1903-03-24

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: X have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of George D. Grant, Esquire, for the electoral district of the North Riding of the county of Ontario.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Eastern Townships Bank.-Mr. McIntosh.
Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom Company.-Hon. Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 27) respecting the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.- Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geof-frion.
Bill (No. 30) to incorporate the Federal Oil Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 31) to amend the Act respecting the Canadian Order of the Woodmen of the World.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineering.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 33) to incorporate the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.

Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved :: That the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, and the report of the Auditor General volume 1 and 2 for the same year, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the head of the government to a despatch in the morning ' Citizen ' of to-day, purporting to give a report of a speech by Sir William Mulock at the banquet of the Young Men's Liberal Club in Toronto. The report reads, in part:
The event of to-night's banquet of the Young Liberal's Club was the speech of Sir Wm. Mulock pleading the justification of a bonus to | the Grand Trunk Pacific or any line of railway Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
projected to unite eastern and western Canada, running through the, as yet, unsettled 1,000 miles in northern Ontario. Any railway which traversed this unprofitable country was entitled to public aid, for it would be helping to build up Canada nationally by providing an allCanadian route for the output of the western provinces. The fact that a line from Winnipeg to Quebec would be so much shorter than to Boston or any other Atlantic port was emphasized and the need of dealing with this question before trade settled down into an American chanel was pointed out. The incapacity of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway to handle even the present output was noted and the need to provide transportation facilities to keep pace with the advancing tide of immigration was taken as an axiom.
Evidently the government have some policy on this subject, as emphasized in the speech from the Throne. I wish to know from the right hon. gentleman what is the policy of the government-or is he prepared to state it at present ?-with reference to the transportation question and the assistance to be given to the Grand Trunk Railway or any other enterprise proposing to open up the north-west. I wish to know whether a part of that scheme is to build a road from Quebec to connect with the new line in the north-west.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Eton. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have not seen the report which my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) refers to. Perhaps I had better wait until Sir William Mulock returns, when he can speak for himself. I do not know whether he has been accurately reported or not. As to the general question of the policy of the government, when the government has framed a policy it will be its duty to bring it down to parliament at once. But upon the general question of transportation, I think that it is of pressing need that we should have more means of communication between the east and the west.


Mr. SPROULE.: If you were to apply the same principle as you did in the ease of the ex-Minister of Public Works, he ought to get out.



SUPPLY-EMBARGO ON CANADIAN CATTLE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I instructed Mr. Dan-durand to secure the site without the knowledge of the sitting member. I suppose Mr. Dandurand arranged with Mr. Johnston so that he might purchase the site from Mr. Loy without Mr. Loy knowing that it was being purchased for the government. Mr. Dandurand did not let anybody know for whom the site was purchased. All who know Valleyfleld know that my hon. friend could have sold the site at a greater price than we paid. Property is going up there by leaps and bounds.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.', 'Wednesday, March 25, 1903.']
Mr.  A. C.@: BELL (Pictou) moved in amendment :
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted :
That in the opinion of this House there is no justification for the application of the Diseases of Animals Act of Great Britain to Canadian cattle.
That Canadian cattle at the time of the passing of said Act and ever since have been free from all contagious diseases.
This House is of opinion that the application of the said Act to Canadian cattle has an injurious effect upon the cattle trade of this country.

This House regrets that the representatives of Canada at the colonial conference utterly failed to obtain any redress or promise of redress for this grievance.
This House further regrets that this government has not succeeded by more vigorous protests, or by other effective steps, in finding means to obtain the removal of the existing unjust restrictions on the sale of Canadian cattle in Great Britain.
He said :	It will be, Mr. Speaker, in the
recollection of hon. members that this matter was dealt with at the last session of this legislature by a motion made at the same stage of the proceedings, as the present. It has since engaged a great deal of attention among the agriculturists of the mother country and quite recently it was brought to the notice of the imperial parliament by an amendment to the address. Last session this House unanimously passed a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and the hope was! then expressed that this proceeding would strengthen the hands of our representatives at the colonial conference and enable them to secure some relaxation of the regulations which are so Injurious to the cattle trade of this country. No doubt the history of this question is familiar to every one, but it may nevertheless be well to recapitulate it. Canadian cattle were admitted to the markets of the mother country until 1892, under the careful supervision of the British Board of Agriculture. In 1892, owing to the suspicion that disease existed in one animal, which formed part of a cargo of Canadian cattle, the regulations were changed, Canadian cattle were required to be slaughtered at the port of entry, the ports to which Canadian cattle were admitted were limited to six in number, and all imported Canadian cattle had to be slaughtered within ten days from their arrival.
At the time when this suspected case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia was reported and declared to be that particular disease by the veterinary authorities of the Board of Agriculture, it was maintained by the authorities on this side and by some very eminent veterinary authorities in the mother country that the animal suspected of pleuropneumonia was infected only by the common catarrhal pneumonia, which is not at all contagious or dangerous. That view was presented to the British authorities by the Canadian government, and various arguments were urged to show that the cattle of Canada were "healthy and that really no cause existed for excluding them from the inland markets of the mother country. Lately the arable farmers of Scotland, who are intensely interested in this matter, have been agitating very! strongly for the repeal of the obnoxious legislation. They quote the authority of the gentleman who purchased the animal suspected of being diseased. He bought the cow in question in October, 1892. and shortly afterwards all the cattle upon two of his farms, on which this animal had been from time to time, were
slaughtered by order of the British authorities. But in not one of these animals so slaughtered was any trace of disease fouud. Furthermore a general order was passed requiring the slaughter of all the animals in the cargo of which that cow formed part, and in no case did any of these animals show any trace of pleuro-pneumonia. Nor was the slightest trace of the disease found in any of the animals with which the one suspected had come in contact. Prof. Williams, who is perhaps the most eminent authority in Great Britain on these matters, did not agree with the government experts. He held, and so did Mr. Clark, veterinary surgeon of the Perthshire county council, that there was no pleuro-pneumonia in existence among the animals imported and that none of the animals which had come in contact with the supposed diseased animal had given any evidence of the existence of pleuro-pneumonia. Furthermore I see, on the authority of the farmers who waited on Mr. Hanbury, president of the Board of Agriculture, that a portion of the lung of the suspected animal had been removed and is still in existence at Edinburgh, in the custody of the veterinary authorities there, which is in itself sufficient evidence to show that it was a mistaken diagnosis which led to the exclusion of Canadian cattle. Mr. Clark also says, speaking of disease among Canadian cattle :
I never met with a case of contagious or infectious disease in one single instance and this including that most prevalent disease, tuberculosis.
Now, Sir, the cattle of the mother country are not as free from disease as those of Canada. The statistics given as to the condition of the cattle slaughtered at Glasgow show that among 46,784 animals home bred cattle slaughtered at Glasgow, under inspection of the veterinary authorities, tuberculosis existed in 0.332 cases, making an average of 13 53 per cent of infected or diseased animals. At the same time among 49,881 Canadian and United States cattle which were slaughtered, there were found no cases of pleuro-pneumonia and but 00 cases of tubercular disease, or only 13-100 of 1 per cent. In addition to this corroborative and accumulative evidence showing that the cattle of Canada are and have been perfectly liealthv, Mr. Hanbury, president of the Board of Agriculture, himself admits that there is no disease existing among Canadian cattle. On the 9th of October, 1901, when receiving a delegation of agriculturists, in Edinburgh, he made the statement that in his opinion there was no disease in Canada. And on February 27th of this year, he declared in the House of Commonsi that he had admitted for months past that Canada was free from disease, but nevertheless lie was convinced that if the people of Great Britain were to keep out disease, the Act of 1896 must be maintained in all_ its completeness. Mr. Hanbury in a variety of ways and at a variety of times has tried

