adopted in Montreal. When the supplementary estimates come down, we shall be in a position to make a definite statement as to the policy of the government in this respect in Toronto and elsewhere.


Albert Edward Kemp: There will be an item then, in the supplementary estimates for the Toronto post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so, unless my colleagues turn me down.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then, we will be able to discuss this question again 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will letters be addressed to these sub-stations ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose each one will form a postal district; but on that point I shall have to ask the House to wait until the Postmaster General is in his place. I know that he wants to adopt the system of dividing the cities Into districts.
Toronto Junction public building, $5,000.


David Henderson: This, I understand, Is also a revote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


David Henderson: Is it intended to expend that money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


David Henderson: Is the work to be done by day's work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, by contract, I think, although day's work would suit me.


David Henderson: If the work is to be done by contract, how is the government going to implement the promise made in the West York election that certain men would have jobs on this building. If they are going to change their policy and go back to the contract system, how are they going to bind the contractor to employ certain men to do the brick work on this building, according to the terms set forth in the recent by-election ? I think the minister should allow a litttle more latitude, so as to enable the hon. gentleman to carry out his election promises. I believe that election promises should be carried out to the fullest extent, and if a man got a promise that he would have a certain job on a government building, I think the government should see that he gets that job. Why deprive him of the wage he earned by casting his vote in a certain way ? I think the minister should let the contract for this building in such a way that the man would get his job.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman insists on the work being done by day labour, I will carry out his wishes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman selected the site yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet. I am going to send one of my best officers in a day or two to look for a site, and after he is back I will make a definite statement on the supplementary estimates as to the cost of the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to be a combined building or only a post office ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Post office and custom-house-an ordinary public building.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.00 a.m., Wednesday

Wednesday, March 5, 1902.