1903-03-23

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Militia and Defence for the year ended December, 1902. -Hon. Sir Frederick Borden.

Jas. H.: Ross, Esq., member for the electoral district of Yukon, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and Mr. Scott.



SUPREME COURT.-AMENDMENTS.

Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the object of the Bill which I am now introducing is to amend the Supremd Court Act so as to give that court exclusive jurisdiction in federal matters, such as is vested in the supreme court of the United States.


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

Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the same as that introduced by me last session.


Mr. HACKETT.: 


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

Mr.  A. T.@: THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 24) to extend the power of loan companies. He said:	The object
is to give to some existing loan companies, incorporated under an early Act, similar privileges to those incorporated under a later and more generous Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
WHEAT SHIPMENTS FROM PORT HURON AND FORT WILLIAM, &c.
['This is the language of the code and it is better to keep to that language.']
Mr. BENNETT asked :: How many bushels of wheat were shipped from Port Arthur and Fort William during the season of navigation of 1902, and the destination of same (by water to other lake ports) from said ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: In reply I beg to say :
Wheat shipped by vessels and destination of same during season of navigation, April 11th, to December 5th, 1902, from the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur.
Canadian
Vessels.
Owen Sound. .1,308,160.10 Midland ..	..8,316,972.30
Parry Sound. .3,515,760.20 Pt. Edward... 192,904.10 Meaford ..	..1,009,332.30
Goderich.. ..2,759,484.40 Kingston ..	..4,985,176.50
22,087,791.10 Buffalo.. ..	636,558.50
Pt. Huron..	827,293.20


Foreign U.S.: Vessels. Totals.
1,308,160.10
8.316.972.30 3,515,760.20
192,904.10
1.009.332.30 2,759,484.40 4,985,176.50
22,087,791.10 .,256,928.10 11,893,487.00 869,945.20 1,697,238.40
Total bush..23,551,643.20 12,126,873.30 35,678,516.50
On account of the elevator at Port Edward being burned, the elevator at Port Huron was used for the 1,697,238.40 bushels, which eventually came back to Canada, so that the real shipment to United States was only 11,893,487 bushels, and the total to Canadian ports would be 23,785,029.50 bushels.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The hon. gentleman asked last week for the total receipts at the various ports. I was not able to give the receipts at Sarnia, but on subsequent inquiry I find that they amounted to 3,884,391 bushels during the season of navigation of 1902. I would also state that in the answer I then gave with reference to the port of Goderich, there was an error. The receipts were given as 2,226,600 bushels. They said 3,220,600.



Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: Was the Minister of Justice correctly reported in ' Hansard ' of February 21, 1902, when in answer to a question as. to when a successor to Judge Prendergast would he appointed, he replied ' in the immediate future ?'
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon.
Charles Fitzpatrick). I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement contained in ' Hansard ' with respect to the appointment of Mr. Myers who was appointed the 3rd of January, 1893. I am informed that] he was at the time a member of the local legislature for the electoral division of Minnedosa. province of Manitoba.


FREE RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin)-by Mr. Sproule -asked :
Is it the intention of the government to introduce a system of free rural mail delivery in any part of the Dominion during the present year ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I may inform the bon! gentleman (Mr. Robinson) that the matter referred to in his question is under the consideration of the government.


CONTRACT FOR 25,000 TONS STEEL RAILS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	To whom was the contract for 25,000 tons steel rails, to be delivered in June, 1903, given?
2.	At what prices ?
3.	Who were the other tenderers ?
4.	What were their prices ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The contract for these rails has been awarded to a Glasgow firm and the contract itself has been sent forward for execution, but has not yet been received. Until the contract itself has come back executed, it would not be in accordance with the custom in these matters to allow the names of other tenderers to transpire. I should be very glad to inform the hon. gentleman who has made the inquiry as soon as we receive the contract executed, so that he may repeat the question.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING PRIVATE BANKERS.
Mr. McGOWAN asked :: Is it the intention of the government to introduce any legislation at the present session regarding private bankers, so that the transactions of such bankers may be made more public than at present, and enable depositors to ascertain their financial strength ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is not in contemplation to
introduce any legislation of the character mentioned in the question. Persons who call themselves private bankers stand in the same relation to the public as any other business persons.


COST OF THE CENSUS.
Mr. CLANCY asked :: How mAch has been paid to date in connection with taking the census of 1901 ? What further sum will be required to complete the census of 1901 V Has the expenditure in connection with that service been completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In answer to the latter part of the question, I would inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), that the expenditure has not been completed. The remainder of the question is covered by a motion before the House, in response to which the information will be promptly brought down.


RESIGNATION OF THE WARDEN OF ST.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.	LEONARD-by Mr. Morin-asks
(translation) :
1.	Has Dr. Duchesneau, Warden of St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, given in his resignation ?
2.	If so, has the government accepted it ?
3.	If not, has the Minister of Justice, or any one belonging to the Department of Justice, had any interview or correspondence with the warden of St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary on the subject of his resignation ?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. H. M. Carroll).: (Translation.) The answer to the first and second questions is : No. As to the third question, I would say that there has been no official correspondence or interview on the matter.


PAYMENTS TO P. D. TYERMAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (South Leeds)-by Mr. Sproule^-asked :
1.	Has P. D. Tyerman received any sums of money from the government, or from any department of the government, during the past five years ?
2.	If so, what sum or sums has he received during each of the said years, and from what department or departments, in each instance ?
3.	For what service or services were the said respective sums paid to the said P. D. Tyerman in each instance ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: With respect to the Department of Agriculture, the answer to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Taylor's) questions are as follows :
1.	Yes.
2.	1901-02, $619, from the Department of Agriculture, 1902-03, $883, from the Department of Agriculture.
3.	For professional services and expenses incurred in connection with the small-pox outbreak in the territories.

The following answers have been received from the Department of the Interior:
1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The following amounts were paid P. D. Tyerman during the past five years through the Department of the Interior :
Year.	Service. i	Amount1899-1900.	Professional services inspecting and treating Doukho-bors and other immigrants including expenses and	$ 57 001900-1901.	Professional services attending diphtheria cases at Schwitzburg, &c., expenses	$ 430 00 $ 270 801901-1902.	Professional services inspecting and treating immigrants,	
Total		$ 757 80
The answers received from the Department of Indian Affairs are as follows :
1.	Dr. Tyerman has received sums of money from the Department of Indian Affairs during the past four years.
2.	The following sums were received by him :
Fiscal Year.	Amount.	Agency.1898-1899	$ 211 50	Carleton.1898-1899	554 70	Duck Lake.1899-1900	427 00	Carlton.1900-1901	1,610 45	Duck Lake.1900-1901	305 54	Carlton.1900-1901	871 57	Duck Lake.1901-1902	1,027 00	Carlton.1901-1902	473 00	Duck Lake.5,480 76	
No payments were made previous to 1898-99.
3.	The sums were paid him for medical attendance upon the Indians of the Carleton and Duck Lake agencies, North-west Territories.


ST. ANDREWS' LOCKS CONTRACT.
Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	On what date was the contract signed for the construction of locks on the Red river, at St. Andrews, Manitoba ?
2.	What is the time specified in the contract for completion of the work ?
3.	What is the total amount of consideration of the contract ?
4.	What percentage can be advanced to the contractor on accepted work ?
5.	How much has so far been advanced and paid ?
6.	Is there now any possibility of the contractor completing the work within the speci-


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: fled time ? If not, what action is to he taken to ensure speedy completion ?
7.	Has application been made on the part of the contractor for change or waiver of specifications, as regards material to be used, the schedule of wages to be paid, extension of time, or other material clauses ?
8.	Have any changes been agreed to ? If so, what are they ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	18th July, 1900.
2.	19th July, 1903.
3.	$469,000.00.
4.	90 per cent.
5.	$2S,045.00.
6.	The contractor has until the ISth July, 1903, to execute his work.
7.	Yes, as regards material through a largely signed petition.
8.	No.


PRINTING OF ELECTORAL LISTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.' LEONARD-by Mr. Morin-asked :
1.	Who is the person, or who are the persons, in charge of and responsible for the printing of the electoral lists ?
2.	In the case of errors of addition or of omission of the names of electors on the electoral lists at the King's Printer's, who is the one to be held responsible for such errors ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The King's Printer prints the lists as received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If any errors occur in the printing, the King's Printer is the responsible officer.


MR. HARRISON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES -RESIGNATION.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: Did Mr. Harrison, a Dominion Inspector of Fisheries, resign that office previous to becoming a candidate for the New Brunswick Assembly ?	'
If so, has he been reappointed, and at what time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Harrison resigned his office as inspector of fisheries on the 16th February, 1903. He has not been reappointed.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copies of all correspondence, Orders in Council, or applications, relating to or concerning the grant or concession to A. N. C. Tredgold, or to the Hydraulic Mining Syndicate, either separately or associated with A. N. C. Tredgold, of claims, rights or privileges, on Bonanza, Bear, and Hunker Creeks, or their tributaries, or elsewhere in the Yukon.-(Mr. Bell).
(Translation.) Copies of all correspondence, letters, documents, etc., relating to the difficulties in regard to the Indian Reserve of Doncaster, in the county of Terrebonne.-(Mr. Desjardins).
[Stage Direction]
(Translation.) Copies of all correspondence, letters, and documents relating to the request made to the federal government in connection with the building of a post office in the town of Terrebonne, county of Terrebonne.-(Mr. Desjardins).
(Translation.) Copies of all correspondence, letters, documents, specifications, plans concerning the deepening of the river JSsus, from the end of the Isle to the end of the Pacific Bridge, on the said river, so as to allow the passage of vessels drawing five feet of water.- (Mr. Desjardins.)
(Translation.) A statement giving,-
1.	The names of all the immigration agents employed by the government in foreign countries.
2.	The names of the countries wherein each of such agents does his work.
3.	The place of residence of each one of such agents.
4.	The salary paid to each one of them.
5.	The travelling expenses paid by each one of them.
6.	The office expenses and other expenses made or incurred by each one of such agents during the last year of his employment.-(Mr. Bourassa).

Mr.  T. S.@: SPROULE (East Grey) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the government, or any member of the government, and W. W. Fitzgerald, of Grenfell, Assa., or any one in his behalf, regarding his homestead and pre-emption, which were cancelled.
He said :	I am not familiar with the
facts in this case, and, therefore do not propose to say anything about it. I only desire to get the correspondence so as to satisfy Mr. Fitzgerald that everything was regular, as he seems to think it was not. I have made inquiries in the department, and so far as I know, everything was done regularly. Mr. Fitzgerald wishes to get the correspondence, and therefore I make the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule-moved :
For a return showing the total cost of the taking of the census for 1871, 1881 and 1891. Also, the amount paid on account of the taking of the census for 1901, up to March 1, 1803.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I move in amendment that the following words be added :
Also a statement showing the nature of the information given in the census of 1891 and in that of 1901, and the mode of remuneration of the enumerators on each occasion.


James Clancy: I desire to avail myself of this motion to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to what seems to be a growing evil in tins House, 10
namely, that when we ask a short question the information answering which it is within the capacity of a clerk to prepare within ten or fifteen minutes, we are told on this side of the House that we must wait for a return ; and when the motion is put upon the paper to bring down that return, though it would probably not involve a great deal of time, the hon. gentleman rises in his place and proposes an amendment that involves considerable work, thereby delaying the information which the House is entitled to. I just desire to say to the hon. gentleman that I do not think he is treating this side of the House fairly.
I can understand that there are many cases where questions may be asked upon both sides of the House in relation to which a return would better give all the information required, but that involves a great deal more work. But I want to say to the hon. gentleman that the question asked by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), and the one subsequently asked by myself, do not involve much work. If the hon. gentleman expects to get along with the work of this House-and we on this side desire to aid him in every possible way-I can tell him that he is not pursuing the right course in order to accomplish that object. I repeat that the hon. gentleman's refusal to give the answer from his seat in the House rather than oblige members on this side to ask for a return, which may turn out to be quite a lengthy one, is unfair, and is narrowing the rights and privileges of the opposition of this House. I hope the hon. gentleman will reconsider his position, and that he will give me the information that I have asked, specially in view of his amendment just made to the motion of my hon. friend from Leeds, which adds a great deal of work to the original motion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The point of the hon. gentleman's remarks is that this amendment is going to cause considerable delay. If it should so prove, my hon. friend's position will be justified ; but if the information is promptly brought down, I do not suppose he attaches much impoi'tance to the form in which it is brought down. I can promise the hon. gentleman that there will be no unreasonable delay.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say what day that return will be brought down ? The reason I ask is because the information is important, and we should have it at once.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot fix a day, but I will promise the hon. gentleman the return will be prompt.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I would just remind the hon. gentleman that it is necessary the return should be prompt, because there are items in the estimates which we wish to discuss with those figures be-



fore us. Therefore the Minister of Finance will see the importance of furnishing to tlie House the statement at the earliest possible moment. His amendment, of course, will necessitate a great deal of delay.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Practically no estimates touching this subject will be proceeded with until the information is brought down.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
Mr. MACLEAN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the leader of the House whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a
general telephone Act this session, as was promised last session.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give notice of this question.


EXPROPRIATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 8) to amend the Expropriation Act (the Minister of Justice) read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me to be a new principle to introduce into the expropriation power, under the general power of eminent domain, which is given the government to exercise. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will explain whether there is authority in any other country to exercise this power to the limited extent that is proposed now. The government have the power to take property where it is essential in the interest of the community upon giving a fair remuneration for it, but, I have never heard of the power being given to exercise the right of expropriation for a limited period. There may be some other countries which exercise this right and there may be a precedent in England for it but I have never heard of such legislation before.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that there is such legiislation in England, but a Bill similar to this was introduced into this House a few years ago and passed. It was rejected in the Senate because the Bill made the law applicable to cases then pending in the courts, and of course, that was a departure from the general principle which the Senate could not sanction, and as a result the Bill was withdrawn. There is nothing, in my judgment at all events, more natural than that the government should have the right to take a property for a limited period,of time, if the uses for which the government want


Thomas Simpson Sproule: the property are sufficient to justify them in exercising a limited control over it. Take the construction of a public work in the vicinity of a quarry, for instance; we want to build a lock on a canal, why should it be incumbent upon the government to expropriate the quarry and to retain it for all time to come when in all probability we only require to use the quarry for one or two years ? Why should the g jveminent not have the right, if they are willing to pay for it, to take the property for any limited time the government desire, to use it for that time and after the expiration of that time to allow it to revert back to its owner ? It seems to me it is a very wise principle in legislation not to encumber the government with the property after it becomes useless and after they have used it for a certain period of time. I want my hon. friends to understand that the object of the Bill is to enable the government to acquire the use of property for a limited period of time, that is to exercise the right of expropriation for a limited period, at the expiration of that time the property to revert to its owner, the government paying for the damage the man may have suffered during the time that the government had used it. There is nothing unjust or unfair in that proposition as it appears to me.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman must see at once what is involved in that ? How is it possible when you make the expropriation, to know the user of it that you intend ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You are obliged to state the time for which you require it.


John Graham Haggart: How are you going to be able to say whether you are going to take ten yards of stone from a quarry or a million yards of stone at the time of the expropriation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You are obliged to do that in expropriating permanently. When you are going to expropriate permanently you know the property you are going to expropriate and the judge assesses the value of the property. The elementary principle is to determine the quantity of stone you are going to take. I have had experience with cases of this kind.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman entirely misunderstands my argument on the question. When you expropriate for the use of the government and exercise the government's right of eminent domain you know the value of the property.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How do you know ?


John Graham Haggart: 
Mr. COCHRANE.: Why should the public ie benefited at the expense of private indi-'iduals ? Why should my property which s expropriated for a limited time be ruined ind then that the government should have lower to throw it back on my hands ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND jA.NALS. The hon. gentleman evidently ibjects to the principle of expropriation .1 together.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No, I do not.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND lANALS. It is as unjust to take a man's iroperty from him altogether as to take it or a limited term.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: There is a difference, f you take a piece of my property for all ime to come the arbitrators can settle what hat property is worth, but no arbitrators ould settle the value of a property that the government was only going to take for a united time.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND lANALS. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Coch-ane) evidently does not believe that there an be any equitable expropriation of private iroperty for public uses, or else he would lot suggest that objection. I say that it is 10i
just as much of an outrage to take a man's property altogether as it is to take it in part. Suppose a public work is going on and that you want to place the necessary plant on private property during the two or three years that the work is going on. You can judge how long you may want to use that property and you will be careful to expropriate it for such a time, or if you do not expropriate it for a sufficient length of time you would have to expropriate it later on for a further term. You are bound to compensate the owner of that property for any damage he will suffer, and if he is compensated to that extent what has he to complain of ? Why can it not be as easily estimated what damages the owner of a property will suffer if you take it for two years as if you take it for ever ?


John Graham Haggart: That is exactly the point.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose you want to take a dwelling house for ten years, is there no way of ascertaining the just amount the owner should receive for that period.