Now It is generally supposed that the plea which has been made that these cattle were shut out of Great Britain because disease existed in this country, has been abandoned. It has generally been supposed that was not the real reason which existed in the mind of Mr. Hanbury and which led him to persist in excluding Canadian cattle. It has been rather suspected that it was a measure of protection, that by excluding Canadian cattle on this plea he practically secures an advantage in the markets of the mother country for the breeders and feeders of the mother country. In reference to that matter, the experience of the feeders, those men who have arable farms in Scotland and buy store cattle and fatten them upon their own farms, shows that they do not agree with Mr. Hanbury. They seem to think they are being injured to quite as great an extent as the people of Canada by reason of the fact that they are prevented from buying store cattle from this country to feed upon their own farms. Latterly, I see that Mr. Hanbury, in speaking on this matter, practically maintains that if Canadian cattle are to be admitted into Great Britain, it is going to prejudice the position of the breeders of store cattle in Great Britain.
Now, if the mother country chooses frankly to adopt that as a measure of protection, I do not feel that we as a people who are disposed to shape our legislation so as to give our own producers an advantage in the market, would be in a very good position to find fault with. them. But that is not the ground upon which Mr. Hanbury based his case in the speech delivered by him in the Imperial House of Commons on the 27th of February last. From first to last he cast an aspersion upon the cattle of Canada, contending that if they were not now diseased they are liable to be diseased at any moment, and that it is imperative, if the people of Great Britain are going to preserve their herds from disease, that they must shut out the cattle of Canada. While Mr. Hanbury has abandoned the plea that Canadian cattle' are diseased we still find him appealing to the British House of Commons against the admission of Canadian cattle on the ground that it is impossible for English cattle to be kept free from disease if Canadian cattle are admitted. That seems a most absurd proposal by Mr. Hanbury, because the figures I have cited show, that whereas the cattle of Great Britain are largely diseased ; whereas they are admitting thousands of store cattle from Ireland a large percentage of which are diseased, on the other hand the cattle of Canada are absolutely free from disease. You will find in the reports of our Department of Agriculture, that Dr. McEachran our inspector reports on the cattle sent from Canada to England year after year, that no contagious disease exists among them. On two occasions Dr. McEachran reports that probably in no other country in the world is there such complete absence of disease
amongst cattle as there is in Canada. In face of that condition of affairs ; in face of the fact that cattle in Great Britain do show tuberculous disease ; in face of the fact that the cattle imported from Ireland are, on the evidence of these Scotch farmers, not healthy or vigorous or profitable ; in face of all that, Mr. Hanbury appeals to the British House of Commons to support the legislation now in existence, and he maintains that it is impossible to keep cattle disease out of Great Britain unless they debar Canadian cattle. It would be just as reasonable to argue that the clear pure water of a spring going into a river which was more or less polluted, would pollute that river, as to maintain that the admission of one hundred thousand healthy Canadian cattle to mix with the more or less diseased cattle in Great Britain was going to introduce disease amongst British herds. It is perfectly clear that the ground upon which so far the government of Great Britain, as represented by Mr. Hanbury, have rested their ease to keep our cattle at a disadvantage and to inflict a loss upon our shippers, is absolutely without foundation. Mr. Hanbury made the statement in the course of his speech :	That it
is impossible to know whether there is disease or not in the countries whence these cattle have been sent to Great Britain. That statement is entirely at variance with the condition of affairs in Canada where the most careful inspection is made of every animal shipped, and where successive governments have asked the government of Great Britain to send their own veterinary inspector to Canada to satisfy themselves in the most absolute manner that no disease existed, if they are not content with the report of the Canadian inspector. In face of all these facts it seems to me that we in this House of Commons should express our entire dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. I find amongst these Scotch farmers a very general disposition to represent the case of Canada as one which deserves special consideration. Several of them referred to the great sacrifices made by Canada for the empire ; to the manner in which Canada has shown herself disposed to come to the assistance of the mother country and not to spare either blood or treasure in rendering that assistance. These men of our race in the motherland seem to think that it is only fair that Canada should receive some special consideration, or at least should not be unjustly discriminated against in this manner. In the light of this, and in view of the fact that we have an unassailable and impregnable case it seems to me that if there is an unanimous expression from this parliament that this obnoxious restriction should be removed, the government of Canada ought to be in a position to press this matter very forcibly upon the government of the mother country. Last year this House passed a resolution similar to this, and one hope expressed at that time was that the gentlemen representing Canada at the colo-

