1903-05-13

QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX-by Mr. Bickerdike- asked :
1.	Have any pilots been retired from the lower St. Lawrence river pilotage service on account of defective sight ? And if so, how many during the past ten years ?
2.	In each case what was the condition of the form sense, colour sense, and light sense ; and
Mr. OSLER.: what tests are used to examine these senses ?
3.	What is the minimum acuteness of vision accepted as sufficient for (a) pilots, (b) apprentices ?
4.	Is the same standard of vision, and are the same tests used, for all apprentice pilots and pilots throughout Canada ?
5.	What was the acuteness of vision, and the condition of the colour sense, of the different pilots who have been involved in acidents during the past ten years in the River St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	None.
2.	No answer required as it is dependent on No. 1.
3.	(a) Candidates for admission as pilots must pass an examination before an oculist and aurist selected by the commissioners as to their sight, colour sight and hearing. Such examination being the same as regard eyesight and colour-blindness that has to be undergone by candidates passing the examination for masters and mates. The minimum required as sufficient is one-third (de Wicker's chart).
(b.) Candidates for admission as apprentice pilots, before being indentured, must pass an examination before an oculist and aurist selected by the commissioners as to their sight, colour sight and hearing. Vision : only (de Wicker's chart) is accepted.
4.	The commissioners do not know if the same standard of vision and the same tests are used for all apprentice pilots and pilots throughout Canada.
5.	As up to 1902 pilots on the active list were not obliged to submit to an examination of their eyesight, until they had reached the age of sixty-five years, or that a complaint had been lodged against them that their sight was defective, consequently this question can only be answered in so far as accidents have happened to the pilots who were thus examined.
Charles Francis Brown, examined as a pilot of sixty-five years, on April 12, 1893, producing a certificate from his doctor that his sight and colour sight was in good condition, and was also tested at this examination in reading at different distances and in distinguishing colours. Pilot Brown is still on the active list, has been examined every year since 1893 by an oculist employed by the commissioners. At examination of 1902 vision was 1 (de Wicker's chart) and vision of colours was perfect. Pilot Brown grounded a sailing ship on .Tune 27, 1893.
.Tos. Phil. Couillard, examined as a pilot of sixty-five years and over, and branch renewed for one year by the commissioners on April 14, 1896. Acuteness of vision was one-half (de Wicker's chart). Condition of colour sight was good (weak). Pilot Couillard had an accident to a vessel in his charge summer of 1896.
Alphonse Asselin, pilot under sixty-five years, examined June 5, 1902. Acuteness

of vision was 1 (de Wicker's chart). Vision of colour was perfect. Had an accident summer of 1902.
Joseph EugSne Lachance, pilot under sixty-five years, examined June 5, 1902. Acuteness of vision was 1 (de Wicker's chart). Vision of colour was perfect. Had an accident summer 1902.
Samuel Rioux, pilot under sixty-five years, examined June 5, 1902. Acuteness of vision was 1 (de Wicker's chart). Vision of colour was perfect. Had an accident 1902.


FISHING IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE.
[Stage Direction]
Hr.	LEMIEUX-by Mr. Bickerdikeasked :
1.	Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received the following petition :-
To the Honourable Raymond Prefontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
The petition of the undersigned fish merchants, fishermen and others interested in the fishing industry in the district of Gaspe, respectfully showeth
That the fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence are seriously injured by the use of trap-nets for codfish and herring which have been proved to be very destructive to the fisheries, owing to the fact that large and small fish are indiscriminately caught ; the claim that the large mesh gives freedom of way to small fish is not justified by experience, it being conclusively proved that the large fish block up the meshes, and the small fish, when in the trap, are unable to escape.
That the seining of herring, caplin and any other fish in the spring of the year and at all times for the purpose of fertilizing lands, is a wanton waste of valuable product, and a great detriment to the profitable prosecution of the fisheries, and should be discouraged by every possible means, in order that those fish may be used solely for the purposes of food and bait ; otherwise our cod-fishing industry will be ruined, as no bait can be procured. Your petitioners also pray that the trapping of all kinds of fish by means of steam trawling be made contrary to law.
Wherefore, your petitioners urgently request that you will be pleased to take the necessary measures to prohibit the use of trap-nets for codfish and herring, and also prohibit the use of herring, caplin and other fish for fertilizing purposes. And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray.
Joseph Lemieux, maire,
Louis Letourneau,
Wm. Fruing & Co., Ltd., per U.S.L. Welson L. Laffoley,
CISophas Lemieux,
Stanislaus Lemieux,
CISophas Lapointe,
Alaire Roy,
Isidore Roy,
Frank Bignell, Supt. Mont-Louis Seigniory,
Pierre Letourneau,
Pierre Lapointe,
Narcisse Goupil,
Thomas Bernaltchez,
Anthine Boucher,	.
Louis Provost,
Stanislas Thibault,
Louis Ouellet,
AlSxis Ouellet,
Albert Ouellet,
Louis Lemieux, fils,
Octave Lapointe,
Theophile Poitras,
Henri Thibault,
Maxime Provost,
Francois Laflamme,
Alfred Laflamme,
Laureat Cloutier,
Pierre Coulombe,
Joseph Coulombe,
Napolfion Cloutier,
Elzear Bernaltchez,
Joseph Bernaltchez,
Magloire Bernaltchez,
Frangois Bernaltchez,
Octave Ouellet,
Prime Ouellet,
Louis Bernaltchez,
John Marcin,
Thomas Marcin,
Edouard Fournier.
2.	What action does the Department of Marine and Fisheries intend to take on this question ?
The MINISTER OB' MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :
1.	Yes, through Mr. Lemieux, M.P.
2.	The department, after fully considering the matter, has reached the conclusion that sufficient grounds do not exist for taking action on the lines of the petition.
The department does not feel justified in taking an action in the matter, as the three principal statements in the petition are not justified by the facts as officially reported.
The petitioners claim that codfish and herring have injured the fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Statistics officially published show that the cod and herring fishery during the past few years, has shown no decrease in productiveness. In fact, these fish have been unusually abundant, and any local decrease is accounted for by merely local circumstances-rough weather, &c.
The petitioners protest against the seining of herring, caplin and other fish in the spring to be used for fertilizing purposes. While the Fisheries Act prohibits the catching of fish for use as manure, the department has not felt justified in strenuously enforcing the law in this respect, as such fish as herring in the spring are in poor condition, and frequently not very marketable. Such fish as are not marketable, instead of being wasted are used on the land. To this the department sees no objection.
Tlie petitioners protest against the use of steam trawls. This allegation is not found to have a very good basis according to the reports of the departmental officers. Steam trawling is so limited at present that special restrictive steps would not be justifiable.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What number of cars of freight were moved into and out of Lome Siding, Intercolonial Railway, in the years 1901 and 1902 ?
92J
[Stage Direction]
2.	What were the receipts for passenger traffic at the same siding ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	In the year 1901 there were seven cars of freight moved into and ninety-six cars out of Lome siding.
In the year 1902 there were four cars of freight moved into and ninety-two cars out of same siding.
2.	Receipts from passenger traffic at Lome siding in the year 1901. amounted to $81.00. And in the year 1902, amounted to $92.15.


HARBOUR MASTER, BATHURST, N. B.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	On whose recommendation was M. T. Daly dismissed from the position of harbour master at the port of Bathurst, N. B. ?
2.	AVas his dismissal the result of an investigation ? if so. hy whom was such investigation held ; and what charges, if any, were preferred against him ?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was his successor, Hachey, appointed ?
4.	Had said Hachey resigned his position as a branch pilot of the port of Bathurst, as required by law, before his appointment as harbour master ; or has he since done so ; and if so, when ?
5.	Had the result of the late provincial election in Gloucester county, N. B., anything to do with the dismissal of the said Daly ?
6.	Is it the policy of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, under its new head, to dismiss officers without any charge or complaint against them of non-performance of duty, but simply upon the request of a member of parliament supporting the government ? If not, for what reason was the said M. T. Daly dismissed from his position of harbour master for the port of Bathurst, N. B.?


Tfie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	On the minister's who is responsible for such appointments.
2.	No.
3.	Upon satisfactory recommendation to the minister.
4.	No.
5.	Not so far as the department is aware.
6.	No.
Mr. Daly was dismissed because he did not discharge his duties as harbour master in an impartial manner.


FALSE CREEK, VANCOUVER.
Mr. AVILSON asked :: 1.	Has any portion of False creek, Vancouver, been leased to Messrs. Burnett & Kelly ? If so, what is the area so leased ?
2.	What is the duration of the lease ?
3.	What is the rental per annum ?
4.	Have any protests been received from any public bodies in Vancouver against the granting of the said lease ? If so, from whom ?
5.	Upon whose recommendation was the lease granted ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: No, there has been no such lease.


Mr. BELL.: 


OYSTER FISHING, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Was a petition received from Prince Edward Island last year (1902) asking the government to prohibit the spring fishing of oysters, and giving reasons for so asking ?
2.	If so, what action has, or does the government propose to take, in this matter ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	No petition was received.
2.	Answered by above.


PENSIONS, SOUTH AFRICAN SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What are the rates of pensions paid to disabled, or partially disabled Canadians from South African service ?
2.	Does Canada contribute towards the payment of the aforesaid pensions ?
3.	In view of the * low rates of imperial pensions, has the Canadian government considered the advisability of supplementing the imperial pensions ?
4.	Does the Canadian government accept as dnal the medical reports of the imperial government on subjects for pensions ?
5.	Will action upon this matter be taken this
session ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) :: 1.	The rates are those provided by the imperial government for officers and soldiers of the regular armv.
2.	No.
3.	The government has not considered the advisability of supplementing the imperial pensions.
4.	Government has nothing to do with the matter of medical reports. But I may say that in cases where pensions were not settled until the applicants for pensions returned to this country, the reports of the Canadian surgeons have been accepted by the imperial authorities.
5.	Requires no answer.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. TALBOT asked :: 1.	Has the Grand Trunk received one or more loans in money from the federal treasury ?
2.	If so, how often and in which years ?
3.	What were the different sums borrowed ?
4.	What sums has the company paid by way of reimbursements ?
5.	What is the amount actually due by that company to the federal treasury, capital and interest ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: As to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Grand Trunk Railway Company has received no loans from the federal treasury,
i.e., has received no loans from the Dominion of Canada since the date of confederation, 1867. As to question 5, at the time of

confederation the Grand Trunk Railway-owed the province of Canada, according to the accounts of that province, $25,607,393.53, and this amount was taken by the Dominion as an asset, and still remains in the balance sheet of the Dominion at that amount, no payment having been made by the railway in respect thereof.


NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	What appointments to commissions in the North-west Mounted Police have been made from January 1, 1902, to May 1, 1903 ?
2.	What previous police, or military, record had each of these ?
3.	Were any promoted from the subordinate or non-commissioned officers or men in the force ? If so, what are the names ?
4.	What non-commissioned officers were passed over ?
5.	Why were such so passed over ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Five appointments : R. Y. Douglas, R. S. Knight, John Richards, William Parker and A. W. Duffus.
2.	R. Y. Douglas, 36th Peel regiment, Canadian Militia; R. S. Knight, senior sergeant-major, North-west mounted police ; John Richards, sergeant-major, North-west mounted police ; Wm. Parker, sergeant-major, North-west mounted police ; A. W. Duffus, previously in North-west mounted police.
3.	Sergeant-Major Knight, Richards and Parker.
4.	Service and qualifications considered, none were passed over.
5.	Answered by reply to question No. 4.


PIER AT ANNANDALE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What amount was expended on the pier at Annandale, King's county, Prince Edward Island, during the years 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	What is the name of the foreman, or director, of the work, and his wages per day ?
3.	What are the names of the men employed, and the wages per day paid to each respectively ?
4.	What are the kinds and quantities of materials purchased for said work ; from whom purchased, and the prices paid ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Haekett) to move for a return, as this would call for a voluminous statement, and I will have the information at the earliest possible moment.


RANGE LIGHTS AT ANNANDALE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HACKETT asked ;
1. What amount has been expended on range lights at Annandale, King's county, Prince Edward Island, since same have been erected ?
2. What are the names of keepers, and amount of salaries respectively ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prdfontaine) :: 1.	$975.41.
2.	One keeper; Alexander Robertson. Salary, $100 per annum.


CAPTAIN W. S. LARKIN.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1. Did the Minister of Public Works receive the following complaint against Captain W. 8. Larkin, of the steam dredge 'Prince Edward'?


Hon.  J. I.@: Tarte,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I have been employed on the dredge ' Prince Edward,' as a deck hand, for the past five years. The dredge is under the control of Captain W. S. Larkin, of Alberton, in this province. In common with some of the rest of the crew, I have to complain of Captain Larkin's conduct, which is objectionable on the following grounds :-
1.	There has frequently been drinking and disorder on board, and the .captain himself has often given evidence of over-drinking, and sometimes his conduct was violent.
2.	His language was frequently blasphemous and indecent, and he often offended the religious convictions of some of the men on board.
For the reasons above mentioned, and for others with which I will not trouble you at present, life on board the dredge became so unpleasant that, though I am a poor man, I could not endure it further under the same conditions. I can put up with much, but not with further service tinder Captain Larkin. If he is allowed to continue in his present position, it will be a great injury to the Liberal party, of which I and my friends have long been supporters, and will have the effect of turning away more of those who object to having men of Captain Larkin's stamp, in places of authority.
I am respectfully yours, &e.,


FRED W. LLEWELLYN.
[Stage Direction]
Murray Harbour, north, 1902.
2. Has the minister ordered an investigation into this matter ? And if not, why not ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In reply to the question by Mr. Haekett I may say that there is no such letter in the department.


CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson) moved :: That the House go into Committee of the Wrhole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :-That it is expedient to amend the Customs Act, chapter 32, revised statutes, and to provide as follows :-
1.	That the expression ' duty ' shall include ' surtax.'
2.	That a change be made in the composition of the board of customs, and that an assistant commissioner of customs be appointed.
3.	That authority be given for the employment of temporary officers of customs.

4.	To better define the powers of the hoard of customs.
5.	That further particulars be given in invoices ; and to provide that invoices may be made out in the currency in which the goods are actually purchased.
6.	To define the rate of duty upon unenumerated articles, made of more than one material.
7.	To extend the time for the submission of claims for refund, including claims for refund on account of damage.
8.	That importers may be relieved from the payment of duty on damaged goods, abandoned in certain cases.
9.	That the basis of allowance for damage on polished steel, and other articles, be changed.
10.	To authorize the granting of relief from the payment of duty on goods, destroyed or damaged while in the custody of the customs.
11.	That further provision be made for the valuation for duty purposes of medicinal and other preparations, and in respect of the testing of sugars, molasses, wines, spirituous and alcoholic liquors.
12.	To authorize collectors of customs to require further proof in respect of invoices.
13.	To vest in officers the power to administer oaths.
14.	To confer further powers on the Governor in Council respecting special customs services and overtime of officers ; and also respecting the reduction of customs duties on imported goods.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 17) to aid in the settlement of railway labour disputes.-The Postmaster General.
On section 5,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved :: That the words
in the second and third lines of section 5, [DOT] the difference shall be referred ' be struck out and the words ' the minister may refer the difference ' be inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 6,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) wishes to move an amendment providing for the method of arbitration when the employees of the Intercolonial Railway are involved, and I incline to agree to what he has suggested. If my hon. friend reads his amendment and if it is adopted, then we will have to amend some other clauses so as to make them consistent.


Mr. LOGAN.: When we were discussing this Bill before, I pointed out that in the case of a difference on the Intercolonial Railway the men would choose one of the arbitrators or conciliators ; the Minister of Railways would choose a second ; and the third would be chosen by the Minister of Labour. This would in effect be giving the appointment of two of the arbitrators to the govern-Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
ment. In order to obviate that, I beg to propose the following amendment:
In the event of the establishment of a committee of conciliation, mediation, and investigation, or of a board of arbitrators to deal with any differences between the government of Canada in respect to the Intercolonial Railway and any of its employees, the power to appoint conciliators or arbitrators which otherwise in accordance with the foregoing provisions might be exercisable by the minister, shall be exercisable either by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the province of New Brunswick, of Nova Scotia or of Prince Edward Island (in this Act called the Lieutenant-Governor in Council) as the minister shall for that purpose in each case of conciliation or arbitration in writing name.
Mi*. FOWLER. Why not make it apply to the government of the province of Quebec as well as to the Governor in Council of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick ?


Hance James Logan: There is no objection to that. I wish to include the province of Quebec in the amendment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We will make the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) a subelause to section 7.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Suppose there was a general strike on the Intercolonial Railway extending over the four provinces through which It runs, which of the provinces would appoint the third arbitrator ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: One or other of these provincial governments would be asked to name the third arbitrator.
Amendment (Mr. Logan) agreed to.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In consequence of the adoption of this amendment it will be necessary to insert in line 30 of section 3, and in line 33, after the word ' minister,' the words ' or such Lieutenant Governor in Council, as the case may be.' In section 6 it will be necessary to make similar changes. I beg to move that these changes be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. INGRAM.: May I ask the hon. minister if this amendment has been approved by the representatives of the railway men 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I presume that after the Bill goes through the committee, it will not be read the third time to-day.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Very well, I will let it stand.
On section 20,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved that the words * chosen by a majority ' be added after the word ' number.'


Andrew B. Ingram: By election, or Row ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The word ' chosen ' has been adopted, and there will be some way of choosing them.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 23,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved the following amendment:
In the event of the establishment of a committee of conciliation, meditation and investigation, or of a board of arbitrators to deal with any differences between the government of Canada in respect of the Intercolonial Railway and any of its employees, the power to appoint conciliators or arbitrators which otherwise in accordance with the foregoing provisions might be exercisable by the minister shall be exercisable either by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the province of Quebec, of New Brunswick, of Nova Scotia or of Prince Edward Island (in this Act called the Lieutenant-Governor in Council) as the minister shall for that purpose in each case of conciliation or arbitration in writing name.
Section, as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.


