1903-05-08

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 169) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of James Sinclair Macdougall.-Mr. Malouin for Mr. Gallery.
Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the Nipigon Iron Range Railway Company.-Mr. Dy-ment.
Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. Stephens.
Bill (No. 172) to incorporate the City and County Bank of Canada.-Mr. Rosamond.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax) moved :: That the correspondence relating to the disallowance of the statutes of the province of British Columbia be printed forthwith, and for that purpose rule 94 be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask my hon. friend the Prime Minister whether he is able to give any information to the House as to the probable liability which we will incur by the reason of the recent developments in the Commonwealth of Australia with respect to the Pacific cable. It is not necessary for me to recall the circumstances to the House. I refer to those which have been given publicity in the public press. The colony of Victoria, it appears, made certain concessions to the Eastern Telegraph Company and the government of the Commonwealth proposes apparently, in lieu of those concessions, to grant a concession extending all over that commonwealth for a limited period of years. That is, briefly speaking, the position of the 1


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: matter, as I Understand it, but of course my right hon. friend would be much more familiar than I with the particulars. I understand that negotiations have taken place between this government and the government of Australia with regard to the policy of the latter in this connection, and it would be desirable for us to know what has taken place. If my right hon. friend is not in a position to inform the House now, he can take this as a notice, and give the information at a later day. But we would like to know what communications have taken place and what effect this change of attitude of the Commonwealth of Australia is likely to have on the Pacific cable scheme.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Briefly stated, the position is this : Shortly before the Commonwealth of Australia was formed the government, not of Victoria, but of New South Wales, had made a contract with the Eastern Telegraph Company, which is not, we think, in accord with the undertaking assumed by the different governments which participated in the establishment of the Pacific cable. IVe protested at the time, but when confederation of the Australian colonies came into effect it was too late to overcome the difficulty. The arrangement was made for an indefinite time, but the government of Australia have since contemplated making an arrangement whereby the Eastern Telegraph Company would shorten the monopoly granted them to ten years, but it would be extended, not only over New South Wales, but over the whole continent of Australia. We think that this last arrangement would be more detrimental than the first. It must be evident that if, during ten years, the Eastern Telegraph Company have power to establish telegraph stations all over Australia, at the end of the time they will have a practical monopoly and retain control of the whole business, and thus come in conflict with the Pacific cable. We have protested to the Australian government, and the best information we could give to the House would be to bring down the correspondence, which I will be happy to do at an early day.



SUPPLY-MONTREAL LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I believe there would be.']
Mr.   I@: I would like to ask the government whether they have any information to give regarding the strike at Montreal ? It may be that negotiations are in such a condition that it may be not advisable for the government to say anything, but if there is any information which they can give, the House is entitled to it. I would like to call attention to the fact that the Mayor of Montreal has said

that, from first to last, he has not had a single communication with the Minister of Labour. The language attributed to the Mayor of Montreal, referring to the hon. Minister of Labour, is as follows :-
Not a word have I heard from him, but J expect however, some news from that quarter to-night. Sir William Mulock's place is right here in Montreal at the present time. He is Minister of Labour as well as Postmaster General, and in a juncture like this should be right on the spot to do what he can to help along the trade of Canada.
I gathered from the debate in the House the other day, that some communication had been made to the government by both parties in Montreal, but it appears that the principal officer of that city has not been communicated with in any way by the members of the government, from whom we might have expected some communications with regard to the very serious condition of things existing there. However, I do not rise for the purpose of making any comments on that, but merely to ask whether the right hon. gentleman has any information which it would be proper to give to the House at the present time with regard to the condition of the strike ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I think it would not be advisable until some kind of settlement has been reached, to give fully the particulars as to the action of the government with regard to the strike. At the present moment, I have only to say-and I hope it will be satisfactory to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax)-that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfifontaine) are now in Montreal, having left yesterday, for the purpose of doing what they can to obtain a settlement.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have received a telegram from one of the large shipowners to this effect :
Union men beginning to return. Expect full settlement to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-slides and booms-St. Maurice district-improvements of boom works to facilitate the floating and storage of logs, &c. $50,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland).: This vote is to meet the requirements for improvements and additions to the works on the St. Maurice, to afford increased facilities for the descent of timber on that river. These improvements are found indispensible to meet the requirements of pulp mills and other large manufacturing establishments now engaged in developing the great resources in that district.


Mr. MORIN.: Will the hon. minister please tell us what is the revenue from these slides and booms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The revenue reported for 1901-2, the last year for which we have returns, was $13,565.48.


Mr. WILSON.: What is the amount spent for salaries and other expenses ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The vote to be asked for this year is about $47,000. I shall be glad to give information in more detail when we are discussing the vote for salaries on this work.


Uriah Wilson: Was there not a revenue to the government over and above expenses?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no.


Uriah Wilson: How much was the deficit ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) refer to the capital expenditure or the annual expenditure ?


Uriah Wilson: The annual. We want to know how much the operating expenses exceed the receipts.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the total expenditure on these slides and booms on the St. Maurice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be better if this question were brought up in the discussion on the proper item. I may say to my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) that, as near as 1 can figure, the deficit for the last year would be something like $23,000. In answer to the question of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), the total amount expended on the St. Maurice slides and booms has been $1,271,282.


John Graham Haggart: But the slides and booms in every other part of the country pay something over and above the expenses. Here is an expenditure of over $50,000 following an expenditure of $50,000 last year, and there is an expenditure on operating expenses of $23,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) did not understand that this vote of $50,000 is practically on capital account, for permanent improvements. The deficit is on operating expenses, for which there will be a vote later on.


John Graham Haggart: I understand perfectly well. I understand that $23,000 is expended in wages and other operating expenses.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the deficit.


John Graham Haggart: And a deficit too?
A deficit on operating expenditure. That

is the most extraordinary statement I have heard for a long time. The total receipts are $13,000 a year, and on that a deficit o.f $23,000, and this on works that have cost on capital account over a million dollars, on which we spent $50,000 last year and for which we are asked $50,000 this year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The receipts, no doubt, will be very largely increased when the improvements are made. But, under present conditions, I do not think they will be equal to the operating expenses. My hon. friend will see that, as I have stated, over a million and a quarter of dollars has been expended on these works. The $50,000 I am now asking for is reported by the chief engineer to be necessary to put these works in a position to be useful and to keep them from being damaged. With the large amount spent during the past year or two, the work will be put in very fair permanent condition. The question asked by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) was as to operating expenses, which are quite separate from this.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What kind of improvements does the minister intend to make with this $50,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At Point a Trudel: Construction of two mooring piers 40 feet by 40 feet by 35 feet, $7,000 ; construction of 12,000 feet of five ply booms, $11,000; at Ste. Flore ; reconstruction of one mooring pier 30 by 40 by 30, $5,000. At Les Hetres : Construction of a new mooring pier 30 by 40 by 30, $7,000 ; construction of 600 feet of two ply boom, $2,500. At Pointe a Marchesault:	Construction of 450 feet of five ply boom, $4,000. At Point a Bernard :	Construction of a
mooring pier 40 by 40 by 35, $7,000. At Us aux Toutres : Completion of a jam pier 30 by 30 by 10, $1,200. Add for works not yet determined and contingencies, $5,300. Total grant required for 1903-4, $50,000.


Uriah Wilson: The minister finds fault with our asking for detailed information on this item. Will he kindly tell us where we can ask for it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not find fault, I merely suggested that these answers would be more appropriate under collection of revenue, item 238.


Mr. BLAIN.: Did I understand the minister to say that there was a deficit of about $20,000 last year ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain a statement made by his predecessor on this item in the House last year when he said:
We made out of these St. Maurice booms and slides $20,000 last year. This is one of the rare works that brings us financial results. We are earning more money than we have spent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is true that the records of the department Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
show that in the year to which the exminister was then referring, the revenue was $21,322, speaking for the year 1901-2. We have not the returns for this year. No doubt the revenue this year will be pretty near twice what it was last year. We estimate it will be about $25,000.


Mr. BELL.: I find on reference to the Auditor General's Report, volume 1, page B-316, last year, the total expenditure was $153,012, and the total revenue was $13,000. There was only $50,000 voted last year, or $103,000 less than was expended. There was consequently a deficit of $140,000 for that service last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is referring to the year 1901-2.


John William Bell: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a large amount expended in addition to the vote. I think there was a special warrant providing for the expenditure of that large amount on account of the breaking of the booms and a large number of logs being lost, in July of that year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the policy of the government with regard to the construction of these booms ? Is it the policy to build these booms all over Canada, in rivers where lumbering operations are conducted, or is it a policy that is pursued on this river for some special reasons ? Are there any conditions affecting this river which distinguish it from rivers of a similar character all over Canada in which persons interested in lumbering operations have to build their own booms ? Then there is another matter which I think we ought to know something about. We voted last year $50,000, we are spending this year $50,000 more. Are the works of such a character that we may expect to have the government, year by year, coming down with appropriations of $50,000 to $100,000 for this service upon the river in question ? When is this expenditure to end, or is it like the song of the brook, which goes on for ever, though men may come and men may go '! May we expect any finality with regard to these expenditures ? Then there is another matter I do not understand. There was a certain amount of revenue from these works last year, and a certain amount spent for operating expenses. What are they exactly, and what is the net deficit on the operations for the year ? From what the hon. gentleman said, there seems to be a deficit in the operation of these works of $23,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that is about the sum.


Robert Laird Borden: We ought to know what the gross revenue is, what the gross operating expenses are, and what the *net cost to the country is, of operating the works upon this river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been no change of policy since confederation with regard to slides and booms. I understand that there are three systems that have been kept up in the Dominion, the Trent valley, the Ottawa and the St. Maurice. On most of the streams,
I think the companies attend to these works themselves. This has certainly been a very expensive work. Since 1867 the expenditures have amounted, as I have said, to $1,271,282. I am informed by the chief engineer of the department that a year ago these works were swept away by flood and storm, and it required this large expenditure to make repairs. There has been a great development in that district during the past few years. I am informed that the improvements made last year, for which this $50,000 was voted; puts the system in fairly good shape. It would be rash for me to say that works of this magnitude, costing over a million and a quarter dollars, would not cost something each year to maintain, outside the operating expenses. However, I may give the information given to me by the chief engineer of the department as to what state he expects this vote will put the works in. He believes, that, without any unusual accident or unforseen occurrence, this amount will complete the construction that is necessary and any vote that will be asked for in future years will be for repairs.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this vote which is being asked for now for new construction, or is it for a portion of the repairs that have already been undertaken ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for new construction entirely.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this new construction necessary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Owing to the immense increase in the number of logs coming down to the pulp mills. The chief engineer informs me that last season over 3,000,000 logs passed down through these slides and booms. Of course, that would materially increase the revenue for the present year when the returns are made.


John Graham Haggart: Why does not the hon. Minister of Public Works put a duty on the logs coming down so that the government shall be put to no loss from the building of these works as they do in every other part of the Dominion ? On the Madawaska, the Coulonge and every other river on which there are booms and slides provided by the government we get a handsome return from them. This river is the only one on which it would seem that there is an immense deficit. The justification, as I understand, for the issue of the Governor General's warrant was, that a portion of this work was swept away by a freshet which led to the * abnormal expenditure of $153,000. Was that the actual damage done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was really more than that. This $153,000 was all expended in making these repairs.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. minister answer the first question I asked him ?
I made the statement that in every other part of the country, the parties who use these booms and slides pay a fair amount for them. I may be misinformed, but I understand that the amount they pay yields more to the government than that which they are called upon to expend. Why is it that a like charge is not made on the St. Maurice, so as to recoup the government for the enormous expenditure they are making in that section of the country ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that the dues collected are the same on the St. Maurice as on other rivers and that they are the same as are charged by the companies. The reason for the deficit is the large amount expended on these works and the apparently large amount required for operating expenses each year.


John Graham Haggart: It is no explanation at all that the hon. minister has received from the officers of the department to say that the charges are the same as those made by the companies. You charge a man the same for the use of a boom at the mouth of the Coulonge, for instance, where the expenditure is very small, as you do for a boom on the St. Maurice, where the expenditure is large. Why should he pay the same for the small advantage that he gets from the use of a boom at the mouth of a river as he would pay where there has been an enormous expenditure on works like those in the St. Maurice ? Why should you not make a larger charge on account of the larger expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that these tolls were fixed by Order in Council many years ago and when he, perhaps, was a member of the government. There has been no change made since that time. The point that the hon. gentleman has raised, in view of the large operating expenses, is an important one, and I shall consider it worth my while to look into it, and see whether there cannot be some change made with regard to the tolls which are being charged, although they are now the same as they have been for many years past.


John Graham Haggart: One reason that was given, I remember, when we were in the government, for the dockage or slidage received for the passage of logs down the St. Maurice, was that it fully recouped the government for the expenditure. But, things have changed within the last five or six years. There seems to be a greatly increased expenditure. I am taking the statement of the hon. Minister of Public

Works that was made a couple of years ago, and that was read by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to the committee that that was one of the few works on which an expenditure had been made by the government which fully recouped them for the outlay.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he could state the amount of money that has been spent on these works within the last six years ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be very pleased to have the department make up a memorandum of the amount expended during the past six years on these works.


Uriah Wilson: Is it a large amount ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it must have been a very large amount. There has been a deficit every year since these works have been commenced between tlie receipts and operating expenses.


Uriah Wilson: How long is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These works have been carried on by the Dominion since 1867, and previous to that, I believe, they were erected by the old province of Canada in 1851.


Mr. HALE.: May I ask the hon. minister if these booms and slides are used for any other purpose than the passing of timber and logs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no other use that I know of except the passing of logs through.


Frederick Harding Hale: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why it is that the government has anything to do with this matter ? It is not the custom in other parts of this Dominion to expend money simply for the use of lumbermen. They have to build their own slides, booms and piers in all other sections of the country and especially in the province that I come from. I would like to know why it is that the government is called upon to spend a dollar on these works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Hale) must know that he is mistaken, notwithstanding the fact that he has been a member of this House for a long time. It is not correct to say that no expenditure has been made by the government in other places in regard to these works. I have explained already this afternoon that ever since confederation there have been public' works upon the Trent, the Ottawa and the St. Maurice. As this work was first started in 1851, I can hardly give the reason that prompted the parliament of that day in undertaking it, but certainly, it has been continued every year since then up to confederation and every year since confederation. I am not Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
prepared at the present moment to announce any change of policy in regard to it. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is one worthy of consideration. No change in the tolls has been made for many years. I could not say offhand, nobody could expect me to, and I do not think any hon. member would take the responsibility of saying without inquiry into the subject whether these tolls should be increased or not, but it is a question well worthy of consideration. Considering the difference between the receipts and the expenditures, it may be well to consider whether a saving cannot be made.


Frederick Harding Hale: Will the minister tell me whether there was ever a dollar of public money spent in the province of New Brunswick for booms and slides in the interests of the lumbermen of that province ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not aware of any expenditure having been made by the Dominion parliament in New Brunswick, on booms or slides.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Did I understand the minister to sav thet the in,inrno fmm tiiGgg works was Si3,000 a year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. I was asked what the revenue for 1901-2 was and I answered that it was $13,565.48, but that is not the annual revenue.


Mr. BARKER.: Is that gross or net ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Gross. I can give in round figures the gross revenue from 1896 to 1902. In 1896 it was $22,000; in 1897-8, $29,000; in 1898-9. $29,000; in 1899-1900, $16,000; in 1900-1901. $21,000; in 1901-1902, $13,565; and the estimate for the present year will be about $30,000.