37S
nial conference would be enabled to gain something for the benefit of our country in regard to this matter. It was thought that when Canada gave that concession in tariff matters known as the British preference, that if we were going to make concessions to the manufacturers of the motherland, the government of Great Britain might be asked to make a concession to the agriculturists of Canada in conection with our cattle export trade. That was not done. I find that at the colonial conference this matter was referred to, but apparently received very little attention, and so far as we can learn it was relegated for settlement to Hr. Hanbury, the president of the Board of Trade; the very gentleman who told the Scotch farmers in Edinburgh that he had no power to deal with this question and that any action taken in connection with it must be with the sanction of Great Britain supported by the House of Commons. At page 41 of the report of the proceedings of the colonial conference this reference is made :
The representatives of Canada desired to bring before the conference the clauses of the law under which live cattle imported into this country from Canada are required to he slaughtered at the port of landing. It was considered, however, that the matter was not of sufficient general interest to he dealt with by the conference and arrangements were made for a discussion privately with the president of the Board of Agriculture.
Thus the matter was referred to that same Mr. Hanbury, who, at that time and more recently still, has said that it was utterly impossible to grant this request. No report, so far as I know, has come to this House as to what may have occurred in the course of the referred discussion which was to have taken place between the representatives of Canada and the President of the Board of Agriculture, and probably it will be to our advantage now to learn from the members of the government, to what extent this matter was discussed with Mr. Hanbury, and what the result of the discussion was. If I had known more exactly, before the notice of this motion was given, what had transpired at the colonial conference on this subject, it would probably have been better that a motion had been made for a report of the conference or what took place between the Canadian representatives and Mr. Hanbury. That information we may have from the members of the government present. On this explanation of the position in which the question stands at present, the attitude of Mr. Hanbury and the attitude of the government of Great Britain, so far as we can know from public information,
I will rest the case at this point, simply moving the motion of which I have given notice.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the time and the circumstances are at present favourable for the discussion of this Mr. BELL.
question ; and if my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) feels it his duty to press this amendment, I shall have to ask the House to reject it, for two reasons. The first reason is that the method and manner and terms of the resolution unmistakably mark it as a vote of non-confidence in the government. We accept it as such, and we ask those who are supporters of the government in the House to join us in taking that view. The second reason is that a motion passed this House within the last few days calling for the papers on this subject. My hon. friend, without waiting for the production of those papers, endeavours to precipitate a discussion to-day. I think, until those papers are brought down, the House is not in a position intelligently to discuss it. When they are brought down, if it be found that the government have not in every respect pressed this matter on the attention of the imperial authorities, then there may be need of some further action in the House. But, until that motion has been responded to, as it will be at an early day, by the production of the papers, I submit that the time is not favourable for a discussion of this question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has given the very briefest, and it seems to me, the flimsiest reasons why this question should not be discussed to-day. What are they ? First, that the time and the circumstances are not appropriate, because of the absence of the papers. If we were living in an age of the world when we had not the public press, which dishes up everything fresh on our tables in the morning, that might be regarded as a sufficient reason ; but, in view of the fact that we are so well informed with regard to what takes place, not only on ' the continent of America, but in the mother country, it cannot be said that we are without sufficient information to enable us to deal with this question. Therefore the present time cannot be inappropriate. Then, the hon. minister regards this motion as one of non-confidence ; but when a similar motion was proposed by one of his own friends at the last session of parliament, it was considered quite appropriate then. If it was appropriate then, how can it be inappropriate now, when moved in exactly similar circumstances ? If the government accepted the motion then, without regarding it as a motion of want of confidence, they can accept this motion to-day. They have not the opportunity of putting up one of their own friends for the purpose of defending the government for delay ; but the hon. minister calls on his friends simply to vote down the motion as one of want of confidence. It seems to me that is about the very worst excuse the government could offer. The hon. Minister of Finance has not applied himself to the subject at all, but just calls upon his silent majority-
I will not call it as his friends used to do

on this side of the House, the brute majority-to vote it down. Now, this is a very important question, one in which the great agricultural class of our country especially have a great and direct interest. It is of sufficient importance to engage the most careful attention and the most active services of the government and their friends, whether they are at home or abroad. The history of the matter has been very well given by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). In 1892, it was said that two head of cattle reached England affected with pleuro-pneumonia. One was taken over on the ' Monkseton ' and the other on the ' Huronian.' The result was that the embargo was put on, and in 1S96 a Bill introduced and passed prohibiting the im-1 portation of Canadian cattle into England or Scotland, unless they were slaughtered at the port of debarkation within ten days after their arrival. The embargo was put on for the purpose of keeping out disease and maintaining the sanitary condition of cattle in that country. It was claimed in Canada, as well as in Scotland, that there were no justifiable reasons for putting on the embargo, as there were grave doubts whether the cases in question were cases of pleuro-pneumonia or not. Professor Williamson, of Edinburgh, one of the greatest authorities on the subject in the world, declared most positively and emphatically, after careful examination, that they were not cases of pleuro-pneumonia. At that time, the government of the day in Canada were attacked most fiercely for having failed to get that embargo raised. The contention of the opposition at that time was that it had been put on owing to the laxity of the Canadian government regarding the enforcement of the quarantine regulations between Canada and the United States. I remember very distinctly that the hon. Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) for a whole afternoon in this House arraigned the government in a most voluminous way, going over the whole history .of the case ; and several other hon. gentlemen opposite joined him in the most energetic and sarcastic fashion.
It was claimed that this great injustice was due to the failure of the late government to do its duty. Afterwards in 1896 a law was passed by the British parliament preventing the importation of Canadian cattle. Before that year there was only an Order in Council, but that Order in Council was afterwards converted into an Act of parliament. The government opposite came into office in 1896. Have these hon. gentlemen shown themselves sincere in the charges they made in 1892, that this embargo of our cattle was due to the lax quarantine regulations which were then in force between this country and the United States. Had they been sincere, they would have endeavoured to make these regulations more stringent and prevent the possibility of any disease
being imported from the United States or elsewhere and thus be in a position to appeal with greater force to the mother country to remove the embargo. Did they do that ? No, Mr. Speaker, they did exactly the reverse. And in what little they did, they have been entirely unsuccessful. It is true that at intermittent intervals they have written to Mr. Hanbury, president of the Board of Agriculture of England, asking that the embargo be taken off, and the invariable answer they have received is that their request will not be complied with. The plea given for this refusal is that the British government desire to keep the herds of English cattle free from disease, but we have at last the admission from Mr. Hanbury himself that he does not believe contagious disease exists among Canadian herds, so that the only plausible excuse for putting on the embargo and maintaining it has really no existence, according to Mr. Hanbury liimself. Why then is the embargo kept on ? Judging by the information we have, we can only come to one conclusion, and that is that this embargo is simply a measure of protection for the English and Scotch farmers who desire a better market for their own cattle, and is not intended to prevent the importation of disease at all. We are justified in coming to that conclusion by the reply given by the president of the Board of Agriculture to a deputation which waited on him in Edinburgh in 1902. He said that the Order in Council had been converted into a solemn statute passed unanimously by the House of Commons, but that the statute was passed at a time when a most vigorous agitation was kept up which led to the conclusion that there was real -danger to the herds of Britain in the importation of Canadian cattle and when that agitation was not met by the vigorous opposition that might have been expected. He then went on to say :
Therefore although Canada may be free at the present moment-and I honestly admit that I think it is-I told the Canadian minister so myself, and I am perfectly -willing to repeat It to this deputation-I think the United States are also free ; these are the two countries sending in their animals for slaughter, and no country which was not supposed to be free from disease would be allowed to do that. There is another reason in addition to disease, though connected with disease, which I am bound to say weighs with me, and it is this. Given the fact that, although a country may be free from disease, you can never guarantee the continuance of that freedom from disease, what would happen if the importation of store cattle, say from the two countries free from disease at the present moment-Canada and the United States-were to be allowed ? The first thing that would happen undoubtedly would be that the price of English stores would naturally fall to the price of the stores sent over from Canada and the United States.
Therefore the real object of Mr. Hanbury was to protect the English and Scotch farmer and not to keep out disease. What