John Graham Haggart: There is no trouble at all in a case of that kind.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then there is no trouble at all in any case. Now in the case of a quarry- suppose there is a quarry right alongside a public work and that it would be in the public interest to expropriate only a part of that quarry ; assume that that quarry is equipped with all the necessary plant for its working ; assume that the government wants to expropriate one quarter or one half, what difficulty w'ould there be in the way of estimating the value of that part of the property which the government wanted to expropriate. Surely the owner would be paid full compensation to cover any injury he would suffer. Unless this committee can be convinced that no method can be devised by which a property owner can have just and reasonable compensation for the limited interest you are taking in his property then there can be no objection to this Bill.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: But you are dealing with a quarry that has already been opened. There is a difference between the expropriation of such a quarry and the expropriation of a quarry that has not been opened.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the difference ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The difference is that w'hen a quarry is opened there is no damage other than for the material you take out of it, but if you expropriate land on which to open a quarry and you pay perhaps for only one fifth of it, you will destroy it for all time to come for any other purpose because it might be that no one else would want to use that quarry but the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has answered his own objection. If It were found impossible to estimate fairly the amount of damages that would be done to a quarry that is not opened, then the owner can claim from the tribunal all the compensation he could possibly suffer, and unless the government is able to bring evidence to show that he does not suffer full damages they would have to pay the bill ?


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of your Bill then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government would take a portion of that quarry sufficient to give it enough stone to suit their purpose, and it would have to pay for it. There is no danger that any one who has his property taken is not going to get all the compensation he is entitled to ; the danger is the other way.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says that if the property owner does not know what user the government is going to take of the expropriated property, he can ask the fullest damages possible. Why not take the whole property, then ? The owner should receive payment for all the value put upon the property. The trouble of an expropriation for a short time is the difficulty of knowing the damage or the value of the user.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is for the court to determine.


Hon.   M@: Suppose a property is covered with timber, and it is necessary for the government to take the timber off the land for two or three years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You cannot do that under the Expropriation Act.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, you can. It is an absolute expropriation of the property for the term for which it is taken, to cut timber or to do anything else with it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Timber is not real estate once it is cut.


Hon.   M@: It is real estate when it is growing on the land. The stone in the quarry is also part of the real estate. The minister sees the absurdity of the proposition in regard to timber, but he says the Act does not apply to that. Why does it not apply to that just as well as to the stone in the quarry or to the soil ? The application is the same. If the property is expropriated for a term of two or three or five years, it is as absolute an expropriation as an expropriation forever. How is the party whose land is expropriated to know whether the government is going to use the whole of the quarry or only a portion of it ? He can only know the amount he is entitled to when the government abandons it. No legislature in Mr. COCHRANE.
the world has ever before made provision for the partial exercise of the right of eminent domain. I never heard of it either in the United States or Great Britain. There is only one way to exercise the right of eminent domain or of taking the property of an individual for the purposes of the Crown, and that is to take it absolutely and pay for it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know that it is necessary to discuss with my hon. friend the question of the partial exercise of the power of eminent domain ; but I want to point out that when it is desired to expropriate property for the purpose of public utility, the first thing a government has to do is to give a notice containing a description of the property and having attached to it a plan of the property which it is intended to expropriate. At the same time, it is necessary for the government to deposit the amount of money which is considered to be the fair value of the property taken. If you want, for instance, to expropriate a quarry which has not been opened, the first thing necessary is to ascertain the quantity of material contained in the quarry, otherwise it is impossible for the government to estimate or the court to determine how much the compensation should be. Before the amount to be paid by way of compensation can be determined, it is necessary to ascertain the extent to which the government is going to benefit and the extent to which the individual is going to be prejudiced. If the government wants a part of the quarry-one half or one third or one fourth-it is as easy for the government to determine what the value of that portion is, as it is to determine the value of the whole. I put it to the common sense of the House whether it would be right for the government in case they want to use a quarry for the purpose of extracting 100 or 200 cubic yards of stone rom it, to be obliged to expropriate the whoie quarry in perpetuity, and after they have extracted what they require, to have the property lie useless on their hands ? Is it not more fair and equitable for the government to say, we want that quantity of stone, for that we are prepared to pay, and after we have paid for that, then the property reverts to the orginal owner. To what extent is the original owner prejudiced ? From his quarry so much stone has been taken, he has been paid for the quantity so taken, he has been paid for damage caused by the expropriation. He has not suffered any loss, and the property remains on his hands. Is that not more fair and equitable than to require the government to expropriate the whole property ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could not the government dispose of the quarry ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In what way could the government, under these

conditions, dispose of a quarry to benefit the public ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What good would the property be to the owner after it had been destroyed for all time to come ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it is destroyed for all time to come, he gets the full value of it.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You do not know what damage you do till you are through with it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If you do not, you cannot expropriate. It is for the government to make out their case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the government required a few cords of stone, and upon the basis of that the compensation was fixed ; but it turned out that they required three or four times that amount.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They would have to pay for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the arrangement be according to a schedule of prices ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. My bon. friend must bear in mind that when the government or anybody representing the government enter on a man's property for the purpose of expropriating it, it is incumbent on the government to determine the limits of the property they require. They are looked upon as trespassers and the courts require them to describe the property they wish to take, they cannot go an inch beyond that description. If the government expropriate 300 or 400 yards of stone, when that quantity is exhausted they are obliged to leave the property or give a new notice of expropriation, because the expropriation is always held to be for the benefit of the party from whom it is expropriated.


John Graham Haggart: By the wording of the hon. gentleman's Bill, he may expropriate a limited estate in the property of any individual. He may expropriate a property for sufficient length of time to take 300 of 400 cubic yards of stone out of it. ,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The limit would have to be described in the notice for expropriation. In that notice you must inform the court what you intend to take, and are bound strictly by its terms. There is no rule more firmly established than that you cannot go one inch beyond the limit of your notice.


John Graham Haggart: That is as to boundary but not os' to the estate.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have the right to occupy during a given term, and during that occupation you take out a certain quantity of stone.


John Graham Haggart: Not under the
power of eminent domain.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are changing the law.


John Graham Haggart: You are establishing the principle of absolutely expropriating for a limited term and for a limited purpose. You are to have absolute property only for the purpose of taking out a certain quantity of stone.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me give a case which has actually occurred. In connection with a public work, it is necessary to put a guy on an adjoining property, and that guy is only required for the purpose of a derrick or putting up a pier. Why should you be obliged to take that piece of property for all time when you only required it for two or three months and it was absolutely useless to you afterwards V Let me put another case, and one that has occurred within my knowledge. You have a quarry some distance away from the construction you are building, as in the case of the Quebec bridge. To get to that quarry you have to pass over two or three pieces of property. You only want the right of way while you are constructing your bridge, after your bridge is finished, the right of passage is absolutely valuless. But under the law you have to expropriate those pieces of property for all time. Would it not be fair that you should simply pay the owners for the use of their property during the time you required it and then hand it back to them. Is it fair that you should have to buy that property for all time ? It seems to me that the fairness of the rule asked for is quite evident.


John Graham Haggart: I beg to differ from the hon. gentleman. I could understand his argument with reference to an easement, for instance, for the purpose of building a dam, or some other public work, but that case is provided for in most of the local acts of the local legislature.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all.


John Graham Haggart: In some cases it is.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have not got it with us in Quebec.	.


John Graham Haggart: The fair way when a government wants a property even temporarily, is to buy it out, and then resell it when no longer required. In what different position would the government be at the end of the term, if it held the property, than that in which the owner would be when the property reverted to him? I could understand the argument with reference to easement but cannot understand it with reference to real estate. When you exercise the power of expropriation, you should, exercise it absolutely. After you have no use for the property, it is just as valuable to you as to its former owner. Let it be sold

30C
and recoup yourselves in that way just as the former owner would have to do.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot understand why my hon. friend should say that the only fair way is to take the whole property. Fair to whom ?


John Graham Haggart: To all parties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Fair to the owners whose pio-perty you are taking ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What constitutes fairness ? Is it not fair to give a man all that the user of his property is worth ? Can there be anything fairer than to pay a man all he can reasonably ask ? If you want your neighbour to allow you the privilege of using a piece of his ground for a short time. Would it not be fair that he should say : ' Pay me for the time I have it and I will give it to you.' Would it not be equally fair for the government to say : ' Give me the use of your property for a certain time and whatever is fair I will pay.' The amount of compensation is determined and the government pay for it. Is there any unfairness in that ? It simplifies procedure, saves public money, does not take anything out of the pockets of anybody and justice is done all around.


John Graham Haggart: It is an excessive power which the government exercises- that power of expropriating property for public purposes and the owner is not bound to part with his property to the public except on certain conditions. One of these is that it must be required for the use of the public generally, and the conditions under which he may be compelled to give up what is his are very limited in most countries which enjoy a constitution. Unfortunately they are not so limited under the constitution we have in this country and the constitution of Great Britain. That power of expropriation is one which comes down to us from the Roman law, and is never exercised except in its absolute sense of taking the property and paying for it in full. There has never been any such thing known as a partial expropriation, or taking a man's property for the part of the time and then returning it to him. When you want to use his property, take it and pay for it, and when you no longer require it, it is just as valuable to you as to the man from whom you took it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman then objects to the principle of expropriation ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not, but I say that the principle of expropriation is only justified in extreme cases. The exercise of Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
that right was very limited under the Romar law. It is also limited in the United States and in every country in the world except here and Great Britain. It is supposed tc be exercised only in one manner and only for the use of the public and in the public interest. A property may be expropriated but only on condition that the owner shall have a fair consideration and that it should be expropriated in a fair manner and absolutely taken and paid for in full. But we are here extending the power of expropriation by providing that property may be expropriated for a month or six weeks or even only a few days in order that you may run a tramway' through it to some quarry ; but if you want to do that you should buy the property absolutely and pay the owner for it.


Mr. WRIGHT.: According to the last argument if the government were to build a railway through a man's farm the government would not only have to buy that portion traversed by the railway but the entire farm.


Mr.   BROOK@: I think the government are endeavouring to legislate in a way that is going to give them and all future governments a great deal of trouble. The hon. minister speaks of expropriating a quarry. Surely he must know what a quarry means. Very often they expropriate land in which there is a good quarry. But it is only made valuable by being opened up. Would the government buy it, open it up and so make it valuable, and then, having paid a considerable sum' for it give it back to the previous owner at a valuation ? This would open the door to an amount of corruption in connection with property of that kind that the government probably does not foresee. It is easy to work the surface of a quarry; but if an enormous quantity of stone were wanted, they would have to go very deep. How are you going to have the value calculated ? I suppose the owner of a quarry, like any other owner, owns to the centre of the earth. How, then, are you going to get at the value ? It seems to me that, if the government are going to open up and put quarries into working shape and then get rid of them, the legal department of the government will be kept busy. I cannot understand the reason of the proposition. Cannot the government buy stone as an ordinary contractor buys it ? Why do they wish the power of expropriation-unless it be that they have their eyes on some quarries they wish to buy. It seems to me it is no argument in favour of this expropriation proposal to say that stone is necessary for the building of a bridge or something of that kind. There are any quantity of quarries from which the hon. minister can get the material under contract at competitive prices, and so buy his stone a great deal cheaper than any government can get it by proceeding In the manner here proposed. I

say this is a method which will cause a great deal of trouble to the government and loss to the public. If the government take powers of this kind, how can they refuse to incorporated companies the same power ? I do not know where the thing is going to end, but I can see that it will lead to great difficulties before it is ended. The government had better let the matter drop where it is, and buy their stone as the private companies do that are buying stone and building important works on the most economical principles.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is evidently the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Brock's) opinion that the government ought to allow itself to be) held up by anybody who happens to have a quarry in the vicinity of a public works. That is the principle that has prevailed up to the present time, but we cannot sanction it any longer.


Mr. BROCK.: I think they will hold the government up just as much under this power of expropriation. Is there only one quarry in the country ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There may be only one in the vicinity of a public work.


William Rees Brock: Why, their name is legion. You can get stone laid down at public, works cheaper than the government can get it by this expropriation method.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this is limited to government expropriations-it does not extend to railway companies.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is sin amendment to the Expropriation Act, but that Act is sometimes made applicable to railway companies also.


John Graham Haggart: That is what I thought. So, you give this power not only' to the government but to the railway companies ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. No, only to the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) understood me perfectly. This Expropriation Act is applicable, in the first instance, to public works. If you incorporate a railway company or a company to carry on any other public enterprise, you may make the Expropriation Act applicable to that company. Parliament may grant that power or it may not-it is for parliament to exercise its discretion in that matter.


John Graham Haggart: But does that power extend to railways which have charters at the present moment ? Some of them,1 or all of them, have the right-


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the Railway Act-


John Graham Haggart: They have the right to exercise this power of expropriation
just as the government 'have. Will this ex-tention of the power of expropriation apply to those railway companies that already have charters ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


John Graham Haggart: Surely it must. To make applicable to them the Expropriation Act is to make applicable to them not only that Act but any amendments to it.


James Clancy: I am at a loss to understand how the Minister of Justice can reconcile his own arguments on this subject of the expropriation of a quarry. Let us suppose a case :	Suppose the hon. gentleman owns a quarry contiguous to the site of a proposed public work. Suppose that that quarry has no value except as a source of supply of stone for that public work. The government would naturally say :	We only
want a portion of the stone, and so we will expropriate a quarter of the quarry. But. the value of the whole quarry is in what is taken for that public work. How. then, will the damages be fixed ? Would the government take all that is valuable in the quarry, pay for only a portion of the value, and leave the valueless part in the hands of the owner ? Is the hon. minister prepared to say that that would be a fair proceeding ? The hon. minister, as I understand him, says he would return the quarry to the owner because it is of no value. But it is of no more value to the owner than it is to the public. The only object in expropriating a quarry under such circumstances is to benefit the public by securing stone cheaper than it could otherwise be secured. But why should the individual owner yield a right he possesses merely because of the accident of the location of a public work ? If the government expropriate a quarry, they ought to pay every cent it is worth to place stone there from the nearest rival quarry, no matter what the distance may be. The value in the property belongs to the individual and not to the country, and, if the public take the property they should pay full value for it. Then, I do not see that the Bill provides for any prospective profits, but merely for damages. I shall not argue that point because I am not a lawyer. But I do not see just what the effect of that clause would be. The only actual damage that the owner could claim would be that sustained through the taking of a quantity of stone from his quarry, leaving out of account the whole value of the quarry under the Expropriation Act. I cannot see how the hon. minister can reconcile the exercise of such a power with the fact that the government will have taken the whole value of the property.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think I should have to leave the court to assess the damage. That is entirely beyond our jurisdiction.

304:


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) any case in mind by which we might judge more definitely of the effect of this clause ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I mentioned a moment ago the case of Stewart and the Queen, the case of a quarry, from which it was necessary to take a certain quantity of stone. Nothwithstanding that we only took a small part of the stone of the quarry, the government was obliged to purchase the whole quarry, and it now remains absolutely useless, so far as the government is concerned, as a public work. There is the other case, where a public work was separated to some extent by a strip of land from the quarry, and it was necessary in order to get it to pass over a man's property by a tramway. This work at the outset would last perhaps a year and a half, but in order to pass the tramway over this property and get to the quarry, it was necessary so the courts decided, to expropriate this narrow strip of about seven feet. Surely this property, once the public work was completed, became absolutely valueless to any one save the owner of the property. But you cannot expropriate the right of passage over the property ; it is necessary to expropriate the property itself. That is a second case. Then there is the third case I mentioned a moment ago, of a guy that was used in connection with the construction of one of the piers of a bridge. It was necessary to put up a guy in the vicinity of the pier. My recollection is that the piece of property upon which this guy was put was not required for more than five or six weeks. But in order to put up that guy it was necessary to expropriate the property itself for all time, and once expropriated, and once the guy was removed, the land was absolutely valueless for the purpose of the public work. Now, was it reasonable that the government should be obliged, under these circumstances, to take that property for the mere purpose of putting up a guy ? Was it necessary to take that property for all time ? Was it not fair to the individual, as well as to the public, that he should be paid for his property for the time during which it was in use, and after it reverted to him in the condition in which it was before, was it not right that he should take the property back again, when he had suffered no damage whatever except the right of user that was vested in the government for a limited period, as I have stated.


Mr.  T. S.@: As I understand it, if this Bill becomes law it will in ordinary course apply equally to private railway companies as well as to the Crown. There is usually a provision that some of these clauses should be made applicable to a private company ; that is not an unusual provision. Does not the Bill make the provisions of that Act applicable to private railway companies ?


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I think not.


Mr.  T. S.@: My recollection is that there are expropriation clauses applicable to private companies.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the Railway Act contains a provision for expropriation.


Mr.  T. S.@: Then the hon. gentleman means that this should be confined to cases where public works are going on ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Mr.  T. S.@: As I understand it, this is a principle that is now being introduced for the first time into the legislation of any country. It is not found in the English legislation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When the hon. gentleman says it is being introduced for the first time in any country, he is wrong, if he goes back to the Roman law.