Bennett Rosamond: Considering the enormous capital expenditure that has been made on these works, and considering the small revenue obtained from them it seems to me that the government should take into their Serious consideration, whether they should not abandon these works altogether. I do not see why we should go on spending large sums of money annually for a work which is of no public benefit to the country, and only for the benefit of private individuals. I cannot understand how such a policy can recommend itself to the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot agree to the proposition that the development of that section of the country is not a benefit to Canada generally. I may say to my hon. friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Hale) that although, so far as I know, the government has not built or maintained the slides and booms in that province, yet they have expended a good

deal of money on improving the rivers for flic floating of logs. I think'it was probably in the interest of the country that that was done, and it is recognized that the removing of obstructions and the improvement of waterways for the purpose of developing our natural resources, is a wise expenditure. In the earlier days of the country these works were thought so important that many of them were started with public money.


Bennett Rosamond: I cannot understand what justification there can be for an expenditure which is only in the interest of the private individuals upon these rivers. Why should the public be asked to pay out money for the benefit of private individuals, when the public get no return from it. What excuse is there for it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same excuse as for any other expenditure. When we build a canal or a railway, or even take the tariff, these are all more beneficial to some people than to others, but it is supposed to be for the general benefit of the country. The maintenance of these slides and booms are supposed to be one of the most useful works carried on by the Dominion for the benefit of the district in which they are situated. I am not prepared to say that some changes should not be made. That matter will have my consideration. We could perhaps make the operating expenses less, or as has been suggested by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) there might be a change in the tolls which would make the annual expenditure and revenue come closer together. I am not prepared to say that something in that direction may not be done, but I do not think that at the, present time the country would be prepared to endorse the abandonment of these important works altogether, unless they are taken over by companies as they have been on some of the other important streams.


Mr. McGOWAN.: It seems to me that it is a provincial matter altogether. Has the minister considered the question of handing over these works in the provinces ?


Frederick Harding Hale: While it is true that there has been a small amount of money expended on the rivers of New Brunswick for improving navigation, it is also true that no Dominion money has been expended on these rivers for the purpose of assisting the lumbermen to drive their logs.


Samuel Barker: The gross revenue was 813.000 last fiscal year, and the minister is taking an appropriation of $47,000 this year for the actual expenses of the staff in operating these works. Therefore we only realize less than one-third our annual expenditure. In addition there has been spent on capital account for the last four years including this year, a sum of $170,000-or at
least we made appropriations for that amount. We have expended all this money on a concern which is repaying us only about one-third of our annual expenditure for operating it.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister lias given us a statement of the gross revenue each year since 1896 ; would he be good enough to give us a statement of the annual expenditure each year since 1896. Can he also inform me whether or not in the total expenditure of $1,280,000 he includes the amount for operating expenses as well as the capital expenditure so called?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure for construction from 1867 to the 30th of June is $508,956.86, and the total expenditure for repairs, staff, and maintenance for the same period is $762.515.29, making a total expenditure of $1, 271,471.


Robert Laird Borden: What about the other question which I asked the hon. gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I promised to bring down the information as to the expenditure both on capital and on operating expenses since 1896. That I will bring down to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman for just a little more information ? I have an indefinite idea of the nature of these works, but I would like the hon. gentleman to give us as full a statement as he can as to the exact purpose they fulfil.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have never been myself on that part of the St. Maurice river ; but I understand that at a great many points there are rapids and falls. The slides are for the purpose of floating logs past those rapids and falls, and the booms of course are built for the storing of the logs, so that they should not be lost by those bringing them down from the upper country.


Robert Laird Borden: Works of exactly the same kind in the province of Nova Scotia are undertaken by private individuals, even on more navigable rivers than I think this one is. Is this river navigable for any other purpose than the passing of logs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A very considerable portion of it is navigable. I could not say offhand how much. I may say that in the province of Quebec these are the only works of the kind which are now maintained by the government. In the province of Ontario the same conditions prevail as in the province of Nova Scotia, with two exceptions. These works are being very rapidly placed under the control of the lumber companies. I understand that on the Ottawa river the companies find that they can operate these works at much less

26S8
cost than the government tolls amount to, and I have had an application lately to hand over to the companies the balance of the works on the Ottawa river in charge of the government. This is the only instance in the province of Quebec where works of this description are operated and maintained by the government.


Mr.   BTAIN@: In view of the very small revenue derived from these works last year, $13,000, will the hon. gentleman tell us how many men the government have employed on them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope to be able to give the hon. gentleman that information later this afternoon.


John William Bell: It seems to me a distinction should be drawn between the different parts of the works for which this vote is taken. There may be a strong necessity for improving the character of the bed of the river, and there may be some necessity for a public expenditure to provide slides ; but why should the government of Canada provide the lumbermen with booms, which are generally considered a necessary part of the outfit of any company handling lumber V I would like the hon. gentleman to tell us what portion of this money is spent on slides, and what portion on booms.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must remind my hon. friend that during the years he has sat in this House he has never offered that criticism before. As I have stated already, these works were commenced in 1851, and since confederation their construction and maintenance have been carried on just as they are at present. While I am willing to admit that the operating expenses are a fair subject of criticism, I am unable to announce at the present moment any change of policy in regard to their maintenance.


Robert Laird Borden: I know numerous instances in the province of Nova Scotia in which lumbermen operating on navigable rivers are obliged not only to make the booms, but to buy land on each side of the river for this purpose. It may be that the importance of the lumbering industry on this river makes some difference. I do not know how important it is. Apparently, however, it is not important enough to make this a very profitable matter for the government. There seems to be no good reason why the government should deal with one part of the country in this way, and not with another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Robert Laird Borden: No, it is not. Another rather curious circumstance is that in one year the revenue from the works was $29,000, whereas last year it was only $13,000.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Without dealing in any way with the expenditure on these works, I think it is necessary to bear in mind in whom the property in them is vested. They were created previous to confederation and were the property of the old province of Canada, and at confederation they passed into the possession of the Dominion of Canada, being part of the works referred to in the third schedule of the British North America Act as river and lake improvements. They were taken over and have been dealt with ever since as Dominion property. With regard to the question whether the time has come when we should abandon these works on which so much money has been expended, the question arises, to whom should we abandon them '! Are we going to allow them to fall into decay and become an obstacle to navigation instead of being an aid to navigation ? We cannot force the lumber company to take them over, nor can we force the province to do so. What are we going to do with them ? Perhaps I might say a word respecting the character of the improvements. The St. Maurice river is a very large river on which large lumbering operations have heretofore been carried on. It was at one time the centre of the manufacture of large quantities of pine. Of course the pine has all disappeared, and for a number of years these works were not looked upon as of very great value, and did not produce very great results, but since spruce lumber has gone up in price, these works have become of greater value, as there is a great number of spruce limits on the river. In order to drive the logs, they must pass two of the biggest falls of the Dominion, one which is the Shaw-enegan. It is impossible to drive down these falls, so that a slide is erected at that particular point for the purpose of avoiding the falls. That is absolutely necessary in order that the logs may reach safely the mouth of the St. Maurice, which empties into the St. Lawrence. In driving the logs, you have not only to pass the Shawenegan Falls, but also the Tuque Falls. 1 think that some hon. gentlemen have seen the Shawenegan Falls and would know how impossible it would be for logs to come down them. It is to enable that river to be used for the purpose of lumbering that these slides and booms were built. The booms are not the usual booms used by lumbermen, but are booms to collect the logs at the head and at the foot of the falls, where they are gathered together and driven down the next slide. I may say that there is no other river in our province, except the Saguenay, on which there are slides built by the government. The slides on the Saguenay were formerly built by the government but abandoned years ago and taken over by the firm of Price, Bros., who then had a practical monopoly of the lumber industry on that river. At present

no other slides are maintained in the province of Quebec by the government except those I have mentioned.


Mr. INGRAM.: Where do these logs float to ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Down to the mouth of the River St. Maurice, which empties into the St. Lawrence immediately below Three Rivers. At that point there are some of the largest lumber mills of the country. It is known as Three Rivers, because the St. Maurice has three mouths there through which it empties into the St. Lawrence. The pulp mills are above the Shawenegan Falls. The point I wanted to make is that these slides, so far as my knowledge goes, became the property of the Dominion at confederation. We assumed control over them, and I fail to see how it is possible for us to abandon them.


Andrew B. Ingram: The other' evening we passed an item of $100,000 for improvements at Three Rivers, and I understood that that item had something to do with the river down which these logs are floated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That $100,000 was for wharfs on the St. Lawrence and these slides are on the St. Maurice.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then none of this $100,000 is to be spent on the St. Maurice at all ?
Tlie< MINISTER OF JUSTICE. No, the slides are a long way up.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: If the government were willing to sell the booms and slides, would they be allowed to do so ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Parliament could give the government authority.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Then I would advise the government to sell them as quickly as possible or to give them away.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the case of settlers coming in to| take up waste lands and cut logs, do they enjoy the same privilege as lumbermen ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Every one is on equal terms. The tolls are fixed by Order in Council.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Are not the booms used for these slides In the same condition as the booms on the Ottawa-specially for the benefit of lumbermen and nobody else. I cannot see why the same principle should apply now as in years gone by. In my younger days, lumber consisted of square timber.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no square timber now on the St. Maurice.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Therefore the circumstances have changed, and the same principles do not apply. The slides were built to allow square timber to come down, and it was necessary to have slides. But I 85
venture the assertion that there is no demand for them now for square timber. The booms were built-specially for the benefit of lumbermen who were floating down logs. The logs come down altogether, and when they reach a certain place they are stopped by booms and collected by their different owners. While I would not have the slightest hesitation in supporting any expenditure for the benefit of the public as a whole, I cannot see why we should maintain booms at this enormous expense for the benefit of these lumbermen.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have much more use for them than before. But the point my hon. friend raises is one on which I have no opinion to express. In reply to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I beg to say that the reason why there was less revenue in the year 1901-2, as compared with the previous year, was the very low water which caused the logs to become stranded at various points, so that they could not get down. That will account to some extent for the large increase this year in the tolls collected.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Are the tolls charged so much per log or per thousand feet board measure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So much per log. If my hon. friend from Peel would look at page 26 of part 7 of the Public Works Report, he would find a list of employees.
Slides and booms generally, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that we spenti up to the 31st of December, 1902, $956.96. This was on the Ottawa slides and booms and the St. Lawrence slides and booms and the Gatineau slides and booms. This sum has been voted every year for many years, and sometimes a considerable amount is expended. The year before there were some $3,000 spent, and this year some $700. The expenditure depends on the urgent necessity of the work.
Roads and bridges-Portage du Fort-bridge over the Ottawa-works of reconstruction, provided the Quebec and Ontario governments contribute $5,000, including approaches, $16,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote of $16,000 that has been taken for several years. Negotiations have been going on between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec ; but now the money has been paid over by these provinces under agreement with the conditions on which this vote was given. The plans have been prepared and advertisements are out for tenders.


Mr. CLANCY.: Has any expenditure been made by the federal government in the meantime ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No expenditure this year.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is this an entirely new work, or has a bridge at any time previously been erected at this point across the Ottawa ? Because, it seems to me that the policy of building such works, unless we are already committed to them, is not a very good policy. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec should build their own bridges. Of course, there may be circumstances which justify this.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This bridge was built by the Dominion before. But it was washed away. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec contributed to the original structure, and the same conditions are to be carried out now. Of course, there is no rule or principle laid down for the building of these bridges. We have given assistance to interprovincial bridges in different parts of the country. Prom what I have heard, this is a very deserving case. There is a vote for another bridge, not on the same river, which will come up at a later stage, which also, I think, deserves assistance from this House.


Samuel Barker: Is this the bridge, mentioned in the Auditor General's Report for 1901-2, page V-320, on which $16,000 has been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for the reconstruction of the bridge at the same place, from the main shore on the Ontario side to Portage du Fort Island.


Samuel Barker: Is this the same bridge ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Practically the same. This is for the construction of a bridge from the island to the other shore.


James Clancy: I would like to understand this clearly. In view of the statement of the hon. minister that the contribution of the two provinces have been forthcoming, and that plans have been prepared for the work, 1 asked the hon. minister if any expenditure had been made in the meantime, and I understand him to say none had been made. My bon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) points out that a sum equal to that now asked for, and is described as a revote, has been expended on this same work. The hon. minister.now explains, as I understand him, that this has been a revote from year to year, and that no money has been expended by the federal government, pending the settlement of the question of the contribution by the provinces.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I replied to the question as I understood it. I am strictly correct in stating that no money was expended, but that this is a revote of the total amount. My hon.


James Clancy: friend refers to a bridge which has been built from the shore to the island. It is not the same work as this, but it is practically in the same locality. Until this portion is built, the river is not bridged from province to province. There are two bridges, one from the shore to the island, and the other from the island to the opposite shore. The bridge referred to by the hon. gentleman, that from the Ontario shore to the island, was completed during the past year.


James Clancy: What province does the island belong to ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that he believes that the island is on the Quebec side.


James Clancy: Then, this is a Quebec bridge.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The Ottawa river divides the provinces, so that this is an interprovincial bridge. Blit the river itself is divided by the island.


James Clancy: I cannot see that exactly. The river between an island that belongs to Quebec and the Quebec main shore is not a provincial boundary. The provincial boundary is on the other side, between the Island belonging to Quebec and the Ontario shore. As I understand it, the bridge from the island to the Ontario side has been built, having been contributed to by Ontario, and now the bridge we are called upon to vote this money for, is wholly in the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that we utilize the island to bridge the Ottawa river. I am not sure as to control of the island, but the deputy minister tells me that he is under the impression that the island is towards the centre of the stream, more on the Quebec than on the Ontario side.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I do not think that makes any difference. Take, for instance, an island in the St. Lawrence. An island on the American side is United States territory, and they have exclusive control of It. We may use the stream on either side for navigation purposes, but the territory is American territory. I think the same principle applies here. I am not finding fault with the expenditure of money, hut if I understand it aright, the Ottawa river is the boundary line between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. That river is already bridged. That forms the boundary between the two provinces. The bridge that is to be built is from territory that belongs to the province of Quebec to the mainland. The river is as much a river of the province of Quebec as though it were a river in the mainland. That is the view I take of it. Has Quebec contributed to this bridge that has been built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: When ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What amount ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five thousand dollars. I understand the matter as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) does. But this has been considered in the past as an interprovincial bridge, and it is being treated as such now.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman tell us generally how much has been spent on the bridge during the last ten years, and how much has been contributed by the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: According to the memorandum I have here the expenditure was $43,098.27. I have not a memorandum of the amount contributed in the past by the provinces for this work.


James Clancy: Does the $16,000 the hon. gentleman is asking for now, cover the expenditure of last year ? Or did he expend $16,000 last year, that amount being supplemented by $5,000 from each of the two provinces, and is he now asking for another $16,000 to be supplemented in the same way ? And, if so, will this complete the work ?
motion from the department is that no further appropriation is required for that work, and that this $16,000, along with the contributions from the provinces, will complete the structure.


David Henderson: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, my information is that the estimate of $16,000 is the total amount we are asked to contribute for this work.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman expended $16,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But that is completed, we are not asking for anything more.