Mr. FOWLER moved :: That after the word ' strikes ' in the fourth line the word ' may ' may be added.
The preamble states possibly that these strikes do interfere with proper and efficient transportation, which imports in itself a violation of the Criminal Law.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the railway men having agreed to certain amendments,
I want to point out, that, so far as I am concerned, I am endorsing the amendment which the railway men have suggested, without using my own judgment, because 1 do not want to interfere with a Bill which they think is in their interest.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public works-chargeable to income-miscellaneous-to cover balance of expenditures of works already authorized for which the appropriations may be insufficient, provided that amount for each work does not exceed $100, $3,000.
['There seems to be some misunderstanding about this Bill, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.']
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that under the item which you have just brought to the notice of the committee, we are entitled to discuss the general principle of some of the preceding items. I have not been fortunate enough to be present when some of the items regarding the provipce of Quebec came under the notice of the committee, and I desire now to obtain from the government, if possible, a declaration which,
I think we are quite entitled to in respect of the control of these large expenditures which we have voted and are still busy voting in connection with harbours and rivers. If ever a Committee of Supply of this House was entitled to such a declaration we are entitled to it now-and I will briefly as possible explain to the House upon what I rest that proposition. When the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine) came for re-election in the district in Montreal, in the division of Maisonneuve, he came at a time when there had been grave discussions in the province of Quebec, and more particularly in the districts of Montreal, and, perhaps, more especially in the division where he sought re-election, in regard to what was deemed at that time a shuffle of portfolios in the present cabinet. It is known to every member of this House that, after the resignation or dismissal of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) grave difficulties arose as to who should replace that gentleman in the cabinet of the right hon. the Premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). It is known to us particularly in the province of Quebec that very grave difficulties arose among the members of the party in the city of Montreal as to the claims of certain parties to the portfolio which had been left vacant. After a considerable space of time, pressure was brought to bear upon the right hon. the Premier in this direction- that the portfolio should not be given to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfifontaine). Reasons were urged right and left. We heard some of these reasons on the street. But they were urged even in the government organs of Montreal. Two newspapers which support the government and receive support from the government, one to a very considerable extent, publicly, a day or two-yes, I believe even twelve hours-before my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was called to his present office, urged strongly and publicly that it was not right, for the reasons stated in these newspapers, that my hon. friend should succeed purely and simply to the estate left vacant at the head of that important department. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will remember in what scathing terms the Montreal 1 Witness claiming, as it has always claimed, that it was a supporter of the present government, urged upon the government and on all serious men of the party which support that government, that my hon. friend should not be given that portfolio, should not even enter the cabinet of the right hon. gentleman. Another organ, the official organ of the government in the city of Montreal, the Montreal ' Herald,' in a very strong article, a very few hours, as I have said, before my right hon. friend had fixed his choice upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, actually warned the government against the

choice of my hon. friend and gave reasons therefor, with which reasons I shall presently make the members of the committee acquainted. X mention these facts in order to show that members of my right hon. friend's party in Montreal, even more than the members of the party to which I have the honour to belong, were eager, were anxious, and publicly expressed that anxiety, that my hon. friend should not be nominated to the portfolio of Public Works. The article of the Montreal ' Herald ' created a great sensation, not only in political circles, but all over the city of Montreal, and throughout the province of Quebec. And these are the terms, calm, moderate, but forceful, in which the Montreal ' Herald ' reviewed the situation but a few hours before that important nomination was made. I believe in that same number of the Montreal ' Herald ' of the 10th of November, the announcement was made that my hon. friend had been officially chosen, and that his partisans had succeeded after a very severe struggle. It is entitled 1 Cabinet changes.'
The announcement is made that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has asked Hon. James Sutherland, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to take the portfolio of Public Works, and has offered Mr. Sutherland's portfolio to Mr. Raymond Prefon-taine, M.P., for Maisoneuve and Terrebonne. The translation of Mr. Sutherland from the one department to the other will be viewed with favour in Ontario, in which province it had been a standing complaint that the great spending departments of the government were in the hands of representatives of other and smaller provinces. The complaint has not been without reason, for Ontario is the largest contributor to the country's revenue. No doubt the consideration of this fact had its influence in bringing the premier to the conclusion to offer Mr. Sutherland the portfolio of Public Works. In addition, he was probably greatly influenced by a consciousness that Mr. Sutherland is peculiarly well qualified for the duties of his new office. It is well known that during late years Sir Wilfrid Laurier has learned to place great confidence in Mr. Sutherland's business capacity and sound judgment, and in entrusting to him the greatest spending department of the government he feels that he is placing it in hands that will not betray the trust. Mr. Sutherland's long tenure of office of chief Liberal whip brought him in close relationship with the members of both parties, and he is to-day one of the most popular men in parliament.
I am very sorry my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not present.


Mr. LBMIEUX.: Yes, he is here.
Mr. MONK, (reading).
He is gifted with many of the qualities that go to make a successful administrator. Forceful yet urbane, possessing great capacity for work, and having an intimate knowledge of the Dominion its resources and its requirements, he is well equipped to give the Public Works Department a business-like administration.
Now comes the gloomy side:


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is to be regretted that the appointment of Mr. Raymond Prefontaine to the portfolio vacated by Mr. Sutherland is unlikely to be received with equal favour. There has been much debate over this matter, and it is to be assumed that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, finding himself confronted by a serious political crisis in his own province, has turned to Mr. Prdfontaine as a popular and hitherto successful local leader, and one who, under much provocation, has shown a consistent loyalty to his chief. Those who have discountenanced Mr. Prfifon-taine's selection for this office did not under value the qualities which fit him for leadership, and which evidently appealed very strongly to Sir Wilfrid Laurier under present conditions. While thoroughly sympathizing with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, however, it is not for those Liberals who have observed Mr. Prefon-taine's career as the practical head of the administrative machinery of the city of Montreal to feel that his selection for the head of an administrative department of the government satisfies their ideals of what ought to be. The ' Herald ' particularly, during a five years' campaign against corruption and extravagance at the city hall, had no option but to conclude that his powerful influence had been and was being exerted against the city's best interest.
What Mr. Prdfontaine's idea of his future may be, and precisely what view Sir Wilfrid Laurier may take of the matter, is not for us to know, but it is clear that in Montreal, where he has lived under the lime light of publicity, there must be grave misgivings concerning the wisdom of the selection, not only on the part of the more or less disinterested general public, but quite as much on the part of those whose particular concern is the welfare of the administration.
The article of the ' Witness,' I think, was even more pointed than this one. If I cite these articles, and particularly this one taken from a government organ whose very existence depends upon the existence of this government, it is in order to show that long before we went into that election campaign in Maisonneuve, that that question was agitating the public mind, and the impression gained ground that my right hon. friend, divided between two strong conflicting forces, had compromised himself, had been an opportunist once more, and had given the Department of Public Works to my hon. friend who occupies that position at the present moment, and had entrusted a department, a spending department, but a far less important department, in the judgment of the general public, to my right hon. friend who presented himself for election before the electors of Maisonneuve. Well, Sir, there were two issues before the great electorate of that division, two issues only. My hon. friend the member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to-day, we understood had parted from the present government, not as a man who elects a seat on the bench, not as a man who is translated to some other office, not as one whose portfolio had become vacant by death or other accident; but he had parted from this government upon a great question of principle, upon a question which we have been discussing in this House to an almost un-

limited extent since we met in the month of March last. That hon. gentleman claimed that the protection afforded to manufacturers was insufficient, and that was one of the issues raised in that campaign. We who believe that the protection afforded to the industrial life of this country is insuflfcient, deemed it to be our duty to go down before the electorate and defend the views to which we have given expression more than once since we have assembled in this session of parliament. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that upon that issue we were unsuccessful, and I am prepared to say, what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said very often since, that those most interested perhaps in the principles which we defended, seemed to think that their only hope of escaping punishment by this government was to elect my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who absolutely promised them sufficient protection for every one of the industries represented in that great constituency. We had gone into the constituency of Argen-teuil, and we had heard the doctrine of free trade preached there ; and I understand that in the electoral division of Yarmouth, that doctrine was also preached in still less uncertain language. But in the electoral division of Maisonneuve those who, I think, should have supported the principles which we defended, deemed it expedient under the circumstances to elect my hon. friend, not in the hopd that the principles which he advocated there would prevail, but with the expectancy that at least their interests would not be completely sacrificed after the promises which my hon. friend distinctly made to them.
That was one issue, Mr. Chairman, but there was another to which I must come at once, because it is an issue which Is concerned with the argument which I shall lay before the committee. In the division of Maisonneuve we heard this argument : That my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) having quitted the government because of differences which had arisen between him and the government was no reason why we should be deprived in the city of Montreal of the portfolio of Public Works-not on racial or religious ground.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Le-mieux) says ' hear, hear.' What does he mean by that ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not on any narrow ground suoh as that, but because we claimed in the city of Montreal, and this has been stated here time and again within the hearing of every hon. member of this House, that important works were in process of execution, works which were under the control of the Department of Public Works
and there was no reason why we, in that district, and the people of the province of Ontario should be deprived of that department because, forsooth, as expressed in this article in the ' Herald ' which I have just read, and there were many; others; the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and a certain number of his friends had no confidence in the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfifontaine). That is what we claimed and so strong was that claim, that, as my friends from the province of Quebec are well aware, being a just and equitable claim, it was re-echoed throughout the whole press of the province, and if I wished to convince the committee of the truth of what I am saying, I would have to spend part of the afternoon reading quotations from newspapers, Liberal and Conservative alike, wherein it was claimed that it was an unfortunate matter that the right hon. Prime Minister of this Dominion had deprived the province of Quebec and the people under whose very eyes these works of improvement in the port of Montreal, in Quebec, and in the St. Lawrence were being executed, of this department at a moment, when, in the judgment of these people, that department should have remained under the control of a minister from their own province. In other words, we laid down the proposition that the people of the province of Quebec were not concerned with what certain members of the Liberal party must think of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they were not concerned with the pressure which had been brought to bear on the government not to admit him to the department, but they had done nothing to deserve the deprivation of the services of that department This feeling found manifestation in the vote of the electorate. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not deny that that was one of the great grounds urged during the election. He knows it and so do all those who participated in the campaign. How was that argument met V I was not present in this Chamber the other day when the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) read the verbatim report of the first speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries in that campaign, but, without taking up uselessly the time of this committee, I appeal to any hon. member of this House from the province of Quebec to state whether it is not a fact that the hon. member for Maisonneuve, in every single public utterance which he made during that campaign availed himself of the opportunity to state what, Sir ?-to state that he bad accepted the Department of Marine and Fisheries upon one condition, and that was that everything which concerns transportation, to use his own language, from the extreme west to the Atlantic ocean, every expenditure connected with the carrying out and executing of the works of improvement of the St. Lawrence

was going to be placed under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. He argued, and his friends argued, that it was an anomaly that works connected with harbours, dredging and deepening the St. Lawrence, canals, wharfs, and the carrying out of the plans of improvement in the city of Montreal, should be under the control of the Department of Public Works while the attending to lighthouses and buoys should be under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Transportation was one single, simple work according to them which should be under one department, and the government had decided that from the Department of Public Works would be taken everything in regard to the execution of improvements in reference to transportation and placed under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There were numerous public meetings, there were articles in tihe newspapers, there were private assurances given right and left throughout that campaign, and I defy any one of my hon. friends who observed that campaign to any degree to deny what I have just stated. Why, Sir, if any confirmation were wanted of the description of the campaign which I have just given, surely the members of this committee will find it in the speech from the Throne, because in that speech hon. members will find a repetition of everything that was stated by the liou. Minister of Marine and Fisheries during that campaign in Maisonneuve. Such was the feeling at that time that had my hon. friend come down to the electors of Maisonneuve and stated that it was not the intention of the government to modify in any way the machinery of the department to which he had been called, 1 have no hesitation in saying that the result of that election would have been different. We have proceeded during the sittings of this committee to vote, I believe, hundreds of thousands of dollars to be expended by the Department of Public Works, although, on this side of the House on more than one occasion, the government has been called upon to state to us what are the modifications which are going to be made in the Department of Public Works and if the present election pledges of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries are to be carried out. I believe that the government has put off that announcement by stating that when the time came to introduce legislation in regard to these changes the government would do its duty. What I claim now as one who was present and heard these declarations, and as an elector myself in the electoral district of Maisonneuve is that before voting this money not after, we have the right to know from the government clearly and explicitly, what are the changes that are going to be made, and if the assurance as given by my hon. friend when he came down to Maisonneuve to solicit the votes of the electors were really based upon the faith of this government, Mr. MONK.
and if this government intends carrying out these pledges. 1 certainly under no circumstances w-ould like to fulfil the part of an obstructionist, but I believe we ought to hold firm to the old principles of our constitution, that redress goes before supply.
I claim, Sir, that it is a grievance that we should be called upon to vote money here from day to day, without the government announcing whether or not these changes are going to be carried out. 1 believe that we would be justified on this side of the House, in preventing the voting of further moneys to the Public Works Department, if the government still continues to refuse that information which we are entitled to. We have the constitutional right to know what expenditures which we are voting to the Public Works Department are to be removed to the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not at present express any opinion ou the wisdom of these changes in the departments. I do not say that they would be wise, but what I do say is that when we vote this money to be disposed of by a minister of the Crown, we have the right to a distinct assurance from the government, as to whether any reliance can be placed upon the statements of the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pr6-fontaine) when he sought re-election from his constituents.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: For the tenth or twelfth time my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has brought up this question to which he has received an answer, on one occasion at least, if not on more than one.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. It is the first time I brought up this question. I have never mentioned it in the House before.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, I have heard that there were dissensions on the other side of the House, and perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) does not now occupy the position he was supposed to hold in his party. His statement seems to confirm the rumours which I have heard that he is not so much a chief of his party as he is supposed to be, because if he has not brought up the question himself it has been brought up by those who sit behind him, and they have been answered. 1 would suppose that an answer given to the hon. gentleman's supporters would have been sufficient for himself, but since we have to take it that there is a division in the party, and that the answer given to his followers is not sufficient for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I have no objection to tell him once more. I would not have alluded to these rumours but for the fact that my hon. friend himself is the first to bring rumours into the discussion, and his speech of half an hour was based on rumours which he said were current in the streets of Mont-

real at the time my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was called to the government. He has announced that at that time there were rumours in Montreal to the effect that I was drawn in opposite directions as to who should be the successor in the cabinet of the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that he had better not take too much stock in these rumours. I suppose that representations are always made to a Prime Minister under such circumstances, but the Prime Minister has the responsibility of making the selection, and at all events I followed my own course and my own methods. And. Sir. when I concluded to bring into the government my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Frefontaine) I think I made no mistake.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is true that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and others, supposed that I had made a mistake, but that is not my opinion. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had been a member of this House for a number of years ; he was a leading member of the bar of Montreal ; and he was also prominent in the municipal affairs of the city in which he lives. As it happens, in municipal politics, as in other politics, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) who was mayor of Montreal, did not give universal satisfaction to everybody. He had opponents ; I do not think he had any enemies, but he had opponents. There were those who did not agree with him in municipal politics, though they agreed with him in federal politics, and perhaps those who disagreed with him in municipal politics thought that I would go beyond the record and seek in the municipal politics of Montreal in order to be guided in the choice I was going to make. I made no such mistake as that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The PRIME MINISTER, I was satisfied with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as a member of the Liberal party. I did not go to seek what had been his record as mayor of Montreal, though had I done so. while I would have found some opposed to him, I would have found thousands of electors in the city of Montreal who were enthusiastic in his support.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no reason to believe that the choice I then made was a mistaken one. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) tried the issue in Maisonneuve and he knows the result ; he tried the issue in Argenteuii, and he knows the result ; he tried the issue in Terrebonne, and he knows the result ; he tried the issue in Two Mountains, and the verdict was the same over again. It is no wonder that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) met
with a much deserved rebuke from the people of the province of Quebec. No wonder he was told on four different occasions that the course he followed was the most unpatriotic course that had ever been followed by a public man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why, Sir, the doctrine was laid down-I think by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) personally, but if not by him personally, it was laid down by his prominent political supporters and at all events it was laid down in his own organ-the doctrine was laid down that in this matter I had betrayed the province of which I am a native. In some of the speeches of those who at that time were his followers, whatever they may be now, the declaration was made that I had betrayed my native province, because forsooth I had called to the Ministry of Public Works, not a man from the province of Quebec, but a man from the province of Ontario. The doctrine laid down by my hon. friend's party, and I think by himself also, that the portfolio of Public Works belonged to the province of Quebec, and that it was betraying the interests of my own province to call to be an occupant of that office, any one but a member coming from the province of Quebec. Now. Sir. I say that on more than one occasion the people of the province of Quebec have shown that they were not to be misled by such low appeals to their prejudices.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The people of the province of Quebec are not to be told that this portfolio or that portfolio belongs to such and such a province. In the composition of this cabinet, it matters not where a minister comes from ; whether he comes from this province or that province ; whether it is from that place or from that other place. As chief adviser to His Excellency the Governor General, it is my duty to select a minister, and to select him. who. in my judgment and opinion, is best qualified for the position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the portfolio of Public Works became vacant by the resignation of my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) I thought that I could not do better than to give it to my hon. friend and colleague ; my old friend : my friend of twenty years association with me in the work of the Liberal party on the floor of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I thought that the business ability of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) was such as to enable him to occupy the position of Minister of Public Works, with some credit to himself and some advantage to the country.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Shall I be told that this was a betrayal of the interests of my province ? No, Sir ; but still, that was the issue upon which the election of Maison-neuve was fought by my hon. friend and his party. Now, Sir, two years ago there was a change in the composition of the cabinet. Two years ago the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Mills, was called to the bench of the Supreme Court, and a good appointment it was. I thought it advisable to recommend to His Excellency the successor of Mr. Mills, a gentleman from the province of Quebec, the present Minister of Justice i Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick), and a good appointment it was also. Was there ever a rumour, a murmur, in the province of Ontario that by so doing I was betraying the province of Ontario ? There was not a murmur. It was admitted on all hands that the present holder of the portfolio was worthy of it. Nor has a word been said against the qualification of my hon. friend the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) for the position he occupies. Not a word would be said against that appointment even in the province of Quebec ; and when my hon. friend goes to the province of Quebec and tries to repeat what he has done before, tries to rouse the prejudices of the province, he will not do it at the expense of the present Minister of Public Works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot let my hon. friend state things which are not correct. I have never tried to rouse the prejudices of the province of Quebec.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Here is what was said :	There was a meeting at Three
Rivers at which the hon. gentleman was present. It was a great pow-wow of the party, a rally to assert the principles of the great Liberal-Conservative party in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend was there as the leader of the party. I have not his speech, unfortunately ; but I have the speech of one of his prominent followers, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), and this is what that hon. gentleman said :