Mr.  T. S.@: I have not gone back to the Roman law. But I say, speaking subject to correction, that this is a unique piece of legislation. The hon. gentleman points out that it is confined to the government expropriation, it is not contemplated that this power should be given to private corporations. His argument is based on the idea that the Crown might well have this law, but it is not proposed to give the same privilege to private corporations. Now, the fact that no such provision has existed hitherto, does it not suggest that hitherto this has not been considered a reasonable right to vest in any body, whether in a government or a private , corporation ? The hon. gentleman sees the distinction between a railway company as such, and the government as such. The fact that there has been no such provision hitherto, and that there is no such provision in the English law, seems to me to indicate that it has not been considered fair and reasonable. In other words, if the government or any public body proposed to take my property, they should not take it for a day or two, there should not be a mere chaffering about a few pence, but the property should change owners, and the arrangement should be completed once for all. They should either take my property wholly, or leave it alone. That seems to be the principle, at any rate, on which we have gone hitherto. Without having given it much consideration, it seems to me a very extraordinary power. The hon. gentleman admits that it is not a power that should be given generally to public bodies. The one body that could best afford to pay for the whole thing seems to be the one that is most concerned. I think it is well worthy of consideration whether we should go that far.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman will remember that this Bill was considered a year ago and passed by the House, but when it reached the Senate it was rejected, because it was found there that the Bill was applicable to a case that was then pending, the case of Stewart. Now, it is as we go along and acquire experience that we discover the difficulties that exist in our legislation, and it is the practical experience of these difficulties which makes it necessary now and then to amend our legislation. Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not present when I mentioned a moment ago several cases calling for this legislation. Take, for instance, a public work being constructed in the neighbourhood of a quarry, which is separated from the public work by a strip of land in the possession of a private individual. That strip of land is not needed in any manner, near or remote, for the purpose of a public work ; but in order to reach the quarry from which the public work is separated by this strip of land, it is necessary to construct a tramway. The tramway is constructed from the quarry to the public work crossing, over this strip of land. Probably this strip of land may not be required for more than a few months : in the case in question, I think it was required for a little over a week. Now. a man. to get to his quarry, is obliged to expropriate that propriety, to buy it and take it for all time, and when he has ceased to have any use for his tramway, the property is of no value to anybody except to the man from whom it has been taken, a strip of land seven feet wide.


James Clancy: Why does the hon. gentleman confine his Bill to that class of cases ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not confining my Bill to any particular class of cases ; but there are hundreds of these cases. Now, I will put this case to the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper). Surely, under these circumstances, it is eminently unfair that the government should be obliged to pay for that property, after allowing to the person who owns that little strip of land, not only the value of his property, but the resulting damage which he may claim as having suffered because of his property being cut in two, for instance, as in the case in question. He says, one piece of my property is cut off from the other, and you have damaged my property by so much. After a time the property returns to him, but it is of no value to any one but himself. If the government sought to dispose of it, no one would buy it. The piece of land in question is about an acre and a quarter in length and a few feet wide. Take the other case I mentioned, where you are erecting a pier, or a lock of a canal. It is necessary to erect a derrick ; in order to put up the derrick you have to place a guy, and you have to put that guy beyond the property you require for the
purpose of the public work. You have to go on to an adjoining property belonging to an individual, and you cannot go there unless you take that property, or except you treat with the owner individually. We know that frequently people may be somewhat cantankerous and that when the government are building a work in a locality their property is looked upon by some of them as a sort of gold mine to them, and they say that if we make any use of it at all we must expropriate it absolutely. Surely, that is not fair. It should be within the option of the government to say : We want that property for five, six, seven or eight months, we will pay you fairly for the use of it for the time during which we use it as the Act provides.


Mr.  T. S.@: I have no very strongly pronounced views on this question, but this occurs to me and I submit it to the hon. Minister of Justice, that the cases mentioned by him must after all be exceptional in which the government cannot make a fair arrangement for the temporary use of property. Take the case of railway construction by the government and by private companies-there are very few of these cases that the hon. gentleman will be able to cite as having given rise to the necessity for this legislation and I think it is not a safe principle to legislate for exceptional cases. If I remember my hon. friend's argument, it is this :	Why should not the
government be in a position to make such an arrangement as this ? "Why should they be fastened down with a property in fee when they only wish it for a short time ? That argument seems to apply not merely to cases of the government but to those of railway corporations, and yet, I understand, that the hon. gentleman spoke as if this privilege should be confined to the government only.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The answer is perfectly obvious. The intention is to amend the Expropriation Act. We have to have some system in our legislation. If at any time in connection with the incorporation of a company it is found desirable to give that company the powers that the government have those powers can be incorporated in the Bill for the incorporation of the company. Then, there is the power exercised by parliament in respect to a particular corporation and exercised in the light of the conditions under which the incorporation exists. The discretion is vested in parliament and that discretion is only exercised after having a full knowledge of the facts concerning the corporation which shall exercise these powers.


Mr.  T. S.@: That argument is fair and reasonable as it stands and yet I understand the hon. gentleman carefully guards his words by saying

that the government have submitted this legislation from the government point of view in regard to public works and in no way commits itself to the principle that this would be a proper power with which to vest railway corporations generally.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That will be for parliament to decide. We have not reached that case yet.


Mr.  T. S.@: But if the hon. gentleman is not able to say that this principle equally affects these private, or quasi public works the illustrations which he gave with so much unction to show the reasonableness of this proposal from the government point of view seem to be rather diminished in force when he will not say that he will take the same ground in regard to public works in the hands of private companies. The hon. gentleman will see that this is a very extraordinary power to give the government. He mentions one particular case in which the government had experienced some trouble and difficulty and in which the people have possibly suffered some extraordinary expense. I do not think the hon. gentleman is able to make any other reference than that of the Stewart case to which he refers as a ground for the adoption of legislation a parallel for which is not found on the statute-book of any country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) will realize that there is a vast difference between conferring powers of this description on a private corporation and giving them to the government, because, after all, it is to be presumed that the government will exercise greater discretion in using powers of tliis sort. than a private corporation might. The government after all are subject to the control of parliament, and if an injustice is committed they would have to account for it, while in the case of a private company there might be a more arbitrary exercise of this power than that which would take place under the government. In so far as a private individual is concerned where is the difference in principle between expropriating a property for the purposes of public utility in its entirety and expropriating for a limited period, provided the individual whose property is being expropriated receives notice, because then he is in a position to say that the compensation which the government offer is adequate or it is not adequate, and if it is not adequate he goes to court and then he stands in absolutely the same position as the government. When he goes to court the court determines as to whether the government have offered an adequate compensation for the limited right of expropriation. It is a mere matter of the court determining the extent to which the property has depreciated, the extent to


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: which he is going to suffer damages and the court will give him compensation which will be determined so far as he is concerned according to the same rule and on the same principle as if the government were expropriating permanently.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not a fact that private railway companies have these temporary powers now ? I find in an Act passed last session that railway companies may go on land temporarily, pay rental for it for a number of years, or take for all time just as they wish. It seems to me that this Bill is taking a somewhat similar power for the government. Surely the government are entitled to that power if private corporations have it at the present moment.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Justice if there is any precedent for this Act in imperial legislation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not that I am aware of now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Well then I am opposed to it, on the ground that in England, which is a thickly settled country, this question must have arisen a thousand times. These very same difficulties that the hon. Minister of Justice has pointed out, must have been experienced there. There must have been a thousand hardships of a similar kind in a thickly settled country like England, and if they have not considered it expedient in a country like that to give these limited expropriation powers I do not think that we should adopt this legislation. I agree with all that the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has said. I have listened to the debate with an open mind and I have come to the conclusion that if they have no limited powers of expropriation in England there ought to be no limited powers here ; because the question must have arisen a thousand times. The more the debate goes on, the more I am convinced that limited expropriation is unjust. There is no court that can assess damages caused by limited expropriation. The court can assess damages, for absolute expropriation, because it is simply a question ultimately of the value of the land, but, sir, if you enter upon a territory under the powers of limited expropriation, no court can assess the value of the land. Take the case the hon. Minister of Justice has put; he wants to enter upon my land and put a guy upon that to connect with his works. He wants to exercise that right, for a number of years, and he says he should have the right to expropriate my land for the purpose for six years. Supposing I have a chance to sell that property six months afterwards at what I consider a very advantageous price, I am debarred of the sale because the government has the use of the property for six years. It is the most extraordinary and unjust principle that I ever heard propounded.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the government took it for all time to come what would be the difference ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is all right; because the court has said what the proper value of the property is for all time, and I have the money in my pocket. That is just and right, but, if the government enter upon a property for a limited number of years the owner cannot sell it during the term of that occupation. Suppose the value of land goes up, that the land becomes very desirable a year or two after this guy is placed upon my property, and I can sell it, I am debarred from so doing. When he takes his guy away six years after, the land has fallen in value, and I am injured very seriously by the Crown, and there is no remedy for me. I thought at first that this might be a fair proposition, but since listening to the discussion, I am convinced that it is a most unjust measure. Speaking as a lawyer, I speak to lawyers on the other side, and say, that if there is no precedent for this legislation in England, which is a thickly settled country and where these hardships must have arisen thousands of times in a more aggravated form than here, then I say that we should not pass such legislation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice, that he should not address this House, which is largely composed of lawyers, with this argument as to hardship. Every judge, I have heard, in a court of lawr, who introduced the doctrine of hardship in order to get over the just principles of the common law, has made a spectacle of himself every time. Whenever a judge gets weak and wants to avoid the law and the evidence, he commences to talk about hardship, and then he makes a law for himself, and it takes us years to get it right. I hope that the lawyers of this House will therefore see, that when the Minister of Justice comes here and talks ' hardship,' they should vote down the Bill at once.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) if there are any foolish judges in the province of Nova Scotia ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not want to be asked that question ; but I will say that we have very foolish decisions given at times whenever a judge attempts to avoid the sound principles of the common law, by saying that this is a peculiar case of hardship in which he must not be governed by the principles of law, but by the rule of thumb.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The dangerous thing in this Bill would be the extension of it beyond the right of the Crown. If this amendment be in future incorporated in private Bills it will tend to harass the private individual more and more, and place him at the mercy of corporations who, for little or nothing, want to use his property for a
limited period of time. If the right was absolutely confined to the Crown, it would not be so dangerous, but if it is extended to private corporations, it may become very objectionable indeed.
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	This
amendment is applicable exclusively to the Expropriation Act and the Expropriation Act has exclusive reference to public works.


James Clancy: Did I understand the Minister of Justice to say that the Bill applied exclusively to public works ?
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	Yes.


James Clancy: So far as the individual property owner is concerned, what is the essential difference	between giving	that
power to railway corporations and exercising it by the government 1
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	The
power given to the government is assumed to be exercised with greater regard for the rights of individuals than if it were vested in a corporation.


James Clancy: Does the Minister of Justice think that it is a good principle to lay down ?
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	Yes
If parliament wishes to extend the powers conferred on the government by the Expropriation Act to private individuals, parliament may do so, but for the time being parliament has vested that right exclusively in the government. I understood the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) to say that last year an Act was passed conferring this power on private corporations.


William Findlay Maclean: You passed an amendment to the Railway Act under which private corporations have got these powers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is only for the purpose of making an approach to a quarry.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the very case which is cited here, and I say that in that amendment of last session we have given this power already to private companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Act of last year is only of a very limited nature, although I am not prepared to say that it might not go further. The Minister of Justice is now asking parliament to confer upon the government this added privilege in the prosecution of public works. It is but a very moderate extension of the right of eminent domain, and it is limited to the power in respect to which this right originated. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) surprised me a little, because he is a very right minded gentleman when he allows his mind to have fair play. He said that because in England they had not passed legislation precisely like this, therefore we should not pass it here. Well, they have something to learn

from us occasionally in England. We do not restrict our legislation here to the legislation passed in the old country. We are trying in the colonies to make experiments in the way of legislation, and our experiments are daily commending themselves to members of the imperial parliament. I am at a loss to understand why the hon. gentleman should tie his hands in this particular instance, because the imperial parliament has not moved in this direction first. He says that this question must have arisen in numberless cases, and if it had arisen, the necessity of it would have impressed itself on the public mind there, and they would have had something of this kind drafted in the interests of the country. But the conditions in England are not at all similar to the conditions here. The government of England is not building railways or canals or bridges or public works, as we are. The government are doing here many things which are done by private enterprise in England, and in that country circumstances will not arise to call for legislation such as this. I think my hon. friend will, on a moment's reflection, see that he is going to hamper himself very materially in respect to advanced legislation in Canada, and that he has somewhat hastily declared himself as opposed to this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: The conditfon is limited exactly as I argued it to be in the first place. I understood the Minister of .Tustice to state that the government have the power of expropriating lands for a specific purpose, and abandoning them afterwards. There is no such provision in the Bill. There are only two ways in which the limited expropriation can be exercised ; you may take the land for a limited time only, but not for any specific purpose, and you have the fee simple of the land for the time you take it; or, you may exercise the power of expropriating a limited estate for all time, not for a term of years. I asked the hon. gentleman if he could amalgamate the two, so as to make a limited estate for a limited time ? He told me no, you must take the land for a limited time, or you must take a limited estate. The time for taking the land is limited, but where you exercise the power of taking the limited estate, it is not limited. Then, I contend that under the clause, you have no power for finding out the amount you have to pay the individual when you take the property for only four or five years. If my contention is right, when you want to expropriate a person's land for any purpose, what possible means has the court of knowing the value of the user for four or five years during which you are in possession of it ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: This Bill was drafted by a very competent draughtsman, for the purpose of meeting the very case which my hon. friend has put, and I leave it to any lawyer in the House to say whether it does meet it or not.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


John Graham Haggart: All I can say is that the language of the clause will not convey the meaning which the hon. gentleman says it does, to a person with an ordinary English education. I contend that, according to the ordinary interpretation Of language, the limited interest or estate does not apply to the land that is expropriated for a limited time.
On section 2,


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I will state the case which I intend to cover by these words. The government give notice of their intention to expropriate a piece of property, say for a rifle range; and after they have given notice, with a plan of the property attached, they discover that the property, or the full extent of the property covered by the notice is not required. Then they must give notice of their intention to abandon expropriation proceedings, or that, instead of taking the quantity originally described, they intend to take a smaller portion, or that, instead of taking the property in its entirety, they intend to take a limited interest in the estate.
Hon. Sir CHARLES H1BBERT TUPPER. Suppose that before the abandonment takes place the original owner has the opportunity of selling his property at a great advance but is pi'evented by these expropriation proceedings, I do not see any provision which would entitle him to compensation for the loss of that opportunity.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At first blush I would be disposed to say that the owner would undoubtedly have the right to compensation. Supposei the government gives notice of its intention to expropriate, and pending the expropriation proceedings, the owner has an opportunity to dispose of his property but is prevented from doing so by this notice of expropriation. The government then find that they do- not require the property and give notice of their intention to abandon the expropriation proceedings. I should say that they cannot do so without compensating the owner for the damage done him by causing him to Jose the opportunity of selling. But we might leave that clause over foil the purpose of further discussion.


Mr. LENNOX.: Take clause 2, it reads :
2. Whenever, from time to time, or at any time before the compensation money has been actually paid, any parcel of land taken for a public work, or any portion of any sucii parcel, is found to be unnecessary for the purposes of such public work, or if It Is found that a more limited estate or interest therein only is required.
This is put in the alternative. Might not both conditions apply ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The clause has to be considered according to the law as we have it now, which merely provides for the expropriation for all purposes. That

paragraph with reference to limited estate is intended to apply to the Act as amended by the previous section we have just passed.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These sections 2 and 3 read together would meet the difficulty suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper), but I am willing to consider the matter and put the difficulty suggested before the draughtsman, who is more familiar with the details of the Bill.


Mr.  T. S.@: I am quite content with that.
Sections 2 and 3 allowed to stand.
On section 4,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That seems perfectly reasonable. It is intended to give the government the right to remedy by some new work any damages that may have been caused. For instance, in the construction of a canal, you may separate the highway from some residence in the vicinity, but you may. also remedy that by constructing a bridge. In assessing the damages, the construction of this bridge would have to be taken into consideration.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister gave an instance of using a piece of property for the purpose of erecting a guy. That would give you the right of entry and you might take down the fences, &c. Who has to put them up ?
The MINISTER , OF JUSTICE.	That
would be a matter for compensation which would be determined by the court.
On section 5,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That
section is probably the most far reaching of all those in the Bill. I would like to have it stand over until we come to consider section 2. It cuts out the right of the individual to take damages against the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: Oh.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have an open mind on the subject and want to have the whole matter thoroughly discussed.
Progress reported.


YUKON TERRITORY ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 9) to amend the Yukon Territory Act (The Minister of Justice) read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: My hon. friend is aware that jurors must be, of course, in the North-west Territories as elsewhere. British subjects. But the majority of the inhabitants in certain portions of the North-west Territories are not British subjects. Under the application of the Northwest Territories Act, the same individual is called upon to perform the duty of juror three, four and five times. The intention is, under this Bill, to give the Yukon Territory Council power to make an ordinance regulating the selection of jurors in such a way, while adhering to the rule to have only British subjects as jurors, a man cannot be called upon to serve out of his turn.


Mr.  T. S.@: You do not intend to give them power to make an ordinance that foreigners may serve ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course not. The fact is that doubt has arisen as to the right of the Yukon Council to pass such an ordinance, and this is merely to confer such a right upon them to make the matter clear.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW BRUNSWICK.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 10) to amend the Act relating to the custody of juvenile offenders in New Brunswick (The Minister of Justice), was read the second time, and House went into Committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Under the law as we have it now, it is competent for the Governor General to order a boy who is confined in the Dorchester penitentiary to be removed to the Boy's Industrial Home. But it is not within the jurisdiction of the Governor General to have a boy who is confined within the Industrial Home removed to the penitentiary. The object of this Bill is to give that power, on the recommendation of the Attorney General of New Brunswick.


Mr.  T. S.@: Will the Governor General, under this Bill, have the power to order the transfer of the boy for any different term from that for which he was originally sentenced ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No-the same.


Mr.  T. S.@: This clause seems to read peculiarly. It gives the Governor General power to order the removal of ' any boy who is imprisoned in the Boy's Industrial Home under sentence for an offence within the law of Canada, and for a term of years for which he might have been sentenced ' and so on- not for the term he was sentenced, but ' might have been sentenced.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Governor General clearly can not do that. Once a sentence is passed it is beyond the power of the Governor General to increase

it. If there is any doubt as to the wording of the clause, I will have it looked into.