James Clancy: I confess my dullness, because I am not able to understand what the hon. gentleman means. Here is a work for constructing a portion or a whole of a bridge that is considered interprovincial. The hon. gentleman says that a sum of forty odd thousand dollars has been expended on that from the outset; that he is unable to say what proportion has been contributed by the Dominion and the respective provinces; that the $16,000 was expended on that portion of the bridge last year, and $16,000 more is being asked for this year


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was asked what amount had been expended on the old bridge in this particular place where we are now proposing to build a new one, and I said $42,098.27. But l said that bridge was practically out. of existence, and that to be of any use it has to be renewed. I explained that the other portion of the bridge on the Ontario shore has been built and completed. My Sufor-851

can take sucli action as they think fit. I hope the minister will not press this vote. The vote of $1(5,000 was passed last year, possibly, without much discussion, and without a full understanding of the position in which we stood. I understand from the minister that no money was spent on this particular bridge, it was on another bridge that the estimate of last year was asked for. Then we have the matter much mixed; but X certainly understood the minister to say that the bridge for which he is now asking this $16,000 was entirely swept away, and that practically we have no bridge. I do not understand that any construction has yet been entered upon. The money we voted last year is asked to be revoted again. If an expenditure of $16,000 took place last year, in the estimates it would appear that the $16,000 now asked is' a revote of wliat we voted last year. I do not understand that any money has been expended on this bridge, and I founded my argument for a reconsideration of the whole policy of the government on the ground that no expenditure was made last year, that the bridge had been swept away, that nothing has been done to restore it, and that we are now in the same position as if the bridge had never been built at that point. We have uoth-ing to lose by striking this item out of the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister tell us out of what vote the money was expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will have it hunted up and hand it to my hon. friend. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) seems to expect me to be something more than human. I am to have a new policy for the old Conservative party and a new policy for the present government in all these matters. If in years gone by we voted $40,000 or $50,000 for a similar work, he seemed to think that the policy was in the interest of the country, that it was all right, when the money was expended by the government he was supporting. Last year we voted $16,000 for this very piece of work, as we did the year before, but for the other half of it. He has for several years found no fault with the policy that has been carried out. My hon. friend seemed to think that building an interprovincial bridge by the old government, costing $40,000 or $50,000, was good policy and in the public interest.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: May I ask the hon. minister : Did he think so ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I did, and so far as my judgment goes we may differ as to some matters, but I really think, when we look into the conditions connected with this work, we will find that it deserves to get a proper appropriation. There are other appropriations, Mr. HENDERSON.
perhaps, voted in regard to which we may have our own individual opinions, but, in this particular case, I think, taking all the circumstances into consideration, it is one that commends itself to parliament. When you have built half of this work, when parliament has twice been committed to it by making appropriations towards it, and when this is the third time that a vote is asked when the money is really required to be expended, I appeal to hon. gentlemen if it is not a vote that commends itself to our favourable consideration.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no doubt that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have agreed to contribute towards the construction of this bridge, and there is no doubt that the Dominion government has contributed also. But, if the hon. minister will refer to page Y-320 of the Auditor General's Report, he will see that the method adopted by the government for doing this work is very objectionable. In the first place, the hon. gentleman will see that the Berlin Iron Bridge Company received on the contract for the superstructure of the bridge, complete, $13,700. I would like to know whether the Berlin Iron Bridge Company in their contract agreed to put up this bridge themselves and find the labour for that price.	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that that was the contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: And did the bridge contractors furnish their own labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, there is a total expenditure of $16,497.36. The hon. gentleman will please deduct $13,700 from $16,497.36, and he will see that will leave a balance of about $2,700 or $3,000. I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that we have first an inspector who received $409.95, then we have, for building approaches and foreman, $633.60, then we have a conductor who received $215.25, and then we have three general officials from Ottawa going out to do something around this bridge at $131.54. We have had the department stating all along to this House that they had a number of architects in the department ; yet, we find that there was paid to an architect, or to some person, 5 per cent of the contract price of this bridge for preparing the plans-some gentleman in the Canadian Pacific Railway office in Montreal. If this method is to be pursued in constructing a work that only costs $13,700, it is very extraordinary and some different method ought to be pursued than that. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can explain it away. That is as I understand it from the figures I have quoted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find the hon. gentleman's criticism is perfectly fair. The chief engineer informs me that the reason this 5 per cent was paid for these plans was that they would have to employ a special staff for bridges of this description, and they find it cheaper to get an outside expert to prepare these plans and specifications than to have them made in the department.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What is there special about an iron bridge ? I think if you have not engineers who are capable of preparing plans for an iron bridge at this day in our history, you had better ship them and get somebody in their places who are up to date.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 think it is probably not from lack of qualification on the part of engineers of the department that this work is not done there. There are several engineers in the department, I think, who are capable of preparing plans and specifications for this work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the hon. minister is truly honest, was it not from the fact that somebody wanted a job that had not one V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As the hon. ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not in his place to-day, I am hardly able to answer that question as to the motives that prompted him in regard to some of these expenditures. I suppose that all I can do is to promise to try and do a little better in the future.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to assume that the hon. minister is not going to pursue this method of conducting public works in the future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a very wide question. What I do say is that I will try if possible to make some reduction in regard to these incidental expenses. This is a technical question. The chief engineer informs me that he finds it cheaxier to deal with a work of this kind outside than to deal with it in the department. Although I am responsible as the minister, I do not want to dispute the chief engineer in regard to that. I think that considerable saving may be made in this direction, and as far as I am personally concerned, I will endeavour to see if it cannot be done.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It appears to me perfectly absurd to say that with an expenditure of $13,700, on an iron superstructure we should spend $1,900 for supervising the job. If we have a plan prepared at $000, and two or three superintendents getting $1,500, it strikes me that there is something radically wrong, and that the hon. minister should not hesitate to tell us to-day that he will not only try to do better, but that he will say that this will not happen again. 1 would suggest to the hon. minister that he
should assume the responsibility for this expenditure. The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is responsible. The hon Minister of Justice is just as responsible as the hon ex-Minister of Public Works is for this expenditure. I will not allow the hon. Minister of Justice to shirk the responsibility of the ministry because the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works is not in the House. The ministers are just as much responsible for his conduct when he was Minister of Public Works in the administration as they would be if he were Minister of Public Works to-day. They should not attempt to shirk their responsibility. It would be more manly for them to justify the expenditure instead of attempting to shirk their responsibility by saying that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works is not in the House. The hon. Minister of Justice was in office when the money was expended. The hon. Minister of Public Works was not in the cabinet at that time, but the other members of the government are just as responsible as the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why am 1 brought into this thing ?


Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).: We want justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is not what you want.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) to be fair. 1 have stated before that as a member of the cabinet I do not desire to shirk the responsibility, nor do I know that the premier or any other member of the cabinet does. The question asked me was whether this had been given to an outsider for some reason or other, and I said I could not answer that. We have to take the responsibility for the expenditure, and unless a minister acted without consulting his colleagues-even then I suppose the Prime Minister is responsible for his conduct.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the money been paid by the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am informed that the money has been paid over and is now in the hands of the Crown. The arrangement was that each province was to contribute $5,000 towards the whole cost and that money has been paid.


Andrew B. Ingram: We are paying $32,000 as against $10,000 paid by both local governments. Has the minister given a contract for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract has not been let.


Richard Blain: The wording of the item
would indicate that there is some doubt
as to the provinces paying their share.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tlie money lias been paid.


Richard Blain: Which province does the island on which the bridge will rest, belong to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. It might possibly be a federal island, but there is a recent decision of the Privy Council which might place it in the province of Quebec. I cannot give a judicial opinion on that.


Richard Blain: Would not that be a matter for consideration before the bridge is built.
The MINISTER OB1 PUBLIC WORKS. I cannot see that that enters into it at all. Different decisions have been given by the Privy Council as to the rights of the provinces in the ownership of the foreshore and so on, but there is no doubt about this being a navigable stream, and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works.


Uriah Wilson: It is not an ordinary thing for the Dominion government to build this kind of a bridge, and the minister should give us the reasons why the government was induced to build this particular bridge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given a history of the bridge. It was the policy of the old government and it happens to be the policy of this government.


Uriah Wilson: It is no answer to say that it was the policy of the old government. The late government was defeated, I think not for the good of the country. It is no justification for a minister of the Crown to say that he is following this course because his predecessors did. The House ought to know what induced this government to undertake this work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that it was the policy of this government because it was the policy of the late government.


Uriah Wilson: You gave it as a reason.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not. I said it was a policy that was in existence for a great many years and that it was the policy of the late government. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) wanted to make out that this was the first case of such a thing in the history of the country, and I told him that it was not a new thing, that it is a policy which has been in existence for a great many years, and that it was followed by the late government. The principle that governs this was to assist the people of these districts to have a bridge across a river under the control of the government, and which river divides the two provinces.


Uriah Wilson: I am just as wise now as I was before. If this river is bridged


Richard Blain: [DOT]
by the Dominion government because it is a navigable stream, does the same rule apply to all navigable rivers. The minister finds fault because I said that he tried to justify this because it had been the policy of the late government and the policy of all governments since confederation. That is no argument for me. The question is whether or not it is right that this should be done, and I want to know the reason why the government chose this particular river to build a bridge over. If it is done in all cases then that might be an answer, but if it is only done in special cases why was this particular stream selected ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member tries to make out that I said we did it because the late government did it. I did not say anything of the kind. I said it has been a common practice by both governments.


Uriah Wilson: That is no reason.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say it was a reason, and I am glad my hon. friend agrees with me that it is no reason. The reason is because it is an interprovincial bridge and after consideration it was thought well to give a grant towards it.


Uriah Wilson: Is that a common practice.	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been a common practice.


Uriah Wilson: I understood the minister to say in his previous explanation that this was out of the ordinary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not insinuate anything of the kind.


Samuel Barker: The leader of the opposition asked the minister to give him the authority under which this money was spent, and the minister promised to do so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Deputy Minister misunderstood the question. This money was voted last year and the year before. But what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition wanted, was the vote the money was spent out of in the year 1901-1902. I will have that hunted up and sent across.
Ottawa city-bridges over the Ottawa river, the slides and the Rideau canal and approaches thereto-ordinary repairs, $7,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to provide for the usual necessary ordinary renewals and repairs to bridges in the city of Ottawa and the approaches thereto, the maintenance of which was assumed by the government under Order in Council of the 17th of June, 1885.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us where the Minto bridge is ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think there is any bridge under the jurisdiction of the department of Public Works known as the Mlnto bridge.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know that, but I wanted to find out where it was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy'minister informs me that one of the bridges on the way to Rideau Hall, under the control of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, is called Minto bridge.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that the Ottawa Improvement Commission had no control over bridges. I understood their work was to beautify the streets of Ottawa. I woidd like to know whether, in building this bridge, they have not gone outside of their duties.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think one of the first works they did was to build the bridges across the Rideau river. Tlie bridges have no connection with the department in any way.


Uriah Wilson: Is the Dominion government responsible for all the bridges over the canals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 think probably the Dominion government build and maintain all the bridges over the canals throughout the Dominion.
Dominion traffic bridges throughout Canada, including approaches, $5,000.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for necessary repairs to bridges built by the department in the North-west Territories, &c.
Land and cable lines, maritime provinces, $28,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The vote of $18,000 is to make provision for the construction of a telegraph line on the east coast of Cape Breton Island from St. Peter's canal to Louisburg, together with an extension from Louisburg north to Scatarie island lighthouse, and also an extension of the line from Gabarouse to North Sydney. This work is under contract, and this vote is expected to complete the work. The vote of $10,000 is for completing the construction of a telegraph line from St. Peter's to Canso and connecting Port Mul-grave with Port Hawkesbury by cable. This is under contract. Its total cost is $13,900, and the present vote is expected to complete the work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Who has the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. M.: Cameron, Maple, N.S.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Were tenders advertised for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: The disadvantage under which the province of Prince Edward Island has been labouring for a great many years in regard to telegraphic communication is well known to this House. For the last two years, while I have had the honour to represent a portion of the province in this House, I have brought this matter to the attention of the House, and on each occasion I have been promised that the matter would receive attention at the hands of tlie government; but finally we have been humbugged by the government, for the matter has not received their attention, though it is one closely affecting the commercial interests of the province. As on different occasions I have with others, as the pages of ' Hansard ' will verify, pointed out the grievances under which the people of Prince Edward Island suffer in this regard, both retarding their commercial growth and preventing the press despatches and news of outside world reaching them except at great cost-think it unnecessary to deal further with this phase here. The question now is as to the remedy, and I consider the government has the ready means in their hands. I understand that a delegation from the different boards of trade of Prince Edward Island have come here to interview the minister and the government on this matter, and I trust that due attention will be paid to their representations and some remedy provided for the exorbitant rates which the people of Prince Edward Island have to pay for their messages, and for the disadvantage which they are under in having no night service or night rates. I understand that the Anglo-American Telegraph Company are willing either to sell out to tlie government or to reduce their rates to the regular service rates paid in the maritime provinces, and to give a night service, provided the government will guarantee them against any loss. The Dominion government is under obligations to give the province an up-to-date service, and it seems to me that the difficulty could be readily overcome if the government would take it up in a businesslike way. I have here the resolutions passed liy the boards of trade of Prince Edward Island, and the report brought in by their committee. It is quite a lengthy report, but it will certainly put the members of this House in possession of the facts in regard to the situation in Prince Edward Island, and I will therefore take the liberty of using a little of the time of the House to read it:
The adjourned meeting of the Board of Trade to consider the improved telegraph service was held last night. The meeting was a most representative one, among those present being Premier Peters, Hon. D. Farquharson, D. G. Cameron. Montague and other prominent men.
President Messervey occupied the chair and after stating the object called upon P. L. Has-zard to read the report of the committee appointed at a previous meeting to fully inves.i-gate the question. The following is the full



