1903-03-25

MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
George Davidson Grant, Esq., member for the electoral district of the North Riding of the
county of Ontario, introduced by the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and Mr. Holmes.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Edmonton and Peace River Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver-by Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.-Mr. Ball.


Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	What are the names of the commanders of government steamers on the Atlantic, the great lakes and the Pacific ?
2.	What are the salaries of these commanders respectively to be for the ensuing year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prcfontaine) :: 1.	Names of captains of government steamers on the Atlantic coast are as follows :
Captain Finlayson, steamer ' Minto Capt. Belanger, 'Aberdeen'; Capt. Knowlton, 'Osprey'; Capt. Pratt, 'Curlew'; Capt. Kent, 'Kingfisher'; Capt. May, 'Constance'; Capt. Bissett, ' Lansdowne '; Capt McKinnon, 'Brant'; Capt. Johnson, Lady Laurier'; Capt. Milne, ' Acadia '; Capt. Chalifour, ' La Canadienne.'
Names of the captains of the government steamers on the great lakes are as follows :
Captain Dunn, cruiser, 'Petrel'; Capt. Zealand, steamer, ' Lord Stanley.'
On the Pacific coast:	Captain} Walbran,
steamer, * Quadra '; Capt. Newcombe, steamer, S Kestrel.'
2.	The salaries of most of these captains have not yet been determined upon for the ensuing season, and are now under consideration.



DUTY ON FOREIGN TOBACCO.

Mr. CLANCY asked :: What is the amount of duty collected on foreign raw leaf tobacco for the fiscal year, 1902 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: By Inland Revenue Department, $1,137,279.05. By Customs Department, $33.60.



MILITARY RESERVE AT PORT MOODY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. -EARLE asked :
Does the Canadian government claim jurisdiction over the military reserve situate at the entrance to Port Moody, opposite the Barnet saw-mill, on Burrard Inlet, British Columbia ; which reserve is said to consist of a narrow strip of rocky land, about a hundred chains in
[Stage Direction]
length, by twenty chains in width, containing an area of two hundred acres, more or less ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: Yes.



COST OF BINDER TWINE.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	At what date was the selling prices of twine first given to the public, for the years 1901 and 1902 ?
2.	What quantity of each kind of twine has the government in stock ready for sale ?
3.	What was the cost price of raw material used in the manufacture of twine during 1901 and 1902 ; and what price per pound did it cost to manufacture twine during 1901 and 1902 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: 1.	March 20, 1901; .Tune 3, 1902.
2.	Two tons pure Sisal, two tons Monarch, eight tons Extra Standard, forty-three tons Kingston Special, and fifty-five tons pure manilla. The warden expects to have 200 tons pure manilla available for the coming harvest.
3.	(a) The following prices were paid for raw material in 1901-02. (See Auditor General's report M-27). Manilla hemp, 7J cents, 7i cents, and one small lot, 14 tons, 6 cents, per pound. Sisal, 8J cents, 5| cents per pound; Sisal pickings, one ton, 4f cents per pound; New Zealand, 6 9-10 cents per pound; Cordage oil, 9 cents per gallon; hags, (i cents each, (b) 1-58 cents per pound ; exclusive of capital expenditure.



MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all correspondence, &c., between the Department of Railways and Canals and the Town Council of the. town of North Sydney, or any other person or persons, respecting the right of way and construction of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from North Sydney Junction to North Sydney.-Mr. Johnson (Cape Breton).

Hon.   J.@: ISRAEL TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or Mr. C. M. Hays, per William Wain-wright, or any other person, in relation to a new transcontinental railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I would ask my hon. friend not to press that motion at this stage of the session. Communications chiefly verbal have taken place between the government and the parties representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but no definite conclusions of any kind have been arrived at. Matters are still under discussion. So it would be quite impracticable for us to bring down any correspondence, until a later stage, which we will be glad to do during the present session.


Mr. EARLE.: 


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I will accede to the request made by; the Minister of Railways and Canals, and will not press the motion now.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: A public policy with regard to this proposition was announced yesterday in Toronto, therefore I think the correspondence is ready and should be brought down.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will invite the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion.


Joseph Israël Tarte: With the consent of the House, I will withdraw it if the hon. gentleman says it) is in the public interest.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Until we have the promise of a ministerial statement on that question, I object to the withdrawal.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The matter will be fully dealt with at a later stage of the session. We shall make a ministerial statement on tills question.


John Graham Haggart: We should have it pretty early. I suppose a later stage will mean within one month.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I could not say that, because we will have to come to a conclusion upon the application. At all events, in due time the whole thing will be brought before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: The practice heretofore has been to bring down these railway subsidies at the tail end of the session, and I object to that. They ought to be brought down early in the session, and if there is a government policy on the subject, without correspondence, the House ought to be put in possession of it. The complaint was raised here yesterday that we do not get public papers in this House unless we ask for them. It was shown in connection with the colonial conference that the papers were immediately presented in the British parliament, but so far the only access we have had to those papers has been through reports coming from the old country. I take this occasion to say that the government are lax in bringing down those papers, and I hope they will improve.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Until any correspondence that has taken place is ready for submission to the House, it would be unreasonable to ask that it should be brought down.
Motion withdrawn.



SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY.

Hon.  J. I.@: TARTE (St. Mary's, Montreal) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the government, or any department, and the officers or managers of the South Shore Railway, during the last twelve months. Also, copies of all re-

presentations that may have been made to the government in reference to the working of that road.
He said : Mr. Speaker, I present this motion in order to call the attention of the House and especially the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) to the very unsatisfactory state of affairs which we all know in Montreal and in the South Shore district. The South Shore Railway Company has received, I suppose, about $1,000,000 in subsidies. I do not think I am very far from the truth in giving that figure. Still, the government do not seem to have any means of obliging the present owners of the road to work it in any satisfactory way. The road is worked to-day just to keep it alive. There is no service. I know as a matter of fact that there is nothing that can be called a railway sendee. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and I would beg to call the special attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to what is taking place now. The road passed, last year, into the hands of foreign capitalists-so-called foreign capitalists- who came before the House and the Railway Committee of the House with big projects. Well, they went to the wall very shortly afterwards in New York. The same men to-day hold the road. God only knows what took place in reference to the South Shore Railway. The number of deals that have taken place in reference to that road are unknown. However, this is not the time to discuss questions of that kind ; X only want to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals once more to the state of affairs that is existing now and I hope he will find means to put an end to.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is carried I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) to the very unsatisfactory state in which the railway law is in regard to an insolvent railway company. I know for a fact that what the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has just said in reference to this railway is absolutely true because I have had occasion to represent some of the parties who are interested in that company. Now, when a claim is urged against a railway company of this kind there is nothing in the law by which a creditor can have his claim recognized and recover under the statute. It is true that in the province of Quebec some years ago legislation was introduced granting the power to a creditor, or to the government, if the government had given a subsidy to the railway. to sequestrate the road, or to put it in the hands of a sequestrator, who, in another province, would, T suppose, be called a receiver who could operate the road for the advantage of all concerned. But, the difficulty was encountered that when 15
the road had been declared a road for the general advantage of Canada, it was a question whether the statutes of the province of Quebec could apply to such a road. The constitutional question Was raised in the case of the Hon. Mr. Nantel against the Baie de Chaleur Railway Company. Some of the courts of Quebec decided that the law as passed by the provincial legislature was not only constitutional but that it also applied to a railway which had been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. The question was raised whether this decision was a sound one and it was taken to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for those who are seeking an authoritative decision upon the point the Supreme Court did not pronounce because of some understanding between the governments, or the parties ; at all events, the question was withdrawn and it was not submitted to a judicial decision. I do not see, myself, why the Winding Up Act should not be applied to railway companies just the same as to any other companies. If it were there would be, as in the case which is now before the House, a very speedy remedy for those creditors who have claims against railways and who cannot enforce them in the present state of the law.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, proceedings upder the Winding Up Act must necessarily be very complicated but if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) will refer to the statutes of 1899 he will see an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act which provides for these cases. I will point out the Act to him. It is C2-G3 Yic., cap. 44. I think that Act will meet the case in hand now. I have had some opportunity of considering the question recently and my own view would he that if this does not quite meet the case we might amend it so as to make it applicable to the case in hand. But, I think the Act goes far enough.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I have looked into that Act and I have tried to make it apply to questions arising just as this one has arisen to which I have called the attention of the House, but I do not think it is workable under such circumstances.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any objection whatever to the passing of this motion. I may say in regard to what my right hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has stated that, to-day. there is an engineer on behalf of the government making an inspection of that road.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The road is not safe, T understand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend the member for Chambly and VerchSres (Mr. Geoffrion)



called my attention tlie other day to the unsafe condition of the road, as it was represented to him, or as it was known to him and I immediately gave instructions and an engineer is now on the spot. In regard to what the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has said I would say that it is not by any means an easy matter to legislate practically in the direction which he suggests. In 1899 we had the subject up and threshed out and I think the very best experience and knowledge in the House was brought to bear on the question. In view of the difficulties which have occurred and which the hon. member for Montmorency has mentioned, the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec was found to be such as to leave the law in quite an ineffective condition. The subject was brought up here, a Bill was introduced and it was amended, altered and changed so that it was then thought that possibly it would cover the particular case which has been mentioned. I understand now that it has been found the case was not sufficiently covered. I will be very glad to co-operate with my hon. friend to any extent in my power to remedy the existing law but 1 fear that owing to the conflict of legislative authority he will find it a somewhat difficult question to handle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.   .T. I.@: TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence received by the government, and of all answers made thereto, concerning the South Eastern Valley Railway, and the United Counties Railway. Also, copies of all reports that may have been made regarding the actual condition of such railways.
He said :	The South-eastern Valley Railway which runs from Iberville to Sorel is at the present time closed up and is not being operated. It goes through a very important section of our country and it is a great pity indeed that such a thing can happen as the closing of this railway. This road has been heavily subsidized both by this parliament and by the provincial parliament, and it would now appear that neither parliament has any remedy at its command or can interfere in the matter. The road is closed. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the existing state of affairs on that railway. We are bonus-ing railways right and left, but when there is an emergency we have no control over that. I repeat that this road is closed to the great detriment of the trade of that part of the country and to the great detriment of the farming community. I am not aware whether the Minister of Railways has tried to do anything in the matter. The Southeastern Valley Railway is in the same Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
hands as the South Shore Railway. These people have no money and no backing, but still they find ways and means to hold properties of that magnitude, and apparently we are powerless to interfere with them. It seems to me that such a state of affairs calls for the serious attention of this House, and it is to achieve that end that I have made this motion.


Mr. VICTOR GEOFFRION (Chambly and Vercheres).: I am glad that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has come to my support in the motion which I made a few days ago. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House when I spoke of the question, but at any rate he has practically repeated what I said.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I want the papers.


Victor Geoffrion: Yes, I say that I am glad that you have arrived at the same conclusion as I have on the question. I stated to the House, that especially the South Shore Railway was in very bad shape. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte), says we have no remedy. I think we have. I think the railway law is quite clear on the subject. If the Minister of Railways is at any time informed that the road is not properly managed, or that it is dangerous to travel over the road, it is his duty to send one of his officers to inspect the road and make a report, and on that report the minister has the right either to force them to put the road in order or to close up the road. When the road is closed, then any creditor, or any person interested can ask to have the road put into the hands of a sequestrator and administered in the public interest and in the interest of the creditors. So far as that part of the road which traverses my county is concerned, I have already taken steps to see that if it is not put in proper condition it shall be closed, and I shall then apply to the courts for the appointment of a sequestrator to administer the road in the public interest and for tbe benefit of the creditors. I am informed by the Minister of Railways that already there is an officer of the department on the road making that inspection. When the report is made we will take means to have the road properly managed if the company itself does not want to take action. I cannot speak from personal knowledge of the other roads mentioned by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) because I have not made a study of them as he has, but I repeat again, that in reference to the South Shore Railway we have already taken action, and as soon as I am informed that there is danger on the road, I will take the proper means, and the only means to have the remedy applied.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may say to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte), that ns a matter of fact there is no correspondence whatever in the department of at all recent

date; the only correspondence we have, took place at the time of the granting of the subsidy and refers exclusively to that subject. There is no manner of doubt but that the condition which the hon. gentleman refers to is a serious one, but I question whether, even if there had , been corres-spondence it would have tended to assist us in solving the difficulty which exists. The road is not being run-not as I understand it because it is unsafe to run it; it is not that the road is not in a fit condition, but it is that nobody connected with it in any way finds it to his interest or advantage to keep the road in operation. That is the real reason I apprehend why it is not operated. It is not because legal difficulties have occurred which we might legislate away. I do not understand that to be the cause ; but it is simply that in granting the subsidy in aid of this road, parliament has not given assistance to an undertaking of sufficient merit in itself to justify its construction. That is apparently the difficulty. It is not only in this particular locality that we have" cases of that kind occurring. I am happy to say there are not a great many roads in the same condition, but there are others. Now and then a road is closed down ; business has fallen away ; nobody will be responsible for the wages ; the men leave the employment of the road, and the road stops. There is no remedy, as it appears to me. If anybody can suggest a remedy he will possess a great deal more ingenuity than I possess. What I mean to say is that there is no practical remedy. It cannot be suggested that the government would assume the responsibility of bearing the cost of running the roads that are thus unprofitable to companies. That cannot be done. Now, what is the remedy ? If my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) can suggest any remedy, I think he would find a ready disposition on all sides to give to his pi'oposal every possible consideration. Unfortunately it is the case that such roads do now and then stop until something occurs to revive business or to encourage some one to take them up. I again say that there is no corres-spondence in the department except with reference to the subsidies, and if the hon. gentleman would like to have that I will be glad to furnish it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let me say at once that the minister is altogether wrong in his supposition that the South Shore and the Eastern Valley Railways are going through a country where the trade is insufficient to maintain them. That impression is altogether wrong. This railway runs through a fertile and wealthy country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, why is it not done ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend has just asked me if I have a suggestion to offer.
I think the suggestion which would natur-loi
ally present itself to any government would be to see first that the subsidies are properly applied. If the subsidies are diverted from their proper use, those who build the road and those who exploit it afterwards are short of funds. I do not mean to make any insinuation. I only state what I believe is in the mind of any public man of experience; and in these two cases I do not hesitate to say that it is within the knowledge of those who know anything of affairs in the province of Quebec, that the subsidies have not been properly applied from the start. When this parliament votes money the government should see that the money is applied for the purposes for which it has been voted. If that had been done in this case, I firmly believe that the road would have been to-day in full working order. The reason the road is not working is not because there is no trade, but it is because the road has fallen into the hands of people whom I may call schemers, speaking without any offence to them at all-men who have no money. Could not this be prevented ? Is it not possible, when this parliament votes hundreds and thousands of dollars by way of subsidies to any railway, to provide that the road shall not change hands without the government being informed, or being in a position to prevent it falling into the hands of people who have no money to exploit it ? I call the attention of the House to the position of these two railroads. In both cases large parts of the subsidies voted by this parliament and by the Quebec legislature have not been employed as they should have been. Nor are these the only cases. I might refer to the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, about which we had a great deal of trouble, and for just the same reason. I do not make any party reference, because that railway was built under the Conservative regime. This is no party question: it is a question of public policy. This House should not vote any more railway subsidies without taking the means to see that those subsidies are properly applied.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: AVill my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question ? I understand that this road is not now running and has not been for some little time. Is my hon. friend's object to have this road run ? It has not been built in my time, so far as my memory serves me. Suppose there is something we could do in the future to see that the subsidies granted, if any are granted, shall find their way exclusively into the construction of the road. Is that going to help towards getting the present South-eastern Valley Railway into operation ? '


John Graham Haggart: Is the whole of this road not operating or only a portion of it ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The whole road from Iberville to Sorel is not running and has been closed for two months. My hon. friend

tlie Minister of Railways asks what we can do in this case. I do not say that I can make that road run. It is not for me to make it run. I am a private member of the House. The government of the country are responsible for the conduct of public affairs. I do not know whether there is any law under which the Department of Railways and Canals could interfere. I am not prepared to argue that point at all. All I know is that it is within the knowledge of all the members from the district of Montreal that this road is of great importance, and that the subsidy has been misapplied. If I call the attention of parliament to the matter, it is to prevent future mistakes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let me ask my hou. friend one more question. Is he aware whether or not the people who own this road are financially strong and responsible ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend can judge of their financial standing. They are the same people who came before the Railway Committee last year headed by Mr. Meyer. They failed in New York and they have failed here. These are the same group of men who are fighting to-day over the ownership of the South Shore Railway and the South-eastern Valley Railway. There are all kinds of complications into which I do not mean to enter at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not sure, if the people who own the road were financially responsible and could be made to answer to any judicial tribunal in damages, whether or not, under the contract of subsidy, they could be held under an obligation to operate the road, or else have the road taken from them, and be made subject to damages besides. I am not sure as to that. But if they are not financially responsible, it is perfectly clear that there would be no remedy whatever in such a case as my hon. friend states.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, enough has come out of this debate to establish two things : that not only is there a responsibility on the government to try to compel the owners of this road to operate it and serve the public, but there is also a responsibility on the government to take steps that hereafter such things will not recur. I believe that a large part of the subsidies voted to railways in the past have not been applied to railways, but have been exploited by men who have become rich by those means. The whole tendency of legislation in this country is in that direction. We grant franchises, powers, subsidies of money and land, and we do not make provision for performance or against malversation of funds; and it is high time that he had in this country legislation of that kind. We have an ex-minister of the Crown saying now that our policy in the past has been wrong, and ought to be corrected. He is saying that to old friends of his; and that


Joseph Israël Tarte: being the case, I hope there will be an improvement this session; and if any money is granted, though I do not wish to see any granted, I hope steps will be taken to protect the public, and when franchises are given, we shall take some kind of contract for performance. We have given banks great powers'and privileges, but have never taken the means to compel them to serve the public. Nor have we done so in the case of railway companies or telephone or telegraph companies. Until recently the banks did not think! it was incumbent upon them to try and serve the public, and for many a day, when asked to establish agencies here and there, they said that they were not in that business and there was no way of compelling them to do so, so that many towns had to do without banking facilities. To-day, however, that trouble has disappeared because the banks happened to be competing for business. But what I contend for is this, that when we give these franchises, we should take some means of compelling these people to carry out their obligations and serve the public and not allow them to divert the funds supplied by the public into the hands of private parties.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am told that on those roads there are several dozen cars loaded with perishable freight. This is a very lamentable state of affairs.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No doubt a most lamentable condition of things exists in that section. The road has been closed for perhaps six weeks, but I will call the attention of my hon. friend from St. Mary s division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to the fact that though it is a matter of notoriety that this road has been closed five or six weeks, this is the first information we have of the fact. The road traverses a very fertile section of country, quite capable of supporting a railway. No doubt the law is imperfect and should be amended in some way so that precautions may be taken, when we are giving assistance to railway construction, to obtain some assurance that not only the road will be constructed but that it will be operated.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: I am informed by a letter received from Quebec this morning, that the Quebec government has taken an action in this connection, and a petition is to be presented to-day or to-morrow to the Superior Court at Montreal, to have a sequestrator appointed.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: This discussion, Mr. Speaker, affects much more than simply the road under consideration. Session after session we vote large subsidies to railways. Session after session we take money in'this way out of the public treasury ind put it into private hands. The ex-Min: ster of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has told us that he knows, and all the members in the district in nuestion know, that the subsidies have been diverted, misapplied and

wrongly used in the case of these two roads. There is, Sir, a deep seated suspicion in the public mind that the whole subsidy system is rotten. It comes from rottenness and it makes for rottenness, and it seems to me that when a matter of this- kind is brought up by a member of this House, an ex-minister, one who was but recently in the cabinet, the government are in duty bound to give it their special attention. What has been said this afternoon should be made the subject of strict inquiry, and I hope the matter will not be passed over.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I have always thought that one of the great evils is the unlimited power we give companies to bond and to mortgage their roads. A subsidy is in some cases misapplied and not put Into the road, sufficient care is not taken to see that every dollar of subsidy goes into the road, and the consequence is that with these additional obligations resting on it, no corporation can afford to buy the road out. Its debt is so heavy that its earning powers will never pay the interest on the money invested, and the road consequently cannot be operated at a profit. If we are to start at the root of the evil, we must be more circumspect in giving powers to bond roads, and we should also see that these bonds are sold at par, and that every dollar arising from the sale of the bonds and every dollar of subsidy should be spent on construction and not diverted into the hands of unscrupulous people, who care not what will be the result to the public provided they can only get their hands on the public money.


Mr.  P. D. MONIC@Jacques Cartier: When were the subsidies paid these two roads ? It was rather surprising to hear the Prime Minister declare that although those railways have suspended operations during the past six weeks, the matter has not been officially before the government. When were the subsidies paid these two lines ?