effort has the present government made to have this embargo removed ? So far they have made very little effort indeed. True, from time to time, they have written some letters. From time to time the Minister of Agriculture has made some slight representations to Mr. Hanbury, but all they have done has resulted in nothing. We have very strong evidence that contagious disease does not exist in Canada among our cattle. We have the.evidence of veterinary surgeons who have been making reports from time to time, ever since 1892, to the government of this country that no contagious disease of any nature dangerous to cattle exists in Canada. We have the evidence disclosed by the slaughter of every animal of the herds of Canadian cattle, over 1,000,000 in all, in England and Scotland since 1892. In no one instance was there any trace of contagious disease. We are therefore right in assuming that there is no danger to be feared from the importation of Canadian cattle In the moth# country. We have the evidence of Mi. Hanbury himself who declared that he does not believe that the disease exists in Canada at present, nevertheless we have not yet had any relaxation of this embargo. When the present government took office they declared that the embargo was imposed because of) the carelessness of tlieir predecessors in not strictly enforcing the quarantine regulations between us and the United States. But what was the first thing done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) ? The first thing he did was to relax those regulations. He did the very thing which he and his friends declared most emphatically should not be done. They had declared that instead of relaxing we should make these regulations more stringent and enforce them more strictly, yet no sooner did they take office than they did the very reverse. Will that convince the Canadian farmer that this government have his interests at heart ?
Before 1892 we had the present Minister of Agriculture declaring that anyhow the British market did not amount to very much, and I am bound to believe that he entertains the same opinion still, if we are to judge him and his friends by the half-hearted methods they have made to relieve this country of the embargo.
But who are aiding us in our efforts to get it removed ? Mr. Hanbury has stated that 95 per cent of the British people were opposed to it. In answer to that I point to the fact that petitions were presented to the British government, signed by people representing no less than 8,000,000 consumers and feeders and handlers of these cattle, who are interested in having this embargo removed. We have also, an ally in the Scotch farmers and feeders who are using every effort to convince the British government that their policy in this respect is a mistaken one
and they ask us to help them. They say to us :	Our interests are identical in this
matter; make a greater effort in your country and we will in ours, in order to force conviction upon the British parliament that no necessity exists for this embargo and that it will be eminently in the interests, not only of the Canadian people but of the Scotch farmers and the Scotch and English butchers and the British consumer, to have this embargo raised. We have able allies; they are willingly joining us, they are energetically joining us, and they wish us to make a greater effort.
A short time ago we had the colonial conference, and the Prime Minister was there with many of his friends. I think the Minister of Finance was there, and the Minister of Agriculture also. One of the important subjects discussed was the trade relations between us and the mother country. And what representations did these lion, gentlemen make there with regard to this important question that showed a desire on their part to get the embargo raised ? I do not know that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture broached the subject at all. So far as the papers informed us, we have no means of knowing that they said a word regarding it. Is that an evidence of their being alive to the interests of the Canadian farmers ? Here was a splendid opportunity to make such representations-and to back them up with facts that were within their reach-as might have enabled them to secure the raising of this embargo. But, so far as we know they did nothing. They treated the matter-I was going to say with silent contempt, but perhaps that would be going too far.
On another question, I wish to say a word. Why is not the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) here to enlighten us on this question ? I have noticed a fashion which has obtained of late years in this House, which, I think, ought to be put a stop to as soon and as completely as possible. Whenever a session of parliament commences, two or three or more ministers at the head of important departments, who ought to be here to answer questions put to them, absent themselves. Our Minister of Agriculture is in Japan, I believe. Last session he was away somewhere else. I do not know what he may be doing. He may have gone upon a very important mission. But I think he could have taken some other time of the year to go rather than during a session of parliament. It is currently hinted, whether true or not, that ministers are conveniently absent to avoid troublesome questions which might be brought to the attention of parliament in which their departments and the government are vitally interested.
If that be the reason, we had better know it, and we had better change the system at once. It is a matter of great importance that, during the session of parliament, min-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: isters should be here to answer questions put to them. At present, two important ministers are absent. The other is the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). It may be true that he is away on an important mission; but it seems to me that, either some abler man might have been sent in his place, or he might have chosen some other time to go, and take pains to attend during the session. We ought to break up this custom of ministers being absent when parliament is in session. They should be here to give us the information necessary to enable us to discuss intelligently questions which are brought before the House. But, when we ask questions, we are told : In the absence of the minister, the information cannot be given, but it will be given when the minister comes back. But by the time the minister gets back the session is over, and the opportunity to bring out the information for the benefit of the public is gone. For the reasons I have given, I think I am justified in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). And I hold that the government should not put forward the pretext that this is a want of confidence motion. They could accept it if they liked. But this plea is only a pretext on the part of the government. When they have no other way of bringing their supporters solidly together they call upon them to vote the motion down on the ground that it is a want of confidence motion.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: This motion may be a want of confidence motion In the government; but what we have seen here to-day is certainly an exhibition of want of confidence on the part of the government in themselves. They are not prepared to justify their record in this matter and I do not believe they can do so, for their record is one of utter lack of vigour. They have said that they are in favour of an imperial preference. But, if we, as a country, expect preferential treatment from the motherland, we must ask for it. If we are to sing the song of imperialism, as we have heard it sung in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite, that song must be honest, it must be genuine. And hon. gentlemen opposite have not been genuine in their expression of imperial sentiment. They go to the colonial conference, being called there to discuss imperial questions and imperial trade; and when they reach there they declare that they have not a single suggestion to make. If they desire to attain anything, certainly that is not the way to attain it. If the government go there to discuss questions In which their country's interests are concerned, there must be some vigour in their presentation of their case. Is there any evidence of vigour in the statement of the case presented at that conference by hon. gentlemen opposite ? On the contrary they went there with nothing whatever to say. The people of Great Britain, if they are to give us a preference, expect us to ask for it and to make out a case. If we say we are imperialists and that we are prepared to feed the empire- and I believe Canada is prepared to feed the empire-we must say so; and, not only that, but we must say that we are willing to assume our responsibilities with respect to the maintenance of the integrity of the empire. I do not agree with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who says that, in some ways we are British, but we must not say it-certainly we must not express it vigorously. We are British and our wish is to build up the empire and to trade with other portions of the empire. But when you say you wish to trade with the empire, you must also say that you are prepared to take part in vindicating the integrity of the empire.
But hon. gentlemen opposite have not taken that position; on the contrary, as was pointed out the other day and was stated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who has just sat down, they had not a thing to suggest at the imperial conference. I believe that a vote of thanks was the only proposal they had to make. What can the farmers of Canada expect to accomplish, if they send representatives to discuss matters in that fashion. As a party, hon. gentlemen opposite have never tried to promote the trade relations that might have been promoted. They profess to be free traders, and yet their energies, whether in opposition or in power, have been devoted to extending our trade relations with the protectionist United States. Of all people, hon. gentlemen opposite, the professed free traders, should have done all they could to build up trade relations with the mother country. But they have seen no salvation except in closer trade relations with the United States, a country antagonistic to us, a country that is trying to get into the British market ahead of us. Is it any wonder that when a proposal of this kind is brought forward, their only course is, not an attempt to justify their record but to plead : This is a vote of want of confidence in us. I hope to see the trade relations between Canada and the mother country largely extended. I believe that extension is coming. But, if it is to come, it can only be through our presenting a fair case and saying to the empire : Give us a preference in trade, and we will do our share in maintaining the integrity of the empire. That has never been said by hon. gentlemen opposite. But the people of Great Britain expect us to say i it. What was the burden of the discussion in England yesterday ? It was that the colonies should be prepared to do their share toward the defence of the empire. That is the sentiment that is ringing through England to-day. Iam sure that the British public are prepared to give up some of their free trade ideas if they can find that the colonies are prepared to join them in some kind of trade relations involving an inter-