Mr.  T. S.@: Of course, parliament can give power. It might be that a boy had been sentenced for the minimum term provided for his offence, but, apparently under this, it would be possible for the Governor General to order his removal, not for the term of his actual sentence, the minimum, but for the term for which he might have been sentenced, the maximum.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think that could be, but we will make it clear, if necessary. If my hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) will read the whole section, he will see that it authorizes the Governor General:
On the application of the Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick, cause any boy who is imprisoned in the Boys' Industrial Home under sentence for an offence within the law of Canada and for a term of years for which he might have been sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, to be transferred to the Dorchester penitentiary for the remainder of his term of imprisonment.
If a boy is sentenced for less than two years, under the law he cannot be moved to the penitentiary. But if his sentence is one which would have justified the sending of him to the penitentiary he can be transferred from the Industrial School to the penitentiary for the remainder of his term.


Mr.  T. S.@: That quite meets my point.


John Graham Haggart: A boy may have been sentenced to the Industrial Home for a period of five or six years, but, probably, the judge would never have thought of sending him to the penitentiary for such a long term. Why should the government take power to transfer him to the penitentiary for a term for which the judge would not have sent him there ? I do not think that is right.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is the law which exists with respect to boys in the Industrial Home in Nova Scotia. And in New Brunswick boys may be transferred from the penitentiary to the Industrial Home. Suppose that a boy is in penitentiary, and it is found that, instead of being benefited he is being contaminated by contact with criminals. It is surely weil that he should be removed to the Industrial Home, and the Governor General, on the application of the Attorney General of the province, may order that removal. But, take the other case. A boy is in the Industrial Home, having been there for a period of time for which he might have been sent to the penitentiary. But it is discovered that he is a boy of such a character that, instead of benefiting, he is contaminating


Charles Fitzpatrick: the others. Is it not equally right, for the sake of the others, that such a boy should be removed to the penitentiary ?


John Graham Haggart: You are giving him a uew punishment without a new trial.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is merely a different place of punishment.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


IMMORAL ENTERTAINMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 12) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892 (The Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 2,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This Bill has been prepared and introduced at the suggestion of those who are responsible for the municipal administration of some of our great cities. It appears that in some of our larger cities there are performances now being given which have a demoralizing effect on the youth of the community, and under the law as it stands, it is not possible to reach them. The object of this Bill is to reach such performances as I have alluded to.


John Graham Haggart: What is the meaning of ' indecent and immoral ?' These words might bear a different interpretation in the minds of different people. Some persons may look upon a thing as indecent where others do not. The punishment is very severe. It gives extraordinary powers.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have provided that the powers are to be exercised in the discretion of the 'magistrate. This matter has to come before the courts, and the definition of indecent or immoral must necessarily depend to some extent on the mind of the individual who is called upon to judge the case. I know a good many sections of the Criminal Code in which those words are used, but there is no definition of them, because every man knows what is indecent, and every man ought to know what is immoral.


Mr.  T. S.@: That is just the trouble. We know that at the present time there is a large class of the community who think that all modern novels and all modern plays are, to use the language of this Bill, indecent and immoral. For myself, I do not hesitate to say that I think these persons hold very extreme views. Merely because there are events in a play, or in a book, that are such as would not be taught in a Sunday school, but which are meant to illustrate the condition of society through the ages, is not a sufficient reason

31S
for suppressing them. There are a great many people, and their opinions are entitled to weight, perhaps a majority of well meaning people, who, in my opinion, go to extremes in this matter. They see all sorts of things which they think ought not to he permitted. In some of the eastern cities, I believe there are people who paste over certain portions of placards which they consider immoral, but which in other centres, in England for instance, are considered legitimate. Reputable and high class actresses have had their likenesses placarded over with these slips, on the ground that such likenesses are indecent. Well, there are judges and judges, juries and juries; and one cannot tell what view may be taken in any district. It seems to me that the tendency of this Bill is to drive us back, in some districts, to a state of puritanism for which there is no reason under the sun. To me this seems at the moment a short cut. and a very dangerous cut, to reach a right end. Of course, the object that underlies this Bill must commend itself to every member of the House. We do not want immoral plays before the public, and we do not want indecent plays. But I venture to suggest that there will be a difficulty in the administration of that law, whether it is in the hands of a judge or a jury, and it will possibly keep away some of the very best talent that every one ought to want to see in the Dominion. I fear it will have the effect, in some centres of Canada, and according to the view that may be taken by the counsel who will advise as to the prosecution, of keeping out of the country what would really be a benefit to that very class that the promoters of such legislation as this have in view. No one wants to keep out a high class actor. Yet we must remember that in all the best plays o.f the present day there is perhaps in a strict application of the word, something that might have an indecent tendency. There are references in books, as there are in conversation and in newspapers, revealing modern society which might be called indecent. In what I am saying I am giving my own experience, that some of the very best citizens in this country, in order to reform society all at once, press upon parliament legislation that is too extreme, and is calculated in the end only to frustrate the good objects they have in view. I desire to caution the committee in this respect. While this clause is going through-no doubt it is framed all right-I hope hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity of considering just how far it will go. We do not want to drive out of the country the best talent who are now producing modern plays that might come under the category mentioned in this clause, in the minds of some persons.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend says, and the danger that would result from a too close construction of the words ' immoral
and indecent.' My hon. friend must bear in mind the law which we have on the statute-book. By reading section 179 of the Criminal Code you will find that every one is guilty of an indictable offence who
Publicly sells or exposes for public sale, or to public view, any obscene book or other printed or written matter, or any picture, photograph, model or other object, tending to corrupt morals.


Horn Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: That is a strong term. We do not want obscenity, whether produced by talent or not. I think that is a far stronger word, and is less susceptible to misunderstanding than these words ' indecent or immoral.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If I understand my hon. friend, he would not have any objection to substituting the word ' obscene ' for ' indecent or immoral.'


Mr.  T. S.@: Yes, I think it would then be a safe piece of legislation.


William Findlay Maclean: If the hon. Minister of Justice wishes to devote his energy to the amendment of the Criminal Code surely there are other ways in which he can direct his attention to it with profit to the public. If there is anything that the public require to be protested against, and the Criminal Code appears to be the only thing that will protect them, it is some kind of legislation for dealing with the encroachments of great companies like the coal combine. There is something being done against the public that calls for a cure and the only cure is the Criminal Code. Look at the effect in this country of the great coal strike in the United States. Combinations werd formed between our coal dealers and the railway companies, especially the railway companies of our own country, to the injury of the Canadian; people, creating a coal famine in this country when no coal famine really existed. If the hon. Minister of Justice wishes to tackle something that ought to be tackled he should put something in the Criminal Code that will put a stop to such enormous evils as this. I intend later on to bring this subject to his attention and I would say to him now that instead of taking up our time with these trivial matters he should place something before us dealing with the question to which I have alluded.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order, order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) will remember that this question does not bear on the question under discussion.


William Findlay Maclean: I think I am quite within the discussion in saying that the hon. Minister of Justice instead of taking up our time with consideration of immoral plays

might better give the House an opportunity of discussing some of these great evils.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Bring in a motion to that effect.


William Findlay Maclean: I have no objection to this Bill if the hon. gentleman thinks it is necessary, but I hope he will deal with the coal combine and put a clause in the Criminal Code that will stop such practices as I believe those connected with it have indulged In.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) considers it a trivial matter to deal with an indecent or obscene play.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the other trivial ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: We will see in its time. I beg to move :
That the words ' indecent, or immoral,' he struck out and that the word ' obscene he inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 2,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: That the words 'indecent or immoral' he struck out and that the word ' obscene ' be inserted in lieu thereof.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Mr. Chairman, I do not see why you strike out the word ' immoral ' because there is a difference between ' obscene ' and ' immoral.' The play might be immoral and yet not obscene.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is the language of the code and it is better to keep to that language.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Department of Customs-Salaries, including R. R. Farrow at $2,150, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $45,000.
['My intention is to bring down all the details, and we will let the item stand.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.', '\n\nTuesday, March 24, 1903.']
The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I ask leave to strike out all the words after ' salaries ' in the item. There has been a mistake in the preparation of the items and the accountant's salary of $2,150 has not been included so that I will have to bring in a supplementary estimate for his salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to make some observations on the frequency with which


William Findlay Maclean: the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' occur in these estimates.
I find that out of twenty-five items these words appear in eighteen. Now, the Civil Service Act was passed for the good purpose of regulating the qualifications of those who enter the service, and providing that they should have a fair remuneration which would be increased from year to year. I can understand that in the application of such a law there necessarily would be some rare exception. But these exceptions are growing greater and greater every year until in fact the exceptions have now become the rule. Surely it would be more creditable to the government to repeal the Civil Service Act completely or to amend it, rather than they should go on constantly violating it. It has become almost a scandal that there are so many flagrant violations of this Act by the government.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I would point out to the member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) that there are thirty-four officers included in this item, and the words 1 notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' would only apply to Mr. Farrow, the accountant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that, but we are entitled to some better explanation from the government. Year after year we get some flippant answer when we inquire about this, until it has come to be that the Civil Service Act is almost entirely disregarded by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do not agree with the hon. gentleman that there is any abuse existing. We believe that the Civil Service Act serves a good purpose, but there are exceptional cases that can only be dealt with in an exceptional manner. The hon. gentleman says that out of twenty-five items, in eighteen of them these words occur. That may be correct, but let me point out that in the Department of Militia there are thirty-three officials and the words only apply to one out of that number. Is there any abuse in that ? In the Department of the Secretary of State there are twenty-six officials and the words apply to one official only. In the Department of Printing and Stationery there are twenty-seven officials and only one exception made, while in the Department of the Interior there are ninety-six officials and only two exceptions made. The hon. gentleman will see that there are not numerous exceptions, and even if there should be these words in connection with the items of every department of the government it would not follow that there was an abuse. It should only mean, and I hope it does only mean, that in one or two exceptional cases in a department these words are put in for reasons which of course must be explained to the House. I do not think there is any abuse : I do not think there is any reason to repeal

the Civil Service Act. In ninety-five per cent of the cases the general rules of the Act remain, and it is only to a small number in proportion to the total number of civil servants to which these words apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance will admit that these words occur ten times more frequently in the estimates now than they did formerly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not made a precise count but I believe I am within the mark when I say so. If the civil service could be managed formerly within the four corners of the Act, why are the exceptions so numerous now ? Look at every department of the government in these estimates and you will see that some civil servant gets an increase " notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." That certainly leaves the impression that either the Act place, it was intended to prevent him getting outside of the Act more and more every year. All the conditions were considered when the Act was passed. It started the civil servant at a fair salary, gave him a reasonable increase from year to year until he reached the maximum of his class, and then provided for promotion. Every thing reasonable is provided in the law and the constant violation of it is without excuse. The Act, in the first place, was intended to provide that the qualification of the civil servant should be such as to ensure his being a good and useful officer. In the second place, it was intended to prevent him getting salaries from two or three sources, because it had been found in many cases that the salary voted in the estimates was no indication of the whole amount an officer was paid. To prevent abuse in this respect the Act provided that his whole salary must be shown in the vote ; and where a rare exception occurred, as in the case of a civil servant who, from technical knowledge or special qualifications, would be required to do some work outside of the department to which he belonged, then something additional might be paid to him by saying ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act; ' but these exceptions were intended to be very few. Now they are becoming very many, and a great abuse is growing up, showing that the Act is not fulfilling the expectations of the House, and the government should either amend it or repeal it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As my hon. friend has referred to the Department of Justice, I may state that I had in my department Mr. Blackadar, clerk of records, who received the maximum of his class. SI,400. The minimum salary of a junior second-class clerk is $000, but by paying $800 I can get all the duties performed for which Mr. Blackadar was paid $1,400. All 11
that my hon. friend points out is perfectly true, but providing the House is informed of what we are doing and the House exercises control over it, no very great harm can come to the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I need not remind the hon. gentleman of what occurred in the Department of Militia. The man who became a defaulter was brought in without having the qualifications which the Act called for, and we know what the result has been, though I do not attribute it exactly to the Act. But it shows the necessity of keeping within the Act, and if it is necessary to depart from it in special cases, let us provide for them by amendment to the Act and not by constantly setting it aside.


John Graham Haggart: I notice that there is to be a new assistant commissioner, a new chief clerk, and two more junior clerks. Who is to be the new assistant commissioner, what is the necessity for his appointment, and what is the necessity for another chief clerk ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The increase in the item now under discussion is $3,310, which will be increased to $5,400 when I bring down the suiiplementary vote for Mr. Farrow's salary. Of this increase, $2,800 is for the assistant commissioner. I think it will be apparent to hon. gentlemen why this appointment is made if they consider how greatly the work of the department has increased. In years gone by we had an assistant commissioner, who I think was Mr. Watters. After he left, the office was not continued, but I have felt that it was only due to the proper working of the department and in the public interest that we should have an assistant commissioner. The chief clerk referred to is Mr. Bremner, who gets the statutory increase of $30. Then, the hon. gentleman asks about the eight first-class clerks. One of these, Mr. Watson, it is proposed to raise from a second class clerkship to a first class.


John Graham Haggart: What salary is he receiving now ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: $1,400. He will receive $1,800. He has shown special aptitude in taking supervision of the statistical department, which, as the hon. gentleman knows, was a comparatively small branch of the service in the city of Ottawa, but which has become large owing to the work which was previously done at the ports being now, done at headquarters. This has enabled us to get out our trade reports monthly. Then, Mr. Morin, a first-class clerk, is to be promoted to a chief clerkship, but as his salary is at the maximum, $1,800, it will remain the same.


John Graham Haggart: Is Mr. Watson the senior clerk ?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS! No.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman state what clerks he goes over that are his seniors ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Watson goes to $1,400. He has $1,150 now. There is another clerk getting $1,150, two getting $1,200, one $1,250, three getting $1,400 and one $1,350. If you go by promotion, of course there are gentlemen getting larger salaries than he, but he is recognized as having peculiar fitness for the position. He has taken charge in a larger measure of that department, and it does not seem right that a gentleman who is really supervising those who are getting higher salaries should not have a salary somewhat befitting the position.


John Graham Haggart: Does the Act allow you, where a party is not at the maximum of his class, to put him in another class where there is a vacancy ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think so.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman hasj not told us yet who is to be the assistant commissioner.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have a gentleman in my mind whom I thought of recommending to iny) colleagues. He is at present in the service.


John Graham Haggart: Is he a chief clerk ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, his name is Mr. Bain.


James Clancy: The Minister of Customs has told the committee that the necessity arises from the increase in the work, but that is no explanation. The volume of the work may greatly increase without creating any necessity for an office of that kind. The increase is simply in clerical work which any clerk of ordinary capacity can do. Unless the hon. gentleman is prepared to show that the character of the work has been changed and that the change necessitates the appointment of an officer of that kind, he is without any excuse for fastening another officer on the public service. It would be much better to increase the salaries of those already engaged and who are doing clerical work. The position of commissioner is one of pure supervision, and his responsibility is very considerable. The commissioner or deputy head must be a man of ability and training and should be well paid. But the hon. gentleman now proposes to fasten another officer on the department on the plea that when Mr. Watters was there, there were two commissioners, or rather a commissioner and an assistant commissioner. But in the days when the hon. gentleman was filled with economy, he told the House that he had dispensed with Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
an assistant) commissioner because such an officer was not needed. Now, however, he says that an assistant commissioner is necessary because the volume of work has increased. But I do not think that excuse can be accepted. An increase in the mere volume of the work would not necessitate the appointment of an assistant commissioner, but only an increase in the character of the work to be done by ordinary clerks.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I should be very glad indeed to give the details concerning the work if I could, but I would ask) the committee to consider whether, on the face of it, they cannot see that when the business has increased to the extent it has, we must expect to get a little additional help. We have not increased the staff very much. I must give my predecessor's the credit which I gave them when criticising their administration from the opposition benches. It was generally recognized that the department was economically managed both by Sir Mackenzie Bowell and by Mr. Wallace who succeeded him, and when we consider that the trade in six months now Is equal to what it was in the twelve months when we took office, when we consider that the number of entries has nearly doubled, and that there are more ports, and a larger transit trade and more business altogether, I think the House will agree with me that the commissioner ought to be in the position of occasionally being able to leave his office and visit the principal ports and keep in touch with what is being done. If I had the hon. gentleman in my department and could show him the increase in the work, I think he would be satisfied.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman gives us as one reason that there has been a large increase in the number of entries and in the volume of business. But surely he does not pretend to say that the commissioner makes a single entry or touches a pen in connection with that part of the work to which the hon. minister refers. The hon. gentleman might just as well ask for an increase in his own salary because of the increased work in his department. The cases are precisely parallel. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman thinks he should have an increase or not, but I can say that there is no more reason for the appointment of an assistant commissioner than there would be for increasing the hon. gentleman's salary. The increased volume of business does not entail on the minister more work than he had to attend to when he first took office, although I will admit his responsibility must have increased. I admit the responsibility; but the work to be done by reason of the increased business in the department is, 99 per cent, I venture to say, a class of work that could be done by any efficient clerk. The hon. gentleman knows the growing tendency under our sys-

tem-and I am not going to impute the blame to this government any more than to any former government-to fasten upon the public service men who have no sound claim to the positions to which they are appointed. No man has any claim in himself to be employed in the public service-the public interest is the only ground on which such appointments should be made. The hon. gentleman, I am sure, is quite convinced that be has a very worthy gentleman, whom he wishes to place there. During the time 1 have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have never once attached the salary received by an official. My belief is that Canada must first secure good service, and Canada has no more right to demand good service at less than its worth than any individual employer has. Therefore, we are bound to give fair remuneration to the men who are absolutely necessary. But we only minimize the chances of proper advance on the part of the men of merit, if we chuck into the service men who are not needed, I venture the opinion that the hon. minister has not made out a case to justify the change he proposes.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: I do not think there is any class of people in the Dominion that are so poorly paid as the officials in the departments of the government. We speak of the prosperity of the Dominion, but we are apt to forget that prosperity increases the expense of living, so that this prosperity has not been of much advantage to these officials. I think it very desirable that the Minister of Customs should be able to leave his office oftener than he does to visit the principal ports of the country and see how the work is conducted there. And if the minister himself cannot always make those visits I think the commissioner of customs should be sent around from time to time to examine the different ports. When I was collector of customs, a position I occupied for fourteen years till my friends opposite thought it not in their interests that I should be there any longer, the Minister of Customs, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, used to visit our port and spend days and days there. I speak with some knowledge when I say it is very desirable that either the Minister of Customs or his commissioner should visit the most important ports and see how the work of the department in those ports is carried on. The men who grow up in the different departments of the public service have their minds run into one groove, so that they become unfit for any other positions than those they occupy. They have not the slightest hope of ever being profited by anything until Providence shall take them away to a better country.