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I will stand by it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will quote it in French, and then try to translate it into English :


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Le ministfere des Pdcheries peut avoir une eertaine importance par suite du contrdle qui lui est donne des grandes pScheries des cdtes des deux oedans, importance qui a <ste de beau-coup diminuee par le recent jugement du Con-seil PrivS ; quant au departement de la Marine a part la construction et l'entretien des phares, des bouees et des lumiSres, il n'a de jurisdiction, d'aprds le statut de 1892, que sur des sujets qui donnent au titulaire peu d'influence et de prestige.
*	Sic	*
Par l'action de Sir Wilfrid Laurier, le parti liberal a subi une humiliation, la province de Quebec, est bafouee, et M. Prefontaine, en ra-massant cette pitance que lui ont jet6e ses nouveaux eollSgues, a montrd qu'il n'a pas la moindre fiertS personnelle, ni le moindre sentiment de 1'honneur national.
My hon friend says the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries may have a certain importance, but it is only of minor importance. Then he goes on to say :
By the action of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Liberal party has been subjected to humiliation, the province of Quebec has been mocked, and Mr. Prdfontaine, in stooping to take the sop which his new colleagues have thrown to him, has shown not the slighest personal dignity nor the slightest feeling of national honour.
If this is not an appeal to the lowest prejudices of the people of the province of Quebec, I do not know what would be ; and this was said in the presence of the leader of the party, who now protests that he never appealed to the prejudices of the people of the province of Quebec. If there is anything that can stamp the conduct of the hon. gentleman, it is the language which I have just quoted, which was spoken in his presence, and to which he never took the slightest exception. This is the sort of warfare to which we have been subjected in the province of Quebec. I called upon my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries to take the portfolio. I was in poor health at the time ; I had to leave immediately for the south ; but I told him that in my opinion the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries ought to be reconstructed, so as to give it a more extended jurisdiction on matters purely nautical than it had at that time. I am not aware what my hon. friend said in his election ; he is here to speak for himself ; but as to the question put by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), since he was not in the House to hear the answer given a few days ago by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, and since his colleagues behind him have not taken him sufficiently into their confidence as to inform him, I will now tell him that all the appropriations asked for by the Minister of Public Works shall be expended by him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very sorry that my right hon. friend has given to this discussion a direction which I think is wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do think so. I asked a question in regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to which my right hon. friend has given no answer. He admits, or seems to admit, that we have a right to information. He would not go so far as to deny that principle, but he satisfies himself with launching out against me, the most unjustifiable inuendoes. In a few muttered sentences which he utters with reference to the present incumbent of the office of Minister of Public Works, he states that the appropriations which we are at present voting will be expended under that gentleman's supervision. Now, I ask anybody if that is the pledge which was given by all those who supported my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the campaign of Maisonneuve. Is that a categorical answer ? No ; my right hon. friend knows perfectly well that what I stated in the campaign in Maisonneuve was true, that neither the Minister of Public Works nor any other member of this government would dare to come down into the county of Maisonneuve and confirm what my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries there stated. When my hon. friend was defied to produce a letter or a telegram from the right hon. leader of the government, or from any of his colleagues to the effect that the platform upon which he rested his election was approved by the government, that defiance was never accepted ; and we have the proof to-day, if proof was wanted, that the pledges given by my hon. friend the Min-inster of Marine and Fisheries had no authority, and that there will be no such change in the department as my hon. friend stated that the government had decided upon. It is all very well for the right hon. leader of the government, who is surrounded by men who cannot think of anything but to applaud what he says, to come before this committee and impugn what I stated before the electors of my province. I leave these electors to appreciate the value of the indictment brought by my right hon. friend; but I wish to say to him that the accusation which he has formulated against me can very well be turned against himself and against his friends in that province. Since 1896, and before that time-and my right hon. friend knows it well-we have not been able to have an election in the province of Quebec without those very appeals which my right hon. friend charges me with making. And in the by-election referred to by my hon. friend, he has the audacity to say that the position I took in the province of Quebec, deserved castigation.


Mr. FRASER.: You got it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, it was after I made a speech before the Cartier Club of Montreal that my huge friend from Guysborough went before his electors and dared to say that the speech I had made was the most disloyal and unpatriotic speech ever made.
On that occasion, as on many others, my hon. friend spoke about things of which he knew nothing. But let me return to the indictment of my right hon. friend. I appeal to any one who has followed the byelections in the province of Quebec, referred to by him, to say whether those elections were not carried on, in his behalf, purely and solely upon the race cry. There was no other appeal made by hon. gentlemen opposite. In the division of Maisonneuve- and I speak on my responsibility as a member of this House-how was the canvass carried on ? Why, the Montreal ' Herald ' declared editorially that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had, on more than one occasion, deserved the censure of the ratepayers of Montreal, and pointed out the manoeuvres which were resorted to during that election. The electors were visited at night and asked whether they were going to vote for Mr. Labelle or for that great representative of the French Canadian race, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. And when, Sir, an elector would inquire whether my right hon. friend was a candidate for the division, he was told: ' He is not exactly a candidate, but you know Prfifon-taine is nothing, Sir Wilfrid is everything. He is really the man you are voting for.' Sir, until the Liberals are prepared to discuss in the province of Quebec political questions upon their merits, free from such appeals, it will be very difficult for any man In that province not to receive what my right hon. friend calls castigation.


Mr.   M ACL AREN@Huntingdon: And majorities.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Call it what you like, but I say that it is deplorable that in my own native province, where the few deliverances which I have made since 1900 have been written out and printed and are not subject in any way to the criticism referred to-I say that it is deplorable that in that great province we are moving towards a state of things when any fair discussion of political questions will become impossible.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. MONK-and our great institutions for which we have done so much will not be able to work properly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you for the province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let me tell my hon. friend, who has made those appeals very often himself


Rodolphe Lemieux: Never.
Mr. MONK-that if my right hon. friend should transfer his leadership to somebody else, the hon. member for Gaspfi, who is essentially a time-server, will be quite prepared to transfer his laudation to whomever may be then chosen. I am not making these remarks for the purpose of disparag-

ing my native province. Very far from it. But we can understand the strength of the bonds of blood, and I say that to take an unfair advantage of this sentiment to stifle free discussion is not the proper direction to give to political struggles in that province, and the day will come when my hon. friends opposite, who now use there uo other argument, will find that they have brought about for their own selfish purposes, a state of affairs which will not redound to the good or the advantage of my native province.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine).: I know, Mr. Speaker, this speech of the hon. leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec almost off by heart, because I have heard it many times. I heard it repeated ad nauseam during three or four weeks in the county of Terrebonne and particularly in the county of Two Mountains. My hon. friend treats us all the time to the same theme, namely, the sacrifice of the province of Quebec, because the portfolio of Public Works was given to the hon. minister who now holds it. He continually rings the changes on the sacrifice, as he calls it, of our compatriots in the province of Quebec. From meeting to meeting, from caucus to caucus, and from street corner to street corner, we hear this complaint continually harped upon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend will remember that he never came to any of our meetings.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I took good care to keep away from them. But before citing to the hon. gentleman his own words, which he seems to have forgotten, and which were published in his own organ, the ' Journal,' of Montreal, let me once for all say in this House a word in reply to what has been so often repeated regarding my municipal career. For nearly eighteen years I have been a member of the city council of Montreal. Previous to that time, I was mayor of the municipality of Hochelaga, before that municipality was annexed to the city of Montreal. I have always been elected by acclamation by my fellow-citizens, and after serving eighteen years in the city council, my fellow-citizens of Montreal, without distinction of party, creed or nationality, elected me as their chief magistrate by acclamation. Had my career been so bad as some pretend, it would have been easy, in a large city like Montreal, to find somebody to oppose me. But no one dared present himself, and I was left peaceably in possession of the chair of mayor of Montreal during two years. At the expiration of my term of two years, I was again elected for another term, and I may say, without being boastful or showing pride of any kind, that 1 could have been reelected in 1902 during my absence in Europe, had I so desired.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There was a good deal of uncertainty about that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Well, I am simply stating facts which I think can stand any attempt at contradiction by my hon. friend. My career in the municipal council was attacked daily and is being constantly attacked even now. In this House frequent allusions are made to it. But let me read only a few lines from an article published in ' La Patrie ' on September 20, 1897, when I was about to be a candidate for the mayoralty :
Mr. Pechevin Prefontaine est notre prochain maire. Ses nombreux amis l'ont prie de se porter candidat aux Elections prochaines, et il a accepts croyons a nous.
Alderman Prefontaine will be our next mayor. His numerous friends have asked him to be a candidate in the next elections and he has accepted, we do believe.
Cette nouvelle sera accueillie avec loie par tous les contribuables de notre grande ville.
The news will be received with rejoicing by all the tax-payers of our great city.
Voilh plus de vingt ans que M. Prdfontaine est mgle aux choses municipales et qu'il s'est pour ainsi dire identifiy avec la prospdrite et le progrSs de Montreal.
For more than twenty years Mr. Prefontaine has been connected with municipal affairs, and he has identified himself with the prosperity and progress of Montreal.
II a StS maire d'Hoehelaga avant que cette municipality ne fut annexes a la ville et depuis plus do quinze ans il reprgsente le quartier Hochelaga au conseil municipal de Montreal.
He was mayor of Hochelaga before that municipality was annexed to Montreal and for fifteen years he has represented that ward in the Montreal city council.
Grace a son esprit d'initiative, a son travail, a son activity, l'ouest et Pest de Montreal ont 6t6 transformSs ; des ameliorations partout ont St6 faites ; nos rues one Sty pavSes nos Sgouts ont Sty construits, nos pares ont Ste embellis.
Thanks to his spirit of initiative, his work and activity in Montreal from east to west has been transformed. Improvements everywhere have been made, streets have been paved ; our drainage has been improved and our parks have been embellished.
Tout cela a cofitS de l'argent, beaucoup d'ar-gent.
All this has cost money-a great deal of money.
Mais les contribuables sont aujourd'hui tiers de leur ville, parce qu'elle fait l'admiration des ytrangers qui la visitent.
This cost a good deal of money, but our tax payers are now proud of their city because it is the admiration of all outsiders who visit it.
Pryfontaine a travaille a la prospyrite de Montryal avec cette ynergie entrainante que tout le monde lui connalt.
Prefontaine has worked for the prosperity of the city of Montreal with the effective energy that everybody knows him to possess.

Son glSvation a la mairie sera la recompense due a son labeur incessant.
La popularity dont il joult dans les foules ne fera que s'accroitre, quand il occupera le fau-teuil de premier magistrat de notre ville.
His election to the mayoralty will be the due reward of his labour. The popularity he enjoys in the city will be increased when he occupies the mayor's chair.
That is the opinion of my hon. friend the member for St.. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), written on the 20th September, 1897. It seems that he has changed from the unanimous opinion of the citizens of the city of Montreal-for that I was unanimously acceptable was shown by the fact I have already mentioned, that there was no opposition, and I remained in the mayoralty for two years. I am sorry to have been obliged to bring this up, but I felt it my duty to do so, because the people may be misled by what has been written and said since then. But I think that nobody will be misled when I cite the exact words of the speeches made against me in the campaign which took place in the month of December last in Maison-neuve division. I will take the first meeting, which is reported in ' Le Journal' on the 26th November last. 1't Is entitled ' The battle is in full blast.' We see in this report that Mr. Labelle, who was running against me in that' election, spoke in the presence of the leader of the opposition for the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). If these utterances of Mr. Labelle were not designed to arouse the national prejudices of one province against another, I do not know the meaning of the words. I translate from the report, which is in French :
Then comes the appreciation of Mr. PrSfon-taine, whose treachery to the province of Quebec cannot be either excused or explained. Of all those whom Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked to accept the succession to Mr. Tarte, Profontaine was the only one who consented to bear upon his shoulders the humiliation to which he was exposing his compatriots. Let him bear the responsibility and let him not try to find elsewhere the reason of the opposition.
I must not give too many citations. It was the same cry everywhere. Every day the same thing was repeated at meetings of Conservative candidates. I have kept a number of these reports and printed appeals to the electors, with sueh lines as ' Treason to the Province of Quebec,' ' The Province of Quebec Betrayed,' and so on-these words often in red letters-distributed at the church doors and circulated in every way, in the hope of arousing the prejudices of the people. Now, let us see what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says :
Mr. Monk added that it was to be regretted that the portfolio of Public Works was to he taken away from the province of Quebec and from our element, which already is not any too well treated at Ottawa. We have no good reason for the injustice put upon our province, and that injustice so put upon them the elector of Maisonneuve will resent.
Here are the exact words of the member for Jacques Cartier. Why did he pronounce them ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will answer, as my hon. friend asks me-it is because he is the only one who, under the circumstances, would accept that portfolio.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is confirmation of what I have been saying. Further citations of the hon. gentleman's words are unnecessary. But let me quote a few words further, for, time and again, the same thing was said, the same speeches were repeated-I had sacrificed the province of Quebec ; I had sacrificed my compatriots; the portfolio which had been held by a member of the majority of the province of Quebec had been given to one who did not belong to that majority. All this was an appeal to the prejudices of the electors of the province of Quebec ; for, as you know, Mr. Chairman, ninety per cent of the electors there are of French origin. That is the meaning of the arguments used to the electors of Maisonneuve by all the Tory speakers that took part in the campaign. Not satisfied with having been crushed by the immense majority which the electors gave me in that election, they carried the same warfare into Two Mountains and Terrebonne, and on every hustings where I met the hon. member for Jacques Cartier there was a repetition of the same argument-the province of Quebec had been sacrificed by the portfolio of Public Works being given to an Ontario man. In the face of these attempts to arouse prejudice in the province of Quebec, had not we a right to try to explain to our people the position of affairs and make them understand the importance of the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I did try to explain, and my friends tried to explain that there were anomalies in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that there were anomalies in the Department of Public Works, and that it would be the aim of the government to try to bring order out of the confusion. What harm was there in that, I would like to know. And when the same announcement was made in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the session, I do not see why there should be so much trouble and discussion unless it is to bring up again the question that has been discussed during those four elections, and particularly during my election. Why, Sir, to hear these gentlemen during my election campaign, you would have thought that the maritime provinces, which in the past have furnished the occupant of the portfolio of Minister of Marine and Fisheries, were degraded, that their people were inferior, because they had been satisfied for thirty years with the small portfolio of Marine and Fisheries. What inferior people they must have been, these people of Nova Scotia

and Prince Edward Island, to have suffered so long the humiliation of filling the portfolio of Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Let me again cite from the language of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, as reported in the ' Journal ' of the 28th of November, 1902. Speaking of myself he said :
He is so well aware of his Inferiority that he has consented to replace Mr. Tarte in the insignificant role of Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But in belittling himself in that way, he is dragging his province along with him in his downfall. And to-day he is powerless to explain that degradation.
* Degradation ' all the time. I am sorry that one of the ex-ministers and one of the leaders of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) is not present in the House to-day, because he would be flattered at being treated in this manner by one of his leaders in this House, at being told that in accepting the portfolio of Minister of Marine and Fisheries he degraded himself. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, how low he must have fallen. Of course, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would not dare to go down to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and repeat language of that kind; but in the province of Quebec, among people who are supposed by a certain class of politicians not to understand political questions very well, such language is quite right and proper, when the aim is to arouse the prejudice of French Canadians against the government, because the Prime Minister had seen fit to confide to my humble self the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries, which is such a degradation to the province of Quebec. Those are the exact words of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, the leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec. If he is not trying to take advantage of a very small issue for political effect, I do not know the meaning of his speeches. Now, hon. gentlemen will find, on referring to ' Le Journal,' a great deal of edification in reading how the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island must have been degraded, because, ever since confederation, they have furnished the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Now, Sir, a great deal has been said about my declarations. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee unnecessarily, but if, Mr. Chairman, you will refer to my first speech delivered before the Liberal club of the east end of Montreal, after having been sworn in as minister, you will see exactly what my declarations were. I pointed out to the people assembled there the importance of the department, because the cry had already been started. It was not a question of politics, it was purely an attempt to arouse the prejudices of our fellow citizens in Quebec against the government. I went there, and what did I say ? I said that there were certain works, certain functions, which were under Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
the control of the Department of Public Works at the present time, but that their control by that department involved] an anomaly which the government had decided to remedy. For instance, I mentioned the hydrographic survey. I said, gentlemen, how can you explain that the hydrographic survey, which is one of the most important services for the safety of navigation, is today performed partly by the Department of Public Works, from Montreal to Quebec, partly by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, from Quebec to Belle Isle, and partly by the Department of Railways and Canals, from Montreal to Kingston, and again by the Department of Marine and Fisheries from Kingston to and through the lakes ? I said : Why is it that so many accidents are happening to navigation ? When you try to discover the cause of these accidents, you will find that officers of the several departments throw the blame on each other.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is the hydrographic survey in the Department of Public Works now, or in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is as I said, partly in the Department of Public Works, for the section between Montreal and Quebec, partly in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, from Quebec to Belle Isle, partly in the Department of Railways and Canals, from Montreal to Kingston, and again under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, from Kingston to the lakes. Therefore, you have four sections under different control on the one route, the St. Lawrence route. I stated at this meeting that that was an anomaly, that this work should be all under the control either of one department or the other. Arguing from that standpoint, what did I say further ? I pointed out another anomaly in the case of the harbour commissioners. I said that there were three boards of harbour commissioners, one at Quebec, one at Montreal, and one at Three Rivers, all under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; but when you have any work to perform you must first get the approval of the Department of Public Works. Is it not reasonable to say that the Department of Marine and Fisheries should have something to say about these works, although they might be entirely under the control of the Department of Public Works as regards nominations and so on, since the works were executed with their own money borrowed on the credit of the government ? Still is it not reasonable that the Department of Marine and Fisheries should also have a word to say in the performance of those works ?
They can build a wharf where there Is no water and tihe Department of Marine and Fisheries will have nothing to say about it.