[Stage Direction]
The committee beg to report as follows :
By the Act of the legislature of Prince Edward Island, 17 Vic. cap. 4. (1853) section 2 : It was enacted that the ' New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company ' may establish, construct, purchase and keep in order and work any line or lines of magnetic electric or other telegraph, or means of telegraphic communication in any part of this island, or its dependencies, or places under its jurisdiction, or between any point or points therein and any other island, province, country or place in or near the continent of America or in or near the continent of Europe ; or in the Atlantic ocean ; and during the existence of the said corporation no other person or persons, body or bodies politic or corporate, shall be permitted to extend to enter upon or touch any part of this island or the coast thereof, or of the islands or places within the jurisdiction of the government of this province with any telegraph cable, wire or other means of telegraphic communication from any other province, state, country or place whatsoever beyond the continent of America.
By the Act of 28 Vic., cap. 13, section 1. It was enacted that, so long during the term of ten years from the passing of this Act (passed April 15, 1857) as the said New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company, shall maintain a regular telegraphic communication between this island and the continent of America and Newfoundland, and shall likewise during said period at the cost and charges of the said company, build, erect and maintain telegraph offices and stations at either end of the electric cable connecting this island with the continent of America and Newfoundland, that is to say at_ Cape Traverse and Cape Tormen-tine respectively, and shall likewise maintain operators at the said stations for the purpose of transmitting intelligence from and to this island and to the post office in Charlottetown at the same rate and charges as at present received by the said company for the transmission of messages, there shall be paid to the said company from the public treasury of this island yearly and every year during the said period of ten years, the sum of three hundred pounds of lawful current money of this island in equal half-yearly payments.
By the Act of 32 Vic., cap. 34, (1869), section 1. It was enacted as follows : If the New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Compam shall on or before the 1st day of July next, la; down in proper working order a new sub' marine telegraph cable, across the Strait o Northumberland so as to connect this islanc with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nov; Scotia and the continent of America generally that is to say, at or near Cape Traverse anc Cape Tormentine respectively or at some convenient points on each side of the said str.iil and shall open offices and provide operators at Cape Traverse and Cape Tormentine or somt other convenient points on each side of the straits to the satisfaction and approval of the government of this island, then so long aftei the completion of such telegraphic communication and conection as before mentioned as the New' York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company shall maintain a regular telegraphic communication between this island and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the continent of America generally and shall likewise during the same period at tile costs and charges of the said company build, erect and maintain telegraphic offices
Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: position has already been made by the Anglo-American Telegraph Company by the letter of Mr. J. H. Carson, the manager of said company to Sir Louis Davies, dated 21st March, 1900, and to Attorney General Peters, dated 25th February, 1901.
These suggestions are thrown out by the committee as feasible methods by which the matter may be dealt with, but they do not commit themselves to any of them. It is for the government to carry out the terms of union, and give the island an up-to-date service. The matter, as I have said, lias been before the House a number of times. When I brought it up two years ago, Sir Louis H. Davies said he had the matter in hand and that it would be attended to forthwith, and asked us not to insist upon communications being brought down at that time. Last year I brought the matter up, and the Minister of Public Works replied :
I have to assure my hon. friends that the government will give their best consideration to the important point which has been raised. It is not the first time that I have heard complaints about the Anglo-American Company.
It is like everything else that Prince Edward Island asks for it has to be brought up year after year, and even then the people's complaints are not really listened to.
The hon. gentlemen who have spoken are right in saying that we have the means of reaching them. Several members of the government will be in Englaad in a short time, and, if circumstances permit, I expect to go there myself. I will try to have a short and interesting interview with these gentlemen of the Anglo-American Company.
And so on. Now, the matter is in the same state, practically, as it was last year.
The present Minister of Public Works has, on several occasions, looked after the interests of Prince Edward Island in a praiseworthy manner. I trust toe will not content himself with merely saying that he will look Into this case, but that he will take it up and (leal with it this session, so that an end may be put to this outrage upon the people of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. HACKETT.: While I have no desire to detain the committee from the important business now before it, I feel it my duty to make a few remarks on tlie question brought forward by the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey). This question is one of vital Importance to the people of Prince Edward Island. The grievance is one under which they have laboured for nearly fifty years. A monopoly was fastened upon them about fifty years ago, and from that time until the present they have contended against it-without any result it is true. Although Sir Louis Davies, some two years ago said in this parliament that there was no monopoly, that the telegraph service of Prince Edward Island was as free as the telegraph service of any part of Canada, yet the fact remains that the monopoly is still in existence, that the people of Mr. LEFURGEY.
Prince Edward Island are charged additional rates for telegraph messages over the short cable of nine miles between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse. I would therefore urge upon the government that every means should be taken to end this grievance. The hon. member for East Prince has read the speech of the Minister of Public Works of last year. Notwithstanding what the hon. minister said, nothing lias been done, and the people are still suffering under the incubus of a monopoly. What aggravates the difficulty is that our mail service in Prince Edward Island is so irregular in the winter season that our merchants, farmers and others engaged in business transactions with the outside world are debarred for weeks from receiving letters from outside the island, or sending letters to outside points. This is all the greater reason why something should be done to redress this grievance with regard to the telegraph system. If we had a fair telegraph service, our business men would be able to carry on tlieir business under more reasonable conditions. Under tlie present system we are charged an extra rate for this cable when we can use it, and tlie telegraph offices are closed from eight o'clock in the evening until eight o'clock in the morning, no telegraph communications being received from the mainland between those hours. It does not need to he said that this question is of the most vital importance to our people. My hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) has read the resolutions passed by the boards of trade in the provinces. As I am aware that a delegation is in tlie city at the present time to interview the government with regard to this matter, I feel it my duty to speak a few words on behalf of tlie people of my province. My hon. friend from East Prince has entered very fully into the case. He has shown that tlie boards of trade, who thoroughly understand the situation have, by resolution, placed on record their views on this subject, representing in this matter the whole of the people in Prince Edward Island from East Point to North Cape-not a very large province, it is true, but I still claim, one of the fairest and finest provinces of tlie Dominion. I trust that the government will take action, and, if they cannot make an arrangement with the Anglo-American Company, will take over the service themselves. Mr. Marconi with liis wireless system has sent messages from Glace Bay, Cap Breton, to Great Britain. If the Anglo-American people have a monopoly of the cable, wby cannot the government enter into a contract with Mr. Marconi to establish a service between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse, and so give tlie people the telegraph facilities to which they are entitled. I have only one word to add to what my hon. friend from East Prince said. There are only two of us in this parliament who represent the people of Prince Edward Island, who seek to advance the interest of the people of that pro-

vinee and are ready to voice their wishes. The other members from the island are as dumb as oysters. Even when they are here they have nothing to say, and generally they are not here. We are here to attend to the interest of our constituents, and I ask the government to take this matter of our telegraph system into their most serious consideration.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I understood the hon. gentleman who first spoke, he said there was a deputation here now desirous of laying this matter before the government. Personally, I have not had it brought to my attention, but I would be pleased to hear what the deputation has to say, and give their representations full attention. I am not familiar enough with the matter to make any promises at the present time.


Samuel Barker: The minister has given me the book that the leader of the opposition asked for, and I wish now for a moment to go back to the item 137. When parliament granted the $15,000 it was on condition that the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario should contribute each $5,000, those are the words in the vote. Now we are expending another $16,000, and I presume on the same conditions, that the provinces should contribute each $5,000. But the word ' each ' is not in this vote.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps my hon. friend misunderstood me. The total amount contributed to this whole work is $5,000 from each of the two provinces. My hon. friend thinks that each province should contribute $5,000 now. I understand from the deputy minister that the conditions were that the provinces were to contribute $5,000 each to the whole work, and that would include both branches.


Samuel Barker: It was not so expressed when, in 1901, parliament granted $15,000 for this bridge on condition that the two provinces should each give $5,000. Now we are giving a vote corresponding with that vote of $15,000. There is no doubt that parliament, in granting that $15,000, did so on the understanding that $10,000 should be contributed by the provinces, making $25,000 for the whole work. Now we are giving $10,000 more, and I presume that the two provinces will give $10,000 again.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the word ' each ' was put before the word ' provinces,' that would meet the case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this particular case, I was under the same misapprehension as my hon. friend. The deputy minister informs me that we have got the money in our hands, it has already been paid over. I have no objection to putting in the word ' each.' But it may be that if we put in yie word ' each,' the
Auditor General might say that was another vote, different from the one we had before.


Samuel Barker: I have no doubt that parliament, on the previous occasion, gave the $15,000 on the understanding that $10,000 would be put along with it.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: I can only give my hon. friend the information I have from the department. The deputy minister informs me that was the understanding.


Samuel Barker: It was so expressed in the estimate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was under that impression myself, but I am now giving the actual facts. There is no use changing it, so far as this particular vote is concerned, because the $10,000 has recently been paid into our hands.


Andrew B. Ingram: For that reason there should be no objection to putting in the word ' each.' ' The works of reconstruction provided the Ontario and Quebec governments contribute $5,000, including approaches.' That might mean $2,500 each.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have paid their money. I think these words should come out, because the condition has already been complied with so far as they have any intention of complying with it. If it remains as it is now, I think the Auditor General will rule that this money cannot be paid unless they make a further contribution, and the minister tells us that is not the intention. So it seems to me these words, to carry out his intention, would have to be omitted.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman say when the money was received ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would have to get the exact dates from the department. We are in this position now, that we shall have this vote of $10,000, and the $5,000 from each of the provinces, as cash on hand to carry out the work. There cannot be any dispute.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would make a good deal of difference if the money had been received before this item was put in the estimates by the council. In that case the word * each ' should be put in.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since the hon. gentleman has brought it to my attention, I will refer the matter to the Department of Justice.


Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: I just heard the closing remarks of the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett). I do not think there was any occasion at all for such a statement, because the members from Prince Edward Island supporting the government attend very strictly to their busi-

ness. If my hon. friend wishes to make any political capital by making remarks of that kind and having them published in the island press, he is mistaken. It is really not worthy of the hon. gentleman himself. He knows as well as anybody else that we are attending to our business here. I can tell the hon. gentleman that only this afternoon we were attending to that very matter. There is a delegation here now to interview the government, and members supporting the government are working with those gentlemen. I think the matter will be advanced in that way better than by the speeches the hon. gentleman made.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What have you been doing these number of years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What were you doing for eighteen years ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I have no objection to your saying what you please. But get tip on your feet.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no man in this House who talks more without getting on his feet than the hon. member for Northumberland ; he is constantly interrupting. We take it good na-turedly, and when anybody else makes an observation, he might as well take it good naturedly.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: There is no man in the House who talks more than the Finance Minister and says less. When he talks about the last eighteen years, he was not in this House, lie was controlling a smaller portfolio than the one he controls now, he was discussing the propriety of a dissolution of the union, and of his province going into the republic of the United States. I will not allow the hon. Minister of Finance to criticise my action in this House. I was here before the hon. gentleman was, and I know the history of the hon. gentleman very well. Therefore, I am not going to be lectured by the hon. gentleman, although he is occupying a position that he little deserves, a position which his ability does not warrant.


Edward Hackett: I am pleased to hear the explanation of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) in this connection, and I am also pleased to find that he accompanied the delegation, and is using his influence with the ministry. I trust that his influence will be successful, and that with this delegation the hon. gentleman will succeed in getting for the people of Prince Edward Island the telegraph service, which they are so much in need of.
Quebec-to repair and improve roadways and increase operating facilities generally to eastward of Godbout, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a vote of $1,000 for maintaining roadways in connection with . the lines there.
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
Belle Isle-telegraph line between extreme ends of island, $5,000.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister explain this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a re vote of $5,000 to be applied to the construction of a line between the extreme ends of Belle Isle, carrying it along the ridge in the middle of the island. This amount has been revoted several times. The Department of Marine and Fisheries are undertaking considerable improvements in the lighting there. A new lighthouse is being built, and there is under consideration some arrangements in regard to the wireless system of telegraphy. Until these are completed, I cannot give any further information in regard to this work. This is a very important point in connection with shipping and some arrangement will come in a very short time.


Richard Blain: Would it be in order to give some explanation in regard to the Marconi system of telegraphy ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid I am not capable of giving any information that would be of any use at tlie present time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. Finance Minister would give us that information ?


Richard Blain: The hon. Minister of Finance made the arrangement with the Marconi people and he will be in a position to give us some information in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) is hardly correct in saying I made the arrangement. The arrangement and tlie contract were made with the Prime Minister, but, however, that is not important. I really do not think there is anything to say concerning the Marconi business that has not been already given to the public through tlie press. When the government contributed a sum towards the erection of a station at Table Head, Glace Bay, we were assured by the Marconi people that they had every reason to believe that they would have commercial telegraphy established before the present day. They seem to have made a success of it scientifically, and several months ago there was general rejoicing at what seemed to be the complete success of the system. They had been sending some messages, not commercially, but some hitcli has since occurred. We were constantly being assured by them that they were on the verge of success. Scientifically it is a success, but they do not seem to have been able to apply it to commercial purposes up to this time. The last communication we had from Mr. Marconi, some months ago, was to the effect that they expected to engage in commercial business at an early day. We felt assured that they would soon be^ble to engage in com-

mereial business. However, we are not in a position to add anything to what has been stated in the public press. There seems to be some hitch, the particular nature of which we do not understand. All I can say is that they have assured us that everything is going well and that within a short time they hope to make it a commercial success.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that mean as to the actual success of the working of the system, or does it mean a financial success ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it means that we will have commercial wireless telegraphy in operation in a short time. They gave us repeated assurances in a general way that that would happen. But although they seemed to have established it for a short time, something went wrong and at the present time they are not sending any messages, and they are not in a position to do a commercial business.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is.no doubt that the system is successful ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no doubt that the system Is scientifically successful. They have sent messages, but they do not seem to be able to send them on a sufficiently large scale to warrant them in undertaking a commercial business, so that we have not had any benefit from it so far. But. they are forming a company in Canada for the purpose of 'making their connections. They seem to have every confidence in the success of the system, but the public seems to have been a little anxious in consequence of the fact that they have not yet been so successful as they expected in that they have not been able to undertake a commercial business.


Mr.   BEAIN@: Perhaps the hon. minister will tell us how much the Dominion government contributed up to date towards that system, and perhaps, while he is on his feet, he will make a statement as to whether the government intend to contribute any further sum, if so, on what conditions, and whether they are as hopeful now as when the government made a statement some little time ago in regard to. this system.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Speaking from memory, the full sum which we agreed to pay, $80,000, has been paid. We have made no other arrangements. We do not contemplate paying any sum of money other than that originally agreed upon, which was $80,000. I think I would be justified in saying that we are as hopeful now as at any time. A couple of months ago there seemed to be a general conviction that the thing had been accomplished scientifically and commercially. In fact some messages were sent. We have had assurances from Mr. Marconi that it would be made a commercial success. From everything we have seen of Mr. Marconi we have
very great faith in him. He is a great inventor, and he has assured us that he has perfect faith in the system, and we are hopeful that it will turn out all right.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister tell us whether the money was paid to Mr. Marconi himself, or to the company in which he is interested ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was paid to the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, with which he is connected. The contract was made with the company, although the original negotiation was held with Mr. Marconi. The contract was made with a company called the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company.


Richard Blain: Who compose that company ? Are they Canadian capitalists, or old country capitalists ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is an English company.


Richard Blain: Altogether ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This amount is called for by the general superintendent of government telegraphs to make provision for renewing fifty miles of wiring of the Magdalen Island lines. These lines were built in 1879, and the system has been damaged by sleet storms. It is calculated that the work will cost $2,000.


James Clancy: Will the hon. minister state what was the sum spent last year 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount spent last year was $1,119.50. The total estimated cost of this work is $4,000. The balance of $800 will be expended between now and the 30th June uext.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Has the telegraph system always been under the Minister of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Ever since the department was formed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there not some mention made of handing these telegraph lines ewer to the Port Office Department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 never heard of it at all.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman say he never heard of it ? I am not saying that it has been suggested to him personally by any action that has been taken, but I assume that the hon. gentleman is a very careful newspaper reader, and upon that ground I have a shrewd suspicion that the-hon. gentleman has heard of it already.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose I owe an apology to tlie House, but as a matter of fact I seldom read the papers, especially certain portions of them. I am not aware that such a proposal was made at any time, either hi the papers or out of them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did the minister hear it through the Marconi system ?


Mr. SCOTT.: Before we leave the consideration of these telegraph items, I would like an explanation from the minister respecting the great void that appears here under the head of the North-west Territories. Last year there was a vote of $62,700 for telegraph lines in the North-west Territories, and this year that item is reduced by $62,700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That appropriation was made for work that is completed or which will be_compIeted before the 30tli of June next. ~


Thomas Walter Scott: Is it intended to carry out some further extensions of thfe North-west Territories telegraph lines in the coming year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These representations will be taken into consideration, and when the supplementary estimates come down we will know.
Surveys and inspections-$50,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote provides for the surveys and inspections made during the fiscal year in connection with the hydrographic survey of the St. Lawrence on the Canadian side of the international boundary between Kingston and Pembroke.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Will this be carried out by the Minister of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When I was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries I advocated that the hydrographical survey should be controlled by one department, and I thought it should be transferred to the other department, because they have an organization of boats and staff which ought to do it better than to have it in the different departments, as it is at the present time. However, the word hydrographic survey is misleading. It is not a hydrographic survey, as it is generally supposed, but it is for the surveys made for dredging, and consequently is under the Department of Public Works.


Samuel Barker: I have some inquiries to make with regard to this item, but it is now six o'clock.
Some resolutions reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.