Mr. BELL.: What are the initials of the Mr. Watson whom the hon. minister proposes to raise ?
11*


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: His name is John Archibald Watson. He was appointed in the summer of 1891.


John William Bell: Was he appointed as a second class clerk ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He is in the second class clerk list.


John William Bell: Was he originally ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I think he has been in the second class ever since I came into the department.


John Graham Haggart: When the hon. minister, in presenting his estimates, has to announce an important change like this- I am not saying he is not perfectly justified in making it-altering the theoretical organization of his department, he ought to be prepared to give the reasons for the change. I notice, from the statement the hon. gentleman gives us, that the gentleman whom he intends to appoint assistant commissioner-though he may be deserving of the position-only entered the service in 1896. He is now, I think, a first class clerk receiving a salary of $1,500 a year with an allowance as private secretary. The hon. minister must consider the demoralization of the whole staff when he takes a man, who only entered the service in 1896, appoints him a first class clerk and then promotes him over the heads of even the chief clerks and makes him assistant commissioner. There must be some strong reason given to justify such a course. We want something more than the mere bald statement that there is an increase in the work of the department. The hon. gentleman should, as I have said, be ready to give us reasons for this change in the theoretical organization of his department and he should be able also to tell us what are the special qualifications of this gentleman who is to be thus put over the heads of others and appointed assistant commissioner.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has mentioned one point which removes an objection by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). That hon. gentleman seemed to think we were bringing a new man into the service. That is not the case-this is the promotion of a man who has been six or seven years in the service.


James Clancy: I did not raise that objection and did not inquire as to that point. I objected to the nature of the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Paterson's) explanation, whomever it might apply to.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) spoke of our wishing to bring some one into the service. But it seems I was wrong as to what the hon. gentleman said. I have already explained that I wished to ease the

work upon tlie commissioner so that he may have liberty to leave his office and visit the principal ports, and, when he is in the office I wish him to have an assistant whom he may consult. It is desirable, also, to have one who can take the commissioner's place when he is absent. At present, a chief clerk must be called in to fill the place. As to promoting a man over the heads of others the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has administered a department and he knows that it is quite possible that a man may be found who, though not so long in the service as others, has developed a perculiar fitness to fill a certain position. And, when he found such a man, I am sure he did not hesitate to give him the position. The gentleman I have mentioned, who is to receive this appointment if the House pass the salary and my colleagues approve, is not excelled by any one in the service in his grasp of the business or otherwise better fitted for the position. I think that any one who knows him will agree as to his qualifications. And, reverting to the question of promotion over the heads of others, the hon. gentleman must remember that the commissioner of customs, of whom I desire to speak in the highest terms and whom I regard as one of the most faithful officers in the service, was not in the civil service at all, but came from outside and was appointed at the very head of the department. I am bound to say that experience has justified the selection of that gentleman. The work has been well done indeed. The work that that commissioner renders is greater than hon. gentlemen opposite, not acquainted with it as they are expected to be, have any idea of. Now with reference to the remark of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) who complains that the commissioner has not more work. He seems to think that he sits in his office and that all he has to do is to say to a certain clerk, Do this, and to another one, do that. Why, these clerks have to consult with him in reference to the business, correspondence has to be conducted, and letters written. And though he does not do merely clerical work himself, he has to be consulted with regard to it, and any one who visits his office, I venture to say, will find that he is a very busy man. Therefore, I desire an assistant commissioner, in order to relieve him somewhat of his too onerous duties, and who will take his place when it is necessary for him, in the public interest, to visit some of the larger ports and transshipping points, as I think he should do much oftener. I need not say more. I chink if the hon. gentleman was administering the department he would be of the same nind as myself. I need not go into further details. I state the broad fact that the work has increased to such an extent that help is needed, and I am asking for a first-class clerk. The hon. gentleman complains that he is to be put over the heads of others.


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: I grant you that this Mr. Watson we propose to raise is going over some others ; but in the judgment of the commissioner and of myself he has special aptitude for the position he is filling at present, greater than some others that are there, and for that reason I am asking the committee to grant an additional salary so that he may take his rank as a first-class clerk. It seems only fair and right, since he is in a position like that, supervising other first-class clerks, that he should not be paid a salary inferior to that which they get.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should have some other items of information before this vote is passed. I see that the Civil Service Act provides that
The Governor in Council shall from tune to time determine the number of officers, chief clerks, clerks, messengers and other employes that are required for the working of the several departments in each division of the civil service. '
They should determine that from time to time. Have the Governor in Council determined that in that department another chief clerk is necessary ? Because, if not, it is done in violation of the Act.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, and there will have to be an amendment to the Customs Act passed in the House before this office is created, and it will come, of course, by consent of the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me you are starting at the wrong end of the business. You first vote the salary, and then you go to the Governor in Council to set you right. According to my understanding of the law, the Governor in Council first have to consider whether the work there necessitates an additional chief clerk. And the Act provides that after that is done the salary for the additional chief clerk can be voted.
All appointments to the civil service shall he during pleasure, and no person shall he appointed or promoted to any place below that of a deputy head unless he has passed the requisite examination and served the probationary term hereinafter mentioned.
I notice that in most of these cases there is no satisfactory evidence that they have served their probationary term in one class to entitle them to be moved into another, and it requires an Order in Council to move them in violation of the Civil Service Act.
A first-class clerkship shall only be created by Order in Council.
That Order in Council has not passed, and we are providing a salary for a chief clerkship before we know that one is needed, before the Governor in Council have exercised their judgment as to whether one is needed or not. It seems to me the hon. gentleman is going to work entirely in the wrong way.

A chief clerkship in any department shall only be created by Order in Council, passed after the deputy head has reported that such an officer is necessary for the proper performance of the public business in 1he department, stating the reasons on which ho has arrived at that conclusion.
Then the concurrence of the head of the department is required. Then it is provided that a first-class clerkship should only be created by Order in Council, and a second-class clerkship also by Order in Council. But in every one of these instances the first or theoretical part, as the hon. member for Lanark says, must be determined by Order in Council according as the need of the service requires these additional clerks ; and that is done after careful examination, and after recommendation by the head of the branch, sanctioned by the Deputy Minister and by the minister himself. But here the first thing we do is to vote the salary upon the statement of the minister that the work is increasing there. I think his course is radically wrong.
The salary of a clerk on appointment or promotion to any class shall begin at the minimum of such class.
In nearly every instance we are violating that provision of the Act. They do not commence at the minimum, and they start the salary above the minimum. In other respects also we are violating the Act, because we take clerks from one class and promote them to another before they have reached the maximum of that class.
No salary shall be paid to any member of the civil service whose appointment or promotion, or whose increase of salary after the *first day of July, 1882, has not been made in the manner provided in the Civil Service, Act in force at the time of such appointment, promotion or increase.
In every one of these instances we are violating the law, in other words, we are voting these sums outside the Act entirely, we do so saying ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' Therefore I say I was justified in taking strong exception to the abuse that has crept into the departments.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But you must have the provision made before the Order in Council is formally passed.


John Graham Haggart: No.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, you cannot appoint a person to that position with a salary unless the House has sanctioned the grant.


John Graham Haggart: The minister is entirely wrong. His first duty is to change the theoretical organization of his department on recommendation of the deputy head, and get an Order in Council, assigning reasons for it. Then there is a reason for parliament voting the salary. You cannot appoint a party to a position until the salary
is voted, or at least if you do appoint him, you cannot pay him the salary until it is voted. The first duty of the minister is to get his deputy head to concur with him as to the necessity of a change in the theoretical organization of his department, then get the approbation of his colleagues in council, and the sanction of the Governor. When he has got that, he comes here and asks us to vote the salary. Then when the minister says that the deputy head did not pass the examination


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: That he was appointed to the position without examination, or without passing through the lower grades.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, not examination.


John Graham Haggart: Well, he was appointed to the position without passing through any lower grade to the deputy head of the department and the hon. minister knows that the Civil Service Act does not apply to the deputy head at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not apply to the deputy head.


John Graham Haggart: And there are several other offices that are exempted and the hon. minister must remember-it was stated again aud again-the reasons why. There must be some offices in the country at the disposal of the government of the day as a reward for political services and as a reward to men of ability in the House for services to their country. Among them are the deputy headships of the departments, the postmasterships iu the different towns and cities and the eollectorships of customs in the different towns and cities. The justification that he has given is no justification at all because the reason does not apply in this case. He does not come to the House and tell us that lie' has the approval of the Governor in Council for a change in the theoretical organization of the department as the Civil Service Act requires. He should be prepared with all these reasons to give to the Committee and particularly to tell why it is that the theoretical organization of his department is changed and whether it is changed with the approbation of the deputy head of the department.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: When the hon. gentleman says that I have not the sanction of the Governor in Council for this act he is mistaken. Council agreed to this ; it would not have been in the estimates if they had not agreed to it. It is the salary that is being asked for. This officer cannot be appointed until the salary is provided for and he cannot be appointed until an Order in Council lias passed appointing him ; but. I am asking meanwhile

whether the committee will sanction the payment of a salary to a person to be appointed to the office who must be appointed, of course, by the Governor in Council, and who will be.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister is trying to impose upon the Committee and upon me. He says that he has the sanction of the Governor in Council for the estimates brought down and therefore that he has his sanction for the change in the theoretical organization of his department. But, the Civil Service Act requires that the deputy head of the department shall approve of the theoretical organization and that there shall be an Order in Council passed approving of it. Does the hon. minister say that anything of that kind is done and does he say that because he has the consent of the Governor in Council to the bringing down of his estimates and presenting them before the House he has the approval of the Governor in Council for this appointment ?
Contingencies, including $1,750, which may he paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $10,355.


John Graham Haggart: I beg to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to the fact that the contingencies are to be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. I understood the hon. minister to say that the whole of the contingencies are intended to be paid in that manner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I did not express any opinion. My hon. friends must explain that for themselves I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I understood that the hon. minister said, when I mentioned contingencies, that it was not intended to apply to the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I certainly did not say anything of the kind. If I said that I was mistaken.


John Graham Haggart: Well then I mistook what the hon. minister said, but he must see that the vote for contingencies applies to everything under that head and that the Civil Service Act does not apply.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, the explanation is this :	There is an amount
voted for contingencies and in that amount is included $1,750.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you not put it so in your estimates ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think it is so stated.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all ; it is nothing of the kind. Put it plainly.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know how the hon. gentleman would word Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
it. Contingencies, including $1,750, which may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


John Graham Haggart: There is a comma after $1,750.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is only the $1,750 to which the Act does not apply.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the comma is struck out that is the way it reads.


John Graham Haggart: Strike out the comma and it may be so. Contingencies, $1,750, which may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act-if that does not apply to the whole of the contingencies I know nothing about the English language or construction of it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is not intended.


John Graham Haggart: Well then, put it in the form in which it is intended.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: $1,750 is the amount out of the contingencies that may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


John Graham Haggart: Well then, change it so as to make it clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Strike out the comma ; strike out the comma.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, strike out the comma. I have explained before that the way in which this $1,750 came into the estimates was that a first-class clerk who had been drawing $1,750 a year became ill. He took a trip for his health, I think, to the North-west and, unfortunately, on his way, he died. Between the passing of the original and supplementary estimates this took place. When we came to the sup-plementaries I dropped the vote for a first-class clerk of $1,750 and took a vote for that amount, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. I then got two men for the $1,750 that the one man had got before and the money is being used in that way. It has passed now for two or three years in that way.


John Graham Haggart: Let me suggest this amendment :	Contingencies, of which
$1,750 may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I accept that; perhaps it is better.


James Clancy: The hon. minister did not explain who these two second-class clerks were. Have they been taken out of those who have been temporary clerks in the department ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The two second-class clerks are in the service now,

Mr. Schofield, who has been there for six years Is getting $600 a year and Wm. Wall, who has been in the department for five years is getting $550. The first of these was paid out of the Board of Customs vote- that is the outside vote. The salary of the other has been paid out of contingencies, the item under consideration now. Instead of one being paid out of the Board of Customs vote and the other out of contingencies they become second-class clerks and their salaries are provided for in another item.


James Clancy: I see that the contingencies stand at the same amount notwithstanding that this clerk was paid out of contingencies formerly.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, I leave the contingencies at the same amount because I am afraid we will have to use the extra amount. But, the total, as the hon. gentleman will see, of the advance for the department of contingencies and salaries combined is $5,460. I beg to move that this item be amended so as to read : ' Contingencies of which $1,750 may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.'
Item as amended, agreed to.
Department of Public Works-Salaries, $47,550.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The small increase was on the recommendation of the deputy ; there is no change in the staff, and notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


James Clancy: Was there no change in the personnel of the staff ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None whatever; it is going along in peace and harmony.
Department of Railways and Canals-Salaries, including J. W. Pugsley at S1,S00, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $45,950 ; contingencies, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: WThat is the explanation of this increase ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The net increase in the vote this year over last year is $800. That is made out in this way : We hn ve allowed the usual statutory increases, which amount to $750. We have increased Mr. Pugsley's salary $100 and we have promoted Mr. Little, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Wright-Mr. Little from a second class clerk to a first class clerk. Mr. Little was appointed in the service in 1881 as a third class clerk; promoted to a second class clerk in 1900. He has been performing the duties in the accountant's branch previously done by the assistant accountant. 1-Ie is a faithful and industrious officer and we have promoted him to the first class. We have promoted Mr. Bell from a junior second class to a second class clerk, and we have promoted Mr. J. P. Wright from
a junior second class clerk to a second class clerk. These three cases involve an increase over the salaries which they now receive of $550. We make provisions for two junior second class clerks which will add $1,200. The total increase caused by the staututory increase and by the additions to the salaries and promotions which I have mentioned will total $2,600. We have one first class clerk less whose salary was $1,800, leaving a net result of $800 as an addition to the appropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Had these clerks reached the maximum of their class in each case before you promoted them ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When did Mr. Pugsley come into the service and why do you have to say ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Pugsley entered the service in 1S80; he was appointed third class clerk in 1883; he became a second class clerk in 1890; he was promoted first class clerk in 1896; he has been clerk of the Committee of the Privy Council since February, 1896. The increase will make his salary $1,800.


John Graham Haggart: If the minister looks at the estimates he will see that he is voting the same number of first class clerks as there were last year. There must be some mistake if you have one first class clerk less now. Your estimates are wrongly printed as presented to the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are only asking for the amount of money that we require.


James Clancy: The hon. minister states that Mr. Pugsley is promoted to be a first-class clerk ; yet there were ten last year and there are only ten now. So that one seems to have disappeared.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are only ten now including Mr. Pugsley.


Haughton Lennox: The minister stated very definitely a little while ago that he had dropped one first-class clerk-in other words, that he had one less now than he had last year. I ask the minister to tell us definitely how many he had last year and how many he has this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which one did you drop?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot tell you. My memorandum does not show.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the minister is making some additional junior clerkships and one additional first-class clerkship. Did he first get the consent of council to this increase, as the Act provides ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the Governor in Council undoubtedly assented to the appropriation being asked for the increase. That is all that has been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the hon. minister Is doing in his department what has been done in the Customs Department-commencing at the wrong end. The Act provides that the Governor in Council shall first determine how many clerks are required for each department.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They determined on that when they agreed to the estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not complying with the Act at ail. They must first provide for the number in the different classes; and after that the salaries are voted, when they are recommended by the head of the department. But it appears this has not been done in the department of the Minister of Railways nor in the department of the Minister of Customs, and I presume that the same practice has been followed throughout the various departments. Therefore the Civil Service Act has been entirely ignored by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend's remarks are based upon a misconception. His argument is that you must first create the clerkship before you come to the House for a vote. Sly hon. friend is mistaken. The Civil Service Act distinctly declares the reverse. Section 15 provides that a chief clerkship in any department shall only be created by Order in Council passed after the report of the deputy, after the concurrence of the head of the department in such report, and after the salary has been voted by parliament. These various conditions must first be complied with before the Governor in Council creates an additional clerkship. The same rule is carried down to a first-class clerkship. Section 17 provides that a first-class clerkship can only be created by an Order in Council passed on a report of the deputy head, concurred in by the head of the department, setting forth the reasons for creating the office, and after the salary has been voted by parliament. The same condition applies to a second-class clerkship. In each of these cases before the Governor in Council can grant an additional clerkship, parliament must first have provided the money. The first step is to get the appropriation from parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the provision of the Act to which I refer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I take this from the Act as published in the civil service list, dated 1902, and which contains all the amendments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I refer to section 6 :
The Governor in Council shall, from time to time determine the number of officers, chief clerks, clerks, messengers and other employees required for the working of the several departments in each division of the ci7il service.
What I complain of is that the Governor in Council have not brought their judgment to bear on this at all. The minister at the head of the department has simply found it necessary to put on another mau, and asks us to provide for the salary before the| Governor in Council have decided whether the requirements of the work call for another man.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Governor in Council can only consider the matter after parliament has voted the money. It can do nothing with regard to creating offices until the appropriation is voted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can you determine how much money you want before determining what number of clerks you require ? You. must do that before asking us to vote the money.