imperial preference. It is to be had, it can be worked out, but it must be worked out vigorously, and by men who have confidence in the measure. Not only have we beard the confession made by the bon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) the other day, but we have heard the Prime Minister say in this House that he did not think it was worth while to go into the question of the inclusion of Newfoundland because of the tioublesome French shore question. Sir, statesmanship does not consist in avoiding questions because they are troublesome, statesmanship implies that you must approach a question with a vigorous determination to overcome difficulties, then you will accomplish something. But all the satisfaction we get to-day over this question is that we are told it is a vote of want of confidence in the government. Wait till the papers come down, and something will be done, sooner or later.
T know that the sentiment of the people of this country is that the empire must have inter-imperial trade between its different portions, concessions must be made by one portion in favour of another. Not only that, but the different members of the empire must be prepared to do something one for the other, and when we go to London in that frame of mind, when we say that we are of the empire and wish to trade with the empire, that we as Canadians can feed the empire, then I believe we will make great progress in attaining the end we have in view. As I said before, the people of the empire are beginning to realize more and more that the empire is a unit, and it must be independent of the outside world for its food supply. I believe the empire can be independent, and that she can rely on the colonies, and above all she can rely on Canada for her food supply, her animal food as well as the cereals she may require. She will ultimately look to this country for that supply, but she will never do so until the representatives of this country go to London with a clear policy and say to the mother country : We expect something from you ; we give you something, and we want something in return. One of the weakest confessions that was ever made was that trade preference which we have discussed so much in this House. Its weakness consisted in the fact that while you give something you say you do not want anything in return. I say the Canadian farmer does want something in return. He believes that if he gives he must get, on equal terms. When hon. gentlemen adopt that policy and show that they are in earnest in promoting trade within the empire, when they say to the home government: You are shutting' out our cattle to-day, and we ask you to take down the bars, especially as there is no reason for keeping the bars up. then I believe we will get something. But until there is a vigour in our policy, until it has a Canadian ring and spirit in it, and also an imperial ring and spirit in it, we shall make no head-Mr. MACLEAN.
way. I believe I speak for the Canadian farmers in saying that they are convinced this government have been negligent all through in dealing with these matters.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: 
Mr. T. C. CASGBAIN (Montmorency).: I desire to offer a few observations on this question which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). It seems to me the government has dealt with this important question in a very high-handed manner. Here is a resolution which certainly interests the whole of Canada. We heard this question discussed year after year when the party which is now on the opposite benches occupied the government side of the House. The opposition of that day contended that the reason why this embargo had not been removed, was the supineness of the government of the day. We all know that the people of Canada were asked to condemn the government because they did not make greater efforts to induce the imperial authorities to relieve us from this embargo. Now, Sir, we are told that we should wait, that the papers have been moved for, and that they will soon be before the House. Well, if I mistake not, the papers on this important question were moved for some time last week, and unless they are very voluminous they should already be before the House so that we might discuss this question with connaissance de cause, knowing all the details, knowing what the representatives of the government did at the time of the imperial conference, and what they have done since. This question has been before the British public for a long time, it is before the British public to-day, and it seems to me it is the duty of the government to bring down these papers to the House as soon as possible. Unless these papers are so voluminous that they could not be copied in time they should have been brought down a day or two after they were asked for and the government is at fault there. What are the two points upon which my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) rests his argument and his condemnation of the government upon this question ? He says, first:
This House regrets that the representatives of Canada at the colonial conference utterly failed to obtain any redress or promise of redress for this grievance.
I have before me the blue-book brought down in the imperial House which contains 13
the deliberations of the colonial premiers and I find upon this question simply this
The representatives of Canada desired to bring before the conference the question of the law under which live cattle imported into this country from Canada are required to be slaughtered at the port of landing. It was considered, however

I want to call the attention of the House to this
-that the matter was not of sufficient general interest to be dealt with by the conference and arrangements were made for discussion privately with the president of the Board of Agriculture.
That was a question of grave importance for Canada. It had been a question of such grave importance in the opinion of the party now in power when they were on this side of the House that they called condemnation down upon the Conservative government for not securing the removal of this embargo on Canadian cattle. Turning to the preceding page I find :-
In addition to the commercial matters, of which previous notice had been given, two subjects were brought forward by the metric system of weights and measures, and the question of the postal charges on newspapers and periodicals.
I take it that the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle was of far greater importance than the adoption of the metric system or the question of the adoption of a reduced rate of postage on newspapers. But the gentlemen who represented this country before the imperial conference devoted their time to the consideration of this resolution which was passed.
That it is advisable to adopt the metric system of weights and measures for use within the empire, and the Prime Ministers urge the governments represented at this conference to give consideration to the question of its early adoption.
I fail to see why this other question of the embargo on Canadian cattle was not just as important as the question of introducing the metric system into Canada. It is very well theoretically to introduce the metric system into Canada ; it may be an important subject to those great men coming from all parts of the empire to deliberate upon, but what our representatives who were sent over had to do was to represent the interests of Canada and they should have impressed upon the other gentlemen who were there-their colleagues in this imperial conference-that for us, in Canada, this was a more important question than the introduction of the metric system, or the introduction of a system by which British newspapers would come in at a smaller rate than they come in at now. I realize that these two questions, the question of the metric system and the introduction of British newspapers at a lower rate of postage, are important subjects, but where was the right



hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when this other question came up ? Surely, with his persuasive eloquence, which we all admire so much he could have brought these other gentlemen if he had tried very hard to look upon this question as one of the gravest subjects which could be brought before the imperial conference. Of course, at that time these gentlemen, and particularly those who represented the British government at the imperial conference, said to themselves : Why should we disturb our minds over this question ? It is only a question of trade between Canada and the empire. We know that the Canadians upon this point will give us everything we want without asking anything in return. That is what they thought in their own minds. They simply said : We will refuse this as we have before refused a preference in trade matters because these gentlemen from Canada will say nothing, they will go home contented and tell the people that they obtained the metric system and a reduction of postage on newspapers and the people of Canada will swallow all this and say :	What a good government
we have and what splendid representatives we had at the imperial conference ! But, there is something more. The motion goes on to say :
This House further regrets that this government has not succeeded by more vigorous protests. or by other effective steps, in finding means to obtain the removal of the existing unjust restrictions on the sale of Canadian cattle in Great Britain.
It seems to me that it is due to the members of this House that we should have some other reply from the government than simply : Wait until the papers are brought down ! I say, with all due deference to the lion. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), that it looks as if he were not in a position to tell the House what steps the government has taken in this matter. It looks as if he were not in a position to defend the course which has been taken. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is now away and I emphasize what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said a short time ago that it is unfortunate that two hon. ministers who are charged with the administration of two of the most important departments in the government should be absent at this very time. Why was it so absolutely necessary that the hon. Minister of Agriculture should go to Japan just when this House was going to open, when the public knew and when the members of this House and. when the government knew that most important questions relating to his department would be brought before the House and that the only reply we will be able to get-and in this I am not speaking at all in any spirit of hostility to the hon. Minister of Finance-will be that the hon. Minister of Finance will get up and say : You will have to wait until the hon. Min-Mr. CASGRAIN.
ister of Agriculture gets back, or until certain papers are brought down. This is not the answer which we should expect from the government; it is not the answer which we have a right to have from the members of the government on this important question. They know what these papers contain, or they should know, they know what efforts have been made, if efforts have been made, by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in the direction of relieving us from this embargo. They must have deliberated upon this question in Council, it cannot be a secret, it is a matter of national importance to us all and we call upon them here to say what they have done. We call upon them to get up and frankly state to the House that they have taken such and such measures that they have communicated with the imperial authorities within a very short time, that they have done something at all events to relieve us of this just cause of complaint. It looks as if the hon. Minister of Finance did not know what has been done, or that nothing has been done at all by the government. Well, it is time for this House to know what has been done, it is time for the farmers of this country, for the cattle dealers to know if this government have really done anything in the direction which is indicated by the motion. If they hav% not done anything I say this House stands in judgment upon them and that they should be condemned by the House, because, when they were in opposition, they condemned us time and time again for not doing what they said we should do and if they have been following in our tracks they should call down upon themselves the same condemnation which they so many times directed against us.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I have just a word of answer to give to the very reasonable request made by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) a moment ago. He says that the government should give an answer as to the efforts that were made when we were in England during last summer to remove the grievance of which he complains and which is now before the House. My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has called the attention of the House to what took place at the conference. The matter was brought up by the Canadian ministers at the conference. The hon. member for West Elgin will find in the blue-book which has been brought down by the British government the proceedings in this respect. As my hon. friend knows the discussion was not given out but a simple summary of what took place and that he will find at page 41.
The representatives of Canada desired to bring before the conference the question of the law under which live cattle imported into this country from Canada are required to be slaughtered at the port of landing. It was considered, however, that the matter was not of sufficient general interest to be dealt with at the con-