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANARS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Before my entry into the department. I do not recollect that these contracts were made during my day. I think they were not, but perhaps the hon. member for Ranark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will recollect. I think the dates were 1892, 1893 and 1894. I may say further that when these subsidy contracts are entered into, the contractor is required to complete his work up to a certain standard ; and when he does that, he gets his subsidy. It might be that, under some conditions, iie would be paid by ten mile sections upon progress estimates, but always with the necessary guarantee that the work should be completed before the subsidy is fully paid. When the contractor has completed the road and earned his subsidy, it would be extremely difficult for us to impose on him some further check as regards what he does with the money. It may be that he got
advances from the bank. Certainly the money must have come from somewhere to build the road, but when the contractor has complied with his contract there is no alternative with us but to pay. I think that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has laid his finger upon the source of the difficulty. It is the issue of stock and bonds in unlimited quantities and the distribution of this stock and the sale of these bonds at nominal figures, and not at all because the money given by way of subsidies does not go into the road.


Mr. MONK.: I asked the question because I was under the impression and still am-that some subsidy was paid to the South Shore Railway within the last five years.


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANALS.: I was not speaking of the South Shore. This motion has reference to the South-eastern Valley.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am speaking of the South Shore, and of a bridge in connection with that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman meant that, he is right.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because the rumours referred to, as to much of these subsidies having been frittered away, have been rife in the city of Montreal and throughout these districts for the past five years, and I think there must have been payments made during that time. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) that it is high time the House should take some steps to investigate the manner in which these subsidies have been paid and disposed of.


John Graham Haggart: The manner in which subsidies were paid when I was at the head of the department was this-after the vote was granted by parliament the money was paid when the road was completed in ten mile sections. These conditions, if I remember well are now altered. The rule, I believe, allows the minister to make advances on progress estimates in many cases.


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: In some cases, 1 think.


The MINISTER OF RAIRWAYS AND CANALS.: There is one condition in which progress estimates are paid, and it was done as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will remember in order to cover the case of large expenditures being made in connection with the Crow's Nest Pass. It made a limit of $60,000 to be paid on progress estimates.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the payment of progress estimates had been ap-

46a
plied to other roads. Under the old rule, upon the report of the officer of the department being made that a ten mile section of the road had been completed, a payment on account of subsidy was paid. If I remember well, a part of this Great Eastern Railway was let to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they ran that part of it from Iberville to the St. Lawrence, but abandoned that portion which ran to Sorel, doing so on account of the fall of a bridge somewhere on the road. It being run for some time, there was a vote, and I think the money was paid since the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir. Blair) became Minister of Railways.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Sly hon. friend (Hon. Sir. Haggart) is mistaken. There are two roads. One is over the Yamaska River Valley and the other over the Richelieu River Valley. The hon. gentleman is speaking of the South-eastern Valley Railway, which runs from Iberville to Sorel.


Hon.   S@: I understood that either on the South Shore or the South-eastern there was a vote for a bridge since the present Slinister of Railways took office.
The SIINISTER OB1 RAILWAYS AND CANALS. For the South Shore-yes.


Hon.   S@: And the payment has been made since the hon. gentleman come into office. However, I agree with the Minister of Railways ; I do not see what possible remedy there is when a road is built, and the owners do not find it in their interests to run the road


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir. Haggart) allow me one moment ?


Hon.   S@: Yes.


Hon.   S@: In the case of the South-eastern Valley, that part of the road has been amalgamated with the Rutland Railway, an American concern. I am informed by a member of the House who is on the spot that he has learned on good authority that the earnings of the Southeastern Valley and the South Shore Railway are sent up to the Rutland Company, instead of being used in working the road. That is a very serious state of affairs, and surely it ought to be possible to put a stop to it.


John Graham Haggart: That is the point I was trying to work out. I had an idea that a portion of this road was valuable and that it had been amalgamated with some other. I thought it had been taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway and part of it abandoned by them. It appears, however, that it was the Rutland road. There is a remedy in that case. Where only a part of a road subsidized is taken over by another, that part being valuable, it might be made a condition that, in order to secure a portion, they must work the whole undertaking, unless they get authority from the parliament to abandon a portion. But where a whole Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
road is abandoned, as the hon. Minister of Railways [DOT] says, I do not see that there is any remedy for it. I do not see what action the government could take or what law could be passed to prevent a difficulty of that kind. But what interests me particularly about it is that this was one of the grand schemes in connection with the Meyers syndicate. They must have some monetary connections in this country, some capitalists who are interested, a id who* have at least a part ownership in the stock and bonds of the road. It would be very interesting to the House to know who these capitalists are and whether their connection with this concern makes it likely that, some way or other, the undertaking will be put upon a good financial basis. Perhaps the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) would be kind enough to inform us who are the capitalists on this side of the line interested in this undertaking.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not know of any Canadian capitalists interested in the South Shore with Mr. Hodge and his partners. Of course, there are creditors of the two roads, large sums of money due. But Mr. Hodge and his partners or his principals-I do not know whether he has any partners with him-have managed to get possession of the South-eastern Valley Railway, the United Counties Railway and the South Shore Railway. There were two groups of men interested. They have amalgamated, as the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) will remember. But the two sides are fighting as to the way they have amalgamated. Now the South-eastern Valley Railway is detached from the South Shore Railway and attached to the Rutland Railway. I say again I am informed by a member of parliament, who is not well enough to stand up here and say what he would like to say, that he has it on good authority that the earnings of the Canadian mileage are being sent to the American concern ; yet the creditors are not paid, the road is not being worked, and the population are really suffering for lack of railway service. It seems to me that the House can find a remedy for such a state of affairs. The earnings of a Canadian railway should not be allowed to go to keep alive an American railway. If the state of affairs I refer to is true- and I believe there is no doubt about that

something should be done.


Mr. CHARLES H. PARMELEE (Shef-ford).: I do not think my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tar;?) is quite correct, though he is in absolute good faith in the statements he has made. So far as regards the South-eastern Valley Railway, I am informed the Rutland has acquired running rights over it and is working that portion of the railway by reason of that arrangement, and has a regular train service, though the Quebec Southern, which virtually owns the line from Lacolle to Sorel is not in operation. I have listened to

this discussion with interest. I know that it is a great hardship to the farming community that they have been deprived of a train service for the last six or seven weeks. There has been a great deal of disagreement and litigation. The people in possession of the United Counties Railway have been a set of schemers and railway promoters, and I have no doubt it is true that a very large portion of the subsidy has been diverted from the railway enterprise, leaving it in the position in which it is today. It is true that the railway runs through a fertile section of the country.
But unfortunately the products of that portion of the country, which is an old settled country, are somewhat concentrated, and do not afford a very heavy traffic; the traffic itself is comparatively light. Now it may be that that road, operated upon business principles, and by honest men, might be made to meet expenses. I know there has been a time in the history of the United Counties Railway when the traffic would hardly pay the cost of the axle grease. A good deal has been said about what the government might do to remedy this state of affairs. I remember that three or four sessions ago the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the instance of the Hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Meigs), introduced into this House an amendment to the Railway Act, giving effect, if I remember correctly, to an Act of sequestration passed by the provincial legislature which required the confirmation of this parliament, as railways of this kind have been brought under the General Railway Act. Now the member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) says that the provincial government is contemplating action of that kind. Their position would be very much stronger had the amendment which the Minister of Railways and Canals introduced three .or four sessions ago-


John Graham Haggart: Did that Bill pass?


Charles Henry Parmelee: It passed the Railway Committee and passed this House, but when it went over into the other Chamber, at a time when the Liberals had not secured a majority there, it was promptly killed. So if any one is responsible for this state of affairs, I think there is where the responsibility belongs. Now I do not think, unless something of that sort is done, that it is possible to relieve the situation to any great extent. It is useless to talk about subsidies. because subsidies are granted to secure the building of a road, but they cannot go further and secure its operation. In this case, with fair business management, if this road could be sequestrated and passed over into the hands of good railway men who would run it as a business enterprise instead of a speculative scheme, I think it might be made to pay. I think that the government has done all that it is possible to do to protect the interests of the people who are suffering from the unfortunate condition in which that enterprise stands.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would be sorry to be misunderstood. I did not mean to say that the South-eastern Valley Railway is closed. I know it is working with the Rutland Railway. What I said was that the United Counties Railway is closed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   NAT@: BOYD (Macdonald) moved
That this House is of the opinion that this parliament should be called for the dispatch of business on or about the last Thursday in November of each and every year.
He said :	I fully understand the importance
of this motion, and can anticipate the many objections that may be raised against it. Much can be said for and against the English system that we are following, and also there may be a difference of opinion .with regard to the United States system that has been suggested. Now, regardless of what may be said in support of or in opposition to either one of these proposals, I think I am well within the opinion of this House when I say that the manner in which the members of this House have been treated by being called here at this most untimely season of the year, is not by any means in the interest of the members themselves, or in the interest of the country at large. As to the composition of this House, it is well known that the vast) majority of the members of this House are men actively engaged in the ordinary avocations of life, farmers, merchants, lumbermen and business men. Whether it is wise in the interests of Canada that the electors should continue to select men of that class, or that they should select them from the wealthier classes, remains to be seen, but up to the present time they have selected for the most part members of the former class. Such being the case, I think I express the opinion of this House when I protest against the date at which we have been called together this year. In proposing this resolution I have no party end in view, and have no purpose of finding particular fault with the party in power, because governments that have preceded this one have been at fault in the same respect. At the same time, I feel confident that if this motion is voted on freely by the members of this House on both sides, it will be sustained. Now I do not believe that any government should be permitted to seek only their own convenience in fixing the dates, because that is largely what they are doing when they change the date and delay it month after month until we are brought now to a very busy season of the year. Any man in business, whether he is a farmer or not, loses his spring business, and is bound to suffer for the balance of the year. Now that being the case, what right has any executive of this House-because that is what they

are-to offer as a pretext, it may be that the Auditor General's report is not ready, that the public accounts are not ready, that the departmental reports are not ready ? Why are they not ready ? The public pays for getting them ready, and those who are in charge of government business can easily see that they are made ready in proper time for an early session of parliament. Why, Sir, every member of this House and every intelligent elector knows very well that the reason of the delay is not owing to the reports. It is more likely, Mr. Speaker, that political exigencies are the cause. It may be some by-election, or some similar excuse, of which members of this government and of past governments are well aware. Such being the case, 1 think the date that I have suggested is not an untimely one. If this House should meet in the last week of November the Address could be disposed of, important measures of the government could be submitted and legislation could be well advanced by the time of the Christmas holidays. The important Bills of the government could be printed and laid on the Table and hon. members could take the same with them to their homes during the recess, consider them, come back after the holidays and proceed with the business of the House in a careful and intelligent way not having their minds distracted by having their attention divided between their duties here and their private business. I may say that the views that I have given expression to here are not new to this House, and that they are not new to the Liberals of this House. I propose to quote from the leaders of the Liberal party in the past to show you that they held views very similar to those I hold at the present time, and I may add that the remarks of these gentlemen were delivered at an earlier date than the present one. I will quote from a speech delivered by the leader of the Liberal party during the session of 188G, as contained in vol. 1, page 8 of the Official Debates. The leader of the Liberal party at that time was the Hon. Mr. Blake who then said :
The first observation I have to make Is one I made a session or two ago, on the same occasion ; that is, to express a regret at the late period of the year at which we are discharging this, our initial duty. I express that regret with stronger feeling, because it was announced to us by the First Minister, last session, or the session before, that we were to meet earlier in the future, because we have for some years been meeting much earlier than we are now meet


William Findlay Maclean: What was the date of that utterance ?


Mr. BOYD.: February 26th, 1886. That is earlier than we are now meeting.
-and because there was a general understanding and pledge to a January meeting ; I do not mean to say a pledge that was not to be broken if a great public emergency should call


Nathaniel Boyd: for delay, but certainly a pledge that ought rigidly to be observed, unless there was some great emergency of which we have not heard as yet. It is to the public interest that we should meet earlier, because this is the period of the year which will best enable the legislators of the country to discharge their duty and best enable the people of the country to discharge their not unimportant part in connection with the business of legislation. As soon as the spring opens, both we and they are distracted with other things, and therefore it is. a material thing for us, circumstanced as this" business country is, that we should have a more distinct understanding, if such be possible, that our session should not commence at what I regard as an unreasonable time.
This was almost a month earlier than we have been called together for the present session. That is the opinion of a man whose opinions, I think, are respected even to this day. But, Mr. Speaker, I may say we have the opinion of the present right hon. leader of this House at a somewhat later date and I think Liberals will agreq with me in saying that the opinions that were then expressed hold good to-day.
I will now quote from ' Hansard ' of 1894, Vol. 1, page 30. He was criticising the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address, Sir James Grant and Dr. Lachap-elle.


William Findlay Maclean: At what date ?


Nathaniel Boyd: The House met on the 15th March, just three days later than it met this year. He said :
For instance, the hon. gentleman has not said a word, nor did the hon. member for Hochelaga, as to the late and inconvenient season at which parliament has been called. I am sure that this is a matter which the hon. gentlemen cannot approve. It has been the unwritten law of Canada for a great many years past, that parliament should be summoned at an early period in the year, at the latest, towards the end of January. The reason is obvious. In this country we have no privileged class. All the members of this House, with scarcely an exception, are engaged in the ordinary avocations of life, and it is an object of paramount necessity that after having discharged their duties to the country, they shoud be able to go back t.o their ordinary business pursuits, about the opening of the busy season. In years past, I say, it was the unwritten law of Canada ; still, this year the government have departed from that law. They waited, and waited, and waited, on-til the opening of the busy season was in sight., before summoning parliament, and as to this, not a word of explanation has been offered. Why, we might have expected, at all events, that the gods who rule over our destinies would have come down from the sphere which they occupy in majesty, and give us a word of explanation.
Now, I submit these very carefully considered words to the attention of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and I trust whatever action he and his government may be disposed to take in regard to this, what I consider, most important question that he will keep in remember-ance the words he then uttered when he

was on this side of the House and X trust that he will not forget that while he and his party are on that side of the House at the present time the day may come, and it is sure to come, when they will be on this side of the House. It is the duty of any government in legislating to bear in mind what are the best interests of the country and to so conduct the public affairs. Now, it is not necessary for me to remind the right hon. gentleman of the great disadvantage that the people coming from the more remote parts of Canada suffer in this connection. Coming here thousands of miles and being kept here in all probability four or five months to a very great number of men, as the right hon. gentleman knows, it means financial ruin, and I call upon the right hon. gentleman, considerate as he usually is, to bear that fact in mind. It is all very well for those members of parliament whose homes are within a hundred miles of Ottawa in Ontario and Quebec, who leave here every Friday evening, go home to their business, stay there Saturday and Sunday, and come back on Monday, but the members who are 2,000 or 3,000 miles from home-what about these gentlemen ? Should they not be considered ? The majority are here and to that extent they rule, but I wish to warn the government and the members of this House that the day is not far distant when this condition will be reversed. I do not think it is necessary that I should say any more. 1 am not submitting this question, as I think my remarks will show, in any party sense, or in the hope of obtaining any party advantage. I am submitting it in a fair and impartial manner and I leave it to the judgment of the House if I have asked for anything unreasonable. The date I have suggested, I think, is a reasonable one and a great deal of business could be done at a season when very few people are busy. The business of the House should be well moved up at the holidays, and an adjournment had for a reasonable time allowing us to get back to our business. It should not be as it has been in the past, ruinous to many men who have spent some years in this House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not find fault vfith the observations which have fallen from my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) though he will pardon me if I take exception, not so much to his statements as to the innuendos they contain. There has been a tacit law in this House existing for a great many years, that parliament should meet towards the end of January or perhaps the first week of February, but not at the period mentioned in the motion. This tacit law was at one time more honoured in the breach than in the observance. but the present government has observed it within all reasonable possibility. If the record of this government is examined it will be found that this is the first year
in which parliament was summoned at a later period than the first week of February, which is the period, generally understood at which parliament should open. This year parliament was summoned at a much later period which I will frankly admit must be a great inconvenience to the members generally. The departments are not responsible for this ; the Auditor General is not responsible for it, but I my own self am responsible and I throw myself upon the indulgence of the House. Circumstances to which I need not refer compelled me to be absent not only from the capital but from the Dominion for the best part of the month of November, all December, and part of January. I came back from the south about the 10th of January and it was not then possible to summon parliament at the usual period.
I repeat that I am alone responsible. I was in such a condition that I could not attend to business. As soon as I came back we applied ourselves diligently to work. Parliament was summoned, and I can claim,
I think that at no period was the business of the government so complete and so ready as it was this year for the consideration of members when parliament opened. In this way we endeavoured to atone for what was certainly a departure from the rule which has been observed in the past and which ought be well recognized. For my part I have no objection that the calling of the session at the end of January or the first of February should be a well recognized law of parliament, but in the speech of Mr. Blake quoted by my hon. friend, Mr. Blake admitted that there may be some cases in which an exception might take place, and I think that the 'members of the House on both sides will perhaps admit that this year, at all events, there was some reasonable ground for the government departing from the well understood rule. But, if we are to have a rule of the House to regulate the opening of the session of parliament, I am not prepare!! to accept the period which the hon. gentleman has mentioned in his motion, namely the last week in November. I doubt very much if this would be acceptable to the great majority of the people of Canada. The motion has been seconded by a friend of mine (Mr. Stewart) and I may with safety conclude that the period suggested in it would be acceptable to the people west of Lake Superior. I doubt very much if that period would meet with the approval of the people of the east of Lake Superior. Taking it all in all I think that the understanding that parliament should be summoned at the end of January or the first week in February would best accommodate all the people of this vast Dominion. There is such a variety of climates in our great country, which to some extent regulate the opening of the business seasons in different parts of the Dominion at different periods 1 of the year, that it would be impossible to | accommodate all members exactly. While I

am not prepared to agree to the motion, I think if it were to be generally understood that parliament would meet about the last week in January or the first week of February, I would be quite prepared for my part to agree to such an understanding.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I was under the impression that the late date at which parliament had been called this year was no doubt to some extent due to the illness of the right hon. gentleman, and for that reason I made no reference to it in the debate on the Address.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: However, X want to say to my right hon. friend that he is mistaken in his dates when he refers to the opening of parliament since his administration came into power. On one occasion we met here on the 6th of March, and on two other occasions we met in the later part of February, instead of the first week of February. If my right hon. friend looks up the record he will find that his government has departed more from what he calls the tacit law, than he now imagines. It is very desirable in the interest of all of us that parliament should begin its work as early as possible after the first of the year, and I see no reason why it should not do so, considering that all departments of government are well supplied with an efficient staff, that the public accounts should be made up, and that the government if it gives proper attention to the business of the country should be ready to meet parliament at the beginning of the year ; to the uninitiated member of parliament it does seem a mystery why year after year the opening of parliament is delayed until the middle or end of February or the first week of March. When we do commence parliament early in the year, it lias come under the observation of every gentleman that there has been a "great waste < f time during almost every session since 1896 because the government is not ready with its business. It seems to me that it only requires ordinary business methods and intelligence to remedy this, and that in future at least members of parliament should not be subjected to the inconvenience of late sessions, and to delay because of the unreadiness of the government when there is an early session. My right hon. friend refers to the readiness of the government to proceed with business at the present time. I readily admit that the government went into Supply very early this session, but a number of important measures have been referred to in the speech from the Throne and we have yet no intimation from the government as to the date at which some of the most important of them will be brought down. I would remind the Prime Minister that in 1896 he laid down the doctrine that the redress of grievances such as


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: is sought in some of these measures was a condition precedent to any Supply being granted. I would suggest to him that it would only be fair to the House, and particularly to this side of the House who have to fill the role of critics, that we should have these measures before us at an early date. I see no reason why the papers with regard to the Alaskaif boundary should not have been laid on the Table on the first day the House met. The right hon. gentleman told us in the debate on the Address that they would be brought down at once, but they are not down yet. When they are brought down they should be printed and that will cause further delay. Then, the correspondence promised respecting negotiations with the colony of Newfoundland should be brought down at once and I would suggest that they should be printed and placed in the hands of members. If these things were done it would facilitate business. Then, the only information we have had up to the present time with regard to the colonial conference is that which some of us have been able to obtain from the blue-book issued by the imperial government. This Canadian government has given no information whatever as to the attitude of the Canadian representatives at the conference, and I can well believe that there is some information which the Canadian government desires to give to the House and to the country which is not contained in the imperial blue-book. In any case that blue-book is not available to all members of parliament as it should be, nor is it available for the public who want to know about the proceedings at that conference.
There is one matter which is touched upon very lightly indeed in the blue-book issued oy the imperial government, but which is or great importance to this country, and that is the correspondence and negotiations which took place between the representatives of this arid the imperial governments with regard to the embargo on our cattle. I had not the pleasure of being present in the House yesterday, but I understand that in the debate on this subject it was suggested that the matter had better be discussed after the papers are brought down. But why were not the papers placed on the Table the very first day of the session ? It was said, I understand, that the Postmaster General had had some negotiations with Mr. Hanbury. Why were those papers not on the Table when the session opened ? It is matters of this kind that tend to delay the business of the House, and in regard to which the government might make a very great improvement on the methods they have pursued in the past.
As to the particular date which has been selected by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), I dare say that it might suit some members very well and not suit others so well. There is probably no conceivable date which will absolutely suit every mem-

ber. I understand that the object my hon. friend has in view is more particularly to have the business of parliament begun at an earlier date in the year or at a late date in the previous year, so that we might not be kept here during the summer months on business which ought to be completed by the middle of March.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Parliament has been called at a later period owing to circumstances which could not be avoided, but I would suggest to the hon. the ministers not to give dinners during the session, not to have any at homes or nonsense of that kind, and let us continue to attend to business until 12 o'clock every night. If we will do that, we will get away at the usual time. Then it will be necessary that the members from Ontario and Quebec, who are in the habit of going home at certain times, should remain in their places, if they want to have the work done properly. The work may be delayed very often because of their absence. Let us get right down to business and have no more nonsense and we will get through sooner than expected.