Haughton Lennox: The House is entitled to have the opinion of the Cabinet before any proposition is submitted to it to change the organization of any department. We are entitled to have first the recommendation to the minister at the head of the department made by the deputy head. That recommendation ought to be on record. Then the matter should be brought before the Governor in Council and considered, and it is only on the approval of the! Governor in Council that the minister at the head of the department has a right to ask parliament to vote the money. This is not a mere matter of form. We are entitled to have the guarantee and pledge of the Governor in Council that the necessity exists for the change. More than that, until the Governor in Council has determined that there is a necessity for an increase, the minister at the head of the department cannot estimate what amount of money he will require. It is a very serious neglect of the primary conditions upon which we are called upon to vote the estimates that, not in one department alone, but in all the departments, this very important provision of the Civil Service Act is ignored.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I said is further substantiated by the subsection 2 of section 6 :
If the number of employees then attached to any department In either division is greater than the number allowed to the department as herein provided, the Governor in Council shall name the persons to fill the several offices ; and the remainder shall bo supernumerary clerk3 without being eligible for increase of salary, of that class respectively in which they rank, and shall so remain until promoted in (he manner herein provided or until severed from the service.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Assuming the hon. gentleman to be right in his interpretation of the Civil Service Act, it would have no application to the present case. Taking it for granted that before the change of government, such subjects had been dealt with precisely as the hon. gentleman says they should have been, the number of employees authorized by the Governor in Council was 28. After I came into the department two vacancies occurred, and these were not filled, so that we have had but 26 permanent employees in the department instead of 28. Therefore, according to the interpretation of the hon. gentleman, since the Governor in Council decided that 28 permanent clerks were necessary for the proper organization of the department, and since there are now only 26 there, we have the right to ask for the appointment of the other two, without again going before the Governor in Council.


John Graham Haggart: You do not increase the junior second-class clerks by one ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I promote and leave a junior second-class clerkship vacant.


John Graham Haggart: You have one less second-class clerk and the same number of first-class clerks. And the junior second-class clerks are the same number as before.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will have two new appointments of junior second-class clerks to make according to the deputy minister's statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister, assumes that once the Governor in Council has exercised his judgment as to what the number ought) to be, the department meets all requirements by providing either a fewer or a larger number in the future.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not proposing to go beyond the number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman says that so long as he keeps below the number that is all that is necessary. But the Act provides that the Governor in Council-not the department-shall determine from time to time, and the Governor in Council has not been consulted from the first. The hon. minister does not think it is, necessary for the Governor in Council to exercise his judgment so long as he keeps below the number which the Governor in Council [DOT]authorizes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not interpret the Act as the hon. gentleman does. I think that the view stated by the Minister of Finance is the correct one. But, without assuming that all these performances would have to be gone through with any ordinary case it
is not necessary in the present case, for the reason that, what they may reasonably have for the purposes of work of the department will not be exceeded by the votes I am now asking for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this department changed in any way of late years-was any additional work put upon it or any work taken away ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No division of the work, but the work has grown greatly.


John Graham Haggart: The minister seems to think it necessary that the number of clerks stated in the written brief he has presented should be appointed. But he must get the consent of His Excellency and state it in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He has.


John Graham Haggart: The estimates placed upon the Table do not show that. We have no information that His Excellency has given his consent. Here is the statement showing that there were ten first-class clerks last year, and he wants ten ; there were five second-class clerks last year and he estimates for six this year ; there were six junior second-class clerks last year and he wants six this year. The hon. gentleman will find this in the details at page 20 of the estimates. The department has furnished wrong information to the Finance Department and they have got the consent of His Excellency which is not in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The hon. minister must get it corrected.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am satisfied with the amount stated in the estimates-I do not want any more.


James Clancy: Is the hon. minister quite sure that the statement he gave, which shows that one first-class clerk is dropped, is quite correct ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My statement shows that, as compared with last year there is 81,800 which is not required this year, and, therefore, we do not carry it over to the 1903-4 estimate.
Mr-. HEYD. Why is it not required ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not understand. But I am not asking for it.


James Clancy: Who is the first-class clerk who Is dropped.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot find that we have dropped any. We have just as many as we had last year.


James Clancy: If the hon. minister will look at page 20 of the estimates he will see that there is an increase of $50 for chief clerk, recording staff, and another iijcrease of $50 for chief clerk, correspondence, and $50 for chief clerk, law clerk. Then, in the estimates for second class clerks there is an increase of $1,150. These a total increase of $1,300. Then, in the case of junior second-class clerks there is a decrease of $500. By deducting the decrease from the increase, we get the difference of $800 provided for in the estimates, without any change in the chief clerk. If the civil service list gives anything like a correct account, then, Mr. Pugsley was a first-class clerk last year and was now raised from the second-class.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He was a first-class clerk last year.


James Clancy: But the hon. minister said he had been raised. If the hon. gentleman will examine the estimates he will see that of first-class clerks there are four at $1,800, two at $1,600, three at $1,550 and one at $1,400.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Pour at $1,800, one at $1,650, two at $1,550, and one at $1,500.


Mr. CLANCY  .@: According to the item there does not appear to be any at $1,650. But according to the civil service list-I would refer the minister to page 168-Mr. Pugsley seems to have received $1,650. The figures do not seem to be correctly given in the estimates.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Pugsley is put down in my memorandum as having received last year $1,650. There were four who received $1,650. There were four who received $1,800 according to this statement.


Haughton Lennox: Including J. W. Pugsley.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, he got $1,650 last year. Two clerks, Mr. Chubbuck and Mr. Ross, received $1,550 ; and three, Messrs. Devlin and Payne and another Mr. Ross, received $1,550.


James Clancy: The estimates show three at $1,550, instead of two.


Haughton Lennox: And four at $1,800, including J. W. Pugsley.


James Clancy: It would be well for the hon. minister to send the figures back and have them corrected. It is clear he has not been handed an accurate statement.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister must correct his estimates.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I really have no correction to Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
make. I want $45,950 on account of salaries, exactly as stated in the estimates.


John Graham Haggart: When we vote an amount en bloc, it is understood that it is to be appropriated in the manner indicated in the details given in the estimates. But the hon. minister wants it voted and himself left free to apply it according to his memorandum. The House will not do anything of the kind. It should be spent according to the details in the estimates.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I quite agree with that.


John Graham Haggart: Let the minister take it back and have it corrected.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not discovered anything to be corrected. I will read them over. In the estimate there is $6,000 for the deputy minister and the chief engineer ; in my estimate it is $6,000. In the estimate there is $2,400 for the secretary of the department ; it is the same in my memorandum. In the memorandum Mr. Maynard gets $2,150 ; the same in the estimates. In my memorandum the law clerk gets $2,100 ; the same in the estimates. Then the chief clerk of correspondence, Mr. Dickenson, gets $1,850; so in the estimates.* Then there are four first-class clerks getting $1,800 each ; there are two who get $1,600 each ; three who get $1,550 each ; one who gets $1,400. These amounts make $16,450, exactly what I find in the estimates. Then you come to the second-class clerks. One gets $1,400, according to my memorandum ; one gets $1,350, one $1,250, one $1,150 and two $1,100 each. Now these amounts sum up $7,350, as shown in the estimates. Then of junior clerks, there are two at $950, one at $800, one at $750, three at $600 each


John Graham Haggart: Only two here.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Add up those amounts, and I think you will find they are correct.
Mi-. BENNETT. There are two in u;e printed book.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because one of these is made a second-class clerk who was junior last year. I find I did make a mistake. There are only two at $600. I was including the allowance for the private secretary. That makes the sum $4,650, as shown in the estimates.


John Graham Haggart: The minister is correct now. but his statement to the House before was incorrect and misleading.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been making the same statement all along.


John Graham Haggart: The minister said there was one second-class clerk less. There

is the same number this year as last year. He stated also that there were two more junior second-class clerks. There is exactly the same number this year as before.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, we are one short, and we are promoting.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman shows the House that the whole increase amounted to $2,600, and that there was one first-class clerk dropped who was getting $1,800, which left a difference of $800. That was the hon. gentleman's first statement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And that is correct.


James Clancy: That is not correct. The increases are only $1,300 actually, and the decreases are $500, which leaves $S00 net increase.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You cannot figure that out. I quite understand that the hon. gentleman is disposed to be jocular. But the amount is to-day as I stated, $800 more than the appropriation of last year. The way that is ascertained is as follows : $750 for statutory increases ; $100 increase for Mr. Pugs-ley, who gets $50 increase and $100, which brings him up to $1,800. There are three promotions amounting to $550, Little, Ball and Wright ; two junior second-class clerks to be new appointments, $600 each, amounting to $1,200. The summing up shows an increase of $2,600. As I said before, less a first-class clerkship appropriation not used, $1,800, leaving a net increase of $800. That is the memorandum which I have.
Department of Marine and Fisheries, $79,050- Salaries, including It. 13. Tyrwhitt at $950. and L. Bance at $1,400, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $67,050.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the absence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfifontaiue), I may say that the increase is made up of forty statutory increases at $50 each. In regard to Mr. Tyrwhitt, when I was at the head of the department, I sent him to take charge of the hydrographic survey of the North-west, a post of increased responsibility and expense. I allowed him an increase of $100 a year, but when the matter came before the Auditor General, he took exception to it as not being a legal payment according to the Civil Service Act. So we are asking the House this year to vote him the increase that was voted last year, to make his salary $900 for the coming year.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will make the amendment the same here as in the other cases, so as to remove all doubts as to the salary being excepted from the Civil Service Act.
Contingencies, including L. Charbcraneau at $500, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that there is an increase in contingencies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year there was a vacancy in the department requiring the appointment of a messenger. I asked the House to give me a vote so that I could secure an active, intelligent man as a messenger. The vote was granted but the Auditor General would not pay the salary because the name of the person appointed was not in the vote, so that the messenger, L. Charbonneau, has been appointed and paid by Order in Council.


John Graham Haggart: How long has he been in the service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About one year. The balance of the increase is owing to the'increase in the telegraph service, an additional amount of $3,500 being placed in the estimates. In other years we have been obliged to apply for a supplementary vote. We shall not want a supplementary vote this year, as this amount is provided for in these estimates.
Public buildings, Ottawa-Astronomical Observatory, $45,000.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Would the hon. minister be kind enough to tell me how that matter stands now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I may say that the work is going along fairly well, perhaps, not as fast as we would like, but the foundation is completed and a great deal of material is on the ground ready to make good progress during the coming season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the building located ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the experimental farm.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether the plans are the same as those that were prepared when I was in office ?	,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: *Tust the same.


Joseph Israël Tarte: May I ask also who the contractor is ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Yiau.
Hon. Mi'. TARTE. What is the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Seventy-four thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When is the work going to be completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract calls for the completion of the work on 25th June, 1904.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of the money that was voted last year has been spent and what advancement has been made In the work ? I see there was a vote of $15,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the first six months of this year there has been paid $3,387.45. The estimate of the architect is that about $13,000 will be spent between now and the 30th of June next.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The minister is asking only the amount that he thinks will be spent during the year, and next year he will come down for another sum of money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this work let by contract to the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let by contract to the lowest tenderer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it is to be finished in 1904 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: June, 1904.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. minister to say that it will cost about $74,000. Does that include equipment ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Including equipment it will cost $93,400.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the object to transfer the observatory from Toronto down here, or is this to be an additional one ?


Mr. CLARE.: If the work calls for $74,999 and is to be completed on the 25th June next, why is not the whole amount placed in the estimates 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is on the 25th June, 1904.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was asking the hon. minister if it was intended to do away with the observatory at Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think this interferes at all with the observatory at Toronto. This is under the direction of the Interior Department and it has been in existence in Ottawa for a great many years. There will, of course, be a great improvement in the service, in the building, accommodation and equipment. But, it does not interfere with the observatory at Toronto. The observatory at Toronto. I think, is in connection with the Marine Deparment and it serves a different purpose altogether.


George Adam Clare: As the estimates we are now passing are for the year ending June, 1904, why not put the whole amount in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand my hon. friend's point now. The foundation of this work is completed Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
and the chief architect estimates that this $45,000 is all the contractor will earn during the time for which we take this vote. The building is not expected to be completed until next season, though the contract requires it to be completed on the 25th June. The chief architect estimates that the contractor cannot earn more than $45,000 in the coming year. That means that he cannot complete the work within the time specified.


James Clancy: It means that the contract will not be completed on the 25th June, 1904 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: * Can the hon. minister give any information as to what astronomer is to be in charge and whether there is any person supervising the work who is possessed of the technical knowledge necessary to provide a suitable structure for the purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not connected with the Public Works Department, but as I happen to know, I do not object to giving the information. Mr. King is a gentleman that I believe the House has a great deal of confidence in and he is at the head of this work. There is no contemplated change in the staff, so far as my information goes. The staff is perfectly satisfactory and from the reports I have seen it has received a great deal of praise from some of the older countries that spend a great many thousand dollars on this service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the Mr. King who has been surveying the international boundary between Canada and Alaska ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who is the clerk of works for that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. P.: Canty is his name.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know him very well.
Ottawa-Branch of Royal Mint, $50,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. minister explain how that matter stands ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid it is standing still. It was decided by the department under my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte), to place the building on the government property near the Printing Bureau. The Militia Department which has control of that property raised some objections, and I believe that information was received from the authorities in England, that in building a mint for the reception of minting plant you require to have a very solid and exceedingly level surface. Therefore some difficulty was found, outside of the objection of the Militia De-

partment, towards occupying the site chosen. That has occasioned delay. I hope that delay will not be much longer. I think that on the same property, probably on the other side, we will be able to find ground enough to carry out the plan prepared by the department when my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was minister. The same plan is in every way satisfactory if we had a suitable site. I hope to have a report to-day, but at all events I will have it in a short time and I think the chief architect will report that we can have a level site on the other side.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Do I understand that it will be the same site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, ou the other side.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I left office these objections had not been raised.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Why, it is on solid rock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In order to get a level surface, there would be a good deal of cutting down necessary and much expense would have to be gone to, and it would not give an opportunity for driving around as laid down in the plan. When I went to the department I found that nothing had been done and I asked for a report. So far as I can say at present, if the other site is found satisfactory, it will be adopted.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot understand where that other site is. I may say at once that when I left office no objection of the kind had been raised The bottom is rock and there can be no possible objection on the ground of solidity.


William Humphrey Bennett: There has been an earthquake since.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Finance and myself had agreed as to the site and I cannot for the life of me discover why the English authorities, who had approved of the plan when I left office, raised the objection since. I would like to have some more knowledge as to the nature of these objections because I cannot understand them at all. Indeed I do not know where the present site can be and perhaps it is only fair to ask that the item should stand until we have more information about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is three years since this vote was first taken and when I went into the department I endeavoured to have the work go ahead. The country and parliament is committed to it and I believe it is an important work in the interest of the country. Of course if the House wishes to renew this vote I shall submit the plan.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The reason why the work did not go on so rapidly as it will perhaps go on now, is that the Minister of Finance asked me to delay until he returned from England. That is the reason why the contract was not awarded but as to the site it was decided upon when I left office. I am sure the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr Sutherland) does not accuse me of losing time. The plans were prepared, they had to be sent to England to be approved of, and the Minister of Finance asked me before his last trip to England not to give the contract before he came back.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: There seems to be a contradiction in the statement by the minister. First the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was told that there had been a change in the site, and it would now appear that there has been no change in the site.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is correct in what he says. He had commenced proceedings with the view of building the mint on Nepean Point, close to the Printing Bureau, and he had gone so far as to call for tenders. He was good enough to make a delay until I could return from England, and on or about that time objections were made by the Militia Department, and perhaps from other sources as to the suitability of the site, and it was proposed to look for a new site. I am aware of the site which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has in his mind, but as it includes some private land, perhaps we would not be wise in indicating at present where that land is until it is under option. I do not think any business man would think it wise to announce that we were going to buy a certain piece of property until we had that property under option.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I left office the government had chosen a site on government ground. I want to emphasize that fact. Of course if the minister tells me that he has good ground for asking that the item should go through I will make no more objection.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Might I ask the Minister of Militia and Defence what are his objections to the site in question. Of course, if it is against the public interest, I do not wish him to answer.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have no objection to say that after the plans were matured it was found that very much more ground would be required for the buildings than was at first supposed, and that it might interfere with the use of that ground for military purposes in future. If for instance there should ever be a military depot at Ottawa it might be a convenient site for such a building. I had a careful report made upon the matter by

the then General Officer Commanding and I addressed a letter to the Minister of Finance suggesting that there should be delay until the whole question could be considered.