James Clancy: After Recess.'
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 62) respecting the Ontario and Qu'Appelle Land Company, Limited.-Mr. McCarthy.
On section 2,
Samuel Barker: I would like to call attention to the rather unusual terms of this section. It provides that from time to time the paid up capital subscribed may be refunded to the shareholders.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: I may tell the hon. gentleman that the last three words of that section, ' or provided for,' were struck out in the Private Bills Committee. Perhaps that may meet his objection.


Samuel Barker: What does that mean : ' provided that all the; liabilities of the company at the time of any such payment art paid ' ? There may be ninety-nine cents on the dollar of the capital returned, and liabilities not yet accrued might be in existence. 1 do not want, to interfere with the general object of this Bill, but I think the House should protect the creditors.
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman will see by the first section that there must be enough land retained to answer for the paid up capital and the liabilities.


Samuel Barker: Nobody can say that the lauds are enough to pay the liabilities. My impression is that the only safety for the creditors is in requiring that the shareholders shall remain liable.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The shareholders will not be relieved. If a shareholder has fully paid up his capital, his liability is relieved ai once. The capital of this company is fully paid, so that there is no liability of shareholders. The directors' liability, however, is still there.


Samuel Barker: I know that when a shareholder pays up, his liability ceases; but when a company returns to him his money, the position is reversed. I would like to ask what the Minister of Justice thinks of this kind of legislation ? The company might pay back to the shareholders ninety-nine cents on the dollar of their paid up capital, leaving one cent on the dollar to meet a large liability to the public.
Mr. McCarthy. If the liabilities are met at the time the payment is made, then no liabilities exist. Any future liability can only be incurred in respect to the assets then in existence; and if any creditor advances money to the company, he is assumed to be astute enough to inquire what

assets are being pledged in respect of that liability. If that is so, the creditors are amply protected.


Samuel Barker: As the Minister of Justice is here, I should like to have his opinion of this legislation. Here is a corporation ready to go into business. It may incur liabilities up to to-day; and to-night ninety-nine per cent of the capital may be returned to the incorporators, people speculating or dealing in lands, and the company may go on incurring further liabilities with only one cent on the dollar in the treasury to meet those liabilities.


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: As I understand, the capital is to be paid off out of the assets of the company, and will be reduced to the extent of those payments, and that reduction can only take place when the liabilities of the company have been liquidated; so that, for any future liabilities of the company, the creditors will have to be careful not to contract with the company beyond its capacity to pay. It seems to me the chief result of this Bill will be to destroy the credit of the corporation.


Samuel Barker: I have no doubt it ought to destroy the credit of the corporation, because no man would see what his security was. But is it right to create corporations that may be in such a state ? You create a corporation that may have a capital of $3,000,000. The directors may reduce that million dollars capital to $20,000 or $5,000, but how does the general public know that that reduction has occurred ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The general public is supposed to contract with a company with a knowledge of its Act of' incorporation, and when the credit of the company has been very materially impaired by the reduction of its capital, the general public will be put upon inquiry.


Samuel Barker: They ought not to be put on inquiry, and we ought not to pass legislation which is very much like the wildcat legislation of the western states, where the public do not know what kind of corporations they are dealing with. This legislation will not only affect this particular company, hut every other corporation in the country.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The explanation given by the parties interested in the Bill before the Private Bills Committee was


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Who are the parties interested ?
Mr. McCarthy. Mr. E. B. Osier, was chairman of the committee, and Mr. H. S. Osier explained that this was similar legislation to that obtained in England by the Hudson Bay Company and the Canada company.


Samuel Barker: Was that a good reason ?
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. member lias insinuated that this is only wild-cat American legislation.


Samuel Barker: I think it is.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Then it is also wildcat British legislation.


Samuel Barker: That may be so.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It does not appeal to me in the same way as it does to the hou. gentleman. It seems to me that if anybody wants to guard against a reduction of capital by a company, the first thing he would do would be to ascertain what enactments and power that company has. He is put upon inquiry to ascertain what is its charter and to what extent its capital has been impaired before he makes any investment or enters into any contract with it. It seems to be perfectly clear and reasonable legislation.


Mr.   BUAIN@: Are there any other companies doing business in Canada under a charter of this kind whose charter has such a clause as this ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think we have just passed a charter with the same clause in it. Before I could give a positive opinion on a question of this sort, I would have?, to read the Act and do not want to commit myself to any off-hand opinion. But having passed Bill (No. 61) which has a similar clause, we are committed to some extent to the principle. The clause in Bill (No. 01) is identical with the one we are considering.


Samuel Barker: I do not wish to commit the hon. minister to any definite legal opinion, but the point is a simple one. Perhaps the hon. member from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who has charge of the Bill, can tell us if this company is asking special privileges not granted other companies.


Mr. COWAN.: We have just passed a Bill with a similar clause. The matter was discussed very fully in the Private Bills Committee, and Bill (No. 03) and this one are of exactly the same character.


Mr.   BEAIN@: That is not just the point. The hon. member for Simcoe has gone outside of Canada for an example of legislation similar to this, and I ask whether, in any charter already granted to a company, there is the same kind of clause.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The legislation respecting land companies is limited in this country, and this is not a new departure. The business of a land company is of lie-' cessity a winding up business from the time it begins to sell its lands. Our company's Act says that the capital of a company should not be impaired, and there was doubt in the minds of the directors whether they could distribute among companies, the shareholders, the proceeds of the land sold, because the lands are the capital of

the country- This clause was therefore inserted, following the precedent set in the case of the two oldest land companies doing business in Canada, the Hudson Bay Company and the Canada Land Company, whose charters were obtained in England. This was the explanation given the committee, and after full consideration the committee passed the Bill, but struck out the last three words of this clause ' or provided for,' making it thus absolutely necessary that the liabilities of the company should be absolutely paid before the proceeds of the land sales could be divided among the shareholders. It is not sufficient that the company should provide for the payment of the liabilities, but the liabilities must actually have been paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the idea is that the only profits of the company are the proceeds of lands sold and paid for, and the directors could not divide, from time to time, these proceeds without this provision. Otherwise they would have< to retain all the assets of the company and would not be able to declare any dividend until it was finally wound up.


Samuel Barker: My objection is this. Any man who subscribes to stock in an incorporated company is liable for its debts up to the amount of his unpaid subscription. If lie should get that stock refunded, he ought to still remain liable for the amount of liis subscription just as if he had never paid it. Otherwise the creditors would not know where they are. This Bill does not say anything about the real liabilities of the company, but authorizes to pay over its assets to the shareholders, provided it has settled all its apparent liabilities up to the time of such payment. There is a great deal of danger in this. A man, might get his stock refunded, while possibly the liabilities of that company remained unpaid, and he would not be liable to pay for his stock in full.


Robert Laird Borden: What provision will there be to ascertain that all the liabilities of the company have been paid before the assets are distributed ? One answer no doubt would be that the burden is imposed on the directors of seeing that the liabilities are paid up, as otherwise they would be personally liable, but possibly their financial ability might not be equal to meet certain liabilities outstanding.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: There is no doubt about the present directors.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know anything about the present directors, but they may be changed next year or the year after.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: This is really a process of winding up and it is the same legislation as was granted the Hudson Bay Company and the Canada Company. It seems Mr. McCarthy.
to be the only way in which these companies can be wound up.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: The assets of the company are being devoured gradually by the sales of lands.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: There are no liabilities really.


Robert Laird Borden: The duty is certainly imposed upon the directors of seeing that the liabilities are paid before making this distribution.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There would be personal liability on default, I imagine.


Robert Laird Borden: I believe there would be.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the New Canadian Company, Limited.-Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 61) respecting the Winnipeg Western Land Corporation, Limited.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Canada, Northwest Land Company, Limited.

Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Great Northwest Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 144) respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Lindsay, Bobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway Company.-Mr. Vrooman.
Bill (No. 148) respecting certain Trust Funds of the Diocese of Moosonee.-Mi'. Osier.
Bill (No. 151) to incorporate the St. Joseph Transportation Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Mount Royal Savings Bank.-Mr. Bickerdike.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Surveys and inspections, ('50,000.
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has already made some explanations about this item, but I would like to ask about the nature and place of these inspections.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When application is made for a work it

is necessary, first, to liave a survey and inspection made so as to be able to form an idea of the cost of the work. In fact, no progress can be made until a careful survey and inspection of the location have first been made. This applies particularly to the building of wharfs, piers and that sort of thing, where an examination of the depth of water, the kind of soil, and so forth, has to be carefully made, before plans and specifications can be prepared. The list of places is a very long one. A number of surveys were made last year in the various provinces.


Samuel Barker: In the Auditor General's reports this item has been divided under eight or ten heads. It is very desirable that the minister should tell us now what he proposes to expend under the various heads. The items run from $1,000 to $6,000. I do not like this blanket system of $50,000 for general surveys and inspection. If the hon. gentleman would just tell us the various items of the expenditure, and what lie wants for each place, we would then know hereafter, when we come to inspect the accounts, exactly what has been done under each head.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not aware that there has been any consolidation of votes. I think the same amount was voted last year, but of late years there has been an increase in the expenditure for this purpose, on account of the increased number of public works to be attended to. I may say that so far as my personal experience goes, this vote is properly used, and is of great advantage to the country. Many votes have been given in the past before sufficient data have been obtained in the way of a survey and inspection, and in some cases the work would not have been undertaken had there been previously an inspection and survey. I find that during the year 1901-2 over a hundred surveys and examinations were made in the various provinces. These of course are made by men competent to do that kind of work, and their travelling expenses, being included in the item, make it considerable. But that is one of the items that, if properly controlled by the department and expended by proper officers, will be a great saving to the country, and will enable this House to obtain as full information as possible with regard to all these matters.


Samuel Barker: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I explained before six o'clock, the words hydrographic survey' as used in this vote are a little misleading. It is not the intention of the department to carry on a hydrographic survey in the sense in which that word is generally used, for the# purpose of preparing charts for navigation purposes. These surveys and inspections are made for work that the department is called upon to do, and it would be impossible for me to say at the present time just what applications may come in or what work may be undertaken. The work for the past year of course is shown. Some important surveys will have to he made, for instance, owing to the development of the country in the Lake Superior region, at Fort William, Port Arthur, and these places. I find that in the department we have not sufficient data to work upon in order to award a contract for dredging, for instance. Every application that comes in is considered by the department. I may say that the people of almost any district are entitled, when an application is made for certain improvements in the locality, at least to have an examination and report by the department as to the nature and the cost of the work, so that the government and parliament may know what is required to be done. Without that information we, as representatives here, are quite unable to say whether or not the work should be undertaken. In regard to dredging that is to be done, or works which are to be let by contract, it is impossible to proceed with any degree of discretion unless we first know the conditions as they are revealed by a survey and inspection. My hon. friend will know that there are many applications for dredging in various harbours, and a survey has to be made so as to enable us to know what the depth of water is, and what amount and kind of material has to be removed. When building wharfs, piers, &c\, a survey has to be made. While I could give my hon. friend a list of the places where surveys were made for the past fiscal year, I think it would be impossible to give a full list of the places at which it is expected that we shall make surveys during the year 1903-4, except that I might mention some of the larger works that we are engaging in throughout the province of Ontario, for instance, on Lake Superior ;



then there are many of the smaller places on the St. Lawrence, in fact, almost the whole distance where work is being demanded, on the Saguenay, at points in the lower provinces and at the various ports on the Atlantic as well as on the Pacific ocean. So that, my hon. friend will see that these surveys and inspections are made and reports received from all points wherever applications are made, and that it is necessary to make a survey so as to enable us to decide upon the desirability of going on with the work or otherwise.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman is asking now $15,000 more than \yas expended in 1901-2 for this purpose. The last vote was $35,000 and he is now asking $50,000. When we look at the accounts of the expenditure under this $35,000 vote we see that, there are various surveys that must have been contemplated in advance. The hon. gentleman must know of a great deal of the work that he contemplates surveying and inspecting during the year. All we ask is that he should give us certain particulars and then if he wants a general sum for contingencies let him add an item for that purpose. The hon. gentleman does that in other matters. He takes an appropriation for repairs here and there, and then a general appropriation for general repairs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that in 1901-2, to which he refers, there was a vote of $25,000 and a supplementary vote of $10,000 which makes $35,000. That was found insufficient for the work that had to be done. Last year there was a vote of $50,000 which it was found will be fully expended before the 30th of June. It is so reported to me by the chief engineer of the department. Owing to the great increase in the number and importance of works to be undertaken I find it will be necessary for that same amount to be voted for 1903-4. I might give my hon. friend an illustration to show how this work has increased. During the fiscal year 1896-7 the number of works examined and reported upon was 244. During the year 1901-2 the number was 463. and we have a great many more than that for the coming year. My hon. friend will see that the expenditure has about doubled^ the amount expeuded on public works in 1896-7 was $695,438, while in 1901-2 the amount expended was $3,785,000, or five times as much; yet we are not asking double the amount formerly voted for surveys and inspections. In these matters, of course, a minister has to be guided, especially one with the limited experience that I have had, by the advice of the chief engineer of the department.


Samuel Barker: I quite admit all that the hon. minister says, but the hon. minister certainly does not put this item in his estimates without asking his deputy


Robert Franklin Sutherland: precisely what he wants the money for. All I claim is that in this committee we are entitled to ask the hon. minister what he asks his deputy and to get as much information from the hon. minister as he gets from his deputy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given the very fullest information so far as I have been able to obtain it from the officers of the department. I suppose it would only weary the hon. gentleman to read over the long list of places where these inspections were made last year. I have given him the information furnished me by the chief engineer as to his estimate of what would be required for 1903-4. The expenditures on these surveys are all accounted for in the report for the following year and then would be the time for the House, if it thought that there had been surveys and inspections that were not warranted, or that had been extravagantly made, to discuss the question. When we look at the works which have to be undertaken I do not think that we can do otherwise than accept the advice of the chief officials of the department in regard to the appropriation for this purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: How was this work done ? It is not done by officers of the department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When, from time to time, officers of the department have not time to do this work we engage technical officers to do it. The great majority of the technical officers are what are called temporary officers and would not be on the permanent staff, but as soon as they are appointed to undertake this work they become officers of the department and are paid out of this vote.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that $50,000 should accomplish a good deal of Surveying ? The inspections of buildings under construction, are, I understand, usually made out of the vote for particular buildings, so. that this would not include any inspection of that kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: What inspections would it include 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only harbours and rivers.


Robert Laird Borden: For example, does the Department of Public Works make any inspection of Halifax harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If an application was made for work to be done there the department would have to make a survey and inspection.


Robert Laird Borden: If a work was proposed there which would interfere with

navigation, would that be under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department 7


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It would.


Robert Laird Borden: Then that is-one class of work that would require a survey and inspection ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We would have to make a more careful survey and inspection so as to know what it would cost to remove the obstruction to navigation if an application were made.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not mean where there is an obstruction of navigation, but, suppose it were proposed to build a wharf that might interfere with navigation, or to erect a bridge, is it part of the work of the hon. gentleman's department to have a survey made and a report presented for the. purpose of determining whether or not a certain consent which is required by statute should be given 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Exactly, that is what a part of this vote is for. Applications are made for corporations or private individuals to erect works on harbours and rivers and an inspection and report have to be made by a technical officer of the department before the consent of the department can be given to the erection of a work.


James Clancy: Perhaps I could point to an apt illustration of what the minister means. Application has been made to his department for some improvements in the river Sydenham at or near the town of Dresden, and I suppose the minister will send one of his technical officers up there, out of this vote, to report with regard to that application.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a fair illustration of how this money is expended. Instructions have already been given to an officer to visit the place and to report on the work that is requested to be done on the Sydenham river. I am not sure but that the officer may have gone; if not he will be there within the next few days.