Mr. D. A. STEWART (Lisgar).: I must say that the calling together of parliament at so late a day puts us to great inconvenience, especially those of us who come from the west. As the business of this country goes on increasing our sessions will no doubt be longer, and this year we may possibly be here until the snow flies. It is a very serious matter for those of us who are engaged in the business of farming to have to leave our farms during seeding and harvest time. Further, as the west is growing, it is likely that the representatives from the west to this House will be increased and will no doubt be mainly drawn from the agricultural class. That is another reason why I am in favour of the motion of the hon. member from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). I must say that I was pleased to hear the remarks of the right hon. the leader of the government concerning the unwritten law that parliament should meet early in January. And the reason why I support the resolution is that it gives hon. members an opportunity of expressing their opinions, independent of party considerations, as regards the period when parliament should be called together.


Mr.  A. A. C.@: La RIVIERE (Provencher). I gather from the tone of the debate so far that it is the general desire of the House that we should meet earlier in the year or even late in the fall. We from the west are very much inconvenienced in having to spend the best part of the year in Ottawa attending to public business to the neglect of our own, but there is another feature of the case to which I would like to refer. I hope that the government will consider the advisability of changing our present system of meeting at night. I hope that they will look into the European and the American system, and that such a change will be
made that our daily meetings may take place at an earlier hour in the day and be closed before the dinner hour, so that we may not injure our health by these long and tedious night sittings. Our committee meetings could well be held in the evenings or earlier in the morning. If that change were adopted, if our daily meetings were begun at an earlier hour and closed before dinner, the same amount of work would be performed and perhaps more in the day than is now done, and not so much time would be lost. No doubt owing to the fact that there is no limit to our night sittings, hon. members are tempted to take up more of the time of the House than they would do if they knew that the sitting would have to be closed at a fixed hour. I hope that this question will be looked into and that a change may be adopted before long, and I have no doubt that such a change would not only promote the physical well-being of hon. members but also expedite business.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: This question of the date of convening parliament is certainly one of very great importance to every member of this House. The circumstances that led to the late meeting of the House this year may fairly be considered unavoidable, but we have been in the habit of meeting at a date so late as to inconvenience the great majority of members. It is my opinion that we should not meet later than the second Thursday in January. The congress of the United States and the legislatures of the forty-two states of the American union all meet at fixed dates. In none of these commonwealths is there any uncertainty as to when congress or the legislature will meet, so that the members can make their business arrangements during the whole year with a definite knowledge as to when they will be required to attend to their legislative duties. The importance of this business men can thoroughly appreciate. The element of uncertainty and doubt as to the meeting of the legislature, whether it may be early in January, late in January, early in February or late in February, is a difficulty and a source of annoyance and loss. Even if the date were a late one, if it were known months ahead, the member could make his calculations and arrange his business accordingly; but that is not the case; there is always a degree of uncertainty. We are not taken into the confidence of the government. Very often the government is influenced by circumstances that might arise from time to time. If we had a fixed date of meeting, the members of the government would accommodate themselves to such an arrangement, and I verily believe that in doing so their own convenience would be consulted, and the business they had to submit to parliament would be attended to more promptly. satisfactorily, and easily to themselves than it is now. Of course, as the premier has said, exceptional circumstances may

arise under our system of government, and I do not know that it would be a judicious thing to have the meeting of parliament fixed by statute at an unalterable date, as in the cases of the legislatures of the various states of the American union and of the national congress. Still, we could arrange to have the meeting of parliament early in January unless exceptional circumstances arose, and if they did, they would be more likely to lead to an earlier than to a later meeting of the House.
With regard to our meeting at three o'clock in the afternoon, 1 have always considered that practice a piece of absurdity, unbusinesslike, detrimental to the health of members, and demoralizing in its effect upon the conduct of members when it leads to late night sittings.


An hon. MEMBER.: What ?


John Charlton: If we were to meet promptly at twelve o'clock or one o'clock, and have five or six solid, uninterrupted hours for business before six o'clock, the business of the House would to a large extent be prosecuted without night sittings, and it would be quite easy to have the meetings of the committees earlier-say at nine o'clock. Let the Speaker take the Chair at twelve o'clock, leave it at six o'clock, and follow the English rule that under no circumstances should a sitting go past midnight. When the hour of twelve arrives, the Speaker rises, takes his hat, and says : ' It being twelve o'clock, I leave the Chair.'


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Everybody goes home.


John Charlton: Everybody goes home. We would very seldom have a night sitting. It would certainly be an arrangement much more reasonable, more conducive to health, and I believe more calculated to lead to a prompt and satisfactory despatch of business than the system we have been following since confederation. It is very difficult to disturb old established usages. We have fallen into a rut, and it is very difficult to get out of it; but if we take this matter in hand and govern ourselves by common-sense considerations, we shall have no difficulty in arranging our sittings in such a way as to enable us to do the main part of our work in day-light, between the time the Speaker takes the Chair, and the time he leaves the Chair for dinner. These views I have entertained for a great many years. I have felt that the meeting of this House after eight o'clock in the evening, prolonged sometimes till two or three o'clock in the morning, is almost criminal in its effects on the health of members. It has broken down the health of many men who have been members of this House. It is a practice which I think we should seek, in the interests of all, to remedy and reform.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: As a representative of one of the western con-Mr. CHARLTON.
stituencies, I would like to say that if the meeting of parliament could be called together as early as November, or at the latest December, it would be a great convenience to members representing constituencies west of Lake Superior. We occupy a different position from that of most members from the older provinces, in this respect, that as the House does not sit on Saturday, they can go home on Friday evening, and remain home till Sunday night or Monday morning, and have an opportunity to look after their business, whereas it is an absolute impossibility for us representing western constituencies to go home during the whole course of a session of this House, because it would take us three or four days to make the journey each way. The summer months are those in which we have the largest amount of business to attend to, and when the House is not called together until the middle or the end of March, it practically means that we have to spend the whole summer at the capital, and leave our business to go to the dogs. I do not know that I would be in favour of having the date of meeting fixed by law, because I suppose circumstances might arise which would prevent the government calling the House together at any fixed date. But I would like to impress on the government the necessity of trying to call the House together a little earlier than was done this year, because it is almost impossible for western members to put in five or six months here during the summer.


Mr.  A. A.@: LBFURGEY (East Prince, P.E.I.) I would like to add a few words to the remarks which have been made on this motion. I am in entire sympathy with the motion of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), in favour of parliament meeting at an earlier date. I am not wedded to the date fixed, the last Thursday of November ; but it certainly would be in the interest of the members to have parliament called a month or two earlier than has been the case in the last two or three sessions. The winter months are certainly the most advantageous time for the representatives of the people to be present here, when the business of the country is not so active as it is during the spring, summer and fall months, and there seems to be no reason why parliament should not be assembled one or two months earlier than has been customary. The members of this House are not all millionaires. They are men engaged in the various avocations of a growing country; and they require time and opportunity to carry on the different phases of business in which they are engaged, and that time is certainly not in the spring of the year, when the whole business of a growing country like this is opening up. It is all very well for hon. members who live within four or five hundred miles of the capital. They have an opportunity to
473 MARCH 25, 1903 474	
leave on Friday, remain at home over Saturday and Sunday, and consult their business managers or attend to their professional duties, then return in time for the business of the House on Monday. But for members who live in Manitoba, the Northwest Territories or British Columbia, or in Prince Edward Island, or Nova Scotia it is a matter of impossibility to go home and return in less than a week. So business interests of these members are, to a great extent sacrificed. That would be largely overcome if the House met two or three months earlier. As was pointed out by the seconder of this motion, the west is growing rapidly, and we are going to have a larger representation from that section. Moreover the representation of the west will be drawn, to a great extent, from the farming class. These men must be called here earlier and enabled to get through their legislative duties in good season, or their business will suffer. I think the government should take this motion into consideration, and, in the future, do everything possible to have the business of the session brought forward at an earlier day. Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin). I have an admendment to the motion, as follows: . It is the opinion of this House that this parliament should be called together not later than the first Tuesday after the second Monday in January in ev5ry year. I have always been an advocate of the members of this tlouse being allowed to know at what period they would be called upon to meet. I think that the time I nave suggested, the first Tuesday after the second Monday in January-I have not said the full of the moon-would be the proper time. The Christmas holidays would be over, and people would be free to come here and attend to business. I do not see why the government should not accept my amendment, nor why all the members of the House should not support it. We all admit that *it should be known at what time we are to meet, and we all admit the winter is the best time for the session for both farmers and business men. We shall remove difficulties from the way of the government, ana we shall relieve the government from the invidious duty of choosing: the time of session if we pass this amendment. I do not think I need say more, but I hope' that all will vote for my amendment. Mr. SEYMOUR E. GOURLEY (Colchester). I would not vote for any amendment of the character of that proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson). We wish to have in this country constitutional government, and constitutional government puts in the hands of the Cabinet the right to call parliament at any time they think best. Besides. to adopt the hon. gentleman's amendment would be to copy too closely the constitution of the country to the south of us,	which is the worst jumble in the whole civilized world to-day. But, while we want constitutional government, yet constitutional government has always been found consistent with the wisest and best government in the world. Speaking in behalf of the maritime province members, I think there should be a well known time when parliament should be called, subject, of course, as in the ease of the present session, to delay . when circumstances arise to make it necessary. I think the explanations given by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with reference to the present session are ample, and I am perfectly willing to: come here late in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case. But tnis is exceptional, and we should have a time fixed when it should be well known that parliament would be called, subject to some exigency such as we have this year. Now, the question is, what that time should be. Some say it should be January. It strikes me that that is too late. The members who come from the maritime provinces want to get through the session of parliament by the last of April. Any member engaged in mercantile or agricultural business would prefer to get through his duties here by that time. It would be impossible to open parliament at the beginning of January and get through by the end of April. Therefore I think there is great wisdom in the proposal of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) that the session of parliament should open in November. We could open parliament, the principal Bills could be introduced and a large part of the business brought forward before the Christmas holidays. We could then adjourn feeling that practically all the business was before the House and before the country, and, after the Christmas holidays we could meet, carry the business through intelligently and prorogue before the 30th of April. I think that no date could be fixed after the beginning of the year when we could meet and finish business by that time. A man can stay here in winter, with the winds howling outside, very comfortably, and attend to the work of parliament. But in the hot days, when all outside is so. inviting, one cannot give the attention to the' business of the House that he ought to do. Moreover, if a man feels, that his business is going to pieces at home, he cannot give undivided attention to his duties in parliament. So, with all due deference to the explanation of the Prime Minister, I think parliament should meet before the close of the year. It may have been well enough to have parliament called about the last of January a few years ago. But with the business coming before us in this 'growing time,' and now that Canada has become a nation under the inspiration of hon. gentlemen opposite, we must have longer sessions. Therefore, while January might have been well enough in the old Conservative days, when Canada was not a nation, it

will never do under existing circumstances. I concur in the proposition that we should meet in November, when there would be ample time, if the session proved unusually long, for the members to get away by the close of April. I support this motion, and I hope the government will not take an illiberal view of it, but will endeavour to adapt themselves to an earlier date, and will settle on the last Thursday in November as a practice. I think that would be better than to fix the date by statutory resolution such as has been proposed, because that would be copying the worst sjs-tem of government in the world.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: While this question is under discussion, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what has become of the promise he made when we had the last summer session. He told us that as long as he was a member of this government we would have no more summer sessions. At that time we were called on the 6th of March.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I do not remember what promise I made, but I do cordially concur in the statement that we ought, if possible, to meet as early as we can, at the end of January, or the beginning of February. But it is not always possible, and no man knows that better than the hou. gentleman, for the government to carry out that project. I may remark, however, that when I had the honour of being Finance Minister, I delivered the budget speech very early in the session, and if the hon. gentleman will look over the records he will find that the budget speech was always delivered within ten days or a fortnight after the House met. I have no doubt but that my hon. friend beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will be perfectly ready to do the same, if he can get the co-operation of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. However, there are difficulties, I may say, in this country in getting ready much before the 1st of February. This is becoming a very extensive country, with widely extended operations, and I doubt, if you make the fiscal year terminate on the 1st of July, whether you can expect to get the various [DOT]public documents in readiness for parliament before the 1st of February, certainly not before the middle of January, so far as my experience goes. But I can tell the hon. gentleman that so far as I am personally concerned, I will strive earnestly to bring about as early a meeting as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to endorse the suggestion which has been made by my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. LaRivifire), and which I think can be carried easily into effect at once. I believe the time has come when we must make some alteration in the hours of sitting of the House. Reforms have been made in the United States and different countries of Europe, as well Mr. GOURLEY.
as in England, although in England different habits prevail from those that obtain in this country. But even there they have made a reform in regard to the twelve o'clock rule, which has been alluded to this afternoon. It seems to me that, if it were possible, we should sit from three to six o'clock, and come back at eight; especially ought we to avoid, in the season which we are now approaching, the practice of sitting in the House until two o'clock in the morning, or even later. I approve of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Provencher that we should sit, for instance, from two o'clock until six, and have committee meetings in the morning, and if necessary at night, and perhaps special meetings in the evening. That would be a beneficial reform, and acceptable to all the members of this House. I think it could be carried into effect during the present session, at any rate, a set of rules to that effect could be framed and brought before the House for discussion. Some change, it seems to me, is absolutely necessary in the present hours of sittings in this House. As regards the suggestion made in the main motion of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), I do not know to what extent it meets with the approval of all our farmers from Quebec. But speaking for myself, I think the date suggested by him a very good one. It would enable us to get well into the work of the session before the Christmas recess, and during the Christmas recess we would have occasion to consult our constituents on some of the measures already submitted to the House ; and upon returning here after a short vacation, we would be in a better position I think to expedite the work of the session and get away at an early date. I see no reason why we could not have the report of the Auditor General at a much earlier date. I think if we had that report before us ten days before the meeting of parliament, or three or four weeks before the Christmas holidays, the work of the session would be greatly shortened, and it would meet the convenience of members in almost every instance. I do not think it is possible by statutory enactment to fix the date of the meeting of parliament. Of course it might be done, but strictly speaking it would not be constitutional, if I may say so. But if the sense of the House is taken upon the main motion, and if the House says that the time suggested by my hon. friend is satisfactory, I do not see why the government should not make the change and break away from old habits and customs. Everything is changing, and I think the time has come to improve the hours of sittings of parliament, as the rest of the world is doing.
Mr. LaRFVTERE. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that as the fiscal year ends the 30th of June, it would be inconvenient to call parliament together in the fall, because the departments would not have

time to make their reports. Now, I say that it is a mistake to end the fiscal year on the 30th of June, the fiscal year should be made to conform with the calendar year. We now end the fiscal year in the middle of the most busy season of the year, which we break into two parts, and I believe it would he far better to have the reports end with the calendar year. If we did that, there would be no trouble at all in having a fall session, because there would be ample time to have those reports ready.


Mr. W. ROSS (South Ontario).: Before this question is put I would like to say a few words in regard to the motion. So far as I am concerned, it would be practically impossible to attend a session of this parliament in November, unless I was compelled to do so. We have had the explanation of the Prime Minister of the reason why parliament was delayed this year, and we are all thoroughly satisfied with that. But I really think that the best time for parliament to meet is about the middle of January, that seems to suit every one, and we could get through the business of this House in about ninety days. That would let us out by the first of May, at any rate, and would give us ample time to do the business of the country. We should be called together in good season. I appreciate the difficulty of the western members and of the eastern members, that has been referred to. But after all, speaking from my own standpoint, it would he physically impossible for me to come here in November, therefore I wish to enter my protest against meeting at that season of the year.


Nathaniel Boyd: The motion I submitted to the House is not the same as the amendment of the hon. member for Elgin. I do not fix a date, I say on or about, whereas the hon. member for Elgin suggests a specific date. Now I ask whether any valid argument has been used here to-day against an earlier meeting of the House, or at least against a meeting in the fall. There is no denying the fact that henceforth, as this country keeps growing, it will be impossible to transact all the business in less than four months, or four and a half or five months. I have watched for some years past and during the years I have been here the last month of the session is all hurry and bustle and push business through when it should get a great deal more consideration and attention than some of the business that has been disposed of in the earlier part of the session. The hon. gentleman who last spoke says that the business of the House may be done in ninety days. I wish to tell him that it is impossible to do it in ninety days. This country is becoming entirely too large to think of doing its business in ninety days. I have given this matter very careful consideration. I have not brought it to the attention of the House thoughtlessly, but I have done it with the expectation that the business which this
House has to do will occupy four or five months. Such being the case, if the leader of the government is prepared to consider the business men of the country, the merchants and farmers and especially those who come from the extremities of the country, it will be necessary to call the House earlier, about the time I have suggested. In regard to the proposition of the hon. member that we should specify a date, the objection that I raised and which is one that appeals as I know to a great many members, will not be overcome because we will then be carried into spring.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, if I were to. state my own personal view of the matter, I must say that I would very much prefer that the House should meet in November and December and then adjourn over until the first of March and sit during March and April. The two worst months in the year in this part of the country are January and February. Ottawa is very cold at that time and the travel in January and February is most dangerous in Ontario and Quebec at that period of the year. I can quite see that a fall session in November and December and a recess until March and April might suit the convenience of a very large number of our members. However, I think enough has come out of the debate to suggest to the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he ought to be prepared, either now or at a later stage, to suggest that a special committee to be composed of the leader of the government, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and perhaps other members of the House be appointed to consider if some practical rule cannot be laid down as to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRivi8re). I am in favour of earlier sessions in the day as against these late sittings. I do not know what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) says about the social gaieties interfering with the business of the House, but at any rate I can say that there has been great neglect of the public business after dinner time. There are often not more than ten or twenty members in this House after dinner. There are very few members of the government present sometimes and the public business is not being transacted as I think it ought to be. But, enough has come out of this discussion to suggest the appointment of a committee and I hope that if the right hon. leader of the government is not prepared to do so at the present moment, he will after consideration be in a position to suggest something in that direction.
Amendment (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) negatived.


Nathaniel Boyd: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House and with the approval of my seconder, I would beg to withdraw the re-

solution. I tliink the object has been attained. I know well enough after the opinions that have been expressed by the right hon. leader of the House, what the result will be. I have been long enough in this House to understand what usually happens after the leader of the House speaks in the manner in which he has spoken this afternoon. However, I trust the views submitted will so impress themselves upon the minds of the members of the government that they will give the matter the serious consideration that we believe the subject is entitled to. I wish, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the resolution.
Motion (Mr. Boyd).withdrawn.



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Board of Civil Service Examiners for the year 1902.-Hon. W. S. Fielding.

George Taylor: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), as I understand he is acting Minister of Agriculture during the absence of the minister, if he has brought down the return that I moved for on Monday in reference to the amount expended for taking the census of 1901.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has not been brought down. It will be brought down promptly.



THE FRENCH EDITION OF DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a point which I think is of great importance. The matter I am referring to is the backward state of the translation of the departmental reports from English into French. I think these reports are not translated in due time. I understand that a certain time must be allowed for the proper translation of those reports ; but, after all, I think the work could be done in a more expeditious way. Being given the fact that those reports have to be prepared by the officers of the various departments and handed over to the printing bureau long before the meeting of parliament, I do not see why a prompter delivery of the French edition could not be ensured.
Owing to the backward state of that translation, we are placed in this awkward position : that when people who are interested in what is published in these reports apply to us for copies of the same, as the French edition is not yet available for distribution, we have to send them copies of the English edition.


Nathaniel Boyd: Now, it would be easy for us, in support of the statement I have just made, to call to witness the hon. gentlemen who, in reply to those who apply for copies of the French edition of the departmental reports, have to tell them that the French edition is not yet published, and that a long time is likely to elapse before it is available for distribution to the public. I quite understand that, in the case of the translation of the reports of our debates as also in the case of the numerous returns which are brought down and laid upon the Table of this House during the session, it is difficult for the translating staff to 'catch up with the work. But, as concerns the departmental reports, the position is 'quite different. So, I wish to urge upon the right lion, leader of this House the desirability of his taking the necessary steps to have the French edition of the reports referred to, laid upon the Table of the House, from the very opening of parliament.



ALASKAN BOUNDARY TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) to a statement made in the press of the country in regard to the recent convention respecting the Alaskan boundary. I asked the right hon. gentleman whether the treaty had been made with the assent of the government and he omitted to give roe any answer during the debate upon the Address. The following passage appears in an important journal in this county which is supporting the government



TO WHOM WE OWE IT.