ference and arrangements were made for Its discussion privately with the president of ihe Board of Agriculture.
My hon. friend has just stated that the matter seemed to have been treated with some levity. That is not a fair inference to draw. The reason why it was not taken up at the conference was that it was a matter which interested Canada alone, and that is the difference between it and the question of the metric system or the question of the postage on newspapers, both of which interested all the colonies of the empire, whereas the question of the cattle embargo interested only Canada. As a result of our representations the extract which I have read shows that the matter was considered by the conference, but was not taken up, and it was determined then and there that it should be discussed between the representatives of Canada and the Board of Agriculture. This was done. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was not in England then, but the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir ffm. Mulock) who takes a deep interest in agriculture was deputed by myself and my colleagues to discuss the matter with Mr. Hanbury and the Board of Agriculture. A few dayswago this question was brought before the House on a motion for the papers by my hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa). These papers will be produced not later than this week. I hope that before next Monday they will be on the Table of the House, and then the House will be in a position to determine whether or not we have fulfilled our duty. Until the House has been placed in possession of that information it seems to me that it is not fair to ask that this motion should pass. My hon. friend (Mr. Bell) was appealed to when he gave notice of this motion, not to bring it in as an amendment to Supply because in such a form we could not amend it. The hon. gentleman has thought fit to pursue another course, and he is quite within his right. The delay in bringing down these papers has not been unreasonable ; we are only in the second week of the session ; we shall have these papers within a few days, and it certainly would have been more in accord with the rules of fairness and justice if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) had given a reasonable delay for the papers to be brought down. However, without waiting to know what has been done; what are the efforts that have been made and what has passed between the representatives of Canada and the British Board of Agriculture, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) asked the House to vote that the representatives of Canada at the colonial conference have utterly failed to obtain any redress, or attempted to obtain a redress for these grievances. That we might have been censurable for having failed to try to do a thing would perhaps be reasonable, but to blame us for having failed after we did by is not in accordance with the rules of fair-play. The words of the amendment are:
13}
This House further regrets that this govern-nient has not succeeded by more vigorous protests, or by other effective steps, in finding means to obtain the removal of the existing unjust restrictions on the sale of Canadian cattle in Great Britain.
If when the papers are brought down the House is not satisfied with the efforts which we made, perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) might have occasion to renew his motion, but in the absence of these papers and without the House knowing what has been done, it is not to be expected that the House should pass such a motion as this. The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) has told us that this is not a motion of want of confidence, but if it is not such a motion, what is it ? There are some motions which may not in terms imply want of confidence, and not this government but other governments, have accepted them when moved as this motion lias been. But here it is stated in so many words that we are censurable, and to a do) it that would be like turning the other cheek to be smitten. We have no option in the matter. It is a motion of want of confidence for not having obtained what it is said we might have obtained.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He appears to be more anxious to condemn the government than to get our cattle into Great Britain.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I agree with my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) that hon. gentlemen opposite appear more anxious to condemn the government than to have the embargo removed from our cattle. Some reference has been made to the fact that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not in his seat. I agree that as a rule ministers ought to be in their place in parliament-members ought to be in their places in parliament	and ministers still more so. But there are reasons sometimes why even members cannot be present here-I do not wish to be personal and I make allusion to no one in par- * ticular. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Japan on a good errand. We have sent exhibits to the exhibition which was opened there recently. We hope that we may be able to develop our trade with Japan and we thought it of the greatest importance to have the government of Canada represented so that we may get our share of the trade which is growing between the Orient and the Occident. That is the reason why the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat to-day. The Minister of Agriculture will be back at an early date.
I hope the session will not last until the snow is again white on the hills, but at all events, long before prorogation, the Minister of Agriculture will be in his seat to answer all questions that may be put to him.
I hope he shall bring us the good news from Japan that he has profitably occupied his time, and the result of his trip will be fruitful of good to this Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Finance has called upon his followers to vote down this amendment in the most summary manner possible, and bear in mind that it is an amendment which affects the interests of a very large portion of the people of this country. It is strange that even to this day we have not had the papers with reference to the colonial conference laid on the Table. Immediately that the British parliament met the papers were laid on the Table there, and were it not for that, this Canadian parliament would to-day be in absolute ignorance of what took place. There is no excuse for that. We know, thanks to the papers being laid before the imperial parliament, that this question of our cattle was at the colonial conference relegated to a conference between the Canadian representatives and the president of the Board of Agriculture. Surely those papers ought to be brought down and laid on the Table of the House. This House would have no knowledge that anything of the kind occurred between those gentlemen and the President of the Board of Agriculture, if we had not got hold of the papers which were laid before the Imperial House of Commons. We know that there has been a conference on the subject, and why are the papers not brought down ? The right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance tell us to wait for a week or two. We have waited. On the first day of this session a notice was put on the paper by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), and a motion was carried on the Monday following, I think, for those papers. But without that motion, or any motion, the first duty of the government was to inform the House of the proceedings of the imperial conference and to bring down the papers and lay them on the Table. Why has there been no effort made by the representatives of Canada, after all that Canada has done for the empire to bring pressure to bear on the people of England, through the imperial government and the House of Commons, to have this embargo removed ? Mr. Hanbury has stated incidentally in the House of Commons that the embargo is really for the purpose of protecting the growers of store cattle in Great Britain from the importation of cheap cattle from Canada. What has been the result of this imperial conference, which afforded the most glorious opportunity the people of Canada and of the different colonies had of making some arrangement with the people of Great Britain, either in the form of preferential trade or in the form of a removal of the embargo of cattle going into the country ? The only things accomplished were on the subject of measures and the subject of postage on newspapers going to England. There is another thing which the government have forgotten to bring down. The member who laid the lepers on the Table of the House of Corn-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mons in England, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, stated that he would have been glad to publish the whole of the proceedings of the colonial conference, but that the views expressed by the colonial premiers were omitted, in deference to the opinions of some of the gentlemen concerned. Were those the opinions of our premier ? What was it that was omitted from the proceedings of the conference as published, which would have been willingly published by the imperial authorities but for the request of the colonial premiers that it should not be published ? We have a right to a statement from our representatives at that conference, as to what they proposed, if they proposed anything, outside of what was laid before the imperial parliament. At any rate, we had a right to the bare papers which were laid before that body. The right hon. premier and the hon. Minister of Finance object to the mode in which my hon. friend from Pictou has proceeded. Is it not the same mode in which their own friends proceeded a year ago, when a motion in almost the same terms was moved by the hon. member for Labelle, and adopted by the government as the expression of their opinion on this subjqpt ? Here is that motion: That evidence having been furnished to the British authorities, proving that there is no justification for the application of the Diseases of Animals Act (Great Britain) to the cattle of Canada, this House regrets that the provisions of this Act continue to be applied to Canadian cattle, thereby preventing the sale of Canadian animals in Great Britain on fair terms, and injuring the cattle trade of Canada in all foreign markets. That this House hopes the government of Canada will avail itself of the opportunity afforded by the approaching imperial conference in London to urge upon the British government the removal of this unjust restriction on the sale of Canadian cattle in Great Britain.
This motion was accepted by the government as a correct expression of their views in the matter, and was agreed to unanimously by this House for the purpose of strengthening their hands. The present motion is brought forward for the same purpose-to strengthen the hands of the government and to inform the people of England that the people of Canada, by the voice of their parliament, are unanimous in the position they take on the subject. For these reasons I think the hon. Minister of Finance has adopted a very high-handed method of dealing with the motion of my hon. friend from Pictou.


Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Mr. Speaker, we have an undoubted right, I think, to complain of the way in which we have been treated and aie being treated to-day by the imperial authorities. The imperial authorities know well that Canadian cattle are not diseased ; there cannot be any doubt as to that; and still they brand our cattle before the world as being diseased. We all feel that this is not fair.