They can build an elevator or anything they wish regarding transportation or navigation without a word of advice to be taken from the Department of Marine and Fisheries. These are the anomalies to which I referred. There are others. There is, for instance, the work of dredging the St. Lawrence and of sweeping the channel. I do not say that these works should be at once transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, because these vast works which have been begun must better be continued under the control of the Department of Public Works. But. surely a public man has a perfect right to discuss these questions and to lay these facts before his fellow citizens. My fellow citizens accepted my view upon these questions. They knew what T had done, they knew from my public record what I could do and what I would do, and they believed me in preference to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his confreres who came into the division of Maisonneuve, and notwithstanding what they said about the treachery of the ex-member for Maisonneuve, and notwithstanding that they predicted that I would not be re-elected, my fellow citizens were satisfied to return me'for that division. I went into Terrebonne which 1 had represented and I carried on1 the campaign in the same way as I had done in Maisonneuve. It was stated right and left that the treachery of which I had been guilty would redound against the Liberal party, yet Terrebonne had never, previous to my election returned a Liberal candidate. At the present time you have a Liberal sitting for that division and elected by a larger majority than has ever been given before. These are the facts and these are the results of the speeches of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his friends who are trying to rouse the prejudices of the electors of the province of Quebec. I repeat again what has been so ably said by my right hon. leader that the province of Quebec is not led astray by such speeches. It has never been led astray by such speeches-I thank God it has not been-and it never will be. If what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has stated be true that canvassers were going around and asking the electors to vote for the right hon. leader of the government during the last election, that, was a pretty good argument. These canvassers and the people to whom they spoke knew perfectly well who was the candidate and in electing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries they knew that they were electing a faithful and loyal friend of the right ho*, leader of the government and of the Liberal party.


Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am bound to "say a word or two. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) has just read an article that makes it a duty for me to get on my feet. That article 93	-
which, I apprehend, I never wrote myself, was published in 1897.	1 was a little
younger then than I am now, and I was not in newspaper work as deeply then as I am at the present time. The lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was then asking the vote of the electors for the mayoralty. But, before talking of our municipal affairs, I would like to say a word or two as to the main question which has been raised. Let me say, first, that I was never of the opinion and that I am not of the opinion today that the portfolio of Public Works, or Marine and Fisheries, or Finance, or any other department, belongs to one province exclusively. We are a mixed community; we are, I hope, building up a nation here. I had the honour to be for nearly six years and a half Minister of Public Works for the whole Dominion, not for the province of Quebec exclusively, but for the whole Dominion. And whatever differences might have arisen between my political friends of former days and myself I believe they will never reproach me, whatever their race may be, with having been partial either towards or against them. The Department of Public Works did not belong exclusively to the province of Quebec. I would have been very glad indeed if it had remained within the province in which it had been for many years. I was so much of that opinion that in spite of the personal differences very well known between my hon. friend the tooii. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself, I distinctly stated in ' La Tatrie,' and I had taken full charge of the paper then, that I would have not the slightest possible objection to the hon. gentleman being appointed Minister of Public Works. I stated that publicly and I stated it privately to my hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) himself. But political friends at that time were raising a violent opposition against the appointment of the hon. Minister of Marine. I had nothing more to do with it ; I did not say a word one way or the other.	But there was a
great row raised and a violent agitation took place in the Liberal ranks against the appointment of the hon. member for Maisonneuve. Most of that opposition came, I may say, or a great deal of it at any rate, from those who had been opposed to the hon. gentleman in his municipal career. I do not believe that we are called upon to discuss within this House all our municipal difficulties in Montreal. However, since the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has seen fit to quote an article that was published in ' La Patrie ' six years ago, let me say a word or two on that topic. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had been for many years Chairman of the Roads Committee of the city of Montreal, and he was mayor for two years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Four years.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I beg my bon. friend's pardon. It is long indeed-very long.


Mr. BELCOURT.: It might have been longer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It might have been longer, but the city of Montreal decided in another way. Those who were most violently opposed to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries were the strongest Liberals in the city of Montreal. In 1897 he was -elected mayor, and he was elected in 1900 also. I may say that it was very difficult in the past to make any opposition to the hon. gentleman. I am speaking within the hearing of many people from the city of Montreal who took part in the municipal elections. The racial cry was the principal cry that the hon. gentleman used all the time.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg to deny in the most formal manner what the hon. gentleman has stated just now. He cannot show a single word from me to that effect. It is all gratuituous. Let him try it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman knows very well that I am within Gospel truth. There was for a time an English majority in the city council of Montreal. My hon. friend and others made up their minds-I do not blame them-that the French Canadians should have their share, and they started a strong agitation to take hold of municipal affairs. The hon. gentleman made that fight'on the racial cry. He and his friends made that fight on the racial cry for years and years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I deny it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend may deny it, but I am speaking the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I will accept his *denial in the parliamentary sense, but my words will be read by the whole city of Montreal.


Mr. COWAN.: You supported him apparently.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I said it was very *difficult indeed to raise an opposition against him.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You tried.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I tried and I succeeded.


Mahlon K. Cowan: When ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The strongest Liberals came to ' La Patrie ' and to myself personally, just as they went to the right lion, leader of the government himself ou several occasions and represented to him


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: that the city of Montreal was being wrecked and was being destroyed. The organization against my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. PrS-fontaine) in municipal affairs was in the ' Herald ' office. The ' Herald ' people came to my office and to me personally. The leaders of the Liberal party in Montreal-I will give the names if I am asked to give names, because there is no secret about it-they came to me and they asked me whether ' La Patrie ' would consent to take a hand in the fight, because they felt that if they had not a French paper to speak to the French electors, it was out of the question to have municipal reform in Montreal. My hon. friend (Hon. Sir. Pre-fontaine) had made an alliance with a certain group in the Conservative party-the ' La Presse ' people-at the time. If there was not a French paper in a position to make a fight against him, a fight was out of the question. I give these explaiwtions so that people will understand how ' La Patrie ' was drawn into those municipal contests. It took us some time before we were able to get municipal reform in Montreal. In 1900, most of the aldermen who had followed my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine) were defeated ; defeated to a man. He remained the only one of his group in the municipal council. He was allowed to be elected mayor. We had clipped his wings and he was allowed to remain there.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In 1902 he tried his level best to be a candidate.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I was not here.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman went away, but he placed his candidature before the electorate and he could not be elected and he withdrew. But this is only municipal history, and I would not have alluded to it if I had not been invited by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaiue) to do so. In 1897, it appears that ' La Patrie ' supported him. In 1900 he was allowed to be elected under the conditions that have been described. In 1902 he was defeated, to his great happiness, because he lias been made a minister since. Now, as to his.last election campaign. There is no doubt whatever that he stated to the electorate that a part of the Public Works Department would be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. His words have been reported verbatim. What he announced will not be done. That is sufficient for me. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is right on one point, and that is, when he said that the hydraulic survey should be placed in the Marine Department. I share his views ou that point. The reason why the Department of Public Works undertook the survey on the St. Lawrence river between Quebec and Montreal, was because that department was carrying on extensive dredging, and it was necessary to have in-

formation and data, but it was not the intention or ambition to trespass on the rights of any other department. The dredging work is nearly finished now. My hou. friend (Hon. Mr. Prgfontaine) may take over the hydrographic survey if he chooses ; after one more year's work it will be finished. I repeat that there is no sound argument to be invoked in support of the contention that one department should always belong to the same province. My hou. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has alluded to appeals that have, he claims, been made in the elections of 1896 and 1900. There were apepals on both sides. I have read a great many appeals in these two campaigns. I hope we will never hear them again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I hope that in future we will discuss political questions on their merits. The people of this country have grown big enough to discuss political questions on their merits. Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that X differ from him on the point that in the province of Quebec we cannot discuss any political question today on their merits because the name of the Prime Minister is supreme. The name of the right hon. gentleman is a powerful name, X am bound to say, in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I spring from the soil so to speak ; I am the son of a farmer, and I claim that there is enough independence in the hearts, and in the souls, and in the conscience of the French Canadians, whether farmers or workingmen or anything else, to discuss political questions and to understand them as they deserve to be understood. There is no doubt that my right hon. friend's name is a powerful one in the province of Quebec, but I would not be afraid in any way to discuss with him now, as I have in past years, the political questions of the day, and I would not be afraid of the verdict, if I am right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The province of Quebec is equal to the other provinces of this Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We are not carried away by a name, or by prejudices, or by passion. There may be people who are prejudiced, but there are prejudiced people in every part of the Dominion.


An hon. MEMBER.: Everywhere.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, everywhere. I protest in a friendly way, but as firmly as I can against the assertion that the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is so powerful that we cannot with advantage discuss political 93J
questions in our province. The time may come when we may be obliged to discuss these questions with my right hon. friend, and the people of the province of Quebec will listen to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, to myself, to anybody who will appeal to them and give us a fair hearing. I am sure that the words spoken by my bon. friend (Mr. Monk) do not express his real sentiments and views on this question. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we from the city of Montreal, have relied too much on the indulgence of the House in discussing our municipal affairs, but as they are somewhat connected with our political differences it was just as well to settle our case kindly, as I have endeavoured to do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a good deal of attention to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and I am surprised that he has raised such a breeze in the" House, over ah incident which one would think should have been settled by what occurred here a few days ago. I would not have attempted to speak in this debate, were it not that the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had made some insinuations with regard to my humble self. He has stated that as a member of the Liberal party, I had appealed to passions and prejudices in the province of Quebec to sustain the Liberal party, or what he termed, the cause of the right hon. leader of the government. I beg to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), in the most respectful manner, in the most courteous manner, speaking from my seat in parliament-and this is the right place to make such a denial -that never in my political life did I make any such appeals as he said I made.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have met the hon. gentleman in four counties where elections were held recently ; I have met him in many political discussions ; and I call upon him now to say if I ever uttered in his bearing such appeals as he has mentioned. I say that I never did. But, Sir, let me show the course which the hon. gentleman has pursued in the province of Quebec for the last four or five years. Last year, speaking on the budget, I quoted tbe remarks which were made by him before the Morin Club, a very piwerful Conservative association in Montreal. I will again quote those remarks, not as reported in ' La Patrie ' or ' La Presse ' or any other French Canadian papers, but as telegraphed to the Toronto 'Mail and Empire,' the chief organ of the Liberal Conservative party in this country. Here is what my hon. friend said, as reported in that paper :
Laurier Fails in Duty to Quebec. His Premiership of No Aid to French Canadians. Notable Speech by F. D. Monk.
And the ' Mail ' goes on to say :
By the very nature of his position Sir Wilfrid Laurier was obliged every day to make conces-

sions. In the same way when the subsidies to the provinces came up for consideration, Prince Edward Island received a bonus. New Brunswick will also receive one, but Quebec's claims are left without consideration. The same thing applied to experimental farms. Every other province had one, but Quebec was left out. In the Immigration Department, conducted by Mr. Sifton, the French Canadians were practically eliminated. The immigration was directed to the far west, to the detriment of Quebec. Referring to the Montreal harbour works, Mr. Monk said that the necessary works have been delayed for years simply because the government is afraid to do anything for the province of Quebec, which gives Canada its Prime Minister. All along the line Mr. Monk claimed that Quebec province had gained nothing, but, on the contrary, had lost in prestige and advantages by having one of its own sons at the head of the government.
This is the language used by my kon. friend in every political campaign in our province, and he dares to state before this House that we, the members of the Liberal party, are raising racial issues against his own party, when, as I have clearly demonstrated, we have to answer such arguments as these on the platform. Sir, I have met lately the hon. gentleman in the county of Maisonneuve, and in the county of Terrebonne, and I am bound to say for the edification of this House, that this is the kind of language used by my hon. friend when he speaks to the French Canadian electors. I have here the verbatim report of the speech made by him shortly after the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was called to office. He was speaking at Three Rivers on Friday, the 14th of November last. I will translate it. This is what he sand :
What a spectacle Is now offered to us ! Of what are we sorrowful witnesses ? You see the most important department of the government taken away from the province of Quebec. If Mr. Tarte has administered his department in a fair and proper way, why cannot there be found an honest man to succeed him ?
That is the way the hon. gentleman spoke of liis own province and our public men.
Why have they chosen the occasion when there are so many public works here and in Montreal to he undertaken, to take away the department from us ? The reason for the hesitation which has attended the appointment of Mr. Tarte's successor, is that Mr. Sutherland was contending that the province of Ontario was entitled to the department. Why has not Mr. Prdfontaine insisted that this department should be dismantled, and why has he not defended our rights ?
Sir, til is is the verbatim speech delivered by the hon. gentleman at the moment the hon. member for Maisonneuve was called to the cabinet. I was present also when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries made his speech before the Liberal Club of Montreal East, and what did he state ? Did he state in a formal manner that the Department of Public Works would be merged in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir, I state here boldly that he did not. I heard what he said, and I listened carefully. He stated that at an informal meeting held the day previous with his colleagues, he was asked by them to make a report on the feasibility of a scheme to merge a part of the Department of Public Works into the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend allow me ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is what my hon. friend himself stated in an interview in 'La Presse:'
As an old fighter I congratulate him on his nomination. I do not know the intentions of the government on the subject of the changes which are to be made in the ministry of Public Works. If the modifications announced are made, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries must become very important. I hope sincerely that they will take place, because the St. Lawrence route, in which the province of Quebec is so interested, will benefit thereby.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir, I am reported faithfully, and I will not take one word from that interview. It is true, and I hope it will be found to be true at the end. But really my hon. friend is too old a parliamentarian to revive such dead issues. Does he fancy for the moment that there are not enough reporters, journalists and telegraph officers in this country to record what is being stated by public men during a political campaign ? Let me warn my hon. friend that each time he speaks in the province of Quebec, as he has spoken during the last six or seven years, he will be faithfully reported at least by the Liberal press of Canada if not by the Conservative press.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We aTe charged to-day by hon. gentlemen ; who, with their political ancestors, have for the last half century been raising in our province political issues of a racial and religious character. I appeal to the old parliamentarians who sit around me ; I appeal to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) who has stood the brunt of the battle for nearly half a century.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let him recall to this House how the French Canadian Liberals, who have borne the battle in the days gone by were treated by their Conservative opponents. Sir, for a number of years the Liberals in the province of Quebec were ousted from public life, nay, even from the church. They could not appear on a political platform." They were branded as bad Catholics and as enemies of society. But slowly and slowly the truth came out. They had a great leader in the person of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. In him we

had a man who appealed, not to the prejudices of his race, but to their intelligence and their conscience, and he made the name of Liberal respected throughout that province, as it is to-day throughout the Dominion. To-dtiy we are no more ousted from the church, we are respected by the powers that be, notwithstanding the unchristian, the unpatriotic attitude of the leaders of the Conservative party towards us. We all have learned, through the great lessons taught by our leader, the value of civil rights. But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I understand, has raised this debate in order not to let his hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) take the lead. We all know that to be the case. It is, as we say in French, ' un secret de Polichinelle,' it is secret which is running about every street in Montreal that my hon. friend from Montmorency is the would-be successor of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and the latter asserted this afternoon his leadership by bringing up an old issue which had already been thrashed out the other day. You are probably not aware, Sir, that after the election which took place during the months of November and December last, the leading Conservative organ in Montreal, ' Le Journal,' which was then his organ, but which has since veered around and transferred its allegiance and support to my hon. friend from Montmorency, informed him plainly that he could not continue to act as the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, unless he changed his political tactics. It is 'well known that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been disavowed by a section of his own party, and by the official organ of that party, and this explains why we are assisting to-day at this little comedy. Yesterday it was my hon. friend from Montmorency who took the lead by bringing up in the House the Treadgold question, and to-day my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier reasserts his title to the leadership by this attack on the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, notwithstanding the fact that my friend from Montmorency brought the same question before the House a few days ago. But I must say this of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-and I say it in all seriousness-that he enjoys the confidence of his small but gallant phalanx of followers in the province of Quebec, and that, in my opinion, his rival, the hon. member for Montmorency, will not succeed in ousting him from the leadership.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, to answer at very great length, the rather impassioned address just delivered by my hon. friend from Gaspe, who seems to have a grudge against either the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or myself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all, you are my best friends.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend got rather excited and angry, for what reason I am not aware, except that he was anxious to follow the lead of my right hon. friend the First Minister and make an appeal on the same lines. But let me tell my hon. friend from Gaspe that these personal attacks come with very bad grace, especially from him, because if we desired to be disagreeable we could refer back to an election which he went through in Gaspe and bring up again some incidents in that election which would certainly not tell to his credit. But I do not propose to go into such personal matters nor do I propose to rake up ancient history, as my hon. friend did when he talked of the times when, according to him, the Liberals in the province of Quebec were ousted from the church by the Conservatives. I shall content myself with going back to the general elections which took place in 1896, during which the chief argument used by hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends in the province of Quebec was that the late Conservative government had got this House to vote $3,000,000 for the purpose of buying-rifles and enlisting French Canadians to fight the battles of the empire. From parish to parish they went, trying to hound down the Conservatives because, they said,
' you voted $3,000,000 to buy rifles with which to arm our sons and send them to fight the battles of England in a distant land.' Would my hon. friend not call that an appeal to race and prejudice ? And I might point to an hon. minister opposite me who, though he is not given to raising his voice in discussion in this House, is most vehement on the hustings, and was one of the most guilty parties in this instance. Nor will I give more than a passing reference to an argument used in the election of 1900, by prominent gentlemen on the other side who came to fight me in that election, and whose principle argument was that the candidate they were opposing was born in Ontario and spoke English almost as well as French and sent his son to an English Protestant institution. Would my hon. friend not call that an appeal to racial prejudice ? Yet hon. gentlemen who were guilty of such appeals try to lecture us on this side because forsooth, in the exercise of our duty and of our rights, we say that the province of Quebec was humiliated when the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) accepted the portfolio of Minister of Marine and Fisheries instead of insisting on being given the portfolio of Public Works, left vacant by the resignation of the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte). We say that in taking that sop, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries humiliated his province. I have no need to rise here to explain the words which my right hon. friend the Premier read from the speech I made in Three Rivers. These words require no justification at my hands. I stand by what I there said, and I defy my right hon. friend