James Clancy: I feel very much relieved because I was afraid the officer would not start until after the session.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I promised to send him and I have done so.
National Art Gallery, $7,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What works of art have been added during the past year 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only work of art purchased during the past year is a painting by Tencate called ' The Pedlar.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Who are the committee on
selection 7
86i


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Brownell and Mr. Taylor. I think this is a very good picture. There was a large price asked for it and we bought it very reasonably.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there auy intention to improve the Art Gallery building 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope we will have a better building before long.
Chief engineer's office-salaries of engineers, draughtsmen and clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $59,200.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work of this branch of the department is five times as great now as it was a few years ago. Last year I find that the full amount was required. I have not had an opportunity of looking into the matter carefully, but if this amount is not found to be sufficient, I will have to ask for a supple-meutary estimate.


James Clancy: There appears to have been an over expenditure last year of about $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes; the amount was over-expended the year before, and a supplementary vote was taken.


James Clancy: Where did the minister get the money in the meantime. Was it by Governor General's warrant 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was voted in the supplementary estimates for that year.


Samuel Barker: It does not so appear from your estimate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount was over-expended and that will have to be provided for in the supplementary estimates for the current year.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister what is covered by the expression in this item ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I understand the Act aright-I do not know whether I shall ever understand the Civil Service Act-none of these men could be employed at over $400 a year unless these words were inserted in the vote. They are all technical officers and their salaries are very much over $400 a year.


Samuel Barker: I wish to make a few remarks about the administration of the Civil Service Act. We discussed it early in the session, and there seems to be a great difference of opinion with respect to it, not only as between ministers but as between gentlemen on both sides of this House. At that time the chief question was as to carrying out the provisions of the Civil Service Act with regard to section 15, and the Minister of Finance stated, as appears by ' Hansard,' what he thought was the prac-

tice of the departments under that section. I have since discovered that the Minister of Finance was absolutely wrong in his view of what was being done under these mystical words we see so often in the estimates, ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' The Minister of Finance told us with regard to section 15, that it was merely a question of the order in which certain routine proceedings took place. We were then discussing a chief clerkship; and although the question may not be strictly within this item, I may as well refer to the matter here as elsewhere.
The procedure provided by the Act is : First, that the deputy head of the department shall report that the officer is necessary for the proper performance of the public business in the department, stating his reasons for arriving at that conclusion,; next, the concurrence of the head of the department in that report; and, third, the salary being voted by parliament. There was a great deal of discussion at that time as to the order of these three events. The Finance Minister laid it down that the order was exactly as stated in the Act, in which I entirely concur with him. If that order were carried out, and it were represented to this House that it was being carried out, we would have nothing to complain of. Everybody knows that the deputy head of the department occupies not only a very responsible position; but one in which he is protected by the state. He can only be removed in a particular way, and he is an officer on whom we can rely, owing to the independence of his position. Therefore, under the Civil Service Act he must initiate expenditure of this kind by recommending the creation of the chief clerkship and the several other officers mentioned. Now, I wish to refer to some matters bearing on this subject which appear in the Auditor General's report, and 1 do so for the purpose of showing that, although the Finance Minister was quite right in his view of the statute, the statute is being utterly ignored by the department. At page 49, Vol. 1, of his report the Auditor General sends to the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals this request :
I have the honour to request to be furnished with a copy of the report, referred to in section 15 of the Civil Service Act, recommending the creation of an additional chief clerkship in your department.
Such recommendation, as the Finance Minister agrees, was the first step towards the creation of that clerkship. Some time afterwards the Auditor General writes again, because he got no answer. The next step is that the Secretary of the Department of Railways and Canals, Mr. Jones, writes to the Deputy Minister of Justice :
By direction I beg to hand you two letters from the Auditor General, dated respectively the 3rd and 12th instant, and also a memorandum from the office of the law clerk of this de-


Samuel Barker: partment, all bearing upon the promotion of Mr. F. A. Dixon of this department to the office of chief clerk and the requirements of the Civil Service Act in that connection.
I am to request that you will be pleased to advise whether it is necessary in this instance to comply with the provision of section 15 of the Civil Service Act as requested by the Auditor General.
Attached to that is the following memorandum signed ' R ' :
Memo re attached.-Section 15 of the Civil Service Act reads as follows :-
15. A chief clerkship in any department shall only he created by Order in Council, passed afterfa) The deputy head has reported that such an officer is necesary for the proper performance of the public business of the department, stating the reasons on which he has arrived at that conclusion.
(b)	The concurrence of the head of the department in such report ; and-
(c)	The salary has been voted by parliament.
In schedule B of the estimates for the year
ending June 30, 1903, there is an item :-
' For the promotion of F. A. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,800.'
Parliament has thus voted the salary as required by paragraph (c) above, and it has done more, it has waived all the provisions of the Civil Service Act which affect the promotion.
Therefore, according to the contention of the department, when we pass an item in these estimates, with the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' we xvaive the whole provisions of the Civil Service Act, notwithstanding what the Finance Minister says. Then the matter goes to the Justice Department and there is a reply by Mr. Power, acting Deputy Minister of Justice :
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of this day's date with respect to the promotion of Mr. F. A. Dixon, of your department, to the rank of chief clerk.
I understand that the Auditor General contends that the promotion of Mr. DiXon cannot lawfully he made unless a chief clerkship has been created in the manner provided by section 15 of the Civil Service Act, and that an opinion is desired from this department as to whether or not the position of the Auditor General in this respect is correct.
In reply, I beg to state that by the Appropriation Act of last session the sum of $1,809 was granted to His Majesty for the financial year ending June 30, 1903, ' for the promotion of F. A. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act..' I am of opinion that the effect of this provision in the Appropriation Act is, not only to provide the salary for the current year, hut also to waive any and every provision of the Civil Service Act which stands in the way of Mr. Dixon's promotion, the provisions of section 15, as well as those relating to promotion examinations, and I think that the Governor in Council may promote Mr. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk, notwithstanding that a chief clerkship has not been created for the purpose in the manner provided by section 15 of the Civil Service Act.
In other words, we have been passing item after item in the estimates, with these words

attached, ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' and the Law Department treats that as waiving every provision in the Civil Service Act. The Minister of Finance told us otherwise. He represented to us- and I have no doubt he said just what he believed was the truth-that the regular order was being proceeded with'; but the Railway Department certainly did not act in accordance with that view. The moment it got the estimates passed, it used these words as a waiver of everything contained in the Civil Service Act. Then, there is a further letter from the Secretary of the Railway Department to the Deputy Minister of Justice :
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 14th instant, by which you report in respect of the promotion of Mr. F. A. Dixon, of this department, to the rank of chief clerk.
In reply, I am directed to say that under date May 20 last, an Order in Council was passed whereby Mr. Dixon was promoted to such clerkship, and it is presumed by the department that that is all that is necessary in the matter.
Be pleased to advise if that is the case.
So that although there is an Act of parliament saying that this thing shall not be done until the first step is taken by the deputy head of the department recommending the chief clerkship, yet, by passing these estimates with these few words attached, we have been waiving the whole Civil Service Act without knowing that we were doing so. For that reason I think parliament is bound to be a little careful about the wording of the estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that we ought to give careful attention to these words, and see what they mean in each case. Every Act of parliament is capable of being amended, and when we introduce into the Supply Bill the words, ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' undoubtedly to the extent of these words, and in the case to which they refer, we amend the Civil Service Act, and we must be prepared in every case to give a good reason for doing so. I think that the statement I made in the former discussion as to the general practice and policy was correct, but there may be exceptional cases, such as the one referred to, in which the Act must'be,departed from. As to the particular item, it is for the 'salaries of engineers, draughtsmen and clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' These officials do not come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act as to classification. There is no question in their case of promotion to any particular grade in the civil service. They are technical officers, they have no special rank in the service, and they have to be treated as technical clerks. If you were to apply to them the provisions of the Civil Service Act, they
could only be paid $400 per year. This does not make any change in their classification, hut solely deals with the question of their salaries. They are not civil service men called upon to pass any special examination ; they are technical officers, and the only object of the words is to enable the government to pay them more than $400 per year. Officers of that character cannot be obtained at that rate, so that the question in their ease is not precisely the same as in the case of Mr. Dixon.


Robert Laird Borden: The case of Mr. Dixon; referred to by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is a most outrageous one. What possible reason was there for repealing the provisions of the Civil Service Act in his case ? Why should not the deputy minister consulted in that case, have first reported that that officer was necessary for the performance of the public service ? How does the hon. Minister of Finance justify the repeal of that provision of the xfct in his ease ? There are* so many of these amendments in the Civil Service Act that we are getting tired of seeing them in the estimates. I have counted up twenty or thirty cases on a single page of the estimates last session, in which that provision of the Civil Service Act was repealed. We cannot possibly follow up every one of them, and the result is that you have an outrageous abuse of the powers of parliament in that regard. There is no possible reason why the provisions of the civil service should not have been carried out in the case brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Hamilton. Yet we have the Department of Railways setting the law at defiance and smuggling this item through the House without any explanation. I say that it was a most disgraceful piece of business. 1 do not know anything about Mr. Dixon. It may be desirable indeed that he should be a chief clerk, he may be a very deserving officer, and no doubt he is, but what I am objecting to is the means taken to violate the provisions of the Civil Service Act without the slightest shadow of excuse. At least I have heard none from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to-night. I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works before this item passes, for a statement as to every one of these gentlemen to whom these words may apply, in order that we may fully understand what we are doingr We have made mistakes of this kind in the past, which are now brought to our attentiou by the Auditor General, and it is high time that this House should see that an end is put to this abuse.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There have not been any mistakes. I have differed from my hon, friend in the past in his criticisms of these items, and I do so again. It is true that items of this character appear occasionally in the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: Occasionally ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: I use the word advisedly, for in proportion to the total number of officials in the service, the exceptions made by these items are very small indeed. A year ago I took the trouble to have the figures prepared of the number of officers affected in this way, by the votes; and in proportion to the total number, it was by no means large. It is not conceivable that in a service where there are hundreds of officials, there will not be some special circumstances to justify a departure from the ordinary rules, and it must remain for the minister responsible in each case to explain the departure. I have no recollection of the case of Mr. Dixon mentioned in the Auditor General's Report, and I cannot recall the particular reasons which my colleague the hon. Minister of Railways gave for the promotion of this gentleman. But I have no doubt that the Deputy Minister of Railways was thoroughly conversant with the transaction and a party to it. ; I have never heard of the deputy minister refusing to give the certificate. As appears by the wording of the vote, that certificate was not necessary and was not obtained, and in the absence of auy information to the contrary, we are bound to believe that my hon. colleague had some good reasons for the step he took. We have not this item before us now except incidentally, but I would not like the committee to think that these exceptions are made without special cause. A man may be of exceptional merit, we may be in danger of losing his services, and may find it necessary to give him a larger salary than is assigned to his rank under the Civil Service Act. Would it not be quite proper for the minister, in such a case, to say that he was entitled to a larger salary than the Civil Service Act allows and fo ask parliament to vote that salary, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act ? It is in such cases that most of these exceptions are made. There are not many cases where exceptions are made to avoid examinations. With such cases I have not much sympathy, but I have warm sympathy with the case of a man, in whose favour an exception has to be made on account of his personal qualifications. I nave no sympathy however for that class of item when it is only designed to exempt him from mjdergoing the examinations provided for in the Civil Service Act. I think that we should insist on examinations, but these exceptions are not more numerous than formerly.


Andrew B. Ingram: How many temporary clerks are there in the chief engineer's department now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: They are all temporary clerks.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are permanent clerks, according to the Auditor General's Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
report, but I would like to know how many temporary clerks there are.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are fifty-one.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year there were forty-two, and they have increased to fifty-two. It seems strange that there should be so many temporary clerks in the chief engineer's office. Surely, it is possible to have some of these men made permanent and enjoy all the rights under the Civil Service Act, and thus avoid the necessity of having to come down every session and provide for an expenditure of this kind. Hon. gentlemen say that they cannot obtain the services of a certain class of men without paying them more than the minimum amount of $400, and they therefore ask this additional expenditure every year, but would it not be better to make as many as possible of these clerks permanent ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The term ' temporary clerk ' is apt to be somewhat misleading. We have temporary clerks who have been in office twenty years. They are practically permanent, but are ranked as temporary. The particular branch of the service referred to is a technical service which does not necessarily require the clerks to pass the civil service examination, so that there is no reason why these people should come under the operation of the Civil .Service Act. Take architects, engineers and professional men of any class, they would not be any the better because they passed the civil service examination, which is imposed on ordinary clerks. These are, for the most part, practically permanent officers, but they have the rank of temporary clerks and are treated accordingly. Though I have not looked up the estimates, I am satisfied that this item has appeared for many years in the same way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Of course, it has, and that is exactly what we are trying to get rid of. I have in mind now the case of a gentleman who was employed in the department Of the Interior for about twenty-five years, all the time as a temporary clerk. For ten years or more he was in the outside service and for another ten years in the inside service. He did everything he could to have his name placed on the permanent list. But this was objected to. Being only in the temporary service was a source of annoyance to him. He did not see why he should not be on the permanent list, and, when I was referred to, neither did I. I investigated the matter and wrote to the department and tried every way to induce the minister to have the man's name transferred to the permanent list. After a great deal of persuasion this was done. It is rank injustice to an officer not to have his name on the permanent list, if he is really a permanent officer. After he has been in the service ten or twelve years, why

should he be still considered a temporary employee ? The position is a most unpleasant one for him. Should anything occur in a certain direction, he would be beholden to those who came into power to retain him in his position. A man who has .rendered faithful and efficient service should not be treated in such a manner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know of the particular case to which the hon. gentleman refers, and it may be that his reasoning, as applied to that case, is quite right. But, as a matter of fact, we may have a person in the position of a temporary clerk whom it would not be expedient to have in the regular service.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, there are people doing a class of work which does not demand a larger salary than that they are receiving. I know of such cases in the temporary service, persons who are doing a given class of work, doing it well and faithfully; but the work is of such a character that there is no reason for adding these officers to the permanent staff, where they will advance to higher rates of salary than would be fairly proportioned to the work they are doing. I am not sure that we may not find it necessary to have a further classification so as to provide for some employees who are now classed as temporary.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister forgets that when officers have been refused their annual increase the reason given by himself and others was that the officers did not merit it. As a matter of fact, in many cases the government did not give the annual increases, notwithstanding the objections raised by the opposition. Well, if the government have control of the annual increases of these officers and can refuse those Increases as they please, there is no force in the argument of the Minister of Finance, for it would not be necessary that these officers, even if put on the permanent list, should receive increases of salary.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is quite correct in a sense. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is aware that, while we still contend that the annual increase is not a legal liability, there is moral force in the argument that people expect these increases; and we have taken that view and have granted the increases almost without exception. Once a man gets into the permanent service, he looks for these increases, and, ns a rule, the officers are getting them. But it may be that an officer is doing a certain line of work, and doing it satisfactorily and getting fair pay for it, and yet there may be no reason why he should be in the line of promotion and have an increasing salary.