[Stage Direction]
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, says the St. John * Sun,' * admits that this country cannot expect a fair verdict on the boundary question from the three United States commissioners,' and it asks: ' Then what is the good of the reference at all ?'
Then follows the editorial comment:
The ' Sun ' apparently forgets that it was not Sir Wilfrid who made or even proposed the Alaska boundary reference. We owe that good gift entirely to the esteemed government of the United Kingdom whose chief aim in existence appears to be the cultivation of ' friendship ' with the United States by running a ' hand-me-down ' shop for their benefit in Canada. If our ' friendly ' neighbours do not see what they want in sight in the Dominion, they have a standing invitation to ask for it, and are given permission to carry it oil on their own terms.
I am not adverting to the fireworks part of this editorial, but merely to the one point which seems to be suggested rather than explicitly stated :	That this convention respecting the Alaskan boundary was not made with the consent or approval of the government of Canada. I think we have a right to know from the government whether or not that is a fact, and I have no doubt that my right hon. friend will see his
[Stage Direction]
way clear to make a statement in regard to it.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir .Wilfrid Laurier).: I thought, Mr. Speaker,
that in the debate on the address I made it perfectly clear that the government of Canada had been consulted with regard to the terms of the treaty. I thought I had made it clear also that we had assented to the treaty, not because we found it perfect, but because on the whole the terms of reference were perfectly fair. There was no advantage on either side, and that was the reason why we removed all objections that we had had hitherto. For the first time, in the negotiations which took place between Great Britain and the United States and between Great Britain and Canada in the Joint High Commission ; for the first time the terms of reference proposed were such as could be accepted by Canada. We were not satisfied with the composition of the tribunal-not that we objected to the tribunal itself, but simply because the tribunal was so composed as that it did not ensure finality. That was the only objection we had, but the terms of reference being satisfactory, the character of the court, with an exception being also satisfactory ; especially in this that it provided that the questions between Canada and the United States should be determined by impartial jurists of repute. We thought we had there all guarantees that the case of Canada would be properly adjudicated upon. But in the debate on the Address, I said also that it was a different matter as to how the treaty, which in itself was perfectly fair, was to be executed. I pointed out that there were objections taken to the commissioners which we learned from the press and upon authority had been selected by the government of the United States. I am sorry to say that at this moment the government is not yet in a position to bring down the correspondence which has taken place upon this particular subject. It is all ready, and I am in hopes that at an early date it may be placed on the Table of the House. All I can say at present is, that if the correspondence is not already on the Table of the House it is not because of any fault of any authority on this side of the Atlantic. We hope, however, that very shortly, the whole of the correspondence which has taken place upon the making of the treaty itself, and the selection of the commissioners will be placed before parliament. We hope further, that all the correspondence which has taken place between the two governments since the adjournment of the High Commission, in 1899. will also be placed upon the Table of the House at an early date.



SUPPLY-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask why the somewhat unusual practice of going into Supply on Private
Members' day is being followed during this session ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: For the reason that we have exhausted the Order paper for private business, and we have come to Government Orders. That is the only reason, and it seems to me it is a good reason. If we want to reach the blessing of a prorogation within any reasonable time, we might as well take government business for the rest of the day.


William Findlay Maclean: I would be ready to go on with my public Bills to-day if they had been printed in both languages. I have been here every day this week waiting to see them printed, but so far they are only printed in one language, and under the rules I cannot go on with them.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is no fault of mine.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, the government is responsible for the way the public documents are printed, and therefore the government is to blame.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have a Bill of ten lines long which was introduced last year and printed in both languages, and which I introduced at the beginning of the session this year, but it has not yet been translated. It is a most important Bill, and like my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), I am ready to go on with it. Why is it not translated and printed in both languages ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The printing may be to some extent in the hands of the government, but the translation is not. My hon. friend had better address himself to the officers of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely the government is responsible for the conduct of the business of the House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: There is a rule of the House that private Bills should be handed in eight days before the opening of the session. The work has to be done carefully, and as a matter of fact this rule of the House has not been complied with, as most of the Bills were not handed in at the prescribed time. We have only one translator, and when all the Bills come in together, there is necessarily a little delay.


James Clancy: I have a Bill of four lines long that was introduced the second day of the session, and it seems strange that it should be kept back so long, because I am sure that the Bill to which I refer came in before the other private Bills.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask if it is the case, as I have been informed, that there are



REVISED EDITZDX

[Stage Direction]
some translators wlio are drawing salaries ' and who have not come up here yet to attend to their work ? I have been told that is the case, and the names have been given to me.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not know of any.


Mr. S. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the first minister to a cablegram which appeared in the papers last night in reference to the fact that Canadian beef is not allowed to be supplied to the British troops at the present time. I would suggest that when the papers are being brought down, that any data in connection with the army contracts in reference to the supply of Canadian beef may also be brought down at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like again to point out that the practice of going into Supply on Private Members' day has not been heretofore pursued during the sessions X have been in this House. Having regard to the fact that there are important government measures which have not been brought down yet, we must protest against departing from the rule which has prevailed during previous sessions. I do not at all wish to obstruct the business of the House, but at the same time I do not want to depart from customs which have been deemed good enough for us in the past, unless some special reason can be shown for that departure.
Mr. T< CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency). I would like to draw the attention of the House to this fact: We do not object at all to the business of the government proceeding; but there are a certain number of very important government Bills on the Order paper which might lie proceeded with if the ministers were ready. There is one measure, for instance, in which a great many people, not only in this country, but in the United States and England, who hold Canadian patents, are interested. An Act has been prepared on the subject, but I humbly submit that it should have been ready for submission to the House on the very first days of the session. Some lion, gentlemen opposite know, the Minister of Justice and the hon. gentleman who represents the Minister of Agriculture, who is in charge of the Patent Department, must know, that the decision given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Power vs. Griffin, has absolutely done away with jurisprudence with respect to an important section of the Patent Act. There are hundreds of patents affected by this decision, which was to the effect that no second extension of time can be given to people who have not imported their patented inventions into Canada during the time prescribed by law. Heretofore extensions of two years have been given from time to time, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the assistant commissioner. The


Frederick Debartzch Monk: decision of the Supreme Court has done away with that practice, and as a result has invalidated hundreds of patents. I believe, from an answer given to a question of mine by one of the ministers at the beginning of the session, that it is the intention of the government to introduce an Act not only to amend the Patent Act in this respect, but also to give a retroactive effect to the law-remedial legislation, in fact. This is an important question, ahd I humbly submit that the measure should be brought before the House and passed as soon as possible, in order to remedy the great evil which has been done to the holders of patents by the unexpected decision of the Supreme Court.
I do not at all criticise that decision. It is probably right, but it is altogether at variance with the jurisprudence held on this subject ever since the late Dr. Taclifi gave a decision on the subject twenty years ago. There are other important Bills on the Order paper which could be dealt with if the government were ready. They are not ready; so that if we make any observation on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, it is not because we are not ready to look into the measures which the government have promised to bring before the House. All we say is that we are not prepared to go into supply now, because we have not been able, during the short time the House has been sitting, to read the reports which have been brought down since the opening of the session. For instance, it has been physically impossible for us to study the Auditor General's Report sufficiently to enable us to criticise with adequate knowledge the items as they come up. I do not think this is quite fair to this side of the House, as it does not afford us the opportunity of dealing with the items in the Supply Bill in the way we are entitled to do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not think that any remarks implying that there is any lack of readiness on the part of the government to go on with the business of the House, are justifiable. I venture to say that there never has been a time, certainly not in recent years, when the business of the government has been more ready for the meeting of parliament. The public documents have been brought down with great promptness. There are more public documents and reports on the Table of the House to-day than is usual at this period. We are still at an early stage of the session, it is true; but if owing to the speedy disposal of questions and, motions, or owing to delay in translation, which I think should not occur, because I thlak we should have officials enough to attend to that more promptly, but that is not the fault of the government- if for these various reasons we reached Government Orders early in the day, and did not proceed with business, the people would ask, what is parliament doing ? The peo-
485	MARCH 25, 1903	486
pie, I am sure, will be glad to know that the routine business is disposed of quickly, and that we are ready to attend to the business of the House. The voting of the supplies Is certainly Important business of the House, and I am sure we should not be reproached with causing delay. When delay occurs, it is usually because we are asked to put something aside to suit the convenience of hon. members opposite. 1 think it would be a pity if at this time we adjourned at six o'clock, when the government are ready to go on with business.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whose duty it is to see that there are enough translators ? Is it not the government's ? We are not responsible.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not say that my hon. friend is responsible, neither are we. These matters are in the hands of a committee of the House to a great extent. The officials of the House are not servants of the government, but servants of the House, and we among others have a right to complain if they do not attend to their duties.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I would like to know why the government do not go on with the Act to amend the Act respecting the Publication of the Statutes, which is printed in English and French; also the Act to amend the Controverted Elections Act, which is also printed in English and French ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will answer my hon. friend. That is a fair question, though he takes a different ground from what he took a moment ago, when he said we were not ready to go on with the business. On the contrary, the Order paper is full of the business of the government. There are four or five subjects on which we are ready to go on. There is, for instance, a resolution of the Minister of Justice with respect to retiring allowances of judges; another of the Minister of Finance with respect to Civil Service superannuation; another by myself with respect to Chinese immigration. The reason we do not proceed with these matters to-day is that to-day not being a government day, we intended to proceed with them to-morrow, because we thought it would be more accommodating to members to have such important subjects taken up on regular government days, when they would expect them to be brought up. But we thought, as we have exhausted the business allotted to private members to-day, it would be proper to devote a few hours to discussing the estimates, with which the members are more or less familiar. But if hon. members say they are not ready to go on with the estimates to-day, we do not wish to press them, and are willing to adjourn if hon. gentlemen opposite so desire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.
16J


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well, then, go on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
St. John, N.B., quarantine station-water service, drainage, heating, &c., $8,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: There was some criticism last night with reference to our spending so much money on furnishing water for this quarantine station. On examining the papers, I find a telegram to the Agriculture Department to be transmitted to the Department of Public Works, saying that the water supply was entirely inadequate and that the situation demanded relief, and that it would cost over $1,500 to provide fresh water for that station during that season. The reason for that is that the water has to be carried by boat from the city. I have here a detailed estimate of the cost, material and work for the water service for this quarantine station
250 cubic yards earth excavation	$ 100 00
3.500	lineal feet, extra heavy, 6 inch,
wrought galvanized iron pipe	 5,964	00
176 flexible screw couplings, galvanized. 1,056	00
30 days service of a diver	
600	0030 days hire of lighter	
120	0030 days hire of tug	
600	00Ropes, anchors and gear	
300	00Labour, laying pipe across channel.... 300	00900 cubic yards rock excavation	
2,700	00
1.765 lineal feet, 6 inch cast iron pipe,
56,480	
1,412	002,000 pounds lead for Joints	
100	002.500	pounds special castings	
125	00
Labour, laying pipe, gaskets, also coal,
&c	
225	00Six hydrants	
100	00Stop cocks and blow-offs	
75	00Contingencies	
2,223	00

Work to be done by city of St. John.. 4,725 00

The city of St. John is laying a portion of this work from the present terminus of the water service to the island, and the government has agreed to pay two-thirds of the cost, which would amount to $4,735. From the information we now have, we will save money annually through having this pipe put in.


George Taylor: Are these supplies being bought by tender ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Tenders will be invited for the whole work. The estimate is made by the chief architect of the department and it is to be hoped that the work will be done within that amount.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is a six inch galvanized pipe to be laid from the city of St. John to the island.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In that estimate I see $2,223 for contingencies. I have not the special knowledge required to criticise the estimate, but $18,500 seems a very large amount for the laying of water pipe from St. John to this quarantine island a distance of some two thousand feet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is more than that. What has been done with reference to the heating system ? I called the attention of the chief architect to the fact that the heating system was over the heads of the people in their beds and had a very bad effect. Has anything been done to remedy this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend took an appropriation last session for the purpose of making that improvement. The chief architect says a change has been made and is satisfactory.


Mr. BROCK.: I think there is a matter of greater importance than looking into details in connection with this quarantine station. Last year we voted $17,000 in this connection and this year we are asked to vote $8,000 more. Will that be the last ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate of the department is that this will complete the work.
Alexandria public building, $10,000.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I would like to know if a site has been procured, and if so, from whom and when ? I do not want to object particularly to a public building in the village of Alexandria, if it be the policy of the government to build post offices costing some $17,000 each in villages having a population of less than 2.000. Looking at the census of 1901, I find that Alexandria has only a population a little over 1,900. I think that the total number of families in the village is 378. It seems to me that to spend $17,000 on a post office in that village, where the gross revenue is only a little over $2,500, from which you will have to deduct the expense of management and caretaking, will be anything but a profitable investment. However, as I said, I do not wish to make any objection. It is in the county adjoining that in which I reside, and it is no doubt the most important town in that county. But it seems to me a very large expenditure on a post office in a small town. I would like to ask if the land has been acquired and tenders called for for the building ; also will $17,000 complete the post office in the village of Alexandria ? If the land has been acquired, from whom was it purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: The site has not yet been procured nor the contract let.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would urge upon my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to give special consideration to the question of ventilation in public buildings. This has not been attended to as it should have been. Before I left office I called the attention of the chief architect to this point in several instances. I feel also that greater attention should be given to protection against fire. Many of our public buildings have no system of fire protection whatever. The chief architect is a very painstaking officer. I take this opportunity of stating that there is not a better officer in the Department of Public Works. But he has too much work to attend to, and I would call the attention of the minister to the need of giving the chief architect more help, more efficient help.


Mr. SCHELL.: I desire to make a remark or two in answer to the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle). The hon. gentleman gives the population of Alexandria as 1,900. I may say that a special census of the town was taken last year, showing that the population was over 2,800. And, since that time Alexandria has been erected into a town.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the population by the regular census of 1901.


Jacob Thomas Schell: It was 1,911.


Robert Laird Borden: Has it increased 900 in that time ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: It has. And, more than that, it has grown that much more during the past year. It has grown to such an extent that, within the last year the Union Bank has put up a building and now has finer bank premises than there is in the town of Cornwall. The Bank of Ottawa also has built a bank upon the opposite corner. The town of Alexandria is growing to-day at a rate exceeded by very few towns in eastern Canada or any part of Ontario.


William Rees Brock: I would point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works, as he has not selected a site in Alexandria, that he is apt to meet with difficulty when he seeks to buy land in a town growing at such a rate as we have just heard of. It seems there has been an increase in one year of 25 per cent, and now there is a further increase of a like proportion. I think the hon. minister will have to add to this estimate, for he will hardly be able to please the people of Alexandria with anything like the money fixed by this vote.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) that there are two sites under consideration, one at $2,000 and the other at $2,500.


Mr. BENNETT.: How much land ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: One lot is 66x90 feet; I do not remember the size of the other.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I took the trouble to look at the census of 1901, and I find that the

population given for Alexandria was 1,911. There were 359 houses in the village and 378 families. It is very extraordinary if the population is increasing at the rate of considerably over 30 per cent a year. I know it was a very ambitious village and anxious to be incorporated last year. It had a special census taken and became incorporated. I would like to know if the village of Alexandria volunteered a site for this public building. I understand they are a very liberal community and would have no hesitation in providing a site. We heard nothing about this public building from 1890 to 1900, when Glengarry was represented by Ool. R. R. McLennan. It is only within the last year or so since my hon. friend from Glengarry (Mr. Schell) was elected that this thing has been heard of. There are a number of villages in that section, for instance, Morrisburg, a larger village, which, no doubt, would be very anxious to see a good post office erected. If it is the policy of the government to build $17,000 buildings in towns having a population of less than 2,000, I have no doubt these other towns would be very anxious to have them built.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the proposed site a corner lot ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: One of the lots I spoke of is a corner lot, the other is not. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle) appears to be very much worried over this building and over the fact that nothing was done from 1896 to 1900. He knows very well, and I believe that many of the members of this House know the reason why there was no word of any post office during those years. In 1891 it was decided that there should be a Dominion reformatory built in Alexandria, and a vote was passed in this House to provide money for its construction. Before the change of government came, in 1896, the work upon that building was stopped, and when the new government came in they decided that this Dominion reformatory was unnecessary. They did not proceed to build that reformatory as it was then proposed, for what reason I shall not discuss. The fact remains that the site remained unused, and the material collected was left there. When it was decided not to build the reformatory, the people of Alexandria asked that some building should be erected there. The farm land upon which the reformatory was to have been erected, which had been bought for the benefit of some friends of the late government at more than double what it was worth, was sold. And I expect-that is the understanding, or consideration, to my mind-that the returns from that property will go back into this building. The people of Alexandria expect this post office in lieu of the great reformatory they were to have had.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I am very glad to get that explanation. We see now that the
post office is not to be built because the public service requires it, but simply to please the people of Alexandria, who have been deprived of a reformatory for which a grant was passed during the time of the late government. The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) admitted very frankly that the consideration for the erection of this building was the doing away with the' reformatory. I am pleased to get that explanation, that it is not on account of the public requirements, but simply to satisfy the people of Alexandria for having taken the reformatory away from them. I cannot conceive that it was for any public requirement, because the revenue from that post office was very trifling, and the building is not a necessity. However, we understand the matter now. The hon. gentleman tells us that there was a property bought at double its value. Well, I am informed that it was bought at a reasonable value, and was sold to some friends of the hon. gentleman for less than half its value.


Jacob Thomas Schell: That property was bought for the purpose of a reformatory, and Mr. McNeill sold the property for $2,700 to one of the political friends of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. That party sold it to another political friend for $3,700, and a few weeks afterwards that political friend sold it to the government for $5,000. That is the transaction that took place in those days, that is the way they did it. When the government had possession of it. they advertised it for sale, and the best offer they got was $1,800. I advised that the property should not be sold at that time on account of the general depreciation in value all over the country, and it was not sold. They kept it until, I think, the month of December or November last, when the property was sold for $2,800 cash, after some of the buildings on it had been removed. I consider the property sold at its full value, sold for a higher figure than it was disposed of in the first instance when it was proposed to build a reformatory. There are other things in connection with this transaction. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle) says he understands the reason now. Well, I have been very frank in the statements I have made, and they are the actual facts.


Mr. GOTJRLEY.: This discussion ought not to have imported into it any reference like that made by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell), because we must remember that this county was represented by a strong man, Col. McLennan, when the Conservative party were in power, and he was not able to get a post office. Now, however, we find that a large and costly post office is to be put up there. But there is one redeeming feature about it. I recollect a year or two ago, shortly after the publication of the census, one of my French colleagues reflected upon the Anglo-Saxon race in Canada-that they were not produc-

mg more children. Well, I am proud to say that there is one redeeming feature about this county which seems to justify the vote. It appears that there were 357 families in the county of Glengarry, and since the census the population has increased nearly a thousand ; so that during eighteen months every family must have had triplets. Glengarry is a Scotch county, and therefore we may congratulate ourselves that in this county at least the Anglo-Scotch race is not degenerating.


William Humphrey Bennett: The case is somewhat different from a case we had last night. The contract has not yet been let, neither has the site been purchased. Now the hon. member for Glengarry states that a lot was offered to the department at $2,000, and having a frontage of 66 feet, that means $30 a foot. From the fact that one of the most desirable and eligible sites in this thriving town of Alexandria is only worth $30 a foot, I think the minister will hesitate whether to go on with such an expenditure. What is the minister going to do, backed up by his associates at the Council board ? I find on reference to the report of the Postmaster General that the postmaster of that town is allowed now for rent, light and fuel, $120 a year. Now is the minister going to invest the larg'e sum of $17,000 in that building ? That is the proposition, and we know it will mean $20,000 before it is finished. When we consider the site at $2,000 it means about $100 interest on the money invested. Now add to that what must be added in every one of these public buildings, the annual maintenance, add the charges of the caretaker, and I suppose he will not sell his services for less than men are paid in other places, and that means a cost of $400 a year. I do not know whether there is in this enterprising town an electric light, but assuming there is, that light will cost another hundred dollars. Then let us add to that the sum of $175 or $200 a year for heating, and we find a grand total of $1675 a year as the actual cost to this country. Surely the Minister of Public Works is going to hesitate before asking the country to incur an annual expenditure of upwards of $2,000 a year where to-day we are getting a sufficient service for $120 a year. The hon. gentleman who represents that riding does not show that the present accommodation at this post office is inadequate. If it is inadequate then it behooves the Postmaster General to ask the postmaster there to make the needed enlargement. Are we going to lay down the principle that in a town of less than 2.000 people there is to be an expenditure every year of $2,000 to maintain a service that is now carried out for $120 ? No doubt the Minister of Public Works is beset by party exigencies, and I concede that he has made out a fairly strong case. Now how does the hon. member for Glengarry compare to-day with the gentleman who preceded him ? Col. Mc-Mr. GOURLEY.
I.ennan was not able to impress upon the late Conservative administration the necessity of a reformatory in that part of the province, and had his wishes prevailed with the present government a large building would have been erected there. But the hon. gentleman who now represents that riding has no such large ideas. I have no doubt the establishment of a large building at this point would have served very useful ends, hut he says :	My constituents
will be satisfied with securing the expenditure of a smaller sum of money. And if the hon. gentleman gauges the intelligence of his constituents in this way, I am sure no one else will grumble. The Minister of Public Works is laying down this principle to-day that he is going to saddle this country with an annual expenditure of $2,000 to meet a service that is now carried on for $120. I say he should hesitate. He cannot make flesh of one riding and fish of another. Surely he is not going to say to the Conservatives that because they send a Conservative to this House they cannot have a public building ; and he is not going to say to the Liberals on the other hand :	Provided you send a representative
to support this administration you can have a public building.