to quote one sentence in any speech I have ever delivered in any part of this country of which I need be ashamed before this House. And that is more than my right hon. friend and a great many who sit around him can say. Dare they repeat what they said at Chicoutimi and other places in the province of Quebec during the elections of 1896 and 1900 ? I defy them to do it. I say again let them read, if it is not too fatiguing for them, the report of any speech I ever made either in the province of Quebec or in the province of Ontario and quote any sentence for which I need blush before my colleagues in this House or the people of Canada. What is the position I took in the speech I made at Three Rivers. I said that ever:	since 1878 the portfolio of
Public Works had been held by a minister from the province of Quebec, that it was one of the most important in the gift of the Governor General and the Prime Minister, and that it had been in the hands of a French Canadian of the province of Quebec ever since that year. I said that this department had been ably administered by the minister who had just vacated it, and that, under the circumstances, it was the bcunden duty of the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve to insist, as a condition of his entering the government at all, on being given that department. I further said, Sir, that if I had been in his place I would not have accepted the humiliation of taking an inferior department-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, Sir, I repeat it-the humiliation of taking an inferior department. I would have insisted upon having the Department of Public Works or one of the other most important departments in the gift of my right hon. friend. What further did I say? I said that it looked very strange, remembering what the ' Herald ' had said, remembering what the ' Witness ' had said, and what must have been said to my right hon. friend the leader of the government in relation to the past career of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-it looked very much as if my right hon. friend would not trust the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with any great spending department. And I declared that that was one of the causes for the humiliation of the hon. gentleman, and it became the humiliation of the province of Quebec in his person, when he accepted the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which is not an important department compared with the Department of Public Works, and is not a great spending department. These were the sentiments to which I gave expression. I have nothing to be ashamed of in them, and I repeat them here before the House in the hearing of my colleagues, and I know I shall have their support.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 71) to incorporate the Imperial Company.- Mr. Bickerdike.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: There seems to be some misunderstanding about this Bill, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Empire, Accident and Surety Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Shipping Federation of Canada.-Mr. Bickerdike.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 156) to incorporate the Montreal-Longueuil Bridge Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 158) to incorporate the St. Chrys-ostome Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
Bill (No. 163) respecting the United Empire Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 164) to incorporate the Pacific Bank of Canada.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the GaspS and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Gau-vreau.
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company, and to change its name to 1 The Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.'-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 169) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of James Sinclair McDougall.-Mr. Gallery.
Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the Nipigon Iron Range Railway Company.-Mr. Dy-ment.
Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. Stephens.
Bill (No. 172) to incorporate the City and County Bank of Canada.-Mr. Rosamond.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in Committee of Supply.
["We will proceed, then, with the Public Works' estimates first, and after that, if the Minister of Justice is present, we will take his estimates."]
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, when you rose at six o'clock, I really had not very much more to say upon the subject which is occupying the attention of the committee, but still, in view of what has been said it seems to me that this discussion can be continued for some minutes more

so as to get from tlie government what we have been trying to get for some time-a specific declaration of what is the policy of the government upon the important question as to whether or not the Department of Public Works is to be divided between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Public Works. Of course, after the very lucid explanation which was given here this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) probably the committee is enlightened and we should not say any more. On the other hand it seems to me that the government is bound to state whether or not the declarations made by the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries on an important occasion are to be carried out by the government; in other words, whether the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was really authorized to make the statements which he did make. I noticed that both the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries anil the hon. member for Gaspd (Mr. Lemieux), when they spoke about this question, were not ve -y "definite in the expression of their opinions as to what rct.'.ly was to lie done. The right hon. leader of this House (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Dnurier) also spoke, but we fail to find in anything which he said a definite policy laid down by him as to what really was "to be done. When my hon. friend quoted what he said at this meeting of the Liberal club, or Le Club Liberal de la Partie-Est, I think it is, I noticed that he did not quote what is here put in his mouth by the newspapers of Montreal. I want to know if he repudiates the report of his speech which was given both by ' La Patrie ' and ' La Presse ' on that occasion, because both of these reports are identical in terms. Now, my hon. friend, as I read to the House the other night, said, in fact, this ;
Gentlemen, let us be reasonable, let us examine the situation as it is. The Department of Public Works at this moment are spending several millions of dollars. This sum is spent in public buildings and their maintenance, including the parliament buildings at Ottawa, and in the construction of new buildings inv every part of the country where they are needed. Moreover, the Department of Public Works until now has had the dredging of rivers, has carried on the improvements in the port of Montreal, with the assistance, of course, of the harbour commission and of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But if we put every man in his place, and if we. say to the Department of Public Works, not only by words but by deeds, you shall only have under your control the works on the public buildings and the public improvements which relate to the maintenance of the country, hut everything which concerns navigation, such as dredging the rivers, the construction of wharfs, the construction of elevators, the building of dry docks, and so on, if we say that all this concerns navigation and therefore concerns the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and if you put this into a law, is it not true that you have there all the guarantees which you can desire ? But you are told : This is to make the province of Quebec believe that you are not sacrificed. Well, gentlemen, again I repeat, let us be reasonable. If I tell you as I have already said twice, that I have accepted the portfolio under these conditions.
I will call tlie attention of the committee to this ;
And, gentlemen, again I repeat, let us he reasonable. If I tell you, as I have already said twice, that I have accepted the portfolio under these conditions and that they have been sanctioned, It is because I sincerely believe the promises which have been made, the declarations which have been made, and it is because I am sincerely convinced that these promises and declarations will be realized.
So there are the words which were pronounced by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He distinctly said that all those works which are now under the control of the Department of Public Works were to be under bis department. He went farther than that. He said :	These are the conditions under which I accept the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries and these are the sanctioned declarations that I have authority for making to the country. These are the conditions under which I accepted office, and if these conditions had not been granted I would not have accepted. But, there is the indefinite statement that we have now-before the committee. We have this statement simply from my hon. friend who spoke tins afternoon that probably the hydrographic survey which is now in part under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries would be placed wholly under the control of this department. If the hon. gentleman had not come to the electors of the province of Quebec with the distinct statements he made in this speech, the result of the election in Maisonneuve would have been different from what it was when he was elected. It is strange, after what the right hon. leader of the House said this afternoon, if he had decided from the outset to take iDto his cabinet the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that it took so long to come to a decision, because it is in the remembfance of everybody that it took three weeks before my hon. friend was taken into the cabinet. And why, Sir ?-because it is well known also that deputation after deputation came up here to Ottawa to urge that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries be not taken into the cabinet, but that the hon. gentleman who sits here as speaker of this House (Hon. Mr. Brodeur) should be appointed one of the ministers of the Crown. Here is the ' Herald ' of Montreal, not a Conservative organ, not one which is favourable to this side of the House, but one of the great organs of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, and it went so far as to publish the portrait of Mr. Speaker and to say :
The ' Herald ' is to-day in a position to state that the Hon. L. P. Brodeur, member for Rou-ville, and Speaker of the House of Commons, will probably succeed Hon. Mr. Tarte as Minis-

ter of Public Works in the cabinet of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
There is no doubt whatever that there was great wrangling in the Liberal ranks at that time. Deputation after deputation came to Ottawa to urge upon the Prime Minister that he should take into the cabinet the Speaker of this House (Hon. Mr. Bro-deur) and not the member for Maisonneuve (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine). We were told some time ago that a definite statement would be made to the House as to the policy of the government on this matter, and why is it that such a statement is so long delayed ? I take it, Sir, that the Department of Public Works, having been given to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), it will not be divided now, and that the hon. gentleman is a believer in the motto ' what we have we'll hold.' I suppose that the government should decide to take the Public Works from my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), or suppose they should now propose to diminish the importance of that department, I put it to gentlemen on the other side .of the House, if the members from the other provinces, and especially from Ontario, would not resent such a change. There is nothing extraordinary in the views which I gave expression to, and which were quoted by the Prime Minister to-day. The province of Quebec had for a long time control of the Department of Public Works, and I simply expressed the views of one province at the change that had been made. I feel certain that were that department taken from the province of Ontario to-day we would hear the same protest from Ontario. In the Montreal ' Gazette ' of November 12tli, the Minister of Marine was interviewed, and this is the report of the interview :
' Will there be any new functions added to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ' asked the reporter.
' Yes,' said the hon. gentleman, ' but that cannot be done until parliament meets and the change is ratified by the people's representatives. You see the duties of the several portfolios are at present defined by Act of the central legislature, so nothing short of an amending Act of parliament can affect the change. The St. Lawrence river works will be added to the Marine Department.'
I call the attention of the House to the fact that this interview has never been repudiated. The Minister of Marine continued :
' That will give us the service of building and maintaining our wharfs in the different waters of the Dominion. This will give my department the oversight of what is commonly known as transportation. I have had some opportunity for a study of the subject and I will give it more.' With regard to his Montreal critics Mr. PrSfontaine remarked that he had nothing to say at present but time will show them. I am not the man they have represented me to be.'
That is a corroboration of the speech made by the hon. gentleman, but that is not all.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Never before was the Liberal-Conservative party so united in its opposition to the gentlemen who sit upon the treasury benches. Never before was it so united in word and.in deed, in the performance of the duty which it believes it owes to the people of Canada. If hon. gentlemen opposite can take any comfort from street rumours as to differences which exist between my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and myself, they are easily satisfied. When my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), in 1900 was the unanimous choice of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec as their leader, I was one of the first to sanction that choice, and I welcomed it as a sure sign of victory at the next election.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, and my hon. friends on the other side know that what I am saying is true ; they feel it in their bones. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk), since being elected leader of the Quebec Liberal-Conservatives, has grown in the estimation

and respect of every man in this House, and every man in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) deservedly has the esteem and respect of this House, and I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite, if they do not know it, that he has no more devoted follower than 1 am. My hon. friend from Gasp<5 (Mr. Le-mieux) says I have ambitions. Sir, I have no ambition to be either the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec or the leader , of the district of Quebec. I have not the time, I have not the means, and especially I have not the ability to be leader, even if I so desired. But. Sir, I am honoured in being an humble and ardent and zealous supporter of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier.	'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. POPE.: I feel compelled to say a few words in this, in some respects unfortunate debate, because early in the session I entered my protest against the removal from the province of Quebec of such an important department as Public Works, which had been presided over for many years by a member from that province. I agree that no province in Canada owns any particular portfolio, but I do say that the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec have for many years been recognized as entitled to a fair share of the departments which control patronage and the expenditure of public money. These provinces represent the great majority of the taxpayers of Canada, and it is only right that they should have representation in some degree commensurate with the contributions which they make to the public treasury. Upon the ground, as a business ground, irrespective of parties or nationalities or religions, I think it is a sound principle for a Prime Minister to act upon in forming his government, that the two large provinces of Quebec and Ontario should have strong and prominent representatives in the cabinet. I do not think that will be considered a narrow or prejudiced or debatable ground. Well, there must have been some reason for not carrying out this well-recognized principle in this particular case. The ex-Minister of Public Works, we all agree, had been doing good work, according to his best judgment, and subject to the criticism to which every hon. minister, no matter how good his judgment may be, must be subject. He had been putting a great deal of labour and effort into the work of his department, -with the object of rendering, to the best of his ability, good service to the country in carrying on the operations of that department and in dispensing the enormous patronage which was placed in his hands. The Prime Minister undertook to select a successor to the hon. Minister of Public Works, who had retired, and he took a long
time to decide upon a man. It was not the decision of a moment. He consulted Liberals far and wide ; he was sometimes in Quebec, sometimes in Ottawa, sometimes in Montreal ; possibly he may have consulted business men, some of whom were outside the ranks of the Liberal party. In choosing a successor to the Minister of Public Works, he was not obliged to take the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He had the names of many other hon. gentlemen before him, the Speaker, for instance, and other men quite capable of taking charge of any reasonable portfolio. But the right hon. gentleman saw fit to select the hon. member for Maisonneuve. When he made that choice, he had the record of the hon. gentleman before him. That record was either one which should entitle the hon. gentleman to favour at the hands of the Prime Minister, or it was not. Having been at the head of the municipal public works of the city of Montreal, which is the largest city in Canada, and which has a very large expenditure, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had certainly been in the very best possible school for fitting a man to fulfil the duties of Minister of Public Works of Canada. Pie had been through the kindergarten experience, which is sometimes a good thing for men to have before entering the cabinet. He had made a record there. If that record was what it ought to have been, the Prime Minister was quite right in selecting him, and be should have given him the Department of Public Works. If that record was not what it ought to have been, the Prime Minister was wrong in taking him into his cabinet at all. As we look over the hon. gentleman's history, which he has made for himself in his native province, as that history is recorded, not by the Conservative press, but by his own friends, we shall be able to understand why the Prime Minister hesitated about placing under that hon. gentleman's control a great spending department like the Department of Public Works. That history has been read here to-day very largely from the Montreal ' Herald,' and it is not necessary for me to go over it again. I will quote, however, what the * Herald ' said on the 10th of November last :
The ' Herald ' particularly, during a five years' campaign against corruption and extravagance at the city hall, had no option but to conclude that his powerful influence had been and was being exerted against the city's best interest. What Mr. Prdfont.aine's idea of his future may be, and precisely what view Sir Wilfrid Laurier may take of the matter, is not for us to know, but it is clear that in Montreal, where he has lived under the limelight of publicity, there must be grave misgivings concerning the wisdom of the selection, not only on the part of the more or less disinterested general public, but quite as much on the part of those whose particular concern is the welfare of the administration.
As I looked over tbe files of tills paper, and found these articles one after another,

beginning in January, 2900, appearing in this leading Liberal organ in the province of Quebec, I saw denunciations against tbe bon. gentleman so bold and daring that their equal could not be found in any paper in Canada, Liberal or Conservative, against any other public man in Canada. The hon. gentleman said to-day that he had acclamations in the city of Montreal, that after he had been elected mayor of the city, he had been continued in that office during four years. Well, here is what the * Herald ' says on his retirement :
The need of the whole city is to he quit of Mr. Prefontaine's domination, and equally to be rid of the system he represents. Prefontaine-ism means the manipulation of the municipal authority for the benefit of those who have business relations with the city, and it means the neglect of public services, the corruption of civic departments, the dissipation of municipal revenues, which result when members of the council extend to themselves the preferential treatment meted out to great corporations.
That is the opinion expressed by the Montreal ' Herald ' when the hon. gentleman was getting ready to retire. The hon. gentleman said he retired because he did not wish to run again. The Montreal ' Herald ' does not concur in that statement. It said this :
Mr. PrSfontaine was again desirous of being mayor. At the last moment he retired in favour of Mr. Wilson-Smith.
What was the result of this retirement in favour of Mr. Wilson-Smith ? I have no hesitation in saying that when he retired in favour of Mr. Wilson-Smith, he beat Mr. Wilson-Smith. That gentleman was not elected, but the man who was least expected to be elected, Mr. Cochrane, was elected mayor Of Montreal. The outside world never imagined that Mr. Cochrane would defeat Mr. Wilson-Smith; but the very fact that this hon. gentleman whose history was told in the press of the city of Montreal, retired in favour of Mr. Wilson-Smith, was quite enough to satisfy the electors with the selection of Mr. Cochrane, notwithstanding the opinion they had previously held of Mr. Wilson-Smith. If that was the stamp that was placed on his candidature, then they did not want him, and Mr. Cochrane was elected mayor. Before I sit down I should like to refer briefly to the lecture which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister saw fit to give this afternoon with regard to the differences of opinion on this side. I have been considerably at a loss to account for this lecture, because I have never before heard that any such differences of opinion existed. Of course I am only a very humble follower of my leader, but still, as we on this side have no need of Privy Council Chambers in whieh our leaders may separate themselves from their followers and do business without our counsel, we form as a whole an independant caucus of our own. where we hold counsel together, and therefore if there be anj' difficulties among us Mr. POPE.
they cannot fail to be known to every member of our party. I therefore think that I can speak with some authority on that point. Evidently some one of the right hou. gentleman's friends has been loading him up the wrong way, which, I must say, is rather cruel treatment, because he makes bad bulls-eyes enough when he does his own aiming without having his rifle loaded up and aimed for him by somebody else. He is certainly being misled, and considering that right hon. gentleman's health, it is very unfair for any of his associates to furnish him with information so utterly unfounded. I can, however, understand the right hon. gentleman's anxiety to find companions in misery, for he has certainly been rather tried of late himself. He has been compelled to part with one of his best ministers and to accept, after long hesitation, in the place of that minister, a gentleman who has been criticised by his own party press as no public man has ever before been attacked by the press of the party to which he belonged.
The hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) took occasion this afternoon to inform the House that the race cry in the province of Quebec was first raised by the Conservative party. I was rather astonished to hear my hon. friend give expression to an allegation so glaringly contradicted by the facts. Sir, there was at one time in this country a gentleman who occupied the highest position among his compatriots, and who besides commanded the high esteem of this entire country. I refer to the late Sir George E. Cartier. His name has been revered by Liberal-Conservatives, from the day he first took part in politics down to the present. Was his life I ask you, Sir, a bed of roses ? Was he not rather dogged to his very grave by political organizations with which my hon. friend from Gasp 6 sympathizes ? Was he not held up to public obloquy by that very party in those days, the leaders of which to-day acknowledge him as having been the ablest champion of the French Canadian race in this country ? Sir, the same racial prejudices were then raised against him as are being raised against the leaders of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec to-day. He was accused of being too broad in his sympathies, of not being sufficiently patriotic from a narrow and sectional point of view, because liis policy was to make all races and creeds in this Dominion work in harmony. But no man to-day would say that the late Sir G. E. Cartier was not in his life time the greatest defender of the rights and interests of his compatriots which the province of Quebec ever produced. And when the hon. member for GaspS speaks of the racial cry as having been originated in the province of Quebec by the Liberal-Conservative party, I refer him to the attacks Which wero made by tbe Liberals of that day on the man whom they now recognize as having had