Mr. BIRKETT.: This being the third time that this vote has been placed in the estimates for a royal mint at Ottawa, it seems to me that I should now ask the Minister of Public Works, if the government intends building the mint this year. If I am correctly informed the Minister of Finance is not in favour of building a mint because he says that the mint will be an absolute loss to Canada.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Thomas Birkett: The Minister of Finance is reported as having so stated. I wonder if I am correct or not in that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I wonder if my hon. friend will give me the source of his information.


Thomas Birkett: Yes I will.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the earlier stages there was some debate about the advisability of our having a mint but for several years it has been the policy of both sides of the House that a mint should be built.


Thomas Birkett: Well, I will read it. On the 15th of May, 1899, Mr. Fielding made a speech in the House of Commons against the establishment of a mint in Canada. His speech will be found in ' Hansard ' for 1899, pages 3112 and 3113. Mr. Fielding said :
I am well within the mark when I say that a well equipped mint would turn out m one month all the copper and silver coins required in Canada in the whole year so that we would have an establishment with one mouth's work, and eleven months' idleness.
Were we to adopt this policy we would lose a considerable part of the profit we are now enjoying-that is the profit out of the coinage.
Were we to convert all our gold into coin we* would find that we had no use for it.
There is no profit in the minting of gold.
Not only is there no profit, but there would be absolute loss.
It would be a waste of money to have a Canadian mint.
Iu the face of that, I think it is my duty, as one of the representatives of the city of Ottawa, to ask the Minister of Public Works if it is the intention of the government to establish a mint in Ottawa or merely to keep this vote dangling before the eyes of the electors from year to year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the hon. gentleman stated that he had been informed by somebody that the Minister of Finance had opposed this mint vote, he was mistaken, because he had not been informed, but was reading from an old debate dealing with the question of a mint under entirely different conditions from those which


Sir F. W. BORDEN.: exist to-day. We are not proposing to establish a mint in the manner which was then under debate, but a branch of the royal mint of England, which will mint not only the coinage of Canada, but also the sovereign of the British Empire from Canadian gold, am entirely different proposition. So that my hon. friend is reading from an old story, under conditions which have vastly changed, and his zeal on behalf of his constituents has certainly not been so great as it ought to be when he is giving a turn to my remarks entirely unwarranted by the experience of the past three years.


Thomas Birkett: I am certainly indebted to the hon. Minister of Finance for the information he has1 given; but I did not misquote him.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say the hon. gentleman did.


Thomas Birkett: My information is correct. The statement was made by the hon. gentleman, and he never contradicted it. If there was no profit in minting gold three years ago, where do you expect to get the profit now ? I merely want to know, on behalf of my constituents, whether it is the intention of the government to establish this mint or not, or whether they intend to keep this $50,000 vote dangling before the electors until the next election comes around?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman says he did not misquote me. I do not accuse him of misquoting me. He is reading from a newspaper report of what occurred three years ago.


Thomas Birkett: No, I ana reading from ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, it is not my practice to delve into those old records unless I have some special reason; but my recollection is that I stated then that if we could arrange to establish a branch of the royal mint, and not simply a mint for Canadian currency, that might be worth while. When he saysi he is obliged to me for the information I have given, he need not thank me, because I did not give him any information that has not been before the House for a long time, and if the hon. gentlepaan has not discovered it until now, he is not as wide-awake a representative of the city of Ottawa as I had supposed he was.


Thomas Birkett: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the very fact that the item has been voted for three years is a very good reason for the hon. member for Ottawa asking the question he has, especially in view of the information which we have now that the government has not even selected the site for the mint. I wish to ask what is the estimated cost of this mint.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A very full estimate has been made. It is

estimated that it will cost at least $275,000, or perhaps, when fully equipped, about $300,000. I may say to my hon. friend the member for Ottawa that since this policy was decided upon, no member of the government has had the slightest intention of delaying the work of putting up the building. So far as the Finance Minister is concerned, during the few weeks that I have been in the department, he has bothered me with regard to it, both in writing and personally, on several occasions. I am making every possible effort to have the work commenced, and I hope, if this vote meets the approval of the House, that when the supplementary estimates for the coming year are brought down, I shall be able to give full information as to the site, and as to what additional amount will be required in order to enable us to go on with the building during the year 1903-4. By that time we ought to be able to advertise for tenders and to know exactly when we can go on with the work.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister *of Finance has given a curious excuse for his change of opinion. Three years ago he held exactly the opinion stated by the hon. member for Ottawa. He has had the item in the estimates for three years, so that It must have been only this year that he has received the consent of the imperial authorities to establish a branch of the royal mint. Why did he ask for al vote two years ago, without having that consent, and when he held the opinion that the mint was entirely - useless ? It is only this year, as I understand, that he has received the authority of the imperial authorities, to do what he proposes to do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who said that ?


John Graham Haggart: I understood that you said it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say anything of the sort.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister, in answering the objections of my hon. friend from Ottawa, stated that when he made his statement three years ago he had a different opinion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I did not.


John Graham Haggart: And that because of the authority he has received from the imperial authorities, another state of affairs exists. When was it he got the authority ? Was it last year, or the year before ? It could not have been the year before, because it was then proposed not to build this mint in the city of Ottawa, but in Vancouver or somewhere else in British Columbia, for the purpose of minting the gold mined in the Yukon and keeping it in our *own country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has the unhappy faculty of understanding a great many things that nobody says. I certainly did not say any of the things the hon. gentleman attributes to me. As to when the authority of the imperial government was obtained, when the Act of this parliament was passed to establish a mint, it was distinctly stated that it was to be established in Ottawa; it was never proposed to put it anywhere else. The whole matter was threshed out in this House at that time, and the Act passed two years ago was to establish not a purely Canadian mint, but a branch of the royal mint.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say that it was claimed during the election contest in the Yukon that if a supporter of the government were sent here, there would be a chance of having the mint established at Dawson. It was also stated in British Columbia when I was out there that it was desirable to have a mint at Vancouver, therefore it was necessary that the government should be supported in that quarter. Down here in| Ottawa, I presume the same thing was dangled before the people so as to show them it was very desirable the government should be sustained. Why, the party opposite have been making use of this question in various localities. Certainly some one has been deceiving the people, and the fact that we have been voting the money three or four sessions and not spending any part of it gives colour to the belief that the whole thing is kept open for political purposes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see how any one could pretend that the site for this building was to be elsewhere than in Ottawa. The grant was taken for a mint at Ottawa. The Act was passed for the establishment of a government mint at Ottawa, and no member of the government has ever proposed that it should be anywhere else than in Ottawa. All this political scheming exists only in the imagination of the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The fact that you are not spending the grant is sufficient to give rise to the suspicion that you are using this item as a bait for political support.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Suspicion ever haunts the guilty mind.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It took some time for the plans to be got ready as that kind of work is new here. After the plans were prepared they had to be sent to England, and we wrote, I do not know how many times, to get these plans back before we could get them. In England they do not do things so quickly as my hon. friend would like to see them done here. We lost a great deal of time before we could get the plans back. Tenders were asked for, but my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who was going to England, thought it was better that

lie should consult personally with the imperial authorities before anything further was done, and that was why the contract was not awarded. I may be mistaken, but 1 am afraid that the choice of a new site will require the making of new plans. The plans were prepared for the site at Nepean Point, and no objection was then raised to that site. There was some talk about that piece of land being required for military purposes but we got over that difficulty, and tenders were called for.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: When were tenders called for ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: About five months ago.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Had an agreement between the imperial authorities and the Canadian government been arrived at then ?
Hon. air. TARTE. Yes, we had full authority then, but the Minister of Finance was anxious to see the imperial authorities again. The arrangement for the site however was final, because I called for tenders and I am afraid that if a new site be chosen new plans will have to be prepared.


Thomas Birkett: In connection with this item, there is another item of $200,000 which was formerly voted for the new geological museum at Ottawa. It was twice voted by this House but I do not see it in the estimates this session.
The ailNISTER OF FINANCE. It is in the estimates. In 1901 we passed the Act, entitled an Act respecting the Ottawa Branch of the Royal Mint. That Act, it is provided, may be cited as " The Ottawa aiint Act, 1901." How in the face of that anybody can say that the government at any time entertained the idea of putting the mint anywhere else, is something I cannot understand.


James Clancy: In view of the statement made by the ex-Minister of Public Works, that the consent of the imperial authorities had been obtained and tenders called fox-, why did the Minister of Finance ask for further delay until he could see the imperial authoi'ities.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was calling for tenders during my absence and I suggested that the contract should not be awarded until my return. I desii'ed to consult the imperial authorities-not to obtain their consent, because that had been given-but about some matters of detail. I asked my hon. friend to be good enough to hold over the tenders until my return and he was kind enough to do so.


James Clancy: Did the hon. gentleman raise any question with reference to the foundation not being good, because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) lays special stress upon the fact that the build-


Joseph Israël Tarte: ing would require a very solid foundation^ thereby implying that the site already selected was not sufficiently solid.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. I may have said that the building required a solid foundation but the site referred to by my hon. friend is perfectly solid. It required however to be levelled and the surroundings levelled.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I understand the objection, it was that the ground was not broad enough. As to that I am not prepared to say anything except that when I left office the ground had been found sufficiently large. Of course this is a very important building, and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works have a pei'fect right to choose a better site if one is to be found.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is it possible for the hon. Minister of Public Works to tell us what pi'oportion of land belonging to individuals and what proportion belonging to the government will be taken for this site.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot give that at pi'esent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And how many thousand feet more would be requii'ed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall get that information.


Thomas Birkett: I see an item of $50,000 for the Victoria Museum, but surely that is not intended to replace the geological mu- [DOT] seum ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will reach that in a moment.


Thomas Birkett: I asked why the $200,000 which was twice voted for the geological museum was dropped. Two years ago I was given to understand that plans had been prepared for a building which was to cost $1,000,000. Has the Department of Public Works any plans for this museum, for which $200,000 was voted two years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When were the $200,000 voted ?


Thomas Birkett: In 1901-2, for a new geological museum at Ottawa, and that was estimated as one-fifth of the total cost.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That amount was voted, but when we found that it could not be spent we simply reduced it. There was no use voting a lai-ge amount in the estimates when it could not be spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were only $50,000 voted in 1901.


Thomas Birkett: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. My present colleague (Mr. Belcourt) told me distinctly that he had the plan of this building at home in his own residence and the building was to cost | $1,000,000.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: When was that ?


Thomas Birkett: 20th October, 1900. Are those plans still in the possession of the government ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: When was that ?


Thomas Birkett: In 1900-on the 29th of October. I want to know if these plans are still in the possession of the government?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
William Findlay Maclean: Sufficient has come out in this debate with regard to buying more land, to justify us in calling upon the government to lay before the country a plan for acquiring land in Ottawa for the purposes of government on a comprehensive scale. Every now and again a proposition is brought up to buy land here or to rent it there for the purposes of the government. The time has come when a large block of land should be acquired in Ottawa for government purposes. That land could be acquired for a reasonable price. It ought to be got now ; the government should cease this tinkering way of acquiring land here or there at heavy prices and against the public interest. There is opportunity for jobbery in every such deal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the minister if it is the government's intention to locate this mint according to the plans now in the possession of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information from the chief architect is that the plans are quite satisfactory. They have been approved by the British government. And I am perfectly frank in stating that, when I get this vote, if then my colleagues approve, the work will be gone on with as soon as possible.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the whole site or only part of the site been bought ? Of course, if I am indiscreet in asking that question, I shall not press it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the House will see that it would be indiscreet of me-holding the views I do, and intending, as I do, to ask council and this House to endorse any action we may take-to answer that question now. I agree with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) 12
that it is in the public interest that these important national buildings should be erected. If my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) objects to their being erected here, I know other places that would be glad to have them. In my humble opinion they ought to be at the capital. I agree with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) and what he proposes I hope to do at an early date-to make a report showing the best locations for tliese buildings and to purchase land which will be sufficient for years to come.


William Rees Brock: The impression made upon the mind of the ordinary business man, I should think, would be that we might call a halt in this matter of a mint. It has been before us a great many years. We had expressions of opinion from very high authority, even so high as the Minister of Finance, that a mint in this country is not needed, and is, in some respects, undesirable. It would certainly cost an enormous amount of money. For the life of me, I cannot understand what advantage Canada is to get from it. I think we should get far more advantage out of the proposal of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) of buying a large block of land at one transaction upon which buildings could be erected suitable for the purpose of government, the whole to be carried out according to some comprehensive plan. The great objection I have, not only as a member of this House, but as a business man, is to the cheese-paring way with which this thing has been gone about, not only during the last six or seven years, but during the last twenty or thirty years. When this magnificent building was put up-then was the time to have acquired an immense amount of property ; it would have been very valuable to the country now. But, having missed that opportunity, we should not go on making the same mistake year after year. I would suggest the Minister of Public AVorks to call a halt in this very matter we are discussing, and let us see if we cannot work it in with the larger scheme to the advantage of the country. I do not believe the business men of Canada have got into their minds what advantage a mint is going to be to the country. We have done and are doing a good deal for glory ; let us do something for profit and for business reasons. The city of Ottawa is of great importance we all acknowledge. But, if we are to have a mint there are other business centres in this country. This is business, not politics. There is the city of Montreal, very near us, and the city of Toronto, not very far away. Then we have Vancouver in the west, which has the advantage of being much nearer the gold producing country than Ottawa is. As to making money, we know that large amounts are being made here, and many people in the city of Ottawa are becoming enormously



wealthy. If a little daylight is let in, I think we may find that we are getting too many money making institutions in the city of Ottawa. Let the government take the country into their confidence in this matter. We find that the site looked upon as good not five months ago is now regarded as inadequate. How will the whole question be regarded ten years from now ? The government should take this matter seriously, and not go about it as if they were speculators on the stock exchange. Surely it must be a serious matter, seeing that it has occupied attention for three years. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) who is a good business man, does not understand what you are trying to do. Is it politics or business ? I think the time has come when we should stop driving at politics and settle down to business. The government do not seem to regard these matters seriously. The Minister of Finance particularly, in his jaunty fashion, plays battle dore and shuttle cock with these questions. But he cannot do it all the time. The country is waking up, and I think we shall wake up the government and compel them to treat public affairs seriously and not answer, as the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did the other day when he was asked a plain business question, with a ridiculous comical story. The government are being watched from one end of the country to the other. Let them turn their eyes to the west, and they will see their friends in power in the province of Ontario being arraigned before the people. These things cannot be turned aside with a jaunty sneer. This matter of erecting a mint in Ottawa may be treated by the government as a small matter, but the country cannot be humbugged about it all the time. The Minister of Finance may meet a committee in this city and, with his cleverness, appear to turn them down. But the only effect is to send emissaries throughout the country who feel that they have not been fairly treated. And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the time is coming when there will be a change.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Rees Brock: The very laugh, the very sneer I hear from the other side emphasizes what I say. Hon. gentlemen opposite know it. There is not a man coming from a constituency in Ontario who does not know this, and there is not one of their supporters from Ontario who does not tell them of it. They are trying to withstand a movement that has been helped on by the action of the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) who honestly tried to voice what is the real feeling of the country and what would bel best in the interest of the country. The Minister of Finance, I claim, is turning this thing down, and he is turning it down to the detriment of his friends and the party to which he belongs. I am not


William Rees Brock: here to make an excuse for the hon. gentlemen opposite, I will be glad to see them turned down. Now, Sir, I submit that a matter of this kind, although it appears to be small, is really of great importance, as showing the trend of opinion in this country. It is significant that a matter can be brought up here year after year for three, years, and that the whole country can be misled, moreover, that the very city in which this building is supposed to be built can be misled. I think we are justified in concluding that the government have not been honest in this matter, and that they are now endeavouring to hoodwink the people of this country in connection with this mint.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I must defend what I have done in the past. I think I am on fair ground in saying that the government, while I was a member of it, did not purposely lose any time. As I said, the plans had to be prepared here first, and then they had to be approved on the other side. That took time. But tenders were asked for before I left, and were received, and if there had been no change in the site the work would be going on now.


William Rees Brock: The change of the minister was the principal thing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Now it may be well that the committee should realize thoroughly what that royal mint means. We have been discussing it in the past. I, for one, would have been glad to have a Canadian mint, but after discussion it was found that perhaps that would not be practicable. It was resolved to have a branch of the royal mint, which means of course that the superior officers of the institution will not be Canadians but Englishmen, the imperial government will appoint them. Practically this institution would not be under our care and control.


William Rees Brock: Do the imperial government pay anything towards it ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


William Rees Brock: Oh, Canada pays the bill.


Joseph Israël Tarte: On that question as on all others, my motto is Canada for the Canadians. But I fully realize that it would not be practicable or possible to have a purely Canadian mint. The idea of the Minister of Finance was to have a royal mint so that we might work for the imperial government. But on the other hand, we would have to pay for the institution though it would not be under our care and charge. That is about the size of it, and it is just as well that we should look the matter straight in the face. The government have decided on that policy, and I am equally responsible for it. But as the government have not moved in the matter, it is just as well perhaps that we pause over

the position as we find it to-day. I must give the Minister of Finance this credit, that he has always been anxious for the work to proceed, and it is not his fault if the work has not progressed more rapidly'. We pushed the plans in England as quickly as we could. Of course if we are obliged to buy a new site, it will cost a large amount of money. Land is not given free in this capital of ours. If the original site has been condemned-well, later on when the proper time comes, I shall desire to know the reasons why it has been condemned. I went carefully over the ground again and again with the chief architect, as well as with other able men,, and we thought that [DOT] the site was a very proper one indeed, otherwise I would not have consented to it.