Mr. BROHER.: As the government propose to establish a post office in the small town of Alexandria, I think it my duty to speak for the town of Morrisburg. It is easy to understand why the hon. gentleman is anxious to have this post office built at Alexandria. There is no doubt what is the real reason when hon. gentlemen opposite got into power in 1896. There was material on the ground to build a reformatory, and they saw fit to take it, and now offer these people a peace offering in the shape of a post office. It is not a post office, it is a peace offering. The town of Morrisburg has a revenue of something over $3,400, while the town of Alexandria, with all its prosperity, has only some $2,600, then there is a double reason why the town of Morrisburg ought to have a post office and custom house. They have a rented building for the custom house as well as for the post office. There is a stronger reason why Morrisburg should have a public building. If you want a stronger reason I am sorry to say that I can give it to you in the fact that there is a large Grit majority and if there is any shrinkage in the town that is the reason for it. There is the strongest reason why hon. gentlemen opposite should do something for their friends in Morrisburg and I do not suppose that they would care who the medium was if they got from their friends here what many of them would like to see-a reasonably valuable building. We do not ask more. If Alexandria is worth $17,000. Morrisburg ought to be worth $20,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite have gone away from a settled principle which was generally adopted in this country of not erect-

ing these buildings in places of less than 5,000 population. That was the generally adopted rule. Whenever it was departed from for any reason whatever by the party ill power, the Liberals, who were then in opposition, raised a terrible storm in this House. Now they are as quiet as mice. Why are these hon. gentlemen going so far away from one of their settled principles ? They have found out that human nature was just the same in 1S9G as it is in 1903 and no man understands this better than the hon. Minister of rublic Works. He is going to settle with his friends in Alexandria. They ought to have the building that was proposed to erect previous to 189G, when Col. McLennan was the member. The government did not erect this building because they were afraid that some credit would attach to Col. McLennan and his friends, but now that the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) is very anxious that something should bo done to settle the account it is proposed to proceed with this building. That is what this is for. It is not being erected in the general public interest. The hon. member for Glengarry does not even say that it is in the public interest. There is not a man in that county who says that the general interest demands any such building.


Jacob Thomas Schell: They all do.


Andrew Broder: Not one. The hon. member for Glengarry says that the town has increased 1,000 in population in one year. What is the cause of it ? There have been no new factories built at Alexandria ; there has been an addition made to the carriage factory that would add perhaps 50 people to the town and no more. There has not been the wonderful expansion that the hon. gentleman talks about. Have hon. gentlemen opposite any plans of this building showing the estimated cost ? If they have they have not been laid on the Table. They ought' to be laid on the Table. We do not know anything about the size of this building, or the shape of it, and hon. gentlemen opposite do not know anything about the size of it.


An hon. MEMBER.: And they never will.


Andrew Broder: This committee ought to have some information in reference to the building we are going to erect, and a full statement of the estimated cost. If we vote $17,000 this year you may want $17,000 more next year, because Alexandria may grow a thousand in population before next year, and you will want to add to the building. For a post office in a -small village like Alexandria, $17,000 !-Well, there are 500 towns in this country that have equally good claims upon hon. gentlemen opposite if this is the rule they are going to adopt, and if it is they should surely let the country know it. Now, I venture to say that $2,000 for a lot in Alexandria of the size mentioned by the hon. gentleman is
an enormous price. There are a great many towns that would give a desirable lot to erect a building upon if the government would give them a $17,000 post office. I venture to say there is not another town in eastern Ontario which would not be glad to give you a site for a public building. We will give you one in Morrisburg free and if you are going in for good bargains, you never will have a better chance. This Alexandria business is not a good bargain. This is the settlement of an old account; hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to repudiate it, but the town would not allow them to do it, and so they have to come to time with the cash. I want to speak in all seriousness, and to say that I have a right to demand some consideration for the town of Morrisburg. Hon. gentlemen opposite may think it is badly represented, but that is the people's business ; it is not your business. I say it is fairly well represented, and I demand our rights in this matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My bon. friend (Mr. Broder), I think has made out a strong case for the town of Morrisburg. I would not like to say, however, that the people of that town are badly represented after the able speech that the hon. gentleman has just delivered. My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that it is the usual custom to lay the plans of proposed buildings on the Table. The custom has been first to take a vote, and then, according to the vote, the architect makes a plan suitable to the place in which the building is to be erected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would just say in regard to these post offices, that I have thought for some years past, and I referred to it last year, as I do again now, that in all towns where they want public buildings there should be an effort made to get these towns to give the sites free. I know that several towns in Canada have offered sites free in the past, while in others large amounts of money have been paid for sites. I do not think that such should be the case. If an enterprising town is anxious to get a public building, it will usually be found willing to provide the site, or, at least, to bear a portion of the cost of the site. I think the government ought to endeavour to get a site from every town that requires a public building. I am not in favour of putting up expensive buildings in small towns. I have always thought that where we could get accommodation for the post office, or the custom house, or other public service, at a very much less cost than the cost of erecting and' maintaining a public building, we should not put up public buildings. If it is a fact that in the town of Alexandria you could rent a suitable place and pay for rent, heating, lighting and everything about $300 a year, while, on the other hand the interest upon this proposed expenditure and the cost Of heating and lighting will be somewhere

between $1,200 and $2,000 a year, why should you expend this amount for maintenance in addition to having a large debt hanging over you for the erection of a building ? It is not good business to do this. In most of these places there is no provision to prevent the destruction by fire of everything belonging to the service. There is no safe, or vault or anything but the plain building. Yet, we go to the expense of erecting a building and saddling upon the country a permanent debt involving an annual charge for maintenance of three times that which would be incurred by renting a building. AVe have this expense imposed upon us from year to year, because the government thought flt, either to strengthen the position of their friends, or for some other purpose that we do uot know, perhaps for the purpose of carrying elections, to saddle the country with a heavy permanent expense without receiving anything in return. The government ought to consider this, and I think the country ought to know what an expenditure of this kind involves. It is not a good business transaction. I am sure every one will agree with that. I can go into Ontario towns by the dozen that are larger than Alexandria, that do more business, that have a larger gross revenue from the post office and that have never yet asked to have a post office built. I think that when a principle is adopted it should be applied to the whole country instead of picking out a favoured locality here and there, a small town here and another there, and let places twice or three times as large go without the advantage of an expenditure of this kind. I do not think this is right. The government, when it puts up a large and costly building and saddles the country with a permanent expense as well as a permanent debt, when the same conveniences could be supplied by renting a building for less than one quarter the money required for erecting a building, is not doing the best that could be done for the country.


Mr. LENNOX.: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this interesting subject of establishing post offices in the Dominion, I desire to call the hon. minister's attention to another deserving town. I hope I shall be able to get the minister's attention, because if I succeed in getting his attention for a few minutes, I have no doubt I will be rewarded by having an appropriation made for this town which is very much a parallel case to the case of Alexandria.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What is the population ?


Haughton Lennox: The population is not *over 1.500 or 1,600, and in this respect I regret to say that it has not increased with the rapidity of the town of Alexandria. It is a steadily growing town. They have the average number of births from time to time, Mr. SPROULE.
but I do not think there has been such a rapid increase in the population as in the case of Alexandria. I refer, of course, to the town of Alliston, in the south riding of
Simcoe. I want to be perfectly fair with the government and not take away from them any credit they are fairly entitled to. I will admit at the outset that the government have done pretty fairly for Alliston already. It is true that we have never had, in the south riding of Simcoe to my knowledge, one dollar expended on any public work. It is quite true, too, that we have never asked for the expenditure of one dollar on any public work, but the government have done something for the residents of South Simcoe and particularly of Alliston. In the neighbourhood of Alliston there resided Air. Joseph AArhitesides, a very respectable farmer and a candidate in'the last election, who has been appointed postmaster of the town of Aliston, and it is on this account that I am so anxious to secure for the town of Alliston a post office. It is pretty nearly a parallel case with Alexandria. The net revenue for Alexandria is $1,595.78 and the net revenue for Alliston is $1,437.98. In urging this matter with all due earnestness, I call the minister's attention to the fact that this is the only way in which you can get public money into the riding of South Simcoe as far as I know. Almost any where else there are a variety of things on which you can spend public money, whether it is in the interest of the country or not, but in the riding of South Simcoe there is nothing on which you can expend public treasure except to build a post office in Alliston. It is true we have harbours ; we have a little spot-I do not know if it has a name-on the south shore of Kempenfeldt Bay, which closely resembles the port of Hawkestone, on the other side, in which the government has built a dock.
I have not seen my way clear to ask the government to expend any money upon a dock on the south shore, although I have been urged to do so by the way of equalizing the expenditure on the Hawkestone dock. I hope the minister will pardon me for urging this, perhaps too persistently, but having regard to the fact that the postmaster, who has been to some extent rewarded, has not all the accommodation he is entitled to ; having regard to the fact-I know the minister will not overlook this-that South Simcoe has always returned a Conservative ; having regard more particularly to the fact that there is no other means of expending public money in the riding ; I hope the minister and the Cabinet will take this matter into their serious consideration, and will in the supplementary estimates put in an appropriation for a post office in the town of Alliston.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the item is adopted I hope the Minister of Public AA-'orks will state in reply to the hon. mem-



MAECI1 25, 1953

[Stage Direction]
her for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) what the policy of he government is in regard to this matter. To say the least of it, it is not a businesslike way in the expenditure of public money, to select a little town here and there over the country and to spend $17,000 or $20,000 for a post office in it. If it is a good policy for the town of Alexandria in the public interest of Canada, it is a good policy I suppose for every other town of like importance. I have urged upon the government during the past two sessions that some definite principle should be laid down with regard to public works of this character. It is only right that the minister should state what the policy of the government is. Is it the policy of the government that in towns of this size there shall be a public building costing $17,000 or $20,000 for a post office alone. If it is not the policy of the government, why is an exception made in this case ? If it is the policy of the government, why is that policy not carried out in regard to other towns ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can remember that for a great many years when in opposition we demanded from the Conservative government to know their policy with regard to the erection of public buildings. Probably, in some cases we are not as careful as we might be to avoid following the example of our predecessors in office. I said last night that if we went into this policy of erecting public buildings at all, the principle town in each of the counties has a very strong claim. You can look at the records since confederation and you will find that previous governments have erected public buildings in towns which would compare very unfavourably with the town of Alexandria. There may be something in what my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) says, that the government is perhaps everywhere saving large expenditures of money by stopping what they consider to be unnecessary works in the public interest, and spending a very small amount instead. With regard to the policy of the government at the present time, I am not in a position to announce any particular change. Each application will no doubt be considered upon its merits. Previous governments having erected public buildings all through the various provinces, those places which have not had a public building feel very much agrieved at what they call the injustice done them in comparison with other places. That rule applies whether they are supporters of the government or not. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) says there is only one thing the government could spend money on in liis constituency and therefore he wants a post office. That being the case in many rural constituencies they would appreciate very much if a nice public building were erected in the county town which they take so much pride in. I live in a rural constituency and in the chief town of my county we had a very strong claim for a public building. In that town the revenue derived justified the erection of a public building, but although demands were made it was always refused by the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Borden) and his friends when they were in power. I am quite willing to admit that there is great difficulty in satisfying the country with regard to any policy on this matter. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) has the great honour of living in a large city and we expend hundreds of thousands of dollars, I might almost say millions of dollars on public buildings in that city. We are asking now for a vote of $250,000 for a public building in his city and it will cost a good deal more than that before it is ready for occupation. Those of us who represent rural constituencies like my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and myself find that our people are not altogether well satisfied that all these large expenditures should be made iu the city constituencies. Whether that is defensible" or not from every standpoint, the fact remains that every member in this House from a rural constituency, be he Liberal or Conservative, knows that his friends do take that view, and they look for some recognition of this kind. This is one of the largest places in the constituency. It is an old established, growing and prosperous place. And the people feel that in view of what has taken place elsewhere, they are entitled to a public building. The cost of the building will be kept within the amount of the appropriation. It is not my intention to ask for a further vote to complete this work.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope that my hon. friend did not seriously put forward the proposition that because some previous government made appropriations whicli might not be defended, that is any reply for him on this occasion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a good deal of human nature in man.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's statement of the policy of the government is a frank statement that they have no policy at all beyond political exigencies. They have no policy except to erect public buildings wherever they are demanded by political exigencies. That is a very frank statemeut on the, part of my hon. friend. If his explanation means anything at all it means that whenever political pressure is brought on the government,, the government will take that into consideration and expend public money provided the pressure be only strong enough. I do not think that that is after all a very high standard of public administration. I do not know that my hon. friend would so regard it himself. I am not criticising him personally, but the policy and

the system, and I must say that he has been remarkably frank. Is that the way in which the government, who are trustees for the people, and who are spending, not their own, hut the money of the people, should deal with public revenue. Suppose they were to apply to the public expenditure the principle on which any ordinary corporation conducts its affairs, would they not have some policy with regard to expenditures of this kind ? Would they not be able to announce to the public, as private corporations do to their shareholders, some policy regulating these matters ? But no, my hon. friend fails to do this. He frankly confesses that the government has no policy and simply confesses that the government puts up these public buildings wherever they think the expenditure will do political good. In all seriousness, apart from party politics, I think the government should announce some policy. They are not spending their own money but that of the people, and they are spending it as trustees of the people, and certainly it does not seem at all satisfactory in the public interest that they should spend that money for the reasons given by the Minister of Public Works to-night.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: I come from a town which I consider a very good one indeed, but which certainly has not the population which the hon. gentleman would consider entitled it to a public building. It has a population in the neighbourhood of one thousand, but some few years ago, in the days of the late government, there was expended there the sum of $14,000 public money in the erection of a post office. On that occasion no request was made to the town to supply a site free of expense. The government in those days did not act on that line and should not to-day. If the government require a lot for a public building, they should pay for it and not encourage the bonus system of putting up buildings in towns which gave a bonus in order lo obtain them. I may say that that post office has given satisfaction to the people of the town and that no caretaker has been required for it, which rather contradicts the anticipation of an hon. member opposite that the post office in Alexandria would necessitate a caretaker at a cost of $400 per annum to the people. As representing a rural constituency, I heartily agree with iny hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). His case and mine are very much similar. We have no very large towns in our constituencies, but is that any .reason why all the expenditure of public money should be made in the cities and large towns and none in those constituencies which do not enjoy such large centres. The city from which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition comes-the most excellent city of Halifax-had an expenditure, in the days of the late government, of I believe $350,000 on a drill Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
shed alone. I am not going into the argument as to the utility of expending so large a sum in that connection, but merely wisii to point out that our large cities have been given, at the public expense, extremely tine public buildings and should not object to small places getting a far less share of the public money. Besides we should not con sider merely the population of the town alone, but also take into consideration the fact that it is a center of a district, and the whole population of that district ought to be taken into account. We are asked by the hon. leader of the opposition to apply the same principles as would be applied by a private business corporation, but we know very well that we cannot apply those principles to the same extent in administration of public affairs. These public buildings are not only intended for the transaction of public business but also to beautify the localities in which they are built.


Robert Laird Borden: Now my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works lias got a principle and a policy laid down for him, and that is the policy of beautifying the different localities. I think on the whole that that is a superior policy to the one announced by the hon. minister. I am glad at all events to commend it to the Minister of Public Works for what it Is worth. But I was not making any distinction between cities, towns and villages, but was simply pointing out the necessity of our having a policy in this matter. According to the very frank statement of the Minister of Public Works it is not the public interests which governs, but political exigencies, and these public buildings are not erected on any settled policy at all, but simply as they are necessitated by political pressure. I am quite willing that my remarks should apply to Halifax or any other place just as much as to any town or village in this country, and I should think that would be evident to any hon. gentleman who listened to what I said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) would look up ancient history and see how long this House was held up by the opposition of that day, when the late government brought down a proposal to spend money on the erection of a post office at Cayuga, he perhaps would be convinced that he was rather rash in his remarks and rushed in where angels fear to tread. No people could possibly have condemned the government in stronger or more vehement language than his friends did for the building of that very post office, and now he comes forward and offers that as a defence of the conduct of the present government for doing likewise. If it was wrong in one case, it must be wrong in the other, and in proportion as the hon. gentleman commends it now he condemns the conduct of his friends in the past. He must be careful to inform himself of the history

of the past before he takes such a position as he has taken to-night. X find some other cases similar to this, and I would like to read them for the benefit of the House. At Alexandria, where it is proposed to build a post office, the gross revenue is $2,664 ; the table does not give the cost of rent. At Alliston, in Simcoe, the gross revenue is $2,434. At Aurora, one of the thriving towns in the riding represented by the hon. Postmaster General himself, the revenue is $2,974, and the cost for rent, fuel and light is $140. So that if you take the interest on $15,000, if this post office only costs that, at 34 per cent, it amounts to $525 a year, besides which there are repairs, a caretaker at a cost of about $400 a year, and all the other incidental expenses. Why should you saddle the country with a permanent expenditure of from $1,200 to $2,000 a year for what you can get for $140 ? If the hon. Minister of Public Works desires to carry on a conversation while I am speaking, and the hon. member for Haldimand wishes to interrupt me, I would like him to understand we have rights in the opposition which we intend to exercise, and we expect to be treated with the courtesy to which we are entitled. X listened to him without interrupting him, and I ask him to extend to me the courtesy that is usually extended by one gentleman to another. I have heard the hon. Postmaster General years ago, in the time of the Conservative regime, saying that the principle we had adopted with regard to building post offices was that when we could get the accommodation necessary at a reasonable price by renting, we would not put up a public building. P,ut he went further and declared it to be the policy of the government, when they proposed to put up a public building or to improve a harbour, to first ask the town or city where the improvement was to be made, whether it would be prepared to provide a site, or to contribute something towards the improvement. The hon. member for Haldimand says the town should not be required to do that, because this is the only opportunity we have of spending money in these rural constituencies. It may or may not be ; but many of our towns would gladly give a free site if by doing so they could get a public building. They have offered it over and over again, towns of considerable importance, and the offer has not been accepted. In this case, what we complain of is that the Minister of Public Works does not inquire what the town will give, but purchases a very expensive site, probably from some friend of the government. Let me name some more of these towns. Blenheim has a gross revenue of $2,310, and no post office. Brighton has a revenue of $2,053, but no post office ; Bowmanville, $2,721 ; Burford, $2,283 ; Campbellford. $2,344 ; but I need not go over them all. They are here in large numbers in the hon. Postmaster General's own report, showing that in most cases the people are accommodated at an outlay
of from $65 to $150 a year for rent, fuel and light; and when we can obtain the necessary accommodation for such a small sum, why should we saddle the country with an expenditure of from $15,000 to $20,000, and a permanent outlay of from $1,200 to $2,000 a year ? I do not think the country will endorse it or regard it as good business.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I have to thank the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) for two things : First for having given me a lesson in manners. I must apologize to the hon. gentleman for having taken part in' a short conversation with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works while he was speaking. I think I listen to the hon. member of East Grey as often as any man in this House does. I find in his speeches very often a great deal of valuable information, which as a young member I am glad to obtain. I do not think in this particular case the hon. member should have called the attention of the Committee so pointedly to my case, because there were several gentlemen on his own side who were engaged in conversation ; but they were behind his back, and probably he did not see them. Second : because he has called attention to some ancient history. That has always been a favourite pursuit of mine, and I have gathered from it that in the case of this very Cayuga post office, the hon. gentleman himself supported and voted for it. If so, how can he condemn the government for undertaking to do what he approved of in years gone by ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So far as my memory enables me to speak, I cannot say that I ever voted for it or supported it ; but lam only pointing to the fact that the hon. gentleman is condemning his own friends so unstintedly when he cites that ns an example to justify what is being done to-night.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In view of what has been said by the hon. member for Haldimand, I think I ought to call his attention to a little modern history in the form of the Auditor General's report, which has been received only a few days ago. Looking into that report, I find under the head of Cayuga public building that the caretaker, G. A. Gibson, a name well known to me, got $50.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I may tell the hon. gentleman that he is also the postmaster.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understood the hon. member for Haldimand to tell the House very frankly that there was no caretaker in the Cayuga post office. Of course, I do not live as near Cayuga as my hon. friend, but I live near enough to be able to ioolc up these things. As we are getting more information from the hon. member for Haldimand than we are from the Minister of Public Works, I think we ought to warn

him to give us correct Information, but, at the same time to encourage him to give us ail he can. I will follow that Cayuga business for just a few more items. For instance, I find here expenditures amounting to $721 including repairs, polished brass door handles, oak grill and corners and so on. This post office at Cayuga was not supposed to be costing anything more than the ordinary expenditure, but last year, by the Auditor General's report there was this expenditure of $721 including caretaker. This is an instance in which the Minister of Public Works might perhaps do better than rely entirely upon the l.on. member for Ilaldimand for information to be given to this House. I do not know what this expenditure would have been if the hon. member (Mr. Thompson) had been at home. He was away in England-properly enough, no doubt. But, in his absence, or before he went or after he came back, these expenditures of $721 of which he knew nothing, took place. I would almost be inclined to urge the Minister of Public Works to keep the hon. member at home so that he may look after some of these expenditures. I trust that when we come to the Postmaster General's estimates he will move to strike out some of these amounts as being improper. He had better find out who this G. A. Gibson is and make him refund that $50, as he is not a caretaker in a regular sense and has no right to it according to the statement of the hon. member for Haldimand.