James Clancy: I do not find that similar eases are treated alike. Perhaps, the hon.
minister can point out why a clerk living in Ottawa who is an assistant draughtsman, who must pass the civil service examination and is appointed to the inside service, is in a different position from that of the man doing similar work residing in New Westminster or elsewhere. The same is true of a paymaster. Whether in the inside service or in the outside service, they perform practically the same duty and, if they have been employed for years there is practically no difference except that one is on the permanent list and receives statutory increases unless he does something to disentitle himself to them, and the other does not. What my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has pointed out is perfectly true. Yet, as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has shown, by the simple words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' in the estimates, the government take to themselves power to treat these officers differently from others and in a way never contemplated by the law. This came up in another form not many days ago, when I called attention to the anomaly of a large class in the civil service who practically had no status in the service-clerks doing the work of permanent clerks yet not on the permanent list. I can understand exceptional cases, as, for instance, engineers, who do not require to pass the civil service examination, and who are in a class by themselves. But I have pointed out that there are cases in which men are provided for in that way and do not come within the class. I think we ought to have such anomalies corrected, because, as the hon. member for Hamilton pointed out, they involve possibilities of grave abuses.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of late, we have been considering the question whether we may not be obliged to create another class in which many of these temporary clerks who are practically permanent may be placed. I am not saying definitely that this will be done, but I am only pointing out that the matter has not been overlooked. There are some who are practically permanent officers, although called temporary, who have the same positions as permanent officers except with regard to the name. I confess that I rather sympathize with the idea that they should be put on the permanent list. Still, there are cases where the service can be had at the present rate of salary, and there is no reason why the officers should be transferred to the permanent list. '


Robert Laird Borden: I have not heard in the remarks of the Minister of Finance the slightest justification for promoting this gentleman, whom I mentioned, without going through the procedure provided in the statute. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is familiar with the facts, and so he cannot justify the action of the government. But I propose to ask the Minister of Railways to jus-

tify this action at the proper time. I will say no more about it except that I regard it, in the absence of an explanation, as an outrageous abuse of this method which has been employed so often to dispense with the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) under what statutory authority these gentlemen are employed. I would "dike to understand this before we get through with this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Application is made by the head of the branch to the deputy minister and he recommends the appointment


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's department is the creature of the statute, and I do not understand that he has authority to employ any one except so far as there is provision in the statute enabling him to do so. I suppose this authority must be found under some general provision of the Civil Service Act. I would like him or the Minister of Finance to tell us what clause it is. I thought I had found the clause, but I am not sure of it


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Irrespective of the Civil Service Act, this vote is authority passed by parliament to employ persons within the limits of the vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Then this means the abolition of the Civil Service Act so far as the hon. gentleman's department is concerned.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Civil Service Act has never applied to these officers, so far as my recollection goes.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought there was a provision in the Civil Service Act for the employment of temporary officers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is-employment at $400 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not under the provisions of that clause that you really get these gentlemen into the department, and then waive the Civil Service Act and give them higher salaries ? You get them in as temporary employees at $400 a year, then waive the provisions of the Act, give them higher salaries and keep them on as temporary employees for twenty-five years or more. That is the way the law is carried out at present. At least, that is the way it seems-I do not profess to understand it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Supposing it is as stated by my hon. friend (Mr Borden, Halifax) what is wrong about that ?


Robert Laird Borden: There is just this much-that the law says you may employ temporary assistants at $400 a year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But you come in and amend the law by this vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Then in order to carry that out thoroughly, you propose Mr. BOKDJCN (Halifax).
passing an item ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' and you follow the provisions of that Act as closely as you can by giving them any salary that you see fit, and keeping them on as Jemporary employees for any number of years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There must be a provision in the estimates each year, and parliament has full control of it.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice will not regard that as a desirable scheme of legislation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has continued on ever since 1885, this very item.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not care. If it is wrong, the fact that it has continued a long time is all the more reason for curing it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not say it is wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is continued on a wrong basis since 1885, we need not continue it for ever on that ground. I have asked the Minister of Finance for two or three years to consider whether it would not be better to make some amendment in the Civil Service Act by tvliich we may avoid the appearance of this item. It is unnecessary to go over the old ground which I have urged so often, namely, that one branch of the legislature is repealing in this way a provision which has been enacted by both branches. The other branch of the legislature cannot deal with appropriation Bills except as a whole, and we in this House are repealing the provisions of the Civil Service Act in a hundred different ways every session, in a most sweeping way, as announced by the hon. minister tonight, and the other branch of the legislature has nothing to say about it. The Minister of Finance will say that we have worked along very well, and found it a practicable. way of dealing with these matters. How many of these men are included under this sweeping repeal ? Are the whole fiftv-two ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Are all these gentlemen in effect permanent employees ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the majority are old employees who have been many years in the service. Some hon. gentleman opposite said there was an increase of ten or eleven. The deputy minister informs me there is a decrease of two.


Andrew B. Ingram: It was the hon. gentleman himself who told me there were fifty-two, and I showed there were forty-two last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My deputy informs me differently. There
is no desire to cover up anything. I was

going to give an illustration of what has been the custom with regard to this branch ever since it was established. We will take the chief engineer of the department, Mr. Lafleur, who I understand has been twenty-two or twenty-three years in the service. He has always drawn his pay out of this vote, under this plan. None of these, I understand, are permanent officers except two, very few of these are at Ottawa. Twenty-four are at the head office, and there are men doing work all over the Dominion. In Nova Scotia, for instance, there is the chief engineer at $2,000, the assistant at $1,825, the assistant draughtsman at $547. We could not get men of this class unless we gave them salaries commensurate with their duties. My own opinion is that it would be better if we paid these technical officers a little higher salary. At Halifax there are the late resident engineer, the two assistant engineers and the draughtsman, all from $800 to $2,400. Prince Edward . Island has a resident engineer. I understand most all these men have been there for many years.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought there was some provision in the Civil Service Act which would help out the hon. gentleman's position. I thought there was a provision about men possessing technical qualifications.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They would be subject to the limitations of salary then.


Robert Laird Borden: Then that is a most absurd provision.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: To get over the examination.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: An engineer, for example, could not come in at a higher salary than $2,400, and that will not get the service of a high class engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to amend the Civil Service Act so far as the salary is concerned, so as to get rid of this difficulty of violating it all the time ? We know that in this country you cannot get men of high technical qualifications for small salaries such as have been named. Why should we every year be passing these items ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Servce Act ' when we know perfectly well that we must pay men higher wages than that which the statute provides.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman should see in the vote we are dealing with now that out of some thirty-two persons employed, ten are persons who are not doing technical service. The hon. gentleman said that they called themselves technical ; I think it is the hon. gentleman who has called them so. We ought to cure that anomaly, first, because it would put the service on a better footing, and next, because it is so easy to class these persons. I agree with the Minister of Finance that there are certain persons that must be employed in the department for which an exception must be made, for example, such as resident engineers in the various provinces. Now there is another class of persons employed in the service to which I have referred, and I have pointed out to the hon. gentleman that there are nearly one-third of the number of persons- I am not saying one-third of the aggregate salaries-but persons employed at lower salaries who ought to be put on the same footing as civil servants in the inside service. Then they would be entitled to their statutory increases if they were entitled to them by reason of good service. That is the point I am endeavouring to make. If they are good men, they are entitled to get paid for such services as they render, and they should be put on the same status as a member of the civil service. I think the very fact that one-third of the persons employed do not properly come within the vote we are taking now is a sufficient reason why the hon. gentleman should take this matter up.


Andrew B. Ingram: Every year the different departments come down and ask for additional sums under this head. I would like to have that point made plainer. If parliament grants a vote under this head does that take away any rights or give any rights to the persons for whom the money is being voted ? Can they come in under the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They can not.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what I would like the hon. Minister of Justice to explain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No doubt the intention of the head of the department who introduces an item of that kind is to evade the Civil Service Act by adding these words to the item.


Samuel Barker: Why did the hon. minister not tell us that he was trying to do it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think we are trying to do it. Parliament is doing it and doing it very effectively. That is what I would like to point out in connection with the Dixon case, as to which the hon. gentleman declaimed in a manner which is not usual to him. The Dixon case is not one for which the head of the department is responsible. The_ Dixon case is one in which parliament is responsible.


Samuel Barker: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. The Dixon case is not one of those cases where the words were added ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' The Dixon case is one in which it is said by parliament that he is to be permitted to become a chief clerk. Parliament adopted the item and parliament said that he should be a chief clerk. The government did not do it. Parliament did it, and a discussion now as to the reason why parliament did it seems entirely beside the question. Parliament discussed that item. That item was submitted to parliament, it was discussed, the reasons in support of it were given then, and it seems to me that it is out of the question to discuss it now.


Robert Laird Borden: What page ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The words in the Auditor General's Report are quoted from the estimates of last year.


Andrew B. Ingram: The explanation of the hon. Minister of Justice is very good so far as it goes, but we want it to go a little farther. In the item that we are now voting, are these words :
Chief engineer's office-salaries of engineers, draughtsmen and clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.
I want to point out to the hon. Minister of Justice that by reason of these words-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would my hon. friend permit me ? In connection with the Dixon matter, I find in the estimates of last year, under the heading of Department of Railways and Canals :
For the promotion of F. A. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk.
Parliament was notified. Parliament concurred, and the matter was disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that ; but what I thought the hon. gentleman was going to give was the explanation submitted to parliament by the responsible minister at that time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Surely my
hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is not serious when he asks me to do that now ? That item was submitted to the House last Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
year by the responsible minister, the House discussed it, and why should we give the reason now when parliament adopted it last year ?


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. gentleman had it in his hand.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the hon. gentleman was not serious.


Robert Laird Borden: I was perfectly serious. I am speaking of the action of one of the hon. gentleman's colleagues. I thought he was coming to the assistance of his colleague.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did that last year probably.


Robert Laird Borden: He may have to do it again.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, the hon. gentleman is mistaken if he thinks it is disposed of, because I can tell him that it is not, and that it will be heard of again this session.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not say it would not be heard of, but the question is legally disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not dis-. posed of.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Parliament has disposed of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Parliament will have to dispose of it again, or discuss it,'at least.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, yes, you will discuss it; there is no question about that.


Robert Laird Borden: I simply wanted to make that plain to the hon. gentleman, because he was under a misapprehension about it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend can discuss it if he chooses. I state my opinion, and he states his.


Robert Laird Borden: I have given my opinion, but you have no opinion, as far as I can see.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is absolutely delightful.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad the hon. gentleman is pleased.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perfectly-


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad he is in such good humour to-night.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I generally am.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not very I often we have such a delightful exhibition

of the hon. gentleman's humour as that which he has afforded just now. When I submitted to the committee that it was rather a remarkable thing that a vote should have been brought before the House last year by which a provision of the Civil Service Act was unnecessarily dispensed with, in my opinion, I think I was bringing to the attention of the committee a rather peculiar action on the part of the hon. gentleman's colleagues, and the hon. gentleman makes answer by saying :	Oh, that is disposed of. I suppose it is disposed of in just the same way that we found a certain item last year voted for a particular purpose, and applied to another purpose. Perhaps that will be heard of again also. These are things for which the members of the government are responsible, and the fact that parliament, under a misapprehension, or without sufficient explanation, has passed an item of that kind, does not preclude a discussion of it in the following parliament, as I think the hon. Minister of Justice will understand. If he does not understand that now, perhaps he will understand it later on. That is all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am quite willing.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is very kind indeed and we are very much obliged to him for his willingness. Otherwise we should not venture to mention the matter. As far as this particular Item is concerned, does not the hon. Minister of Public Works think that this part of the work of the department might be carried out under some better scheme of observing the law ? The hon. Minister of Public Works is a business man, a practical man, and does he not think it would he well to deal with the engineer's department in such a way to give effect to the Civil Service Act. Notwithstanding the doubts cast upon this matter by the hon. Minister of Finance, I think as far as the engineer's department is concerned, that a better provision might be made. I am not attempting to cast the slightest reflection upon the work of the officers of the department. Knowing Mr. Dodwell and other members of the staff at Halifax, who are very capable officers, and who have been in the service a long time, I cast no reflection upon them, but I should like to see them put upon a better basis than by excepting them from the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot discover any difference between the estimates of last year and the estimates of this year, and that is what makes me a little foggy on the question. I find several items here, hut I do not find the name of Mr. Dixon and that is what makes it foggy to me. Do these words in an item give the person who receives a salary under that item, any rights that he would not have under the
Civil Service Act. I understood the Minister of Justice to say they did.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It seems to me that it is clear and simple and there is no necessity for my hon. friend being befogged.


Andrew B. Ingram: All right.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the Civil Service Act it is provided that a chief clerkship can only be created by Order in Council. That Order in Council has to be passed on the report of the deputy head and in that report of the deputy head the head of the department must concur. That is the procedure that in the ordinary course under the Civil Service Act ought to have been followed. Nowr, the Civil Service Act is an Act of parliament and the Subsidy Act is an Act of parliament also. The Civil Service Act can be amended by parliament at any time, and it is amended by the Subsidy Act if there is anything in the Subsidy Act contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In the case of Dixon, he could not have been created a chief clerk under the Civil Service Act except after compliance with formalities I have mentioned ; but parliament, by the Subsidy Act of last year comes in, and creates him a chief clerk and to that extent it amends the Civil Service Act, so that thereafter he is a civil servant entitled to the rank of chief clerk. He is dealt with as chief clerk thereafter as a result of that amendment contained in the Subsidy Act. That is very simple.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is, by putting his name in the item and submitting it to parliament. '


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: But I do not find his name submitted to parliament.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the statute of last session he will find ' for the promotion of F. A. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk.' There is the name and he is promoted to the rank of chief clerk. In this particular case before us, you say that a certain number of temporary clerks are to be employed notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, but that is a different thing altogether from the promotion of a particular individual to a particular class in the service.


Samuel Barker: We ought to be indebted to the Minister of Justice for warning us that when passing estimates in future we must be very careful indeed about words, lest we are amending Acts of parliament.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) to say whether or not in his opinion-for after all, if he will permit me to say it, there are few men

whose opinion I have a higher regard for- in his opinion is not the Subsidy Act an Act of parliament which amends any pre-j vious Act so far as the previous Act is effected by it.