Thomas Birkett: The Minister of Public Works made one or two remarks which I think are a little unkind, and he attributed opinions to me which I do not hold. He said that the member for Ottawa (Mr. Bir-kett) did not wish to have the mint built in this city, that there were plenty of other places anxious to get it. Now the member for Ottawa did not say one word against putting up any building in Ottawa, but he did ask why the building had been abandoned, and why, after this vote had been repeatedly taken, nothing was done. Surely I would be the last man in this House to say a word against one dollar being spent in Ottawa. I want to see all the money possible spent in this city, and I do not like to have any one insinuate that I am not anxious to see that building go on. The fact is that I see no reason why it has not been gone on with. The vote was taken three years ago, the plans are prepared, the site chosen is excellent. I do not see why the site should be changed, and in my opinion there is no reason for any change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course I only spoke in a jocular manner. The hon. gentleman referred to the vote off $200,000, he was mistaken in that, for I looked back three years and found the same vote, $50,000. I myself am in favour of building the mint in Ottawa, and sincerely desire to see the work go on as quickly as possible. There is no intention on the parti of the government of delaying it any longer than is necessary.


Thomas Birkett: That is perfectly satisfactory.


John Graham Haggart: Could the ministei* say whether a proclamation has been issued by the imperial authorities establishing a branch of the royal mint in Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say as to the issue of the proclamation, but arrangements have been made between the imperial and Canadian governments for the establishment of a royal mint. Whether the proclamation has been actually 12i
issued I do not remember at the moment; but I am clear in stating that all the arrangements have been made between the two governments to authorize the establishment of a mint at Ottawa, in accordance with the Act passed unanimously by this House.


John Graham Haggart: The Act was predicated upon proclamation issued by the imperial authorities and published in the Canadian ' Gazette,' establishing a branch of the royajl mint at Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think that would prevent our going ahead. I am not sure the proclamation has been issued, I almost think it has not, but it would be issued the moment the mint has been established and put in operation. However, there is no misunderstanding, there is perfect agreement between the imperial and the Canadian governments, and the correspondence on the subject was brought down at a previous session.


William Findlay Maclean: When does the hon. gentleman think this mint will be established and in running order ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Public Works can best answer that


William Findlay Maclean: I mean the other arrangements after the building is erected.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Just as soon as the building can be erected.


Haughton Lennox: Instead of regretting the delay that has occurred, I think it is rather fortunate that delay has*occurred. I think a good deal could be said about this, and a great deal of thinking could be done about it. Now, we have had a great deal of discussion as to the question of the necessary public buildings at Ottawa and as to the sites for them and it surely does occur to the government, as it has occurred to many hon. members, that we do not want one public building in one part of the city and another public building in another part and thus have them distributed around through the city of Ottawa. There ought to be some definite and complete plan as to where the public buildings which are likely to be required in the next half century will be located. Now, we are met with the difficulty at the present time that there is no site for this building, and that because- and it may be a very good reason-it is contemplated by the government that they may have to purchase some private property, it is not expedient at the present time to take the committee into their confidence and tell them where that site is to be. That, I can understand is perfectly reasonable, but, at the same time, I think it is probably a good reason why this item should not be pressed at the present time. I do not think- and in this I differ from a great many hon.

members who have spoken-that there is any great urgency in regard to this matter. If I understand the hon. Minister of Public Works aright, he suggested, during an early part of the discussion, that probably he would have a report from his chief engineer to-morrow. Was I right ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, within a few days.


Haughton Lennox: I thought he said to-morrow; however, within a few days. I know I cannot prevail very far upon the government and probably as a new member my views are not entitled to any great weight, but I would suggest that in view of the fact that we are liable to have this report in a few days and as there is no great urgency in passing this item at the present time, it be allowed to stand over, if it meets with the concurrence of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and that we take it up again when we have more information than we have at the present time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me say that I must insist upon pressing this vote if we are to make any progress at all. This matter has been before the House for three years at least, and I think it was unanimously admitted by both sides of the House that it was in the interests of the country that this work should go on. Perhaps, unexpected circumstances have arisen to create some delay, but it is better to have some delay than to make a mistake. If the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) understood the conditions at all he would see that this building should under no circumstances be put in a situation near the other buildings used for parliamentary or public purposes. You would not want a factory with a wall around it like a gaol placed in the beautiful park around this building for instance. We should have our geological museum and such other national buildings as we require near each other if we could get a plot of land under reasonable conditions that would answer for some years. At the same time, no one would think of establishing this manufacturing industry on the same ground as that occupied by the class of buildings to which I have referred.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It must be isolated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that when the supplementary estimates are brought down, I shall be prepared with full information upon this subject.


John Graham Haggart: On this subject ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On this subject.


John Graham Haggart: If the money is voted it is to be expended on a building in Ottawa ?


Haughton Lennox: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


James Clancy: It is stated that this amount has been voted three times without any objection. The hon. gentleman must know that he is asking this vote under entirely different conditions from those that formerly prevailed. It was voted the last time on the express condition that the site which had been selected was to cost nothing. Now the hon. gentleman comes down and asks for this vote without being prepared to tell the Committee, and the Committee has not insisted on knowing, what the building would cost, but, surely, the hon. gentleman will not expect the Committee to vote a sum of money blindly when, it can be delayed for a few days and when the Committee does not know how much will be involved in securing a suitable site, information on which point may change the minds of the Committee entirely as to whether we should undertake that work or not.
I uuderstand that work to be one more of rational pride than of absolute utility or necessity for Canada. The first impulse that seized the House was that we should have a Canadian mint, not because we absolutely needed it but from a sense of national pride. We have been forced to abandon that position and to take another position. Now, so far as the benefits accruing to Canada from the standpoint of dollars and cents are concerned, we have not even from the hon. Minister of Finance any encouragement to hope that our position will be materially changed. We are told that if we had a Canadian mint it would not be in operation for more than one month in the year, but what assurance have we, when we are taking another mint upon ourselves and investing so large a sum of money-and it is a British mint, not a Canadian mint, separately as was understood in the first instance-of the necessity that has arisen under which we should give the hon. gentleman this vote until we see the question somewhat worked out ? I think the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is quite proper in suggesting that Canada can live without a branch of the imperial mint for another year. Now, the question is that if there is one established in Canada, will it be in Ottawa ? That seems to be a settled question, and I think the hon. gentleman can well afford to allow that vote to stand. We do not know what complications will arise in connection with the new site that may /change the mind of parliament entirely, because the hon. gentleman is asking the vote under new conditions.


Haughton Lennox: Just a word, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. minister in regard to my not appreciating the point that this building, possibly being surrounded by a wall, or probably surrounded to some extent by a substantial iron railing, or paling, should not be in close association with the buildings here. I quite apprehend that

point, but the point I wish to make clear is that there should be some relation of the public buildings, one to the other, that it is not desirable that we should have certain public buildings here and the mint in an entirely different part of the city, unconnected as a matter of view, even, with the present location. I have too much of an eye for architectural beauty and the fitness of things to desire to see it even in the place where it was proposed, at one time, to erect a statue to our late sovereign the Queen-at the entrance to the public buildings here. I do not propose that it should be upon this plot of ground at all, but I do consider that when we were discussing the question before that it was pretty well understood a site had been fixed upon, and that while it was an isolated site in every way appearing to be suitable, was well within the view of the public buildings we have here and was to form part of a group of buildings proposed to be erected at a considerable cost. I say again, and I say it much more urgently than before, that I think it is not only the courtesy we should expect from the hon. minister that he should allow the matter to stand over, but it is the right of the representatives of the people, having regard to the changed conditions that have arisen, to ask that this item shall not be pressed at the present time. Let me be as distinct and definite as possible. X want to say here that having regard to the changed conditions I shall feel it to be my duty, at all events, to protest in the most vigorous way by vote, or otherwise, against this matter being pressed whilst the people's representatives are not in a position to know where the building is to be placed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not discussing, or we should not be discussing, to-night, the wisdom or unwisdom of establishing a Canadian mint. After several years of discussion on this subject the parliament of Canada came to the conclusion unanimously that it was a wise measure to have ; not a Canadian mint as was originally proposed, but a branch of the royal mint. I stated to my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) that if he had read that interesting speech of 1899 carefully he would have observed that at the very time at which I dissented from the motion then made respecting the establishment of a purely Canadian mint-in that very speech I suggested that if an arrangement could be made with Her Majesty's government for establishing a branch of the royal mint, that would give larger employment than a purely Canadian mint, that would probably be a very desirable arrangement. That arrangement which I then suggested was afterwards carried out. This was fully understood when parliament unanimously adopted that Act, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was one of its most cordial supporters. Therefore, we are not discussing to-day the
wisdom of establishing a branch of the royal mint in Canada. I admit it was to some extent a matter of national pride, but national pride is not less to-day than it was two years ago. If we are open to complaint at all it is not because we have adopted the policy of building a branch of the royal mint, but because there has been some delay. I see no reason in the world why we should not proceed with this vote so that if there has been delay in the past there shall not be delay in the future. We have unanimously adopted the policy of having a mint, my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) voted in support of it and he must not go back upon himself. I want him to be consistent. I want him to stand to his guns ; he supported the royal mint here only a few years ago for national and imperial reasons, and I do not want him to be less national and less imperial than at that time. I think I am correct in stating that when the proposal was made to establish a mint the question of the site was not then considered essential.


Haughton Lennox: Yes it was.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will not contradict my hon. friend, because he may have looked it up and I have not; we can see about that later. I do not think the question of site was at first considered essential, but it came up later. Without stating now where the site is to be, I am quite satisfied that the cost of the land will not materially change the situation. I can not go further than that. I can assure my hon. friend who has raised a doubt on that point, that from what I know as to the progress that has been made in getting a site, the cost of that site will not be a reason for changing our policy respecting the mint.


William Rees Brock: I stand up Mr. Chairman, again to justify myself. The Finance Minister has charged that when this mint was proposed I strongly favoured it. I strongly favour everything still that tends to imperial interests as well as Canadian interests, but even suppose I have changed my opinions in regard to this matter I can say as the Prime Minister said the other day that I have been green in my youth and that I have a right to change my opinion. But let me say, Sir, that I have not changed my opinion. I agree with the opinion of the Bank of Montreal, that it is a bad business, that it will be a losing business, that there is no profit in it, and if I led the majority of this House to carry me with it I simply did what the Finance Minister did himself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let us stand together then.


William Rees Brock: I contend that the establishment of a mint in this country will redound to the financial loss of this country, and if that be the case, it is not beneath the dignity of the Minister of Finance to recede from his mistake when he finds he has made one.

I do not see wliy I should drag Canada into a serious loss of $100,000 a year merely for the sake of national pride. We can distribute our national pride much more profitably in another direction. We can assist our great empire to which we belong much more liberally than we are doing at present, we can spend our money much more profitably than by spending it on a mint which the Finance Minister is going to take to his own particular glory instead of the national glory of this country. So far as my opinion goes, now I advise the members of this House to move very slowly in this matter. It is not merely the expenditure on the building that we have to consider.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much will it cost
a year ?


John Graham Haggart: The Act of Parliament provides for.an annual expenditure of $75,000.


William Rees Brock: But the Minister of Finance told us that he was making a profit by having the silver coined in England instead of here, and to that $75,000 you must add the loss which we incur in that regard. But you forget the patronage there is in connection with such a department. Why bless your heart they can keep Ottawa solidly Reform for years to come with the patronage they vyill have.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


William Rees Brock: I would ask the members of this House to be very careful about adopting the financial schemes of the Finance Minister. He will allow his financial ability to be directed in any way that will keep him where he is. This country knows it; we have all recognized it. It has been impressed upon me personally ; it has been impressed on this side of the House and I think the members on the other side of the House are impressed too. Therefore, I would ask gentlemen who have an interest in this country, and I think we all have, I would ask them to vote down this scheme even supposing we go back on our record. We have the advantage of the opinion of the First Minister that it is justifiable under certain circumstances to go back upon our record. I am not ashamed of changing my opinions if I change them in the right direction, and the right direction at the present time is to sit upon an expenditure of this kind. We are floating upon the crest of that wave of prosperity which the Finance Minister spoke of some years ago. He knows as well as any man in this House, and the sensible level headed business men of this country are warning him every day that we are approaching a time when things will not be as prosperous. We are not only putting up a mint now, but we are putting up a building in which we are going to carry on a very losing business. There is no need for it at all ; there is not a bit of glory in it; we are perfectly satisfied Mr. BROCK.
with our present currency and the manner in which our coinage is at present turned out. Gentlemen I ask you to oppose this Canadian mint in every possible way, and I do ask the Finance Minister to have the grace, once in his life, to acknowledge that he has been possibly wrong and to let this thing drop.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to admit that I may be possibly wrong sometimes.


William Rees Brock: And you are wrong now.


John Graham Haggart: I have to disagree from the hou. member (Mr. Brock) with regard to this expenditure. He objects to it because the expenditure may be directed in such a way as to keep the present government in power for many years. Thank goodness, the application of the money is not in their hands at all. It has to be paid direct to the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury in England.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What becomes of the patronage story ?


John Graham Haggart: It is the patronage part of my hon. friend's argument that I object to.


William Rees Brock: They will fix that.


John Graham Haggart: Even the officers are to be appointed by the imperial authorities. The Act provides for an annual expenditure of $75,000 to be paid into the hands of the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury in order to meet the salaries and contingencies of that department. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) need have no fear that it will be expended so as to injure any political party. I am with the hon. gentleman opposite that the mint should be erected in Ottawa. But I do not know that it will be a great success financially, or that a large amount of money will accrue to the country because of it. I heard the objection of Mr. Clouston. of the Bank of Montreal, as to the establishment of the mint, but I think it was predicated on the establishment of a Canadian mint. Under the new circumstances, I do not know whether there will be a profit or a loss ; but I think there will be no great loss of money, after all, in the establishment of this institution, as we have the assurance of the hon. Minister of Public Works that it will be built in Ottawa, and that after the building is completed the expenditure, in the shape of patronage, in the appointments to the different offices in the mint, will be in hands that will not exert a corrupt influence on the electors of Ottawa.


William Rees Brock: Notwithstanding all that has been said, I beg to move that the item be struck out. In doing that, we shall be on the safe side for Canada, at any rate.
Amendment negatived :	Yeas, 6 ; nays,
47.

Victoria Memorial Museum, $50,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote, as the House knows. My own personal view is to recommend council to purchase a block of land that will be sufficient ; and before I ask for any money to go on with this building, that will be reported to the House.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In other words, no site has been chosen as yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I want to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the necessity of a new press gallery in this chamber. The press gallery is crowded, and the press boys would like to have some more accommodation. If my hon. friend will kindly give his attention to my request, I shall be very much obliged indeed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that in view of the improvement which was made last year, giving so much satisfaction to members of the House, I think it will be proper to ask for a supplementary estimate to continue that improvement on the other side, and I will ask the architect to report what accommodation can be given to the press gallery.


Mr. LOGAN.: I think it is the unanimous opinion of the members of this House that the construction of a national museum is of the very greatest importance at the present time. I am not so much concerned about the construction of a mint; but so far as the geological museum is concerned, it seems to me that we are flirting with calamity to allow the precious records of this country to be kept in an old building which is liable at any moment to be swept away by fire, and I think the minister cannot act too quickly in securing a site and going on with the construction of a new building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am entirely opposed to the principle of voting a large amount of money year after year without knowing when it is to be used or whether it is to be used at all. It is a very unsound and pernicious principle, and I respectfully submit that the ministers ought to be prepared to give the House more information than they do as to whether the money is intended to be used or not. If it is not to be used we should not be asked to vote it, and if it is, then they ought to be in a position to give us some particulars about it. The hon. gentleman says the site is not yet selected. Is it intended that any portion of the vote shall be expended during the present year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I approve in a general way of the remarks
of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). In regard to this particular vote, I believe the desire of the great majority of the members of this House has been expressed by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), that some provision should be made for such a building as he has spoken of. Before we proceed with the work, I will bring the fullest possible information before the House, and I hope to give the full cost.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There were two or three sites in view when I left office. If I may be allowed, I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should not be cheeseparing in this matter. This is a very important building, and it should be located on a site that would do credit to this country. A few thousand dollars more or less for the purchase of a site for such a building should not be considered for a moment. I had first contemplated locating the building in the Major Hill Park, over the pond there ; but on reflection, and after having consulted some of my colleagues, I made up my mind that that would not do. I had another site in view, a very fine site indeed, and one which I thought would not be too expensive. It would not be in the public interest to say where it is.


John Graham Haggart: Would it be convenient to the buildings ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: In all the big-capitals of the world the public buildings are not together. It is out of the question to suppose that we can locate all our buildings in the same locality. It seems to me that a building of this kind should have an ornamental site, and I do not think the House will object to the purchase of a fine site, even if the price is a little high.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to be understood as opposing the expenditure. I am opposing the principle of asking the House to spend money without knowing what we are committing ourselves to. The hon. minister says that if we vote this item he will give us the information later. But, if we should object afterwards to vote any more money, we will be met with the statement that we had committed ourselves to this expenditure long ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My intention is to bring down all the details, and we will let the item stand.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.



Tuesday, March 24, 1903.