George Taylor: If I understood the hon. member for Glengarry-and I would like to ask if I did correctly understai.d him, for I have no wish to misrepresent him- he told us that before the item was put info the estimates last year to buy the site a census had been taken of the village of Alexandria. That census had been taken by the authorities there and they made the number something over 2,800, if I understood him correctly.	,
An bon. MEMBER. It was circus day.


Jacob Thomas Schell: 2,280.
.Mr. TAYLOR. I understood him to say 2,800. An hou. gentleman suggests that the census was taken while a circus was in town. I think I must have understood the hon. gentleman correctly, because his figures showed an increase of about L000, for someone who followed him asked if the place had increased eight or nine hundred in a year. I would like to ask if the census was taken prior to the $7,000 being put in the estimates last year to purchase a site ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: No, that census was not taken prior to the $7,000 being put in the estimates. The census was taken by the authority of the reeve and council, and taken under oath, as the census of that kind must always be, as the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) probably knows, and the statement Mr. LANCASTER.
was forwarded to Toronto with the request that the place be incorporated as a town.


William Humphrey Bennett: At what time of the year was it ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: It was in 1002, I think in September or October.
An lion, MEMBER. Was there a circus there then ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: No, there was no circus.


An hon. MEMBER.: Was there a fall fair on ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: No, there was no fall fair.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Before the item passes I wish to place myself fairly on record with regard to this matter. Personally if it is the jiolicy of the government to erect a seventeen thousand dollar building in towns of less than 2,000 population, there is no county outside of the county of Stormont in which I would rather see those buildings erected than in the county of Gengarry. I raised this question largely to ascertain from the government what their policy was in regard to the erection of post offices. I understood from the hon. member from Glengarry that it was not erected because the public service required it, hut it was erected in consideration of the government having deprived the county of Glengarry of the reformatory for which an estimate was passed during the term of the late government. But, though I desired to ascertain the policy of the government, I have not ascertained very clearly what they intend to do with regard to post offices in towns the size of Alexandria.


Mr. INGRAM.: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say something about a free site. Is it the policy of the government to get free sites for all the public buildings that are erected ? What free sites have already been given ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry I have not the list of sites that have been given, but I know that such things have been done.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that in the riding I have the honour to represent there is a large, flourishing town by the name of Oampbellford. It has a population of between two and three thousand. It is a manufacturing town and I think the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will bear me out iu sayiug that it is one of the busiest and most flourishing towns in eastern Ontario. I am not opposing the government in building post offices, but I think we should have some mode under which the population of the places in which these buildings are to be erected should he taken into consideration, and not show partiality. I can remember very well when the Minister of Public Works was in opposition, I used to hear considerable from him on that

line. Now, I hope he will not mete out to me what he thought it unfair for the Conservative government to mete out to him. 1 hope he will not discriminate against my riding because it happens to he represented by a Conservative. That is a line of argument, that I remember, he used to use in regard to his own flourishing village. Speaking seriously, it has always seemed absurd to me for lion, gentlemen opposite, when they are criticised by members on this side, to say, in effect. ' You're another ; you did It.' That is the most absurd argument that could be advanced by an intelligent man. I can understand that I may have made mistakes ;
I can understand that the Conservative government may have made mistakes ; but I cannot see any common sense in these hon. gentlemen opposite arraigning the Conservative government before the House and country for making mistakes, and, when they themselves do the very things which they condemned in others, seek to justify themselves by the one answer, ' You did it.' That is the very height of hypocrisy. If they find they are wrong in the past, let them say frankly : We made a mistake, and we are going to take the responsibility of carrying out the principles that we condemned you for when you were in power.


James Clancy: I want to make a last appeal to my hon. friend. I have the honour of representing a riding containing two towns which are of great importance, WTal-laceburg and Dresden. They are among the best business towns of the province. One yields a revenue of $4,000 and the other of $2,247. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has had an application for a public building in either of these towns, such as is being built in Alexandria. Within the last year a building has been erected in each of these places costing over half a million dollars, I mean the two sugar factories. There is a sad story connected with the history of public buildings, or the lack of public buildings in the county of Bothwell. The Liberals said that when Bothwell was represented by a Liberal it was punished for thirty years for sending a Liberal to parliament There were many salty tears shed by hon. gentlemen opposite on that ground. To-day that riding has changed its political allegiance, and it is again being punished for the same reason. I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me what solution he can offer us for this problem ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Suicide.


James Clancy: Well, that is probably what it is coming to, because I see in the newspapers that that riding is to disappear in the new Redistribution Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall take a note of the two towns the hon. gentleman mentions. I would just say to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) that he misunderstood me
altogether. In his county, if I remember right, the county town had a very fine building, and some of these places are not so favourably situated.


William Findlay Maclean: There is an agitation in the country to-day in favour of a rural postal delivery. That is an idea that is growing rapidly in the United States, and the farmers of Canada are asking to have the same thing. This money that is now being wasted on these public buildings, if applied to rural post office delivery, would give the farmers a substantial benefit for their money. For $500, which is the interest on these post offices, you could have four good rural postal delivery routes established; and for the money expended on thirty of such buildings, which we shall probably be asked to vote for, you could establish eighty rural postal delivery routes. That is something the people want. The government have been asked if they have a policy in regard to rural mail delivery, and they say they have it under consideration. I fear that their answer will be that they cannot afford the money. ' I appeal to the members of this House who come from rural constituencies to ask the government to cease wasting money in unproductive ways, and devote it to rural postal delivery. Let them at least commence with an experiment of 50 or 100 routes.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: Since the Minister of Public Works is receiving appeals for public buildings in towns of over 2,000 of a population, I wish to put in an appeal for the town of Durham in my constituency. It must be known to many members of this House that this is one of the most thriving and prosperous towns in Ontario, rapidly increasing in industry and population. It is very much in need of a public building of the character we are now discussing.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I do not bear the hon. gentleman complaining so much of the want of post office facilities. If it is the policy of the government to erect buildings in places of the size of Alexandria, there are several towns of that size in my constituency in need of public buildings. I will mention Rodney, West Lome and Dutton, large and thriving villages with no public buildings. I am not anxious to have buildings erected where they are not necessary, I do not want to see public money squandered, but if we are going to squander it I want a share for my constituency.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Public Works should remember that he has just now heard from an independent member of the House, and if he wants his support, let him promise him two or three post offices in liis constituency.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the policy of the government with regard to building post offices ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained as fully as I could that this vote is supplementary to the vote given last session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He must have some policy with regard to putting up these public buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The policy of the government is to erect these buildings where they are required, having due regard to the public interest and the revenue received.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If these are the rules we can only turn up the Postmaster General's report and And that they are violated in a hundred instances. So that, he is either admitting his own act, or, otherwise, is dishonouring his own rule, because, when you take places like Owen Sound, where there is a revenue of $14,000, you find there is no post office built there, but seven years ago I was there when the present Postmaster General was dangling that question before the people of North Grey, and saying that if they wanted, as the late Mr. Hardy said,
*	warm justice,' they should send a supporter of the government to parliament. He said :
*	Here is a thriving town and your friends
have been in power for a number of years and they have not put a public building up.' He went around and looked at two or three sites that he said would be eligible sites for a post office, yet, that town which has a revenue of $14,000 has no post office. The hon. Minister of Public Works said last year :	' Our principle is this :	If we require a post office, a custom house and an inland revenue office, we make an effort to put up one building that will accommodate the three, as we think it is better that we should have all these buildings together.' There is at Owen Sound, a post office, a custom house and an inland revenue office, and the three of them are realizing a large revenue, but there is no post office building. What rule is the hon. gentleman going to apply ? Now, he has a post office rented there from one of his friends at $600 a year. However, I am not complaining if it appears that this plan has supplied the needs of the place, because, I hold that if the public needs can be supplied in this way for a small outlay, the government are not justified in making the large outlay necessary for the erection of public buildings. I ask the hon. gentleman what principle has he adopted, and if he has adopted the principle that was enunciated last year, why he does not follow it more closely, and why is it that we have such glaring examples of improper expenditures as the case that has been cited here to-night.
Bowmanville, public buildings, $10,000.


William Rees Brock: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has bought a property in Bowmanville on which to put this post office,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: and if so, will he say from whom, and what figure has been paid for it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A site has not been purchased. There are some negotiations going on with the town, and I had an interview with members of the council. There has been a proposition made by the town to take some property they have, but the negotiation has not been completed. I hope that we will be able to come to some agreement that will be satisfactory, because this site will be more satisfactory perhaps than any other site we could obtain.


William Rees Brock: Bowmanville is a very old town. It has been in existence and the post office has been there for. about 100 years. I am not aware that the town has been increasing in population lately, and I have not heard that there has been any great fault found with the present post office arrangements there. Is there a demand from Bowmanville that $15,000 should be spent there ? The hon. minister must remember that they have done a large business in the post office there at an expense of about $300 a year, and I do not think there has been such an expansion of trade in the town, or that there have been new factories established to an extent that would justify a very large expenditure at the present time. I say justify-I mean justify upon anything like business principles. I cannot attempt to enter into all the reasons that might induce the government to erect a post office in that town. But, I find that a new principle has been enunciated. We used to get most of our explanations in reference to expenditures from the minister himself, but I find that the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) has spoken for his county and has given us some valuable information on some points, and I would suggest that the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Beith) might probably give us a little information on this subject, together with the reasons why the important town of Bowmanville should have a $15,000 expenditure for a post office. Now, Mr. Chairman, the government are supplying the House with a rod with which to beat the backs of the people of Canada for a great many years to come. We know how demoralizing the cry is in the United States' ' to the victors belong the spoils,' but I can assure you that this is being taken note of in Canada to-day and that the honest, respectable Reformers are the people who are finding the most fault with it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


William Rees Brock: There is one of them; he is endeavouring to hide his light. The government have been asked this evening upon what principle they are carrying out the erection of these public buildings. I do not think that is an unreasonable ques-

tion to ask them. I tlilnk the hon. Minister of Public Works is quite capable of saying upon what principle the government are acting. It is a pleasure to go into matters with him because he so good-natured and I think he should allow his good nature to manifest itself to explain to the country, not to the opposition, upon what principle they are acting. Are you going to spend an amount of money proportionate to the size of the town, the village, or the city in which you are putting up these public buildings or are you going to take note of the important demands made by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) and which is being made by the farmers throughout the province of Ontario very largely for a rural postal delivery ? Take the expenditure of $17,000 that you are making in Alexandria -the interest upon that sum alone will go a long way towards supplying the farmers of my hon. friend's constituency with a postal delivery to say nothing of the convenience it would be to them at the same time. It is, I know, a new departure, but the government have been making a great many new departures. When they were in opposition they took one course, now that they are in power, now that they are able to dispense patronage and now that they are in receipt of handsome salaries as ministers they are taking another course. We are anxious, we on this side of the House to know on what principle this expenditure is based, because we wish to see that the principle is applied in every case fairly and equitably. If the Minister of Public Works will to-night commit the government or commit himself to a principle, we will be prepared to let estimates of this kind through not only this session but other sessions without very much criticism, because we are not so anxious to criticise the particular items as we are the principle of the thing. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has characterized the action of the minister pretty strongly, and therefore he ought in duty not only to the country, but to his own friends, give an explanation. I am sorry to see so few of the gentlemen on the back benches coming to the assistance of the Minister of Public Works, or any other minister for that matter. They seem to have entrusted the affairs of their constituents to the members of the cabinet, when in the best interest of their people they ought to look after those interests themselves. Last night my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) had to draw the attention of the government to grievances in Manitoba and the North-west. There was not a Liberal member from the west to speak for that great and growing country, and it had to be done by a Conservative member. I am endeavouring to relieve the members of the government to some extent from a very unpleasant and very difficult duty, for if it is a very difficult duty for the Minister of
Public Works it must be doubly so for other members of the government who have not that versified knowledge of general affairs that he has. Some of his supporters behind him are voluble enough at times, and I do not see why they should be silent now and allow money to be expended without a word of explanation and without being able to report to their constituents upon what principle the government is acting.
The MINISTER, OF PUBLIC WORKS. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) asked a pertinent question as to whether the people of Bowmanville, in the county of Durham, requested this expenditure to be made. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) seems very much opposed to expenditures of this kind, but I may tell him that this matter was ns urgently pressed upon the government by the people of Bowmanville as was another expenditure pressed by two deputations from the city of Toronto, and it is my opinion that the Bowmanville expenditure is every bit as defensible as the other. I was pleased to give my support to the expenditure in Toronto although I had some little doubt, still I thought it was for the national benefit.


Mr. CLARKE.: What was that expenditure for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That Fair of yours.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Dominion Exhibition, was it not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) to remember that the Conservative government put an item in the estimates for a building in Bowmanville, and I think we are justified in following that example when we see that in this old prosperous and rich county of Durham the comparatively small town of Bowmanville gives us a revenue of $15,000 a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is $4,500 if the Postmaster General is right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This building will be for Customs, Inland Revenue and Post Office and the total revenue is over $15,000. I think the expenditure for a small public building in a town like that is perfectly justifiable on public grounds and I believe that the people of Bowmanville had a very strong claim upon this government as it had on the Conservative government who put an item in the estimates for this work.


Samuel Hughes: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $10,000 or $12,000.


Samuel Hughes: But you vote $10,000 this year and $5,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount I stated was for the building alone.


Samuel Hughes: I was not in the election in West Durham some years ago, but it was there I first heard of a post office for Bowmanville. A couple of nights before the election, the friends of gentlemen opposite issued circulars to the faithful calling on them to vote for Robert Beith as member for West Durham in order that they would be in a position to appear before this government and get a post office. I would like to know if the minister could inform us who was responsible for the issuing of that circular.


William Humphrey Bennett: ' Cap ' Sullivan.


Mr. BEITH.: I wish to state to the hon. member (Mr. Hughes)


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Beith) will be good enough to speak to the House ; I don't want to talk to him.


Robert Beith: I wish to say to the House that no such circulars were issued previous to my election in 1902, nor was there any promise from the government either directly or indirectly that a public building would be put up in Bowmanville. I might say to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), who asked me with regard to the necessity for a public building in Bowmanville, that prior to the Liberal party coming into power and when the government which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) had the honour to support was in office, a deputation came down from Bowmanville to interview the Conservative government, asking for the erection of a public building in Bowmanville. They were promised that building by the Conservative government, and that promise was used against me in my election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg to move :-
That the Committee rise and report to the House that in the opinion of the committee the public interest -would be better served by the expenditure of public money in the direction of establishing rural postal delivery routes, rather than in erecting post offices in towns of less than 3,000 population.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I agree that the question of rural postal delivery is one that is rapidly coming to the front, and under the able management of the present Postmaster General there is a probability at an early date of steps being taken in that direction ; at least I hope so. At the same time that does not do away with the necessity for erecting post offices, for even if we had a rural delivery we would still want post offices. The Motion is inopportune, go far as the question of erecting public buildings is concerned it is very amusing to those of us Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
who have been in the House to hear that principle opposed by the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor); the member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) and the member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), when we find from their record that they heartily supported the Conservative government in erecting post offices in towns where the revenue was only $400 or $500 or $600 a year.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) that I never did so in this House, and I ask him to give me his evidence that I did.


Archibald Campbell: Look over the records and you will find all about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name,


Archibald Campbell: Cayuga has been named as one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the revenue only $400 or $500 a year ?


Archibald Campbell: Look at La prairie and see what the revenue is. In 1892 a post office was erected there. In the county of Peel there was another post office erected in a town where the revenue was very small. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the position of the Minister of Public Works when he points out that in those counties there has been no expenditure of public money at all. In all the large cities'enormous sums of money are spent, and I do not think there is any serious objection to erecting reasonably good buildings in tuese comparatively small places, which are important as the centres of large sections. This custom has been followed ever since confederation. The old government followed it, and they were supported by the House at that time. There is considerable to be said in favour of it, because this is the only money that can be spent in these places, and it serves a good purpose. But coming back to the motion that has been made by the hon. member for East York, even if we had rural delivery, it would be necessary in my opinion to have a post office. We have in the city of Toronto a free postal delivery, but it is found absolutely necessary at the same time to erect postal stations in different parts of the city.


William Findlay Maclean: We want one in West Toronto and one in North Toronto.


Archibald Campbell: North Toronto is not in the city, and it has not free postal delivery yet ; but I suppose at an early date, when that system is adopted, it will have it. In Toronto we are spending $20,000 or $30,000 for remodelling the general post office ; we are also erecting a postal station on Queen street west; and I believe it is intended by the hon. Postmaster General to

divide the city into several stations, and three or four more post offices will probably be required in the city. Applications are now in for three more. So that even if rural postal delivery comes, post offices will be required. We cannot have delivery without some place for sorting and distributing the mails. Therefore I think the motion of the hon. member for East York is not one that should receive the sanction of the House.


Jacob Thomas Schell: This discussion seems to have gone along the line of post offices, whereas in the case of Bowmanville as well as the case of Alexandria the accommodation for the customs office has also to be taken into account. I understand from the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Beith) that the revenue derived at Bowmanville from the post office and the customs office together amounts to about $15,000 a year. So far as the town of Alexandria is concerned, I may mention that when our importations come in from the United States, we never know whetner they come by way of Smth's Falls, Cornwall, or Montreal. Sometimes for weeks and months we are unable to get our customs returns. So that this expenditure is not alone for post office purposes, but is also for the convenience of the public in the matter of a custom office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think my hon. friend for East York is in earnest in making this motion.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg pardon. I never was more in earnest in my life.


Mr. FRASER.: That may prove nothing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member may be right ; but if he wishes to get a fair expression of opinion from this House in regard to the policy of rural delivery, he has taken the very course which any one would take who was opposed to it; because under the present circumstances members will be compelled to vote against the motion no matter what their view may be. The hon. gentleman is experienced enough in the House to know that that must be the result of his action at the present time.


Samuel Hughes: I just rise to correct a statement which was made in regard to the Bowmanville post office. My recollection is most distinct that it was made an issue in the last election. Unless my hon. friend from West Durham was safely caged away or knew nothing of what was going on, I can assure him that he must have known that the Bowmanville post office was used throughout the length and breadth of that town for one night at all events before his election.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was Cap. Sullivan the night before.


William Findlay Maclean: There may be a right way of proceeding with this matter, and 17
there may be a wrong way ; but I am taking advantage of the present situation to ask the representatives of the people in this House to-night to put themselves on record as against this expenditure of public money, which is not in the public interest, but, so far as we can gather, is for the payment of political claims. I am quite within my right in proposing to divide the House on this great issue. There is no question before the people to-day that interests them so much as the question of rural postal delivery. The farmers are awake to it, and I am an old enough member of the House to seize this opportunity to bring it before the people, and I intend to put hon. gentlemen on record on the question. I intend to make them say whether they are in favour of these extravagant expenditures for post offices, or whether, like me, they prefer to see the public money put into that experiment of rural postal delivery. Have they seen what it amounts to in the United States to-day ? The expenditure is away up in the millions ; but in the benefits it confers on the people, it has completely changed life in the rural districts of the United States. These postal routes are being established in that country for $500 apiece on the average. Look how we are expending public money for the delivery of the mails in this country. I know routes which are costing $500 or $600 for a poor service for four or five post offices, when, if the same money were spent on the modern plan, it would give the people ten times the accommodation. There is only one way to bring these questions before the public, and hon. gentlemen are up against a great issue. It may be a bolt from the blue, but it is in the right direction, and I ask them to say whether they are in favour of rural delivery or in favour of spending public money on these country post offices.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) This is a very important question, and it has assumed a very curious shape. But speaking seriously, if you want a successful rural delivery, you must have a proper place from which that delivery can take place. You must have modern post offices from which rural delivery may take place, and when the hon. member is advocating rural delivery he is at the same time going against it when he does not advocate the building of proper post offices from which this delivery may be made.