Samuel Barker: I understood the minister to say that when these words are put in the estimates, we do away with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: That is (practically amending it. My object in citing the case of Mr. Dixon was to show how the departments were using the estimates in cases of that kind. Let us take the case upon which all the discussion arose. Mr. Pugsley was appointed at $1,800 notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and the Minister of Railways and Canals explained why Mr. Pugsley should get $1,800. He said : '
He has been performing duties in the accountant's branch previously done by the assistant accountant. He is a faithful and industrious officer and we have promoted him to the first-class.
The Minister of Railways and Canals therefore spoke as if the Civil Service Act had been complied with and we were simply voting the money ; and further on the minister said :
We are only asking for the amount of money we require.
_ Surely the minister, in using these words, intended the members of this House to understand that the law was being complied with. There was further discussion, and the hon. member for East Grey said :
Therefore the Civil Service Act is being entirely ignored by the government.
Now, I want to point out what the Minister, of Finance said in reply to that, and the Minister of Justice will see that hon. members would infer that the Civil Service Act was being complied with in its strictest terms. The Minister of Finance says :
I think my hon. friend's remarks are based upon a misconception. His argument is that you must first create a clerkship before you come to the House for a vote. My hon. friend is mistaken. The Civil Service Act distinctly declares the reverse. Section 15 provides that the chief clerkship in any department shall only be created by Order in Council passed after the report of the deputy^ and 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 be first complied with before the Governor in Council creates an additional clerkship.
The Minister of Finance in using these words intended this House to understand that every provision of that Act which he said must be complied with was being complied with, and having regard to what the Minister of Railways and Canals had said


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: a minute before, that we were simply voting the money. The Minister of Justice may now say what he pleases and so may the Minister of Finance, but I say that there is not a member of this House on either side who ever supposed that in voting these estimates he was doing more than voting the money that was asked for, and he never for a moment believed that he was dispensing with the Civil Service Act except in regard to the amount voted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have a recollection of the circumstances. In the first place, I was not explaining the railway estimates; but the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) opened up a general discussion upon the question whether we could appoint a first-class clerk without having a report of the deputy and the Order in Council creating the office before the vote of parliament; and my observation was to show that the voting of the money was one of the first conditions. The discussion attending that particular vote had to he looked after by the Minister of Railways and not by me, for I had no personal knowledge of it.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister told us the three things that had tb be done, and lie said that these various conditions must first be complied with before council creates the office. Yet the Minister of Justice advises the Minister of Railways that these various conditions need not he complied with, because we voted the money with these words attached.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because we voted the money, we complied with the first condition.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then you were evidently deceiving the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman has no right to make that remark. It is not correct.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIO WORKS.: If the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the opposition could be carried out, it would he a great relief to the minister. When a vote is brought in, with the words referred to attached to it, there is a suspicion that the department is doing something not in accordance with the law. In this particular case it has, I think, been made plain to the committee that the services of the department could not be carried on unless such an arrangement were made. I have not myself given much consideration to the Civil Service Act. There are some provisions in it which are intended to do good; hut I am not sure that it is on tiie -whole of much advantage to the country. Rut under this item there lias been no abuse of the powers given by these words.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been
looking up the Dixon case in 'Hansard' of
last year. His salary was vofe'd in the

first place just as a salary to a first-class clerk. Then, In the closing clays of the session, the Minister of Railways brought in the item without making the slightest explanation to the House that it was intended to do away with the intervention of the head of the department ; but he said simply this :
There is no difference in this gentleman s salary. The salary is voted in the main estimates, hut on the basis of his being a first-class clerk. He is now made a chief clerk, his salary as chief clerk being the same as the highest salary attained by a first-class clerk.
Would auybody suppose, with that explanation of the Minister of Railways before him, that the provisions of this statute which I have referred to, were, intended to he deliberately violated ?-the provisions which require that the deputy head lias reported that such an officer is necessary for the proper performance of the public business in the department, stating the reasons on which he has arrived at that conclusion, and, secondly, that the concurrence of tin; head of the department has been obtained. If the Minister of Justice supposed that I did not understand, that the voting of the item was amending the Civil Service .Act, he exhibited less keenness of intellect than he usually does.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not assume that my hon. friend did not understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: The point I was making was that it was an improper thing for the Minister of Railways and Canals to bring the item to the House without informing the House at the same time that he intended departing from two such important conditions of the Civil Service Act as those which I have just read, an omission which has not yet been explained to the House by the Minister of Finance; and I understand that this not being his department, he is not? in a position to explain it. The Minister of Railways and Canals may have a good explanation, but in the absence of an explanation, it looks as if the provisions of the Act had been deliberately violated.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would it not be reasonable to wait for an explanation from the Minister of Railways and Canals, instead of assuming that there is not an explanation ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not going to that extent. I am going to assume that the Minister of Railways and Canals has a good explanation, but I shall in the meantime wonder what it can possibly be.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The point I took was that when the item was introduced into tile Appropriation Act, in the terms in which it was introduced, those who read it must lie presumed to understand that it amended the Civil Service Act, because in law it did amend it.


Robert Laird Borden: Although tin;
Minister of Railways and Canals said simply, ' lie is now made a chief clerk.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: His words could not affect the terms of the vote.


Robert Laird Borden: I know they
could not, but we would expect a certain amount of frankness in the minister in dealing witli a matter of that kind.


James Clancy: There seems to be no doubt about what has been done, but there is some difficulty in getting at the reason why it was done. With regard to tin: case of Mr. Dixon, 1 am in no way quarrelling with his being made a chief clerk. He may be a very worthy gentleman; I know nothing about him; but tlie formalities required by the law in making him a chief clerk were utterly ignored. Then, why should the minister come down without any explanation, and satisfy himself simply by putting these words in the estimates ? Perhaps it is not convenient at this moment to give the explanation as regards Air. Dixon's case. But here is an evil which may lead to serious results. The deputy head must refuse to give the recommendation, and the minister could override liis refusal by putting these words in ins estimates : ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' and repeal the Act to that extent. The practice is certainly open to very grave objection. I think, unless some very extraordinary reason can be given, the minister has no right to ignore all these healthy formalities, aud to promote a clerk in the department simply by inserting these words in the estimates. *


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, I am not in a position to say anything about any other department; but there is no question in regard to tliis particular vote.


Robert Laird Borden: I tbink tlie discussion to-niglit ought to lead us to one conclusion, that is, that the exception introduced is altogether too sweeping. We are told by the Alinister of Justice, in a somewhat cynical way, that everything in the Civil Service Act is repealed by the insertion of these words, and that parliament has nothing to do with the matter afterwards. It seems to me that that should be a warning to us to deal only with particular sections of the Act. It cannot he necessary to repeal the entire Act with regard to these men, and I submit that it would be far better to indicate the particular sections sought to be repealed. If that had been done last year, the attention of parliament would have been drawn to the Dixon item at once, and we would have asked for an explanation. But it was passed, as many of these were passed, with tlie Impression that it was only a technical provision which was repealed. Is it necessary to ask that the whole Act be re-

pealed, so far as these men are concerned? Cannot my hon. friend indicate what particular section he requires to be repealed ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: I think that my hon. friend magnifies the evil. I am informed by one of the officials that in the case of a number of the clerks of his department referred to, they actually do possess the qualifying certificates, and it would not make any difference to them whether the Act were amended or not, but the bulk of these people are technical officers, in whose case the civil service examination is not required. In the case of professional men, it would be an extreme thing to demand that they should pass an examination. We will not do great harm in following the usual practice during many years.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has done service in pointing out how far this provision goes. That never occurred to us until this discussion came up. It is a very sweeping dispensation indeed and may have the effect of going further than the hon. Minister of Justice indicated to-night. I see no reason why we should repeal the entire Civil Service Act simply because one of its provisions stands in the way of a political appointment. Where it is necessary to depart from any one or more of the provisions of the Act, the government should indicate definitely and explicitly what provisions they intend to dispense with, and should dispense with these alone. My hon. friend the hon. Minister of Finance told us the other day that a man should never say anything more than is necessary. I admit that that is a good rule, and my hon. friend usually follows it, but he has not done so in these cases. He is saying more than is necessary, because he is sweeping away the whole Act, when he only wants to dispense with one or two of its provisions. I shall not insist any further to-night, so far as this item is concerned, but will probably on future items leave to my hon. friend to consider whether that cannot be done.
Chief architect's office-salaries of architects, draughtsmen and clerks, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $32,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will consider the discussion which has just taken place as having been repeated on this item, and put it in ' Hansard ' to save time.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it exactly the same thing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. This is practically the same. These are men who are not on the temporary staff. There has been one addition to this, of a district engineer.


James Clancy: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said a moment ago that the chief architect's office was precisely in Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the same case as the chief engineer's. But looking at the Auditor General's Report, I see that they are all employed in Ottawa, or nearly all. Why should they be treated differently from ordinary civil servants V A great deal of this work is not technical, and I do not see any reason why these men should not be brought under the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is filling up the service, under that heading, with a class of men who are doing the same kind of work as is now done in other offices by men who have passed the required examination, and he should not make any distinction between them. Let the hon. gentleman look at the list and see the work they are doing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have said that I did look over the list in the chief architect's office, and I did not see that these officers could be employed at all at any thing like $400 per annum.


James Clancy: There are persons who have passed the examination and who are employed in his department as temporary clerks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: Why should they be treated differently from other civil servants? It simply amounts to this, that by avoiding the provisions of the Civil Service Act, these persons may be kept on as temporary clerks during their whole lives, when they are performing precisely the same services as are done by permanent clerks. Take the assistant clerk of works, Mr. Boulanger, who is paid $912 per year, why should he not be put on the permanent staff and be given his class, whether first, second, or third, or chief clerk, and be thus given the means of promotion to the highest position in the service ? There is such an anomaly in this whole procedure that we should put an end to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite accept the criticism of my hon. friend in the spirit in which he has made it. I should be very glad if some amendment were made to the Act which would place those men in a different position, but at present we could not put them on the permanent staff, nor do I see any disadvantage or advantage to them or to the government

In either case, since we have done away with the Superannuation Act. The only advantage to them would be that if put on the permanent' staff, they would have to be appointed by order in council, and it would be more difficult to dismiss them than it is at present, in case they did not give satisfaction. The only difference that X can find out is that according to the Act they are appointed under order in council, and if they will not do their work it is somewhat difficult to dismiss them. I have been inquiring as to the difference between one staff and the other


James Clancy: Is the difference not clearer since hon. gentlemen opposite have reluctantly recognized their duty to keep their contract with the civil service and give them their statutory increases ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I think that under this the minister is responsible for the salaries paid. He could give a statutory increase or more if he wanted to.


James Clancy: But should that, depend on the mere smile or frown of the minister ? Should not the clerks in the service of the country be in a better position than that ? It seems to me that if an officer in the public service is doing good work, he earns the salary he receives. And, if we say the civil servants are entitled to statutory increases, that ought to be made so plain that they would not be indebted to the minister for receiving those increases.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that is a- proper way of putting it. I have pointed out that there is very little difference between these two classes. The real reason for the position of this class must be the one I have suggested. For instance, you want a draughtsman. Say the salary earned by a draughtsman in the ordinary way of business is $1,000. You cannot hope to engage a draughtsman to work for the department for $400 a year. He does not give a rap for your permanent staff or anything of that kind. If he cannot get the salary that his qualifications enable him to earn outside, he will leave the employment of the government for the position where he can earn more-as they can often do. The intention of the Civil Service Act, no doubt, is good, and on the whole it may result in good. But I know there are many deficiencies in it, and that some departments of the public service are very much injured by it. We have employees who were appointed by Order in Council and who are under the superannuation law who ought to be dismissed, but nobody has the heart to take away their superannuation. What I am pointing out is that the only object in taking the appropriation in the form proposed is that in these branches it 'is necessary, in order to engage qualified men, to pay the salaries
that are generally paid throughout the country.


James Clancy: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is giving the theory of the ease rather than what really happens. Is he prepared to say that young men would not be glad to come in at these low salaries and get their training with a view to rising in the service and receiving the higher remuneration which their improved abilities would entitle them to ? If we have a Civil Service Act at all, it should be fairly well adhered to, and I see no reason for an exception in this case. Whatever the hon. gentleman's theory may be, the practice of the department seems to be the common sense and business practice. Take the case of a young man commencing as a draughtsman at $400 a year. It is a small sum, but many a young man would be glad to commence at that if assured that he would have the chance to rise. But he is hampered, for the attitude that the government takes toward him virtually to say : We can dismiss you when we like. He naturally feels that he is liable to be dismissed after he has given his best years to the service. Of course, in every service you will find drones, and in a service the size of ours there will be drones whether they are appointed under the Civil Service Act or are engaged as temporary clerks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not particularly referring to this item, I think I was right in saying that the Civil Service Act is not altogether a good thing for the service, not altogether a good thing for Canada. I say that in the various branches we are driving young Canadians out of the country, young men who have developed and shown by their course in college or in other way that they have brains-these men are driven out of the country by the picayune salaries paid under the Civil Service Act.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman should have realized that long ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have always thought that, and the more experience I have the more strongly I believe it. We have not the class of men in the service that we should have. We talk of a matter of $40 or $50 on a man's salary, but a good man will save a hundred times that, yes, he may save hundre'ds of thousands of dollars in the conduct of the works of the department. A young man who has shown himself possessed of ability seeks a position in the engineer's office. He is offered $400 a year, with the prospect of rising in twelve years to $1,400 a year. These men are able to earn from $1,000 to $5,000 a year as soon as they leave college.
Mr.' CLANCY. Has not the hon. minister the means of overcoming that ? If he finds a young man in his department who shows

ability, is it not possible by the recommendation of the deputy head, confirmed by the minister and the passing of an Order in Council to advance such a man ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At .$1,400 a year-you can't keep them at that.


James Clancy: You could promote him to be chief clerk.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is only $2,400 as a maximum.


James Clancy: I can say this-that while lion, gentlemen on this side have been in opposition, something over six years, the civil service has never been made a mark of attack as it was in former years. I believe very heartily that Canada ought to have a good service and that that service ought to be adequately paid for. There is no reason why a man who is employed in the service of Canada should be made a subject of discussion. There always may be the question whether he is needed or not. but every good man in the public service should be well paid. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to give hon. gentlemen opposite support in appointing good men to the service and paying them reasonably well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What can you do under the established rate of salaries ? They are altogether too low. If I were to take the responsibility of appointing some bright young Canadian at a salary of a few hundred more it would be considered a case of favouritism or something of that kind. I can name young men from my own county who have left college and in a few years were earning from $4,000 to $18,000 a year. Many of them would be a great credit to the public service.


James Clancy: These are the exceptions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are getting pretty nearly to be the rule. If the hon. member will look over the various departments he will find that our bright young men will not accept positions under the Civil Service Act, and that in order to get good men we have to give them something like a reasonable salary to start with.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I am glad to" hear the admission that the civil servant is underpaid. We live in a happy time when tljere is a large surplus.


James Clancy: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is deceiving himself. He has not counted the money right.


William Ross: I have confidence enough in the Minister of Finance to believe that his statement is correct, and if the hon. gentleman has not, I am sorry for him. Now I think there should be a commission appointed to inquire into the condition of the civil service from top Mr. CLANCY.
to bottom. I do not think that any part of the surplus could be better applied than in putting the civil service in that position, that would enable men to live as they should in this country. Now, in Halifax we had this misfortune, that when we came into the confederation the salaries were low, and they never got up to that standard that they reached in other provinces. In the province of New Brunswick, Sir Leonard Tilley had foresight enough, when his province entered the confederation, to increase the salaries of the civil servants in the city of St. John, and perhaps all over that province. I know from the condition of the Post Office Department and the railway service in Halifax and neighbourhood, that those people are all underpaid, and it is time that something was done to bring them to such a standard that they can live with some comfort. There are young men with growing families who are receiving salaries so inadequate as to be unworthy of the Dominion of Canada.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what he thinks of his leaders when they refused the civil service the statutory increases, knowing that the cost of living was increasing, and that their salaries were far below what they ought to be. Has the hon. gentleman changed his mind, or why has he been so silent on this subject for so long a time 7


William Ross: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. This is the second time I have brought this matter to the notice of the committee.


James Clancy: But I should like to hear from the hon. gentleman more than a mild protest. I have never heard him say once in this House that he disapproved of the conduct of the ministers in refusing the statutory increases.


William Ross: I do not want the ministers to confine themselves to a few cases, I want them to deal with the whole subject from top to bottom, beginning with the deputy ministers and even with tlic ministers themselves. I do not think that they are overpaid, because I do not think, in view of the anxiety and turmoil of political life, that they will live long in this service. I think it desirable that our prominent men should continue a long time in public life. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am not afraid at any time to give an expression of my opinion, and to disapprove of the government when I think they are wrong.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has suggested that the ministers are wearing out their lives. I agree with him, and we have some solicitude as to how long they are going to stand it. B.ut the hon. gentleman can give practical effect to his sympathy for the weary ministers by supporting

a want of confidence motion and giving them relief.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He has no confidence that he would be able to get as good a government to replace them.
Temporary clerical and other assistance, inclusive of services of all persons required who were first employed after July, 1882, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $36,-
000.


James Clancy: I see there is an increase of $2,000 on the item for telegraph service, salaries of staff. Why is that increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was one additional divisional superintendent, and there has been a great increase in the telegraph system. There are five superintendents altogether on the list. I have explained that the Department of Railways and Canals pay the other half of the salaries.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Monday, May 11, 1903.