all the qualities of a great leader. No, Sir, it was not the Conservative party which was responsible for the exciting of the people by the racial prejudices we have heard so much of during late years. But coming down to recent days, who was the father of national prejudice in the province of Quebec of late years ? Why, everybody knows that it was the late Hon. Honors Mercier. It was he who set the province wild over racial issues. I have never heard that he was a Conservative. I have never heard that he ever had any sympathy or affiliations of any kind with the Liberal-Conservative party. And when we come down to the present day, let me say that there is no man in political life more keen than our able and our eloquent young friend from GaspS to take advantage of every small opportunity which he thinks will weigh with his own nationality. Why, I remember when, during the election in Sherbrooke, when the present member for that county (Mr. McIntosh) was opposed by Mr. T.eBaron, the cry was raised in favour of Mr. LeBaron that lie was not only a French Canadian but descended from one of the oldest families of France, and had in his veins the best French blood in the country. My hon. friend from Gaspd raised the same cry in the county of Bagot, and in fact he never fails in appealing to national Sentiment wherever and whenever he thinks such appeals can have any effect. I have always hoped, though in that hope I have been frequently disappointed, that our hen. friends opposite from the province of Quebec would, from their experience in this parliament, become seized with a broader national spirit, and when they went back again to the platform would resort to appeals of a different kind than those made this afternoon by my hon. friend from Gaspd and those around him. And I still do not despair that some day they will learn the great lesson of toleration and become convinced that it is not in the best interests of Canada nor of the French Canadian nationality in the province of Quebec to be continually trading on and prostituting what, in many respects, is one of the best sentiments of our nature.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think, Sir, that it is of some importance that th^very words of my hon. friend, the Ministw of Marine and Fisheries, should be put on record iu the official reports of the debates of this parliament. Whether the choice which was made by the right hon. the First Minister in selecting the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the portfolio he holds, he wise or not. does not concern me at present.
The right hon. gentleman has thought fit to make the hon. gentleman one of his colleagues. It was undoubtedly his right. He has done it after a good deal of consideration, I have no doubt. I think that an hon. gentleman whom we all respect very much, the hon. Speaker of the House, had the offer of the same position, that he accepted it,
but the position did not come to him. I make that statement without divulging any secrets, for I was not in the secrets of the government then. I make the statement that the Speaker of the House got the offer of the position which the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries got later on, that he accepted it, but that-I do not know for what reason-he did not get it. That statement cannot be contradicted, because it is true. I go on quoting the words of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, so that they may be on record. It is of importance that the programme speech of an hon. gentleman who accepts a position in the government should be known, and that it should be followed, unless reasons to the contrary are given. I quote the words of the hon. gentleman to a greater extent than they have been quoted before, because it is of importance to the country at large to know how we stand in these matters. There is no doubt whatever that the hon. gentleman stated publicly, openly and solemnly that he had been authorized by his colleagues in the government to say that he would get from the Department of Public Works the control of the dredging, harbour improvements and other works relating to navigation. He made that announcement, and stated over and over again that lie had been authorized by his colleagues and by the right hon. leader of the government to make it. I shall quote the utterances of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries word for word. They were reported not only in ' La Patrie ' and ' La Presse,' but in the English papers also. There has been a campaign or discussion in the province of Quebec for about a month, especially between ' La Presse ' and ' La Patrie.' I wrote most of the articles in ' La Patrie ' to try to establish the position that the Department of Public Works should not be dismembered, while ' La Presse,' which was and still is, to a large extent, the personal organ of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, contended to the contrary, and held the view that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should have control of certain services now under the Department of Public-Works. Let me quote the very words of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I will give them first iu French :
L'accusation qui est portee contre le chef du gouvernemenfc qu'il a sacrifie la province de Qufibec en me choisissant comme un de ses col-legues et me confiant le ddpartement de la Marine et des Pficheries, est une accusation dfi-nuee de tout fondement de toutes les fagons possibles.
Comment ? on pourra le dire ailleurs, dans d'autres parties de la province oil je ne suis pas eonnu, mais on ne dira pas ici, k Montreal parmi la population qui me connait depuis vingt-cinq ans, on ne dira pas & la population de Montreal et on ne lui fera pas accroire que Raymond Prefontaine est entrd dans le cabinet Laurier en sacrifiant les interets de la province de Quebec.
II y a un autre sacrifice aussi que je n'aurais pas fait : c'est celui de nfigliger les intfirSts de


Joseph Israël Tarte: trdle et que tous les travaux qui en dependent soient aussi mis sous la mSme juridiction.
I shall not translate It into English now- it is rather long. But in two words the hon. gentleman stated then and there that he was authorized by his colleagues to say, and he spoke as a minister of the Crown-he took great care to say that he was speaking as a minister, that his word should be accepted as such-that all the harbour improvements, everything that pertained to navigation from the Yukon down, even from the north pole -he went very far-to the strait of Belle Isle, would come under his control. He made that announcement. This cannot be denied or disputed. We have been told to-day by the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he himself in an interview had said to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he would get something from the Department of Public Works. But my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, repeating what had been said formerly by the hon. Minister of Public Works, announced to-day, that, for the time being, the Department of Public Works would remain as it is, except that the hydrographic survey would come under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The plain facts of the case are before the country now. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries went to the electors of his own riding. He induced them to give him their suffrages. He announced that the Department of Marine and Fisheries would be enlarged by the addition of the works pertaining to navigation, which in past years had been carried on by the Department of Public Works. He also announced that a school of navigation would be created. We know now exactly where we are as to the first part of his announcement : he will not get the works from the Department of Public Works that he announced he was going to get. Now, I hope that we will get at least the school of navigation. It is in his department. We will get it, I am sure. I do not know if a constitutional excuse can be given by a minister of the Crown who takes it upon himself to state that he has been authorized by his colleagues to say that this, that or the other thing would be done. It may be very well to let the matter drop, but I do not know whether the electorate of either political party will be satisfied that they have been treated fairly on this occasion.
Mi-. MONK. I would like to get from the government a clear and categorical answer to the questions that I put this afternoon.
I asked the government this afternoon to tell us clearly what were the changes to be made this session in the organization of the Department of Public Works, and what attributions of the Department of Public Works were to be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. To these questions, which I put this afternoon, I con-

sider that this debate has made it clear, that we are entitled to some answer from the government before we vote this or any other item. My hon. friend the member for St. Mary's division has interpreted the very vague intimations we have received so far as evidence of the assurance that we are going to receive, that is to say, that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is going to be endowed with a school of navigation. I do not require to learn anything in respect to navigation, I am not satisfied with that. The assurances which were given us at the time, and which have just been quoted by the ex-Minister of Public Works, were far more extensive, and we are entitled to know what part of those assurances, if any, are going to be carried out. It is news to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Speaker of this House for a time occupied the very ephemeral position of Minister of Public Works.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In partibus infidelium.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. It will be news also to a good many people in Montreal, although I must admit that for a time it seemed nearly certain to us, even the outside public, that my hon. friend the worthy Speaker of this House had been really offered and had accepted that position. But the real question is the one which I have just reduced to writing, and to which I think I am entitled to an answer.
Mr. Chairman, the right lion, the Prime Minister is unfortunately not in perfect health, not in robust health, and I am sure there is no one who is more anxious to see my right hon. friend in robust health than I am myself ; and whenever, slight as may be the occasion, that occasion is offered to me, I endeavour to make matters in this House as easy as possible for that right lion, gentleman. But his condition of health must not lead him to petulance and peevishness. The attack which that right hon. gentleman made upon me this afternoon I considered unjustifiable. I did not judge the act of the government in changing the Department of Public Works, whether it did change it or not ; I did not prejudge that question. But in order to justify the position which I took here, that we should not pass the estimates without getting that information, I related as calmly as possible what were the issues raised in the election of Maisonnfuve, an important election. After I had explained those issues I put my question, and the right hon. gentleman never even vouchsafed me an answer, but he made an attack upon me, because he considered that I had no right, as I did in that election, to raise that question, a most important question, of the transference of the Department of Public Works from the incumbent who had just occupied it to a gentleman of another province. What reason was there for that attack ? My right hon. friend says it was not I who raised that
question. But the campaign in Maison-neuve did not begin on the day of the nomination of my hon. friend. His nomination was brought to the notice of the public in the press of Montreal on the 10th of November, and on the 11th a number of citizens were interviewed and gave their opinions about that shuffle. Their opinions are consigned in an important newspaper of the city of Montreal, in its issue of the 11th of November. I will pass over the opinions expressed by men who are not in active politics and the opinions expressed by men who share our own in political matters. Now, let us see how, on the day following the announcement of the step taken by the right hon. gentleman and of my hon. friend's assumption of office, how that step was appreciated by his own friends. What did Senator Dandurand say, the first man interviewed, the manager of the Liberal party in the city of Montreal ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: He is no more the manager.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Mr. GEOFFRION.: Who said that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Morin.


Victor Geoffrion: Who is Mr. Morin ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The notary. Why, is it possible that my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) does not know his own friend. What is

the party coming to if they do not know their own friends ?


Victor Geoffrion: I thought it was the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin).


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe

Continues Mr. Morin.
That the works On the river are now in charge ot Hon. Mr. Prefontaine and that he will find a vast opening for his great activity in this new position. No doubt Sir Wilfrid Laurier in making this choice has been guided by very grave reasons.
Lieutenant Colonel Mackay, another great friend of my hon. friend from Chambly and Yerchfires (Mr. Geoffrion) said :
I am happy to see the Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine named minister. It is a reward for his long services.


Victor Geoffrion: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Being of the province of Quebec I would have preferred that the portfolio of the ministry of Public Works should have remained in our province but if it is not so there were no doubt grave political considerations which required that this portfolio should go to an Ontario gentleman.
That was the opinion of Lieutenant Colonel Mackay, an important member of the Liberal party. I have already quoted the opinion of my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) but my hon. friend changes his opinion very often and very unfairly, I think. It is a matter of reproach among his own friends to the hon. member that he is a great glutton for patronage and I think he is willing to make great sacrifices in order to secure everything that patronage gives.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you quote that from the paper ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I quoted my hon. friend's opinion to show that he had a very different opinion of the hon. gentleman then. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) was Solicitor General for a day. Perhaps, to-day, lie expects to become so again. Changes take place very frequently. Mr. Primeau, lawyer of Montreal, is among the young Liberals who exercise, very properly, great influence in their party. He expressed exactly the same opinion as the others :
I do not know Mr. Sutherland but I find it very regrettable for the province of Quebec to lose the Department of Public Works, but, after all, there may be some compensation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who said that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is Mr. Primeau's language.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is your partner.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish I possessed the secret of making my hon. friends laugh as easily Mr. MONK.
as the hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) does. I do not see anything very curious in his statement. He knows perfectly well that Mr. Primeau has never been my partner. This is how the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), appreciates this event. My hon. friend was very cautious, but still he went very far :
I do not believe I am in a position to give an opinion on what is yet but a public rumour. In the second place the portfolio of Public Works belongs of right to the French element.
Then further my hou. friend says :
Upon this point the'English element has not been consulted and therefore I deem it better to keep for myself what I think upon this subject.
Mr. Geoffrion, a most respected member of our community, commissioner of the port of Montreal and a relative of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres, which the hon. gentleman will not deny-


Victor Geoffrion: No, no.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He was still more cautions. He said :
To give an opinion immediately would be premature. It Is better to wait and judge of the cause by the effect.
air. A. Beaudry, and whom my hon. friend from Chambly and Vereheres knows, I am sure, said this :
I believe that the transfer from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the control of the channel of the St. Lawrence and the works of the ports as announced, the province of Quebec will really lose nothing.


Mr.   M ACL AREN@Huntingdon: 
Victor Geoffrion: I gave an interview to tlie ' Witness ' which X shall be pleased to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) read. My opinion on the admission of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fislieries to the cabinet is in the ' Witness.' I wish he would send for it and read it.	[DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not read the ' Witness' very often, but I will look it up. In the meantime I assume that he is the prudent member of parliament. This gentleman said :
It seems pretty well understood that the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries is going to have a large share of the patronage of the Department of Public Works in reference to the works of improvements at the ports of Montreal and Quebec. Above all things do not 3ay who I am.
No, I do not think it is my hon. friend from Chambly and Verch6res. If I have quoted these opinions it is in order to show that public opinion upon this question was very much excited. The election turned largely upon that question, and it is the duty of those of us who took part in that election and who voted in that election to ask the government if there is any truth in the assertions which have been repeatedly made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister wandered strangely from what was a simple question, and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) quite unnecessarily wandered still further. I am not aware that there are any differences in the political party with which I am connected in this House. I have seen gentlemen on the other side torn asunder for months on all kinds of questions, but I do not know that there is any difference of opinion between us on this side. I can tell my hon. friend from Gaspe that during the many years that the Liberal party received no support from the province of Quebec, the Liberal party found nothing but injurious invective to hurl at that province. But what a contrast is there now. When in 1896 the Conservative party, rightly or wrongly, sacrificed itself for the triumph of the cause of justice and equity, the Conservative party, in spite of the result in the province of Quebec, judged it right, that the province of Quebec should be represented on the front benches of the opposition, and I accepted with pleasure what I consider to be most magnanimous treatment to myself as a representative from that province.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not a very lucrative position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not a sinecure by any means, and if there are any gentlemen who aspire to that position I can tell them that so far as I am concerned, they are welcome to it.
Collections of slide and boom dues, including salaries of clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that there is only one employee paid out of this vote, one clerk at Ottawa who looks after the accounts, and the balance is for expenses and contingencies in connection with these works.
.Mr. SPROULE. Why do you put in 'notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ? '


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister explains to me that this is to enable a clerk to be paid more than $400 a year.


Mr. McCORMICK.: In the province of Ontario we have to make all these improvements ourselves, and it seems strange that the government should carry on these works for the benefit of the province of Quebec especially.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A part of the expenditure is for the province of Ontario.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the revenue from these slides, and booms.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was $57,335.93 for the past season.
To provide for paying ' the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company ' allowance re logs passed Chenaux boom, 1903-4, $1,800.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the reason for this expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These works were first erected by the parliament of Canada or came in our possession :ifter confederation, and under an arrangement made in 1883, they were taken over by this company and we agreed to pay them.


George William Fowler: Is this in perpetuity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it is liable to be cancelled at any time by notice, but I have not the particulars here.


George McCormick: Do the government receive any tolls out of this.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find I have not the information. There are some receipts, which are probably equal to if not more than the amount that is paid out. I think we are entitled to four-fifths of the dues, but I have not the detailed information to give to my friend. I will have a statement prepared, and bring it down, showing exactly what the receipts of the past year have been.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that this is an | allowance made to the Upper Ottawa Iru-provement Company for taking over some | slides from the government ? If it is. the . item is strangely worded.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that this is the same wording that this vote has had since 18S3.


George William Fowler: What might be proper in 1S83 might be entirely improper in 1902. The occasion for this expenditure may have passed by. I think the minister should allow this item to stand until he has more full and detailed information about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to let me know what information he wants ? I shall be very pleased indeed to give it.


George William Fowler: We would like to know the history of the whole transaction-why this sum of $1,800 should be paid every year to the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, what are the conditions under which the grant was first made in 1883, how long it was to last, whether the time has expired, whether it is to be granted in perpetuity or not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only question the hon. gentleman asks is how long the agreement was to last. I have already explained that it is a yearly agreement.


George William Fowler: That is only one portion of it. It is necessary for us to know the reason it was given in the first place, and the reason for its continuance. I quite understand that the hon. gentleman may not know, but his deputy minister should know something about it. We want to know whether the country gets any benefit from this. The minister does not seem to have any information about it, and therefore, I think the item should stand.


John Dowsley Reid: I see by the Auditor General's Report of last year, that this Upper Ottawa Improvement Company paid $1,418.17 for boomage collected from December 1, 1900 to November 30, 1901, and the names of the different parties from whom it was collected are given :	.T. R.
Booth, $2,516.55 ; E. I?. Eddy Company, $274.20 ; W. C. Edwards and Company, $619.08 ; Gillies Bros., $684.98 ; and so on, giving a list of all the parties from whom collections were made ; and then it says : one-fifth due to the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, $1,418.17. From that I take it that there was about $7,090 collected.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The item of $1,800 is estimated to be one-fifth of the dues collected. According to the memorandum which I have, $9,500 was the largest amount collected in any one year, so that $1,S00 is estimated to be sufficient.


Mr. SPROULE.: Then the whole collection goes into the consolidated revenue fund?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then we can understand from the Auditor General's Report Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
that these works have been given over to the Ottawa Improvement Company to collect all the dues and pay them into the government, and receive one-fifth of the receipts in return for taking charge of the works and collecting the dues ?
The'MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Exactly.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister what check the government have on the collection, or whether it is left entirely to the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company to make such returns as they please ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The collector of slides and booms in the department here keeps a check. The returns are made to him, and he is able to tell what the collection should be.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there a government official stationed at the booms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the government official is in the department.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is no check by any government official to see whether the amounts returned are really right or not ?


George William Fowler: I notice that this item says:	,
Collection of slide and boom dues, Including salaries of clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.
What does that mean-that any of these clerks get larger salaries than they would have under the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained that this one clerk gets a larger salary.


George William Fowler: Have you his name ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Gagner ha? been a long time in the service.


George William Fowler: What salary does he receive ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three dollars a day.


George William Fowler: How long has he been in the service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About twelve or thirteen years.


George William Fowler: What salary will he receive under the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $400, I suppose.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, but it seems strange to me that there is not a government official at these booms to take charge of all these

collections. At any other place where government collections are made, there is generally a government officer to take charge of them. In this case 1 would like to know why there is not a government official there?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be pleased to look into this account and see what the system of checking is. I shall he pleased to take note of my hon. friend's remarks and have an investigation made of the system and see whether the public interest is sufficiently protected or not.


George William Fowler: Are there local persons in charge of these booms who receive commissions on these collections ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there are resident engineers who are officials of this department and who take charge of these works.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are the members of the Ottawa River Improvement Company ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no knowledge myself, but my deputy informs me that Mr. G. B. Greene is the secretary.
Gatineau river-to provide for the use of Messrs. Gilmour & Hughson's booms at the Cascades in 1904, $600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a boom which was built by Gilmour & Hughson at the head of the Cascades, and arrangements were made with them to pay them $000 for the use of those booms. This will be the seventh year under that arrangement.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year it was 8630.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was on account of some arrears. Gilmour & Hughson asked for a much larger amount, but we decided that $600 per year would be a fair allowance and last year there were some arrears.