Nathaniel Boyd: As seconder of the resolution of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), I wish to say that I am heartily in accord with his proposition to establish rural mail delivery. There is no question to-day which is engaging the attention of our farmers to a greater extent. It is only those who have considerable intercourse with the farmers and who go among them who can understand the great benefits that such a delivery would confer on our agricul-



tural community. It would have the effect of bringing them in daily contact with the outer world, and in that way counteract the desire on the part of the young people to leave the farm and seek their living in the cities, which is certainly one of the great drawbacks to our country's advancement. In this connection it seems to me that hon. gentlemen on this side are levelling their criticisms at the wrong man. The member of the government who should be taken to task is the Minister of Finance. I have had a little experience in these matters, and I know that the man you must go to, when you want a post office built, is the Minister of Finance. Go to the Department of Public Works and you will be sent to the Finance Minister to see if you cannot get his consent to the necessary expenditure. After you have procured that consent, the Minister of Public Works is always delighted to let you have the building. Therefore, I think that the hon. Minister of Public Works has been called upon to stand entirely too much this evening, and I am surprised that the man who is really responsible has not shown up and endeavoured to shield his colleague from what he has undoubtedly brought upon his head. I would ask my hon. friend from Bast York (Mr. Maclean) if he would not in his motion, reduce the population in towns in which post offices should be erected from 3,000 to 2,000 ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am quite willing to accept that amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am delighted to learn that the Minister of Finance is all-powerful. We all like to have our offices magnified, and I have no desire to deny the soft impeachment. The question of rural mail delivery is a most important one, so important that it is a pity to see it treated in the way it is to-night. It does not seem to occur to my hon. friend from East York, that one might be strongly in favour of rural post office delivery without at all opposing the building of a post office at Bowmanville. The two questions do not hang together at all. The question of rural mail delivery is one involving a large expenditure of public money, which must be dealt with by the Postmaster General, who has administered so successfully the Post Office Department, and if my hon. colleague is able to take a step further and give us rural mail delivery we shall be very much pleased, but we would not be advancing that project by voting for any such motion as this. It is quite possible that some hon. members may be of the opinion that it is a good thing to give Bowmanville a post office, and if so why should they not support this item and still favour a rural mail delivery system. If rural mail delivery can be obtained for the money spent annually on the small class of public buildings provided for post offices, or if it could be accomplished for six times the money


Nathaniel Boyd: these would cost, there would be no difficulty in the matter. But there can be no good purpose served by confounding two things which are entirely separate, and I hope the House will see the unwisdom of the course taken by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), if the hon. gentleman does not see it himself.


Mr.   BROOK@: Hon. geutlemen on the treasury benches have themselves to blame for this debate. If the hon. Minister of Finance had devoted his great ability to answering the fair question put by the hon. leader of the opposition, as to what principle the government were going on in connection with the expenditure of public money in erecting post offices, we would not have had this discussion. What we want to know is what principle they are acting on, or if they are acting on any principle. As regards the spending of $15,000 on a post office at Bowmanville, I am not opposing that particular vote.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE My hon. friend is opposing it in supporting this motion.


Mr.   BROOK@: I am speaking on the question of principle. I am not opposing the erection of a building, but I am insisting on our having a declaration as to the principle or policy upon which the government base this expenditure. No doubt the support of the hon. gentlemen sitting behind the Finance Minister is strong enough to vote down this proposition of rural mail delivery.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Mr.   BROOK@: But I tell the government that they are making a mistake in not acceding to the very reasonable request made by the hon. leader of the opposition that they should state to the House and the country upon what principle they are spending this money in erecting post offices here and there throughout the country.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would call the attention of the Committee to the nature of the amendment. In my opinion it is not in order, because it asks the Committee to report upon a subject which has not been referred to it at all. Therefore it is quite irrelevant to the matter under discussion and in my opinion is out of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: As other hon. gentlemen have been allowed to discuss the question, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. The hon. member for East York has made a motion dealing with rural mail delivery. While I am prepared to support that and believe it is a step in the right direction, yet there is another phase of free delivery which should not be overlooked. We have small cities and large towns in Ontario, which pay a good revenue to the Post Office Department. Many large manufacturing concerns are located in these places

and are deprived ol' free delivery. I could name a number of such cities and towns. There is the city which the hon. Minister of Public Works represents, the city of Woodstock. There are also St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough, Broekville, Berlin, Guelph, Stratford, St. Thomas, Chatham and Windsor. These are all important cities, and it is well known that workingmen employed in the factories in these cities find it very inconvenient to go to the post office during post office hours. I trust therefore that when the government are considering the question of free rural delivery, they will also consider the question of free delivery in these small cities and large towns. So far as rural mail delivery is concerned, although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ruled the motion out of order, I wish to say that I am heartily in support of the proposition as being a step in the right direction. The hon. Minister of Finance has given great credit to the Postmaster General for his administration of the Post Office Department. Well, X think it would be well for the hon. gentleman to urge on his colleague the advisability of not looking at this question of rural mail delivery mainly from the point of revenue or expenditure The thickly settled districts of this country should be well served with mail matter even if that service should cost a considerable sum. We have an intelligent class of people who would not object to a small deficit incurred for the purpose of providing them with this great advantage.


Mr. NORTHRTJP.: This debate has proceeded to the length it has on accotint of the point raised by the hon. leader of the opposition. It is all important that we should have a declaration from the government of the principle on which they propose to incur this class of expenditure. I venture to think that a very clear principle could be laid down which the government might adopt and which would command the approval of the people. It is a principle that would save them from great importunities on the part of their friends, and a principle so sound that any succeeding party coming into power in Canada would not dare to depart from it. The principle I submit is that the government, in handling public moneys should endeavour to act as a trustee handling private moneys would act under similar circumstances. Wherever the business is such that a private individual acting as trustee would be justified in erecting a building to carry on business, let the government erect a building. But if, as a matter of business, no private individual would think of investing trust funds in a building there, the government should equally abstain. The hon. gentlemen opposite should not lose sight of the fact that every time an item appears in the estimates for the construction of a building in a town of two or three thousand inhabitants, the 17}
minister calls down upon himself frantic appeals from dozens of his own followers who would not make such appeals but for the encouragement they receive from seeing such items in the estimates. The country looks to us to practice economy. While we on this side do not necessarily object to this, that or the other item for a post office here or there, we are unable, and hon. gentlemen opposite are equally unable, to give an intelligent vote on these matters, unless some principle can be applied. The moment they can lay down a principle, no matter what it may be, which can govern these questions, we can consider them intelligently ; but until a principle is laid down, both sides must simply go it blind, for there is nothing to guide or govern us. When we look about this country and consider the amount of money that is being spent in these public buildings, much of it certainly unnecessary, and when we find that the expenditure has grown, and when we find that it is proposed to construct a public building in one place that will entail an annual cost for maintenance of $2,000, whereas the service as it is now performed, as stated to the House, costs only about $150, I venture to say there are very few of the hon. gentlemen opposite who can stand before their eonstitutents and justify such a vote. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that the people before whom they must justify these expenditures are the people of Alexandria or the people of Bowman-ville. But there are five millions of people in this country who are interested in every dollar that is spent, and it is to the great mass of the people that the representatives in this House must stand or fall upon, showing how they have appropriated or misappropriated the public funds. If hon. gentlemen would be good enough to lay down a principle-if a vicious principle so much the worse for them-but to lay down some principle to govern the disposition of public moneys and not merely throw it out haphazard here or there according to the personal influence or popularity of the individual members, it would be a great deal better for the country and better for hon. gentlemen opposite themselves.
Clinton-Post office, $8,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what the present expenditure is for the service there, and what would be the increased cost entailed by the construction of this building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The present rent for the post office is $200 per annum, and for the custom house $36, total $236. It is quite impossible for me to tell the committee what the increased expenditure will be. But, if the postmaster lives in the building, the highest allowance I have found in the department is $100. So, the difference between the present expenditure and the interest on the amount

invested would probably be $100 besides wbat might, from time to time, be spent in repairs on the building.
Mi*. HENDERSON. I remember when the debate took place on the construction of this building the then minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) informed us that the post office at Clinton was to be built upon a new plan which he had approved of

the plan of erecting cheaper buildings and more of them. Year after year I had advocated the idea that, instead of spending $30,000 in one town in a county where there were four or five small towns, the sum should be divided up and cheaper buildings-yet quite sufficient for the purpose of post office and postmaster's residence-should be erected in each of these towns. X instanced the county of Halton, with five incorporated towns and villages. If $5,000 were appropriated in each town or village, leaving $1,000 to purchase the site-because I did not believe in the principle of the municipality buying the site for the government-the amount would provide a suitable building for each place. I instanced that county because, under the application of the rule that there must be a large revenue or a large population, it would never be entitled to a public building, as we have no town in that county-and not likely to have for many years to come-with a greater population than 1,700 or 1,800. I pressed this point upon the then Minister of Public Works year after year, and at last X believed I had made a convert of him. Not that he gave me any promise that he would fulfil what I required in the county of Halton, which is the county I have the honor to represent, but that he would adopt that principle generally. And he said across the floor of the House that, in the erection of a post office at Clinton that plan would be adopted, that building would be erected for a much smaller sum and the postmaster's residence would be provided for in the building and the postmaster would thus become caretaker of the building, and so the large expenditures which have been spoken of here for maintenance should be saved. I may say also that several years ago, not in the chamber, but outside of it in discussing the proposition with the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), that gentleman expressed himself as favourable to the plan I had suggested. I think that hon. gentleman will recollect that he gave me to understand the proposition was a fair and reasonable one, and was the only plan by which certain ridings in the province could obtain a fair share of public money. I am sorry to find that although the Minister of Public Works started out well in the case of Clinton-started out to show us how a public building could be erected for a very moderate sum of money and yet fulfil ail the requirements, furnishing not only a post office of sufficient size for a town of 2,000 or 2,500 Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
population, but a residence for the postmaster, thus doing away with the caretaker -I am sorry, I say, to find out that, year after year, we are asked to grant additional sums to this Clinton post office and that we have simply got back to the old plan of a costly building in a small town, a plan which was condemned by the Liberal party when they were in opposition as has been so often shown to-night. I am sorry that the plan approved by the late Minister of Public Works has been departed from, and that we are not to see introduced the new system of supplying small towns and villages throughout the country with sufficient post offices. I am sorry that we have no more hopes now than we had five years ago of securing post offices or public buildings in these small towns. I would like the minister to tell us whether he intends to adhere to the policy that was laid down by the late Minister of Public Works, and why it has been departed from in this instance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will be pleased to know that the principle he has advocated so long has been carried out to a very large extent. He and I perhaps may be a little extreme in our views with regard to this question. My hon. friend knows that Clinton is a town of considerably over 2,000 population. The contract price for this post office is only $9,500. He will remember that we advocated buildings costing $5,000 for places of this size. Every business man in this committee knows that there has been a considerable increase in wages and in the cost of material during the last two or three years. The cost of heating, fittings and that sort of thing which will bring the total cost up to something like $18,000. Now the hon. gentleman will hardly say that, beginning at the old figure of $35,000, $50,000, $80,000, this case does not show considerable progress in the right direction. I have had several discussions with the chief architect with the view of adopting a policy of putting up public buildings in smaller places, and that policy is to be carried out. We should adopt a plan that will serve the purpose to the full extent, while costing less money than we have paid hitherto.


Mr. HOLMES.: I would add for the information of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) who has been fair in his remarks, and for the information of other members opposite, that the principle advocated so far as the caretaker is concerned is being rigidly carried out in the Clinton post office. I had the pleasure of appointing a new postmaster in my own town within the last few months, and my only regret was that I had to take a lawyer. I appointed a postmaster on the strict condition that there was to be no caretaker for the office, and the party was glad to accept the office under those conditions. In fact a number of men would have been willing to live on

the ground floor if they could have got that position. I may say that the revenue from the post office and customs amounts to about $13,000 a year.


Haughton Lennox: I desire to congratulate the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) upon his elevation to the position of deputy Postmaster General. He tells us that he has recently aioopinted some person to the position of postmaster, and that he appointed a lawyer because he could not get any one better. Well, I myself would be at a loss to ascertain where you could get a better man than a lawyer. Doubtless since the hon. gentleman was promoted to the position of deputy Postmaster General he has been doing valiant service in several ridings, and he has left his trail in proof of his devotion to the present government. The Minister of Public Works says there is ground for congratulation in respect to the Clinton post office in the fact that the contract price of the building is only $9,500. The estimates so far show that we voted $7,500 last year, and we are asked to vote $8,000 additional this year, making $.15,500. Even if we stopped at this point I do not think there is ground for congratulation. The minister tells us that the total amount will be at least $18,000, and when we get this $18,000, I suppose, having regard to the history of the past, we will be requested to make a still further appropriation. So there is no reasonable hope that even $18,000 will finish the Clinton post office. There is no reason to believe that economy is being practised in this case, any more than in many other cases that have been before the committee. The hon. member for Halton tells us that he has been pressing the Minister of Public Works to do justice to the smaller towns and villages. There is every reason why this matter should be taken into consideration with a view of doing justice to the rural municipalities by giving them public buildings at a moderate cost. The suggestion made by my hon. friend from Halton that the residences of the postmasters should be combined with the post offices so as to dispense with the expense of caretakers, is, I think, a proper one.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I think in this connection it would be fair to call the attention of the government to the policy of the Public Works Department in expending large sums of money in small towns just emerging from the condition of villages, on buildings altogether too_ ornate, too expensive for the purpose for which they are designed, and which, in fact, are more ornamental than useful. In this way a gross injustice is done to the agricultural portion of the community, many of whom have to travel two, three or four miles to get their mail matter when a large amount of expenditure is made in erecting these monumental
and expensive buildings in little towns, merely emerging from the state of village-hood. If favours are intended for towns of 2,000 or more, I put in a claim for a town in my own constituency, the town of Durham ; yet, I am strongly in favour of some move being made in the direction of the motion made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) looking to the establishment of a rural mail delivery system. This, I believe, would probably be a very expensive undertaking and one that the department could not enter upon completely at the beginning; yet, some experimental steps might be taken in order to find out what the cost would be in extending it over the whole country. I believe that at any rate we should take some measures to show our disapprobation of the practice of erecting these costly structures, far more costly than the requirements warrant.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, there was $5,000 voted for this building in the first place. Now, there is a contract let for $9,500 and the total cost will be about $18,000. Last year I drew the attention of the Department of Public Works to this kind of thing going on in respect to erecting public buildings. I asked then if there were any architects employed outside to prepare estimates, plans and specifications for these buildings. If there are surely the architect could come to some nearer figure than $5,000 or $6,000 for a building which we are subsequently told is going to cost $18,000. No private citizen would think of doing business in that way and no wonder that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House criticise items of this kind when they find these items growing to treble the amount at which they were placed when first introduced. I say it is high time that something should be done in the direction of putting a stop to this growing evil, for it is a growing evil. If the town of Clinton is entitled to a public building, one that will meet the requirements of the town, has not the department an architect who has brains enough to say whether a building proper for such a town shall cost $5,000 or $10,000 ? Instead of coming down with figures of this kind, the minister ought to be prepared to state exactly, or within a few hundred dollars, what a public building in a town of this kind should cost. I object very strongly to this kind of thing occurring year after year in this House. The time of this House'has been taken up in discussing items of this kind more than with the discussion of any other subject in the House. I am not blaming the hon. Minister of Public Works; this is an old, crying evil. He is not the father of this evil by any means, but I hope our good-natured minister will use his best efforts to have this kind of thing stopped and if he does I am sure he will deserve great credit and he will be commended on this side of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this building intended for the joint purposes of the customs and post office, or the post office alone ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It Is for the customs and the post office.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what the department paid for the site.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then we have :
Weatherald, T., surveying, &e., $31.80.
. Who is that gentleman ?


Robert Holmes: He is the Conservative surveyor of the town of Goderich.


Andrew B. Ingram: King's Printer, $09.08; advertising, $152 89 $221.97.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this amount of $69.08 mean paying for the advertising of this contract to the government Bureau, or to whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is the account of the King's Printer and it must have been for the plans and specifications.


Andrew B. Ingram: Advertising, $152.89.
Will the hon. gentleman tell us what papers this advertisement appeared in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the list of papers in which this contract was advertised.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister bring it down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very pleased indeed to bring it down.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, there is this account:
Travel of Ottawa officials : L. F. Taylor advanced ch. 960, $25.
Who is this gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is an architect in the department at Ottawa who went up to attend to this work ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Legal expenses, James Scott, $34.
I suppose this is in connection with the plans, specifications, &c.


Robert Holmes: It is in connection with the transfer of the property.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there any local architect employed in Clinton ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the work was all done in the department here.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year I brought up the question of architects in this House, and I find there are some ten architects engaged by the Public Works Department, or, at least, the Auditor General's report show's that number. I want to say to the hon. minister that this system of engaging architects in this country to look after public buildings is one that is not in the interest of the country. Last year I drew the attention of the department to it, quoting several buildings throughout the country where they paid large sums of money for clerks of works, to men who are architects residing in the localities in which public buildings are being built. The abuses that these men create in connection with the erection of these public buildings are simply these :	They are paid so much per day as
clerks of works, all the way from $2.50 to $7 a day and by reason of these architects receiving that amount of pay per day from one end of this country to the other the public buildings are being delayed in their construction. By reason of that payment by the day system, the work is extended for twice as long, yes, three times as long as it is necessary to construct these buildings. That abuse should be wiped out. It would pay the department better to have their own architects, or if they are obliged to engage outside architects to pay them on the principle of so much per cent on the contract price. Why, the way in which the armoury in my own city was constructed is a disgrace. They had two or three men, employed on that building months at a time, whereas if they were paying an architect by fees he would not have put up with the method of construction; he would make the contractors whoever they were put more men on the work so that it would be completed quicker, and there would be less money to be paid the architect. I am not going to find fault with the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) because he is a new man in the department, but I say that the system has been going on for years and it should be stopped.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as possible I have adopted the policy of making an arrangement with the local architect, as to what shall be charged by him for the building. I think the rule is a good one, that it will probably save a considerable amount of money, and that we may get better service. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) remembers as I do, the erection of the public building at St. Thomas which lasted for so many years, and in which they had a permanent caretaker. We have to take warning by the abuse in that case, and try to do a great deal better.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have tried on some occasions to employ local men to prepare

plans but nearly in every case it was a failure. After six years of experience in tlie department I say that it is better that the plans should be prepared here in Ottawa. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) must not lose sight of the fact that there is always a time limit fixed in the contract, so that the employment of a foreman to supervise the work at $2 or $3 a day cannot result in extending the time. I stated last year that it was not desirable to spend too large sums of money on public buildings and I am still of the same mind. At the same time we cannot forget that this country is growing pretty fast, that we are not building for one year or for two years, that we are putting up these buildings for at least fifty years. It would be imprudent and unwise not to look to the future. Might I suggest to the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) that if I was in his place, I would not be too much impressed by what is said in this House about the erection of these buildings-tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis (times are changed and we are changed in them). If the minister will make a search in his department he will find hundreds of applications for public buildings. I was perhaps never able to gauge public opinion as my hon. friends on the other side have done, but I remember very well that for the past ten years complaint has been made in this House that we are not erecting enough public buildings, and the Public Works Department has had hundreds of petitions for public buildings from both sides of the House. If public opinion does not want public buildings, I verily believe that governments have not much interest in building them, because it is my experience that they give more trouble than power. The future of this country will be great; nobody can tell how many millions we will have in ten or twelve years. No one can say what the population of this town or that will be in ten years. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works, that while remaining within the bounds of economy, he should not be too much impressed by criticisms which are indulged in by both sides of the House every time that a public building is erected.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not wish to unduly criticise the erection of public buildings, but I ask any member in this House if he were erecting a public building to cost $39,000, does he think it would take over a year to erect that building In my judgment it would not require more than six months, and that being so. what is the necessity of employing a clerk of works by the day at a large salary for so long a period as it now takes to erect these buildings.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If there wm no clerk of works, the building would not be satisfactory.


Andrew B. Ingram: There slnu'd be a Vmit to the time.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is necessary to have a good clerk of works and he should be there all the time or otherwise you will have botched work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was there a clerk of works employed on this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) to say that where an arrangement could be made with the local architect he should get a percentage on the value of the work. I believe in that principle and I have done so in several cases lately. It would be a great mistake to let a contract and not have proper supervision on the work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who was the clerk of works here and how was he paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: His name was Henry Stevens and he was paid the usual fee of $3 a day-it was perhaps lower than the usual fee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is his usual occupation ?


Robert Holmes: Contractor and builder.


William Rees Brock: The linn, gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has told us that we do not know to what extent this country may grow, and that is the reason why I am so anxious that we should be economical and careful. I have been doing business in the province of Ontario for forty-five years and I can tell you that you would be very much surprised to find how very little most of these towns and villages have grown during the last twenty years. The population of these towns and villages is being depleted all the time on account of those who go not only from Ontario to the North-west, but also to the larger cities and towns. Concentration , is the order of business nowadays, not scattering. The policy of the present govern; ment seems to be to scatter their favours all over the country. I contend that it is bet-1 ter to concentrate, and that if a building is really required you should put up a good 1 building, but these small amounts you are spending through the villages of Canada are not justified by the requirements. I can tell , you that the post office and custom busi-t ness has been as well attended to in the past,
; as it will be in the future in these new , buildings. Because the Dominion of Can) ada is going to have an immense popula-t tion, is no reason why the little villages and , towns in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario C should have buildings that will be an ex-i pense for all time, and the expense of which buildings will prevent you from developing in the right direction, namely, in the direc-. tion of our North-west and the larger towns c and cities.
A good deal has been said about a large amount of money being spent in Toronto. In consideration of the importance of Toronto as a commercial centre, I contend that

she has not had anything like the expenditure in proportion that many small villages have had. X have the greatest possible respect for the opinion, the energy and the courage of the late Minister of Public Works but I would not like to follow him in all matters of expenditure, not only on buildings, but on canals, railways, harbours and wharfs. We have spent an immense amount of money that is not productive and never will be, and I would urge the Minister of Public Works to be very careful how he allows himself to be pressed by his followers or any one else into large expenditures in the towns and villages throughout the province of Ontario. I am speaking as one who does business with them. I do not care about their politics or their votes. I am here only to speak as I feel and as my experience tells me is the right thing, regardless of the effect on politics or elections or anything of that kind; and I contend that if we spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in these ways in the province of Ontario, some day, when we pass off the crest of the wave, we shall be sorry for those expenditures and regret that we have not made them in some other direction. You will excuse me for extending my remarks to this length, but I do so because I feel anxious as a business man. I know that times are good and the government are getting more money than they expected; but I tell you that now is the time to be careful. It is not when times are hard and business is bad and money is scarce, but it is when money is plentiful, when people are filled up with ozone, that you ought to be careful, and that is why I warn you that you are making a mistake in moving in the direction that you are doing, and you will be making a greater mistake if you allow the late Minister of Public Works to urge you into expenditures that are not justifiable.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not mean that we should spend money without sense or reason, or erect buildings right and left without cause. But it seems to me that in government matters we should follow the same rules that are followed in ordinary business. The sense of the country to-day is that we should build well. My hon. friend in his own business has erected splendid buildings. This country is growing, and it seems to me that the government of the country should follow the course of ordinary business. I do not mean to say that we should spend money right and left, but I say that when we make up our minds to erect a pubile building, we should build it well. I do not mean to say anything more than that, and I believe that is a sound principle. My hon. friend has a great deal of confidence in this country. I have always found him to be a good patriot; he has always expressed himself in the House as a sound Canadian. I think I am not wrong in saying that in ten or twelve years we Mr. BROCK.
may have 10,000,000 people in Canada, and if we are going to grow in population as fast as we all hope, let us in our policy act accordingly.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that I find a policy stated with a good deal of frankness on certain matters of this kind, in a journal which strongly supports the government, published in the town of Owen Sound. The editorial from which I will read was written with reference to the recent election which was in progress there. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works had much to do with that election; some other members of the cabinet were interesting themselves more actively in it. The paper gives some names, and perhaps I had better read them first;
The members of parliament who have taken part in this campaign so far for the Liberals are Colonel Thompson of Haldimand. C. B. Heyd of South Brant ; R. F. Sutherland of North Essex, and R. Holmes of West Huron, the latter being the only one remaining in the riding. Mr. Joseph Haycock, ex-M.P.P., of Frontenac, is also doing effective campaign work. On Tuesday evening, Hon. D. C. Fraser, the Guys-borough giant, and Dr. Macdonald, deputy speaker, will adress the electors of Owen Souud; other speakers are expected during the week.
I am glad to know that our honoured and respected Chairman was having so good a time on that occasion, in company with our hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).
Hon. Mr. Fielding will address a meeting here on Friday afternoon, which is intended to be for those who reside out of town, and will also address a meeting of the townspeople in the evening. It is expected that Hon. Mr. Muloek will also he in the riding next week.
That, however, Is only by the way. The doctrine of the government is stated here with a great deal of fulness and precision, and I am going to read it for the information of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, who has hardly expressed himself with considerable frankness but not with the brutal frankness of the writer of this editorial :
The country has never been more prosperous than it is at this moment under the able administration of tho Laurier government


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bear.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, we shall see how much these hon, gentlemen will cheer something that follows, particularly the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), who was so prominent in leading the cheering, and who took occasion to announce to the people very much the same doctrine as thst set forth in this Editorial ;
-and the to'Vn of Owen Sound never stood a better chavee of securing the expenditure of a large amount of money for the erection of public ouildings and for additional improvements in her harbour. These are considerations that invariably weigh well in a by-epetion, and. with ordinary care, should in-

sure the return of almost any candidate the party might choose to put in the field.
These, I suppose are the sentiments of the hon. member for West Huron.


Robert Holmes: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: X am glad that my hon. friend is equally frank with the editorial writer. Here are some further suggestions which I have no doubt equally commend themselves to my hon. friend's judgment :
This town is slated for certain favours within the gift of the government, and, to make a long story short, the electors cannot afford to kill their chances for securing them by electing an oppositionist.
That also, I take it, was the view my hon. friend from West Huron presented to the electors on that occasion; and possibly the fact that there was a certain disappointment in the result of that election may afford the reason why we do not observe the name of the town of Owen Sound in these estimates.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: These are not all the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, I see; my hon. friend proposes to put it in the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I advocated it some years ago, and I shall probably have to advocate it again if I hope to succeed.


Robert Laird Borden: That election was held some weeks ago, and my hon. friend has had time to consider the matter between the date of the election and the time when these estimates were brought down. If the reason I have suggested had nothing to do with the absence of the name of the town from the estimates, I cannot understand what the reason is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are not the right estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: The editor of this newspaper was evidently very high in the ranks of the Liberal party, he seeems to to have enjoyed the confidence of the leader of that party, because he seems to have known all about these gentlemen who were going to speak in the riding and the promises which they would hold out to the electors. Speaking seriously is it not a sad state of affairs that appropriations from the public revenue should be promised to or withheld from any constituency according as it returns a Liberal or Conservative candidate ? Is not that bribery pure and simple ? Is not that as direct an offer of a bribe to the voter as if yon offered him $5 for his vote ? The only difference is that in one case you are bribing the electors individually and in the other you are bribing them collectively. The hon.
member from West Huron (Mr. Holmes) is another of these gentlemen who addressed the constituents of North Grey on that occasion. He addressed the electors along those lines, and affirmed the principle in this House, when I read it to him from the newspaper to-night. If these hon. gentlemen can draw any distinction between bribing the electors individually and bribing them wholesale, let them draw it. The hon. member for West Huron speaking from his place has told us that these are proper appeals to be made to the electors and that these are proper considerations on which the electors should vote.


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman must not misrepresent my position. I was simply laughing and speaking in a bantering and jocular tone, and I do not think that the government should be held responsible for the editorial opinion of any newspaper.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps this may be a lesson to my hon. friend another time not to laugh too soon. I understood him to assert distinctly, though with a somewhat jeering smile, that that was exactly the kind of thing be believed in and that these were proper considerations to submit to the people. I am glad to know however that he did not believe what he said, or that he has concluded that the position he took is one which cannot be well defended. But it is not the first time that the constituency of North Grey has been treated to that sort of thing. When the Minister of Customs ran an election there some years ago, the people were invited to consider whether or not they would prefer that cold justice which they might expect if they elected the Conservative candidate or the warm sympathy to which they could look if they elected the Minister of Customs. It is not the first time in many ridings that that consideration has been put forward. It is very much in line with what seems to be the policy of the government as announced here to-night, and against that policy I raise my voice in protest and submit that there is not the slightest distinction between the offers of wholesale bribery of that kind and offers of individual bribery to the electors.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I see in one of the evening papers another evidence of this policy in North Ontario. The article is headed :-
DELIVERED GOODS, WANT THEIR PAY. Bracebridge Would Like Government to Fulfil North Ontario Election Promises.
Bracebridge has long been the principal point for a large summer resort territory in the Muskoka district, and is also in a constituency that lately turned down the ex-Minister of Finance and elected George D. Grant, a government supporter, and on both counts Bracebridge has something coming to her. A delegation from Bracebridge, composed of Mayor J. D. Shire, John Thompson, P. Hutchison, G. H. O. Thomas and H. J. Bird is registered at the Grand Union and is here to press the claims

of the town. They will see Sir William Mulock and Hon. Messrs. Sutherland and Paterson this afternoon and will ask for a new post office building.
I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Public Works if it is his intention to grant that application.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know what paper my hon. friend has quoted from, but every city is quite within its rights in sending a delegation to wait on any minister in order to press its claims. This deputation was not entirely composed of Liberals but of both Liberals and Conservatives. In the same way we have deputations from the city of Toronto to which we have given considerable time the last few days, and which are largely composed of very active Conservatives. As far as I am personally concerned I have always given all the time I could to receiving deputations, irrespective of politics. As regards Bracebridge, the question of giving that place a new post office was being negotiated before ever the election in North Ontario was thought of. Our late respected friend, Mr. McLeod, who supported the opposition and represented North Ontario, was pressing the claim of Bracebridge for a public building, and if the late member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) were here, he would also say that that matter was engaging our attention while he was a member of this House and that it had nothing to do with the last election, or the election of the present representative. I also received a deputation headed by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McCormick) which was composed ol supporters of both parties, prominent merchants and manufacturers, and I am always pleased, when I think it is in the public interest, to grant public assistance from any of the departments irrespective of the political leanings of the hon. member who urges the claim. I remember that years ago, when the constituency which my hon. friend represents now was represented by Mr. Masson in this House, I, in my humble way, tried to impress the late government with the desirability of recognizing the claim he was making for a building at that time. AVhile I am not prepared to say that all things being equal, the government would not be more influenced by their supporters than by their opponents, I for one will always ask the House to vote such expenditures solely in the public interest. If more of these votes are for constituencies represented by Liberals during many years in this House than for those represented by Conservatives, it is simply because, under the policy which was carried out by the late government, the majority of constituencies represented by Conservatives do not require public buildings. For many years the late government carried out the policy of refusing any consideration, except in extreme cases, to constituencies represented by Liberals. I for Mr. REID (Grenville).
my part am not disposed to adopt any such policy. I think that the less partisanship you have in these matters the better and that in every case fair consideration should be given on its merits to the demand of any constituency.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is refreshing to hear the hon. leader of the opposition talking about the government trying to bribe constituencies in a wholesale manner. But let me draw his attention to the fact that for eighteen years the party he leads resorted to that policy. I remember that in my constituency they went so far as to promise a mounted police barracks to a certain portion of that constituency if the government candidate were elected, and to show their bona fides they hauled a lot of sand on to the ground and got the surveyor to lay out the location. But after the election the stone and sand were hauled away and nothing more was done. On another occasion not only did their newspapers publish articles, but their candidate himself told the people plainly that if they voted for the government they would get a barracks worth $60,000 to $70,000. The government candidate was elected and the people got the barracks. I remember that on the occasion of another election we had in my constituency, the members of the mounted police were promised scrip and medals if they would vote for the Conservative candidate. They were paraded by their officers in the barracks square and telegrams were read from the Conservative government to the effect that if they voted for the Conservative candidate they would get the scrip and medals. They voted, but they have never received the scrip or medals to this day. That sort of thing was carried on throughout the Northwest. One candidate used to say : What is the use of voting for an opposition candidate ?-you can't get anything for your riding; if you want improvement or public buildings, or more police, vote for me. It is amusing to find a gentleman rising here talking economy, when I understand that it is only two weeks since that hon. gentleman headed a delegation to the Minister of Public Works asking for a grant of $250,000 to spend in the city of Toronto.


William Rees Brock: What for.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It makes no difference what it was for. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) headed a delegation asking for that expenditure in the city. Now he says it is not right for the government to spend a certain amount in the small towns in Ontario, because they are at a standstill or going back. But I think the small towns have as good a right to have public moneys spent in them as the larger cities have. They are contributing to the revenues, and I do not see why they have not the right to get the benefit of some of the expenditure. It is Just as necessary to have a post office in a small town as in a big one.

I hope that the Minister of Public Works will continue to look after the interests of the smaller communities as well as of the larger ones that can have a delegation wait upon the minister headed by influential members of the House of Commons.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: I do not think that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) does justice to the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). That gentleman did hold out inducements-a post office, dry dock and other public works-to the electors to support the Liberal candidate. But he made amends for it on the following Sunday, when he lectured in the Young-Men's Christian Association and I understand his subject was, ' The Right Road to Heaven.' I am glad to hear the hon. Minister of Public Works say the fact that North Grey had elected a member in opposition to the government would not interfere with the department spending money in public works there. The government derive a large revenue from the town of Owen Sound. We have no public building. I believe it would be in the interests of the country, even as a matter of economy, to erect a public building there. I asked the hon. minister last night if he would let us know the amount expended by the government for rent in Owen Sound. It was a very considerable sum, and I believe that if it were capitalized it would pay for the erection of a splendid building. Therefore, r hope the hon. minister will not refuse to consider the erection of a building because the riding has sent a representative in opposition to the government.


William Rees Brock: The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) attacked me just now, stating that I had headed a deputation that asked the government for the expenditure of $250,000 in Toronto. In the first place-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) wishes to criticise anything I have said-


William Rees Brock: No, I am criticising what the hon. member for Saskatchewan said. He told us how extravagant the late government were and how wrong the expenditure of public money in his constituency had been and stated that I had called upon the hon. minister at the head of a deputation to ask for the expenditure of $250,000 in Toronto. If the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Davis') other statements about drawing stone and leaving sand and so on, in his constituency, were exaggerated to the same extent as his statements about me, he has not added much strength to the government's case. I can assure the hon. gentleman that what he has stated as to my demands on the government on behalf of the city of Toronto is ridiculously exaggerated.


Mr. DAYIS.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) a question :	Does
he mean to say that he did not attend with the delegation that waited upon the Minister of Public Works to ask for the expenditure of an amount of public money on Toronto ?


William Rees Brock: Most assuredly I say so. Either the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) was misinformed or else he is wilfully stating what is untrue. I was one of a deputation that called upon the minister to ask him for $50,000 for the Dominion exhibition, which $50,000 was to be expended largely for the country from which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) comes, in paying freight on cattle and other products from there to be exhibited.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am credibly informed, and I think I am right, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) was with a delegation that asked for $250,000 which, if not to spend in the city of Toronto, was to be spent on Toronto harbour improvements. Was that not the same thing ?


William Rees Brock: I say I was with no such delegation.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I hope, then, that we may conclude that the hon. gentleman does not approve of that expenditure of $250,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that the Minister of Public Woi'ks had to go far afield to find an argument to justify some of these items when he brought up the fact that a delegation had waited upon him a few days ago asking for an expenditure on behalf of the city of Toronto.


An hon. MEMBER.: That was the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis).


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) made that statement in the early part of the evening. The hon. member for Saskatchewan was not in his place. But that makes no difference. If the Minister of Public Works had been as frank as we have generally found him in making explanations to this House, he might have explained for what purpose the sums asked for were required. A committee, nonpolitical in its character, and headed by the mayor of Toronto, who is a Liberal, came to ask for a grant in aid of the Dominion exhibition. He was supported by gentlemen, a large number of whom are supporters of the government and on the directorate of that exhibition. And what was it they asked for ? I think hon. members will agree that the Toronto Industrial Fair offers the best opportunity that is afforded, from one end of Canada to the other, and year after year, for those who are producers, to exhibit their products to the best advantage. For the last twenty-five years the Toronto exhibition has done a great work, whose benefits have not been confined to Toronto or Ontario, but have been as wide as the Dominion. The splendid pto-, gress which ha s been made by the Domin-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend reads me a strong lesson, but he is proceeding on a wrong basis. If he had been in the House and had heard what was said previously, he would not have given me the scolding we have just heard. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto asked me a question as to whether an application had been made by the citizens of Clinton for the grant that was being considered. I thought he was very unfairly criticising the vote and the action of these people in asking for this grant, and it was in that connection that I said that the people from other constituencies had just as much right to wait upon the members of the government and to present their claims as had the deputation from Toronto. I do not think my hon. friend need be quite so thin skinned about it. He knows that I have always lent my assistance to him when I thought his appeals were in the public interest. I do not think Toronto is neglected. I did not mean to be offensive in giving my answer, or in making that re-

mark in replying to his colleague in regard to the particular vote that was then under consideration. As I said, last year a deputation headed by the late member waited upon the government stating that they were entitled to consideration. I had no intention of reflecting on my hon. friend in any respect whatever. X said that every citizen was within his right in making an application and supporting it by the assistance of other citizens of the town in question. If my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) criticises us very unfairly and unjustly on some votes made for outside constituencies, he must not get so hot if we take our own time. We are within our rights as long as we are not offensive in our language, and as long as we do it in a parliamentary manner, the hon. gentleman must not get cross and scold. I have recognized the importance of the city of Toronto as well as he has done ; I think he has always found me an active supporter of the institutions and of the commercial and business interests of that city, and I have done everything that I could to advance its progress. I propose to do so in a public way in future, notwithstanding the attack made upon me by my hon. friend. I suppose that the reason I am called upon to defend myself is that he was very much in earnest in opposing this vote, and thought that the town of Clinton should not have the same consideration as a large city.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I would be sorry to get the reputation of being a scold. I appeal to the records to show that I have not taken up the time of the House in criticising harshly or adversly the votes asked by the government. What I objected to was that occasion should be taken by the hon. gentleman of this vote to Clinton to drag in Toronto. I spoke with the greatest possible respect of the ministers of the Crown. I said, and I say still, that I think the Minister of Public Works should have been franker in his treatment of the reasonable request made by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) in asking upon what principle these grants were made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He asked a question as to what particular vote I supported. Other representations were made to me by the deputation. If the hon. gentleman had been attending to the wants of the city of Toronto he would know that they asked for three more public buildings.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was quite aware that it was the intention of the hon. Postmaster General to ask that three branch post offices be erected. I heard what the hon. Postmaster General had to say. The hon. Postmaster General was not in his place or we might have criticised the wisdom of establishing these branches rather than providing a central post office near the railway station. I took the opportunity a few years
ago of making a statement in the House to the effect that notwithstanding the technical knowledge that the hon. Postmaster General has acquired since he has been at the head of the Post Office Department the public interest and the interests of the people would be better served if there was a central post office near the chief railway station than by establishing branch post offices. I paid a great deal of attention to what the hon. gentleman had to say when making reply to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), and I expressed regret that he was not in his seat at the time when these appropriations were asked for. The hon. gentleman has admitted very frankly that the appropriations asked for by the deputation from Toronto are appropriations in the general interest. I may say that the city of Toronto only asks what it believes itself to be entitled to, and that in making the request that is made on this occasion it is merely asking that the public generally shall be enabled to reap a greater advantage than they have reaped in the past from the industrial exhibition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The people of Clinton think the same in regard to their appropriation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was going to say so far as the appropriation of $50,000 asked for the industrial exhibition is concerned, the object for which it is asked is one that commends itself to the wisdom of this House. And, as far as the $200,000 is concerned, we are merely asking that tardy justice be done for the injury that has been wrought to the city of Toronto in the past, for the injury that has been done the Toronto harbour through the action of the government in days gone by. We are asking that the harbour should be put in first class condition and we believe that if this were done a substantial advantage would be given, not only to the people of Ontario, but to the people east and west of the city of Toronto by reason of the greater facilities for the shipment of different kinds of commodities.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I should like to say a word in reference to the complaint made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke).


Peter Macdonald: This is all out of order. Hon. gentlemen are discussing questions absolutely and entirely irrelevant to the item under consideration.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman put me in a false position. The hon. gentleman tried to make it appear that-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) has a right to answer the hon. member for West Toronto.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman made the insinuation when he was on his feet that I was opposing a certain grant of money that was made for the harbour of Toronto

and he said that the harbour of Toronto was a harbour that was being improved in the interest of the whole country. X did not intend nor do I intend to oppose any expenditure of money on the harbour of Toronto, but I was merely pointing out that if the people of Toronto wanted money spent in their own town they should not be so small as to object to the amounts of money being spent in the smaller towns and in rural districts.


Andrew B. Ingram: X asked the hon. minister about the parties the department bought this lot from and I quoted :
Potter, F. A.. Potter, D. and Moore, T., executors estate of late Ann Moore, purchase of site, $2,500.
The hon. gentleman said that they bought this site from these people. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that this property was owned by the executors of an estate. There is no doubt about that, because the hon. gentleman has read the names of the excu-tors.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is the party that the lot was bought from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an estate known in Clinton as the Potter estate.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any name that the hon. gentleman could give us ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You have the names there.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what I cannot understand. Last year, we were not told that; we were told an entirely different story. We were told last year that the lot had been purchased from Mr. A. W. Wilkie, who happened to be a good Tory.


Robert Holmes: Mr. Wilkie was simply the tenant of the property. The property was bought from the Potter estate.


Andrew B. Ingram: All I have to do is to quote the Minister of Public Works :
We have bought the site there from a good opponent of ours, Mr. A. W. Wilkie. We will spend more than $8,000 on the building.
Which statement is correct ? Iam bound to believe that of the hon. member for West Huron, in view of the fact that he displayed such a Christian spirit at the Sunday school convention recently held in Owen Sound during the late election there. I am bound to say also that we have a good running mate for the hon. member for West Huron, in Preston, the gentleman who sang at a meeting of Sunday School children in St. Thomas, during the famous corrupt election in West Elgin. 'There is Sunshine in my Soul.' I would like to put these two gentlemen together as they make an excellent team.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Cobourg-Towards construction of armoury, .5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose we will be called upon to sit all night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps it is a little unreasonable to sit here wasting time altogether. If my hon. friend has any proposition in regard to these items we may arrange to adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course I sympathize with my hon. friend in the obstruction he has sustained on his own side of the House, but, we are not responsible for that. The suggestion I was going to make was that as we have made pretty fair progress with these three items, and as we have discussed some of these matters pretty fully, which no doubt will save discussion on similar items in future, we should now rise and report progress.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Allow the present item to be passed and we will agree to adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: We will allow that item to pass on the understanding which I have with the minister that if any lion, gentleman who is not here wishes to discuss it he may do so on some other item.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) will give us some explanation about that Sunday convention.


Robert Holmes: I will if the hon. member for Victoria (Mi-. Hughes) will tell us something about limelight views in North Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: I accept the hon. gentleman's challenge and on a later occasion will throw some limelight views on his actions there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid we will not have to call the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) to account for doing much Sunday school work.
I move that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thubsdat, March 26, 1903.