George William Fowler: Does the department get any income from this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The annual revenue last year was $8.19,234, and the total expenditure $3,370.


John Dowsley Reid: I asked the hon. minister whether there are any local men paid anything for taking charge of booms and slides, and he said no, but last year there was an expenditure of $125,916, and in that item there is an amount paid to A. H. Johnson, boom master, 229 days at $2 per day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No dou'bt I was misinformed and this man must have been in charge.


George McCormick: I suppose that the number of logs cut along each river is given 94
the department and the amount of tolls calculated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the information in detail as to how the amount is fixed, but no doubt, the amount returned by the company is checked by the returns received from the Ontario government of the number of logs.
Repairs and working expenses, harbours, docks, hand slides, $130,900.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is required to cover the annual cost of the staff and repairs.
f"^$30^0wO^L^' -^ere is an increase here
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS There is no increase in this.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The details are given at the foot of page 77 of the estimates.


George William Fowler: Could the hon. minister give us some idea of what proportion the income from these slides and booms bears to the expenditure ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS The total collections under this head of harbours, docks and slides for the last calendar year was $99,187.75. The total expenditure in connection with slides and booms is $81,900.	,


Mr. BLAIN.: How does this revenue compare with that of last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About the same-there is very little difference.


Richard Blain: I think the hon. minister stated last year that the revenue for the year before was $130,000, and, as I understand him, the revenue last year was something over $99,000. There is a difference of over $30,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think there must have been some mistake in the figures given last year. The figures I have given are those furnished by the accountant of the department.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I see here an item of $4,500 for the Levis graving dock. I would like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to increase the capacity, of this dock. A great deal has been said about the dock not being of sufficient length to receive the large ships that come to Quebec, and so being inadequate to the requirements of the port. I would ask the hon. minister whether it is the policy of the Department of Public Works-or "if not, whether it is the policy of the Department of Marine and Fisheries-to enlarge this dock. This is a subject that has been discussed for a long time in the press of Que-



bee and on the public platform, and the enlargement of the dock has been advocated as a policy which should be adopted by the progressive party now in power. I would like to know the views of my hon. friend on this question.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that about two years ago this dock was very much increased in size-from about 480 feet to about 600 feet. I hope that the large ships coming into the port of Quebec will be able to use this dock for the future. But if this ever proves not to be the case, the matter will receive our consideration.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I notice a very considerable amount for slides and booms in the St. Maurice district-$11,100, being $1,100 more than last year. It seems a large amount. Are there many booms there, and were they in a bad state of repair ? I notice that we spent $10,000 last year in the same way. No doubt they should be kept in a good state of repair, but these seem large expenditures.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an increase


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not so much the increase that I refer to as the total amount. In two years we are spending $21,000 to repair the booms. They must have been in very bad condition.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I find by adding the two items together that the total is the same as last year. The engineer informs me that the large expenditure we have been making is made necessary by the very large increase in the business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to build other graving docks or dry docks this year ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no amount in the estimates for that purpose yet, but there may be in the supplementary estimates for 1903-04.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the minister able to say whether it is the intention of the government this year to put an amount in the estimates to build a dry dock in the vicinity of Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not answer that question. I think we have now on hand the sum of $250,000 for the general purpose. I do not know whether any more will be asked this year, or whether this sum will be expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think an arrangement was come to some time ago by which the government was to pay a certain percentage of the cost to companies building dry docks. Is that sum you refer to for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No. My hon. friend is now referring to Mr. CASGRAIN.
docks built by private companies. We increase the aid given to such companies for that purpose from 2 per cent to 3 per cent.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: There is a motion on the paper now for that purpose ; we are increasing the rate from 2 per cent to 3 per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To what extent do you propose giving this encouragement ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The motion now on the paper, I think, probably will come up to-morrow, when I will be glad to give my hon. friend all possible information. At present I may say that the only change made is increasing the rate from 2 per cent to 3 per cent. The general principle is the same. It has been on the statute-book for some years. We propose to enlarge both the limit of the subsidy and the rate per cent.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I see that there are $24,500 paid to the staff at Ottawa. How many men are employed ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: That includes the whole Ottawa river. If my hon. friends turns to page 26 of the report of the Department of Public Works he will find the list of employees and their salaries.


George William Fowler: Why is it necessary for the government to maintain these booms at the present time ? On what principle do we maintain them ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not been able to find that any general principle has been followed in the erection and maintenance of these works^ Many of them were taken over at the time of confederation, some have been constructed since. Some have been given over to companies. I intend to give these items close investigation to see whether some better arrangement cannot be devised for constructing and maintaining these works, and at another session I hope to be able to present some scheme.


George William Fowler: The lumbering business is one of the best in the country, and the government ought not to pay money for the convenience of the lumbermen, as this is evidently for their benefit. These works ought to be self-sustaining.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did I understand the minister to say that the government has on hand the sum of $250,000 for the purpose of building graving or dry docks ? '


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: If my memory serves me right, this sum is under the control of the harbour board, by Act of parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These docks that are mentioned here at Levis, Kingston and Esquimau, were all built exclusively by the government ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government come to any decision in respect to a dry dock in the vicinity of Montreal ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No. A commission has been appointed to make a report on the best kind of dry docks, and on situations and so forth, but no decision has been come to.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me whether there has been a report from three gentlemen appointed to make an inquiry ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: A report has been made to the department by these three gentlemen, Mr. Keating, of Toronto, and Mr. St. George and Mr. Per-rault, of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Have these three gentlemen been appointed by Order in Council?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has an engineer of the Department of Public Works been engaged with these gentlemen in making that inquiry ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not particularly on the commission.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Have these three gentlemen been charged by my hon. friend to make an inquiry as to the choice of a site for a dry dock in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking from memory, I think they were empowered to report on the best kinds of dry docks.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman will permit me to say that neither of these three gentlemen have ever built a dry dock in his life. Mr. St. George was the municipal engineer of the city of Montreal when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) had control of our municipal affairs. He resigned from his office after the several inquiries that took place there. He has never had any experience in building docks in his life. Mr. Maurice Perrault is an architect who has never built a dock of this kind in his life. I know Mr. Keating less. He is a very respectable man indeed, but, while he is an engineer, he has never been engaged in the construction of such works in his life. I was very much surprised when I heard that the Minister of Public Works had appointed these three men over the heads of the officers of the Public Works Department who have been engaged in building docks and other public works. We had some experience in the choice of a site in the port of Montreal. Parties tried to foist upon the harbour commission a site. There was an 941
option taken on a site for $50,000 and there was an effort made to foist a site upon the h;irbour commissioners for a quarter of a million dollars. There was a public meeting in the city of Montreal, a report of which has been published, held by the parties who wanted to make $250,000 out of the site. I am very much surprised to hear that such a commission of men, who have had no experience, has been appointed over the heads of the engineers of the Public Works Department, who have had a long experience in the construction of such works. The hon. Minister of Public Works would never have done such a thing if he had been better informed, I am sure. Mr. Maurice Perrault is a well known architect but he has never carried out any work of this kind. Mr. St. George has had no experience in that line of business. Let me say also that there is a site in one part of Montreal which the hon. Minister of Public Works will find by looking at the plans which are in his department. He will find by referring to those plans a site which will not cost a dollar to the country, a site which is alongside the shore and which is indicated on the plans of the Montreal harbour. That site is available. I speak of one site. There are other sites in other parts of the city that are also available. It is not necessary to appoint Mr. Maurice Perreault, or Mr. St. George, men who have had no experience in this line, to choose a site and much less to prepare plans. The hon. Minister of Public Works will find in his department several engineers who* have had a long experience in that kind of work. Why has he put these men over them ? We are entitled to some information on this point because this is rather a peculiar appointment that he has made. Of course, he was very new in the department; he had just taken office when the appointment was made. I call his attention to the statement I am making now and which cannot be contradicted, and it is that these two men in Montreal are architects. One of them was the municipal engineer under the late regime that the electorate of the city of Montreal got rid of during the last two municipal elections. Mr. St. George resigned after the inquiries which took place. I do not accuse him of anything. He resigned after several inquiries had taken place. Sir. Maurice Perrault is an architect in Slontreal. I want to know how it is that these men have been appointed to prepare plans and to choose a site for a dry dock in the city of Montreal when the hon. Minister of Public Works has in his own departments several engineers who have had a long experience in that kind of business.


The SHNISTER OP FINANCE.: I do not know the gentlemen in Montreal to whom the hon. member (Hon. Sir. Tarte) has referred and therefore I can say nothing about them, but when he speaks of Mr. Keating

as a man who has had no knowledge of such matters, I must tell him that he is entirely misinformed. Mr. Keating was the city engineer of Halifax, and as such superintended the construction of one of the largest dry docks on the continent of America, and he has that kind of experience which comes from the supervision of a work of that character. I do not say that he was the engineer of construction, but he was the city engineer of Halifax, and the very fact that he had gained that knowledge in the construction of one of the largest dry docks on the continent, was one of the reasons why he was chosen for this work. In respect to the other gentlemen, I cannot say anything.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is mistaken in saying that these gentlemen were called upon to prepare plans for the dock. Representations were made to the government that a floating dock would be very much better for the purpose than a dry dock. A great majority of the members of the House, and I may also say, of the government are not familiar, perhaps, with the different styles of docks that are used and which are best suited to various localities. I do not know that I have a personal acquaintance with Mr. Keating, but I did ask some people from the city of Toronto as to whom they considered the best qualified engineer in that district for this purpose, and Mr. Keating's name was sent to me by a gentleman,in whom I have the greatest possible confidence. I do not think that he is a supporter of my own, nor do I know that any of the recommendations of those gentlemen came from political friends. I was anxious that we should have the benefit of the services of the most highly qualified engineers to look into this matter. They can only make report. My hon. friend said that we were ignoring the engineers in the department. That is not so. They only make a report to the chief engineer of the department and he now has it under his consideration. I have not seen it, I suppose, because he has had it under consideration, but he will report upon their recommendations before any action is taken.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is rather strange to find two well known architects appointed on a commission to report on dry docks. I am very glad that the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) tells us that Mr. Keating has had some experience. I do not know whether he prepared the plans for the Halifax dry dock. I do not think he did, but he may have supervised the work. That does not establish in any way that the engineers of the department should have been ignored and that this matter should have been referred to men who do not belong to the civil service and are not responsible to parliament, two of them being architects,


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: and one of them being the municipal engineer of the city of Montreal under the regime that has been got rid of by the municipal electors of Montreal. That is not, it seems to me, an appointment that should have been made under the circumstances. I am very anxious to see the report that these gentlemen have made. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works says that the report will be submitted to his department. Of course, it will be submitted to his department, but all the same it seems to me that this appointment is very irregular indeed. The commission is not composed of men who have had any experience in respect to dry docks.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Do I understand that these gentlemen were only appointed to visit sites in Montreal and make a report as to the most convenient site for a graving dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I explained to my hon. friend and the committee that they were to report on the various kinds of docks and especially as to whether a permanent dock or a floating dock would be more suitable. There has been a difference of opinion about these points. No power was given the commission except to report. It is an independent commission. I have no personal knowledge of these gentlemen but they were recommended by persons in whom I had confidence.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think the report is ready now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My chief engineer tells me that he has it under consideration now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it in the department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any objection to our seeing it; it is a matter of very great interest to us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is certainly no objection. It is a matter of public property, and I will have it brought down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is going to be paid to these commissioners.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS^ I think the pay was fixed not to exceed $25 a day, but my memory does not serve me as to that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With the exception of Mr. Keating, who may perhaps have had something to do with the dry dock at Halifax-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The city of Halifax contributed to the dry dock and if he did not prepare the plans, he reported on them as city engineer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we have any engineer of high standing in the country, Mr. Keating is one of them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the recommendation of the commissioners as to the site 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have not seen the report, but I will have it brought down at the earliest possible moment.


George Taylor: 
Joseph Israël Tarte: That is an old story. When I was minister an effort was made to foist on the Harbour Commission and on the Department of Public Works, a site for $250,000, on which an option had been taken for $50,000. Some parties tried to force that on the Harbour Commissioners. There was a public meeting held in Sohmer Park by these parties, but, of course, the effort did not succeed then. That is why I am a little careful when I discuss this item.


George Taylor: It may be that this is the site recommended by these Montreal engineers.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, no.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: As I understand it, these gentlemen were appointed to report, first, on the site, and second as to whether a floating dock or a dry dock would be best for the city of Montreal. I can bear out what my hon. friend has said : that Mr. Perrault knows no more about a floating dock or an ordinary graving dock than I do, and that is very little indeed. He is an architect of the city of Montreal ; he is a member of the Quebec legislature, but I don't think he ever saw a graving dock in his life before he went to Point Levis. As to Mr. St. George, he was simply the engineer of the city of Montreal, and in the exercise of his duties, his particular occupation was to see as to the best manner in which the city waterworks were operated. It seems strange that the government which has at its disposal men of vast experience as engineers, should go outside of the department to employ others. Of course, if they did employ men of high standing and men of experience, there would be some justification, as there is in the appointment of Mr. Keating ; but to appoint Mr. Maurice Perrault and Mr. St. George to find a site for a graving dock in the port of Montreal, and to decide as to whether a floating dock or an ordinary graving dock should be built, seems to me to be a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the government. I do not know what is going to be the pay of these gentlemen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister said it was $25 a day.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would like to know when their pay began, and when it is going to stop ? I may tell the minister that at the last session of the Quebec legislature the Independence of Parliament Act was amended for the very purpose of allowing Mr. Perrault to accept this position from the Dominion government. This must be a permanent or a quasi permanent employment, because otherwise the legislature of Quebec would not have gone to the trouble of amending the Independence of Parliament Act to allow Mr. Perrault to help the Department of Public Works with his light in the selection of a site and in determining whether a floating or another kind of dock should be built in Montreal. I warn the Minister of Public Works that Mr. Maurice Perrault is a very high priced gentleman, and I happen to know it, because when I had the honour of being Attorney General of Quebec, the bills which he had filed with a preceding government came before me, and I may tell the minister that they were the most exorbitant bills I ever saw in my life. If he presents to this government, such a bill as he presented to the province of Quebec for work done as an architect, I am afraid the Minister of Public Works will be appalled, and he will be very sorry for ever having .employed Mr. Perrault. It seems to me, that in view of the competency of the gentlemen who are now in the Public Works Department, it is a most extraordinary thing that the government should employ two men who have no knowledge whatever and no experience whatever in such matters, and place them over the heads of their own employees. As I said before, these two gentlemen know no more about this thing than any member of the House does, and certainly they do not know as much as the engineers of the Pub-, lie Works Department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Have negotiations been entered into for the purchase of a floating dock ? I know that there are floating docks which are very successful now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made to the department with regard to these floating docks, but no negotiations with regard to purchase have been undertaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to advance the work of the committee as much as possible, but this is a matter of such great interest to us that we are .justified in saying that we ought to see that report and tl;e charges of the commissioners before we pass this item. I quite agree with those who have maintained that in view of the staff which we have in the Public Works Department we did not require these commissioners at all. If it were a question of selecting a site, I think the Minister of Public Works himself, with the information he could have obtained in Montreal from gentlemen connected with the harbour, could have come

to a decision without this costly commission. As regards Mr. St. George, I am not prepared to make any condemnation of that gentleman. I have known him for many years as engineer of the city of Montreal, and I look upon him as a man of most honourable character. If it were a question of selecting a site, Mr. St. George's opinion would be valuable, but I am not aware that he has any special knowledge with regard to dry docks. I am aware, however, that he left the employment of the city for no other reason than that he desired to enter into a more profitable occupation. Mr. St. George I have known a long time ; he resides in my county, and he is a perfectly honourable man.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think this discussion is out of order, as this vote has nothing at all to do with the matter of the committee or the building of a dry dock at Montreal. It may be interesting, politically or for some other reason, to spend a whole day in discussing these matters ; but we have done very little work, and to ask that the item stand until information is brought down on a matter with which it has nothing to do, is, I think, very unfair. I think these items ought to be considered in connection with the expenditures which they are intended to provide for. My hon. friend will have an opportunity of expressing his views with regard to the dock almost any day of the session. I know there was a great difference of opinion on the subject, and it was thought by the government that it would be a good idea to have an independent commission of expert engineers make a report upon it. One would have thought that Mr. St. George, having been for a number of years employed as an engineer by the great city of Montreal, was a man of some character and ability. However, there will be many opportunities to discuss the question of a dock ; and. as there is nothing contentious about this vote, which is the usual vote. I hope my hon. friend will not press his request that these items stand, after they have been under discussion for three or four days.


Mr. GALLERY.: In reference to Mr. St. George, I understood one hon. gentleman to say that he was only superintendent of the water department of Montreal. I may state that he was both superintendent of the water department and city surveyor for years, at a salary of $5,300.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That would not give him any experience in graving docks.


Daniel Gallery: As far as engineering is concerned. I think he is as good a man as you could get.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Even if he is a good engineer, that would not give him experience in graving docks.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know what experience Mr. St. George may have had in grav-Mr. MONK.
ing docks, but my knowledge of him is that he is a perfectly honourable man. I have no objection to letting this item pass, although I do not agree with the hon. minister that this is not the place for us to ask for information on the question of a dry dock, which has been agitating public opinion for a long time. If the hon. gentleman says that he will lay that report on the Table, at the earliest opportunity, I have no objection to letting the item pass.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly ; it will be brought down as soon as the engineer makes his report.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like very much to know whether the crane for the L6vis dock which we were talking about when I left office has been placed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the work under contract or under way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is not under way. I will inquire into that. It has never been brought to my attention.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that this commission of three gentlemen was appointed to investigate the question of a dry dock or select a site. Now that their report is in, I suppose their duties are ended, and their services have been dispensed with ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Telegraph lines-Prince Edward Island and mainland, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $2,000 is voted under an arrangement made at the time of confederation for maintaining the telegraph line with Prince Edward Island.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I would like to ask the minister if he or the government has received any communication from the provincial government, requesting this amount to be withheld, until the Anglo-American Telegraph Company fulfil their contract to give us an up-to-date service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have no such communication. I was visited by a deputation, representing, I think, the board of trade, asking me to make some effort to have better telegraphic facilities with the island, better rates, and longer hours. The matter is now receiving the consideration of the department.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to ask the minister if it is not in the power of this government to withhold this amount while the company neglect to give us the service they should ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not like to offer an opinion off-

band on that point. It is a question on which even the best lawyers might differ. However, the matter is now receiving the consideration of the department, in view of the application made for better rates.
Land and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service, also maintenance of Marconi wireless telegraphy at Belle Isle, $80,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the bon. minister tell us how the Marconi stations which have been installed, one at Belle Isle and one on the north shore, have been working during the last few months ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not myself given the matter much personal attention, but my information from the officers of my department is that latterly they have been working remarkably well.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would, invite my hon. friend's personal attention to these two stations. 1 was informed by some of the officers that they were working splendidly, and I began sending dispatches myself and asking for reports every day, but the reports did not materialize very quickly. I say that some of the officers are very fine men indeed, but they take for granted that the Marconi system is working splendidly when it does not work at all. My hon. friend will find in the department a record of the telegrams which I sent asking for an answer, which did not come quickly. I think the House will agree with me that it is very important to know exactly how this Marconi system works. Every time there is some stock to be placed on the market, it works splendidly, but when the stock is placed, it does not work so well. I would like very much to know how these two stations work. Will my hon. friend be good enough to inquire how many days the two stations have been working. Occasionally on a dry day one of the stations would work, and the next day, although also a dry day, it would not work at all. Then on a damp day it would work splendidly, and on the following day, which was also damp, it would refuse to work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the matter is one of very great importance, not because of the small service we have, but for the experience this will give the country. I have not been able to give it personal attention, but I am informed that for a long time it was very unsatisfactory, tout that latterly it is giving satisfaction. Iam asking for a detailed report of all imformation regarding the working of the system and will have that laid on the Table.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Are all the cables in working order now, between the North Shore and Belle Isle, for instance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cable at the Grosse Isle Quarantine
station is out of order. We had a report recently that there is something wrong with the cable at Anticosti, but that is now being attended to.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the cable at Belle Isle in full working order ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I know that for several seasons this cable has been out of order. I had occasion to write my hon. friend when he was Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), complaining that it was very seldom during the summer season that one could get a telegram to Point Aux Esquimaux. I had occasion to cable to Point Aux Esquimaux several times, and my dispatches were not received. It appears that there is a bay there, and the cable between the two points separated by this bay is almost always out of order, and the way dispatches are sent is to give the dispatch at one point to a schooner which takes it to the other point, some six or seven miles or more distant. This is not a quick method of sending telegrams. If the tide happens to be out or the wind is not right, you do not get your telegram delivered for five or six days.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is speaking of the cable on the North Shore off Anticosti as being out of order.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not say that it is now out of order, but am calling attention to the fact that it is too often out of order especially during the season of navigation. I wrote the ex-Minister of Public Works on the subject, as he will remember. I do not know what is the cause, but would ask my hon. friend to look into it. Some years ago the ' Scotsman ' was wrecked off Belle Isle, and for want of communication between the mainland and Belle Isle the passengers on the ' Scotsman ' could not get succour from the mainland. They were three or four-days without relief simply because there was no cable communication. Now that you have the Marconi system, the object for which it was established is to give assistance in cases such as I have just mentioned and also to give information at Quebec aud other ports as to the state of navigation in these straits-for instance as to whether there are icebergs in the stra'its and any other information affecting navigation. It is of the greatest importance not only that the cable of the mainland should be kept in perfect working order during the season of navigation, but that these Marconi stations should be so kept up that they will be of service to the country and navigation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that they had a good deal of difficulty with the cable itself to which my hon. friend refers, but that latterly it is

working first rate. I am asking for all information and will have a report made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is Mr. Boyer still tlie chief officer in charge of the lines in the lower St. Lawrence 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: He is a good official, indeed, and I am glad that he has been kept on.


George William Fowler: Does this amount represent the whole amount paid Mr. Marconi ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We pay no royalty., All we purchased we paid for. My understanding is that on account of the grant we 'have given, we get the instruments without paying any royalty, and the small amount referred to here is for the maintenance of the two instruments established there. That will cover the salaries of two men and any small repairs there may be. My deputy informs me that the estimate made for the maintenance of this service is $4,200, and I am asking for detailed information with regard to the daily work of these stations. That report ought to be down within the next week, as I do not see why there should be any particular delay.


John Dowsley Reid: Might'I ask if this item, as well as the other we passed this evening, are in any danger of 15eing transferred to the Marine Department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, we have had enqugh of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I intend to spend this money if allowed to do it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was absent for a time, and did not hear the discussion, but perhaps, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) would give us an idea whether, so far, the Marconi system has worked so satisfactorily as to give evidence of being useful.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have had quite a discussion in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Osier's) absence. I am only too pleased to be able to tell him that the officers of the department consider that latterly the system has been working satisfactorily. What I have engaged to do-and I think it is of public importance to get the information-is to get a statement in detail showing the working of the Marconi system at Belle Isle.
Telegraph lines-North-west Territory, $20,-
000.


Sir. BORDEN (Halifax).: How far does the hon. minister propose to go to-night ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been sitting here from three o'clock this afternoon, and it would be very proper for me to say that we took up a lot of time Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
in discussing a matter not at all so important as the voting of these supplies. This is the third or fourth day we have been trying to get a discussion of these items. I think that this item, No. 238, ought to pass tonight.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I suppose there will be something in the supplementary estimates in regard to the Yukon line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have said so. I may say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that I do not know of any item here the substance of which will not come up at an early day in case any body may wish to discuss them.


Robert Laird Borden: That is very good. Sometimes, the supplementary estimates have not come down at an early day. But my hon. friend says that they will


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will give an undertaking that they will be down at an early day.
Telegraph lines-British Columbia, $15,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is the same as last year. It is for the maintenance of these lines in British Columbia, the payment of salaries and small repairs. I have details here as to where the lines are located, the distances, &e., hut my hon. friend (Sir. Ingram), of course, is familiar with them, and would not wish me to give details to-night.


Robert Laird Borden: Where do we find the statement of the receipts of these lines ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the Auditor General's Report.
Telegraph lines-Yukon Territory (Ashcroft-Dawson line and branches), $121,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: May I ask the hon. minister if he is in a position to tell us the receipts and expenditures on the Yukon lines ? If he has not the information at hand, I will wait until the supplementary estimates are before us. Is Mr. Crean still in charge of these lines ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has he still Mr. Rochester with him ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who is really in charge, Mr. Rochester or Mr. Crean ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Crean.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Crean has more authority than Mr. Rochester V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, he is the superintendent. Mr. Rochester, I understand, is sent out to look after the accounts and straighten matters up. The hon. leader of the opposition has asked me to state the receipts and expenditures of last year. In round numbers the receipts were $111,000, and the expenditures $179,000.


Mr. CLANCY.: Has there been any lowering of the rates 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the rates were lowered from $4.50 to $3.


James Clancy: When ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last July.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would ask my hon. friend to bring down, as soon as he can, the details of the expenditure. I am somewhat in doubt as to the figures that have been mentioned. I know the hon. gentleman will give his best attention to that item, because when I left office there was some little difficulty that was not settled. I will take it very kindly if he will bring down the details of expenditure as soon as he can-that is to say, before we vote more money for this line, so that the House may know exactly where we stand. I generally had a statement every month, showing the income and expenditure, and I am appalled at the deficit which we have to face.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid, if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) left some little difficulties existing when he left office, I found some little difficulties existing when I took office. I have been inquiring, and trying to find out how the matter stands ever since. We shall have to ask a supplementary vote, and we can have the matter further discussed. I gave instructions to have a full detailed report with regard to this matter, and I expect to have it ready next week.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would suggest that this item be allowed to stand over. The sum is an enormous one. During the first year of operating a telegraph in the Yukon, one can understand that the expenses would be heavy, but they might be expected to decrease after the line is in reasonably good order. This sum seems to be so large for the service, that I think we should have the fullest details of the expenditure before the item passes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with that proposition, but I do not see any advantage in allowing this matter to stand. As I have already said, we have to ask for a supplementary vote, and I have promised to bring down the fullest detailed report, which I have ordered to be made some time ago, and which I am informed will be ready next week. There will be another item on which we can discuss the whole matter.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Can we expect that Mr. Rochester will be back before the end of the session ? I have confluence in his judgment and in his hondur, and I would like to have him here, if he can be spared from his present post. When I left office I had instructed him to go up there and settle some little difficulties we had. I gave him full authority to take charge of the books and the whole business. I think my letter will be found in the Department of Public Works. I want Mr. Rochester's report.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Rochester is up there carrying out the instructions given him by the minister. There has been no change in his instructions, except that the deputy minister may have informed him that I wanted the matter settled and the fullest details obtained. With regard to the presence of Mr. Rochester here, I may say that when my hon. friend who was at the head of the department gets Mr. Rochester's report, if he is not satisfied with it, then he can get Mr. Rochester to come down. He may be back within the next few weeks, and we can call him back at any time. At present I think he is at White Horse.


Richard Blain: I notice that the revenue for the month of April, 1902, on the Yukon telegraph line, was $11,500. How does that compare with last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not yet a return for the present year.


Richard Blain: In a general way, is the revenue increasing on the Yukon telegraph line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since the decrease in the rates in July last, I am afraid there has been a general decrease in the receipts. The increased business lias not been sufficient to make up for the reduced rate.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister has before him the revenue for some one month during last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1902 the receipts, in round numbers, were, for July, $12,000; August, $12,000 ; September, $14,000; October, $12,000, November, $7,900; December, $4,733. We can only estimate the receipts since January as we have not the returns.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Did you get the returns of these receipts by mail or by telegraph ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy informs me that they are telegraphed at the end of each month. The last return we have is for February or March.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would seem that we are running that line at a loss of $89,090,

and still we are told there will be another item in the supplementary estimates in addition. Evidently we are running it at a great loss. We were led to expect that after the line was completed there would he a reduction in the expenses of operation, but we have here for the staff $100,000, and it seems that won't toe enough, because we are told there will be another item in the supplementaries for that purpose. We ought to get full information of the revenue and of the expenditures, and we ought to ascertain why the expenditure continues to be so high.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained to the committee that this item will have to be increased by some $50,000 or $00,000. I agree that the committee is entitled to the fullest information, and I am desirous of obtaining this information for the committee and for the department, so that we may know whether there is any prospect of reducing the expenditure.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the length of the line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In round figures, about 2,000 miles.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How did that line work during the winter months ? Were there many breakages ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were quite a number of accidents through storms and trees falling, and for some days there was no service. But under the circumstances the service is fairly good.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot understand why there is such a large deficit. During the last six months before I left office the revenue was a little over the expenditure, we had a little surplus every month. I am afraid there must toe something wrong in tiie way the accounts have been prepared, because I do not see how we can be running behind so much. Generally we have a balance on the right side.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid my hon. friend must have been misled by the reports be was receiving. But as I say, we cannot discuss this matter intelligently until we have a full statement of the accounts before us, and this we will have in a short time.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think this item :s altogether too large to pass. As .he minister has nor the information, I do not think we should pass it. I do not think we can pass blindly $121,000 on the promise of the minister that the matter will be discussed cn the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot agree with my hon. friend. If after full investigation of the accounts of the present year it Is shown that this $121,-Mr. SPROULE.
000	will be sufficient, everybody would be very well pleased. I have given the committee the information which, probably if
1	had wanted to get this vote through I might have withheld. I have said that, basing it upon the estimate of last year, it will require $58,000 in round numbers, and that before a vote was asked for in the supplementary estimates we would have a full return in regard to the expenses and operation of the line and all the accounts explained and that we would then ask only what was necessary.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How is this estimate of $121,000 made up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for salaries and expenses in connection with the operation of the line.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Give us the details then 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it is very unreasonable at this hour of the night to ask me to go through this long list of names, but I will do it if the hon. gentleman insists.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It seems to me that on an item of $121,000 we should have more information, especially when the hon. minister acknowledged that he has not the Information to give to the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never made any such statement.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I beg pardon, because I understand that is what the hon. gentleman said. He said that he could not give the information as to the expenditures and how they were incurred until he had further information, and that he hoped later on when the supplementary estimates came down that he would be able to give that information. This is altogether too large an item to pass without having full information upon it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken. The accounts that my hon. friend is referring to I have given in detail and it is quite a different thing from the matter of voting money for the maintenance and operation of the line. The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was asking for the full accounts in connection with the expenditure for the current year. That is quite a different thing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am asking for the particulars of the expenditure under the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend insists upon it I will have to read this list. But he will see how unreasonable his request is in view of the ten or twelve hour sitting we have had.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Nothing is unreasonable when you are asking for information.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, certainly not, when you are asking for information, but I will leave it to the committee if in connection with any item that has ever been presented in the history of parliament it is usual to require a minister to stand up and read page after page of the names of employees with the monthly pay they are receiving and to give every detail to show how the estimate is made up.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite within
the right of any one to ask for that information, but at the same time there is no desire to take up time unduly. Would it not be better to let the hon. Minister of Public Works hand the statement to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) and then we probably could dispose of these items in a few minutes at the next sitting of the House ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I only want to get the information as to how this expenditure is made up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) has not been here for days and days, and weeks and weeks, during which we have been sitting night after night. We are most anxious to get on with the business of the House. If he would make any reasonable proposition I would be only too delighted to comply with his request.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In your position surely you must expect to be called upon to do some work and you must not grumble if it takes you some time to get through with your estimates. All I want to know is what this expenditure is for. Is it for salaries, or for maintenance ? This is not an item that we can be reasonably asked to pass without full information.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perhaps the hon. minister would be in a position to tell us what is the monthly expenditure for the working of the Dawson line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate of the expenditure for next year for salaries, as it has been made up, is $123,885.12. I have detailed information showing every man's name, his occupation, and the amount of his salary.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How many officers are there in this service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About 125.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what was the expenditure, say, for the month of March ? We used to have a report every month of the expenditure and revenue.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report has not reached the department yet as to the expenditure.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has there been a telegraphic report for February ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The average salaries would perhaps be about $11,000 per month.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We thought it would be about that much when I left office. Again I say I cannot understand why we have such a deficit.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Unless the salaries alone can be reduced very much next year I do not think there should be any objection to granting this present estimate now of $121,000 because I have explained to the committee that unless the expenditure can be materially reduced for the coming year we will have to ask for a supplementary vote. The ex-Minister of Public Works said that he had sent a man out there in whom he had every confidence to make a full inquiry and report. I have no reason to doubt either the honesty or the qualifications of the gentleman he sent there to make this report, and when we get it we will have the officers of the department make a detailed statement of everything in connection with the expenditure as to the building of the line and as to the operation of it during the past year. Then the hon. member for West Toronto (Ml-. Osier) as well as other hon. gentlemen can exercise their judgment as to whether any reduction can be made in future or any change in the rates charged.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot understand how it is that we have lost such a large amount of money on that line. During the last six months before I left office the expenditure and the revenue were about equal. We had some little balance in our favour and I cannot understand how we made a loss of $70,000 a year. I am very much afraid that the accounts have been prepared by somebody in such a way as to charge to working expenses sums of money that should have been charged to some other account.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: Is there an office every sixteen miles ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a house of refuge every sixteen miles and the offices are about thirty miles apart.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I hope I have made myself properly understood. I instructed Mr. Rochester to take charge of the whole organization and I hope my instructions have been followed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I am concerned no change has been made in the instructions given. Nothing has been brought to my attention to create any doubt as to his qualifications and good intentions, and whatever instructions were given, if he has carried them out faithfully, are the instructions he is working under.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has Mr. Rochester made any report as yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is in communication with the deputy from time to time, but his report as to the full statement has not come yet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am quite sure that such a deficit as has been mentioned is not the genuine deficit of last year. I knew the circumstances before I left office, and unless there has been some accident and something charged to the working expenses which might be charged in some other way, I think the line is about self-sustaining.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will get all that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When a minister comes to ask for such a vote as this, he ought to be prepared to give us information and not -ask us to vote $123,000 blind. We have had difficulty in getting information about this on previous occasions and every succeeding year the difficulty seems to be getting worse.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given the estimate made by the officers of the department, and I have the details here as to the salaries and the persons who receive them. The estimate is based on the expenditure of last year and that is the only way an estimate can be made. I do not know what the hon. gentleman refers to when he says he did not get satisfactory information in the past. I have all the information on which this estimate is based, but we are speaking of a separate matter, namely, tlie details for the current year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My complaint is that this is all estimate without any intelligent data being given.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is based upon the actual expenditure of past years as contained in the books of the department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And if we ask for this information later on we may he met with the reply that it is not to hand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that is a fair statement to make. These people have to be paid monthly, and I am sorry to say that as the appropriation has been overdrawn, they have not received their pay for some time. What we have been speaking about is the detailed accounts which have not yet come in.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We should know the cost of operating the line and the cost of keeping it in repair. I do not think that there is any necessity for an office every sixteen miles in such a country as that, and that is perhaps the reason why there is a deficit.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have all the information here, but it would take a long time to read it, and I would be pleased if my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) would permit me to hand him a copy.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister will send a copy to my hon. friend (Mr. Osier).


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be pleased indeed.
Some resolutions reported.



The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Ill moving the adjournment of the House, permit me to call attention to a telegram which I have received, and which will be very gratifying to members on both sides. The flag was placed at half-mast to-day, not only because of the funeral of the late Mr. Justice Mills, but also because the announcement was made of the death of Senator Cochrane, of Hillhurst, Que. A telegram has been placed in my hand from a member of Mr. Cochrane's family contradicting the report of his death, and stating that the hon. gentleman is much better.


Robert Laird Borden: What business does the hon. gentleman expect to take up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are several notices of motion and resolutions in committee which will be taken up first, and after that Supply. The Minister of Justice will proceed with his estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are two or three items under Public Works which were allowed to stand, and they might be cleaned up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will proceed, then, with the Public Works' estimates first, and after that, if the Minister of Justice is present, we will take his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 14, 1903.