There are in all parts of the world, people who are afraid to call things by their right name. In England they want to protect their farmers ; this cannot be denied ; and still they want to call themselves freetraders. If they want to protect British cattle they should say it in so many words, instead of branding Canadian cattle as diseased, when they know that our cattle are perfectly sound. I have only one word to say on this question. I believe that every government in Canada is bound to do what they can on questions of this kind, and I verily believe that this government has done everything it could. It has not succeeded any more than its predecessors did ; no government in the same circumstances could succeed. There is one lesson which perhaps the Canadian people should learn ; there is one leaf from the British book which they could read with advantage. John Bull, when his interests are at stake, can take care of himself. We should do the same thing. When our own interests are at stake, we should take care of our own interests. I have nothing more to say. I believe my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) has done well to call the attention of the House to this question. On the other hand, I do not know whether the feeling of the House is not in the direction of not voting for this motion. The papers have been called for ; there has not been any delay, after all ; we have been here only for a few days. When the papers are down, if they show that tlie government have not done what they should, it will be time for us to act. This question is one of great importance, and if my hon. friend's motion be defeated, as no doubt it will be, that might have a bad effect. We voted unanimously last year, and I will be perfectly prepared to vote again for an address such as was called for in the motion of the hon member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). That motion was not one of censure at all. If a motion should be presented asking for an address or a protest to the imperial parliament, I should be disposed to support it, but this is a motion of censure, and made 'before the papers asked for have come down. I think that after having drawn the attention of the House to this matter, my hon. friend would be consulting the judgment of parliament and be within parliamentary propriety in asking leave to withdraw his motion.
Mr. JOHN SHERR1TT (North Middlesex). I would like, Mr. Speaker, to offer a few remarks on this question, which interests every farmer and cattle raiser in the Dominion. I do not think there is any question before the House of more vital importance to our people generally. A good deal of agitation has taken place throughout the Dominion with reference tf>
many matters, which sink into insignificance compared to this question of slaughter of Canadian cattle at British ports of entry after they have
been there but a few days. I am a farmer myself and know something of the losses sustained in having to ship cattle hundreds of miles by rail and then put them on board steamers for the old country, where they are apt to land in a very bad condition, and where they must be placed on the market within ten days after their arrival. It seems to me that' it would not be out of place, from the standpoint of a farmer, if this government would arrange to have our cattle allowed to remain another ten days before being slaughtered. I know from personal knowledge of the business that if they were allowed to remain at the port of entry an additional ten days, that would mean millions of dollars to the people of this country. The cattle arrive in a condition which is not the most favourable. They arrive feeble after having been knocked about on the ocean trip and not fit to go on the market, and besides the present regulations place the butchers of the old country in a position to round up the market. If there, is a large amount of cattle landed, all these butchers have to do is to wait until the ten days are up and then they can get our cattle for whatever price they have a mind to offer. I think that a great mistake was made by the people in this country in the past. By shipping Stockers I think we made a great abuse of the privilege we 1 formerly enjoyed, by shipping a great I many thin cattle which it would have been a great deal more profitable for us to feed at home. There must be something wrong about the business when we ship the cattle and then send over feed to fatten them. The House will agree with me that it would be an advantage to Canadian farmers to be placed in such a position that they would not be so liable to be rounded up on the British market and forced to sell at any price offered. I would suggest therefore that we should endeavour to get an extension of ten days added to the time our cattle are allowed to remain on the market before being slaughtered or sold. I am not here to censure the government. They may have done the 'best they could, but the result has not been satisfactory. If there ever was a time in the history of this country when our representatives should feel independent, or at least when they should feel that they have a right to ask and to expect, if not favours, at least what they are entitled to, it is now. When we consider what we have done in South Africa, when we consider that the blood of our sons is filtering in the sands of South Africa, we should feel that we are in a position to-day to ask for at least that which is to some extent our right. A few days ago I was in Montreal, and I noticed that a great many United States cattle were there which had been shipped from New York, and which were being fed in our cattle yards, previous to being exported to the old country. When we find our American cattle feeding in our yards in Toronto and

Montreal, I would ask lion, gentlemen opposite whether they do not think that we are endangering our chances of getting a better arrangement with the mother country. Should there be any disease in the United States, we are exposing ourselves to the danger of havihg that disease communicated to our own cattle. We buy our stackers out of the same yards where American cattle are allowed to be fed and we put these stackers on our farms, so that if there is any disease in the American cattle we are running every risk of having that disease communicated to our own cattle. It seems to me that a reform is urgently called for in this matter, and I would urge it upon the consideration of the government and at the same time impress upon them the necessity of making the most strenuous efforts to have the embargo raised, or at least have the time in which our cattle are allowed to remain in the ports of entry, before being slaughtered, extended.


Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).: As a farmer and representing a farming constituency, I feel bound, Mr. Speaker, to give whatever aid I can to have the injustice to which the Canadian cattle trade is being subjected in the English market, removed. I do not think there is any subject which can engage the attention of this House that is of more importance to our agricultural community. Volumes of evidence have been produced by the speakers who have preceded me, and further evidence can be produced to show that our Canadian cattle are free from disease. I do not think that the freedom of our cattle from disease is really disputed by any one. Whatever reason may be assigned by the British government for excluding our cattle from the British market or placing an embargo upon them, there can be no doubt that the real reason is the desire to protect the British farmer.
I regret exceedingly that the rules laid down for the guidance of this House preclude a vote being taken on a resolution of this kind, and any time should be opportune for discussing such an important resolution. I think it is to be regretted that under our rules an important resolution such as this cannot be introduced and freely discussed on any occasion, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the advisability of considering some amendment to these rules which would enable us in this House to discuss a resolution of this character without having it side-tracked by the government.
I think that on a question such as this both sides should be unanimous. It is very important that we should adopt some rule which would allow free discussion and a free vote, irrespective of party politics, on a question of this kind, on any occasion when a member of this House thinks fit to bring it up.
My hon. friend from Centre Wellington (Mr. McGowan) says that the embargo placed on Canadian cattle entails a loss of $15 per Mr. SHERRITT.
head upon the cattle exported to the British market. This being the case, there is an almost incalculable loss suffered by the farming community identified with this interest. My opinion is that it is not in the interest of the Canadian farmer to export stock cattle. I know that the farmers in this country who have succeeded are the farmers who have finished their cattle and exported them ready for slaughter. The government should allow this resolution to pass unanimously, for such a movement, at this particular time, would have a very salutary effect upon the imperial parliament. I trust the Prime Minister and his colleagues will take this matter into their serious consideration. If they do not allow this motion to pass, I trust that, when the papers are brought down, a motion will be framed and passed unanimously by this House expressing the desire of the Canadian people to have this embargo upon their cattle removed.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I would like to appeal to the good sense of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) and suggest to him the wisdom of withdrawing his motion at this time. After the correspondence is brought down, which we are promised will be in a few days, we can judge what the efforts of the government have been for the removal of this embargo, and perhaps it may be possible to prepare a resolution upon which both sides of the House can agree, to be presented to the British government. It seems to me that that would be the best way of dealing with this subject. The importance of the matter, of course, is well known to both sides of the House. If we are to succeed, we are most likely to do so by uniting. In all fairness to the government and to himself and to the purpose he has in view, it would be better for my hon. friend from Pictou not to press the motion at this time.


Mr. JOHN McGOWAN (Centre Wellington).: I think all will agree that this is one of the most important questions that has been brought before the House for some time. I regret that the matter has been brought forward in the way it has been. I would prefer that it had come before the House in a form which the government would accept. I recognize that there is more or less a vote of censure upon the government in this motion. I would suggest that my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr, Bell) leave it open until the papers promised us have been brought down. Then, if it is found that the government have been derelict in their duty, I would certainly join him in censuring them. But until the papers are before us, I would much prefer that it should not be made a party question. Speaking for the province of Ontario and,
I believe for thq whole country, I venture to say that it is most important that there should be unanimous expression of opinion upon this question.	,


Mr. NATHANIEL BOYD (Macdonald).: The question under discussion, is, possibly, of more interest to the people of Manitoba and the North-west than to those of any other part of Canada. Next to their grain crop, this cattle trade is the most important to them. I brought this matter to the attention of the House last session. And I must say I was rather amused, this afternoon, at the regret expressed because the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was not here. Last session, when the discussion on my motion relating to the question took place, it was shown by the correspondence that had passed between the Minister of Agriculture and the clerk of the legislature of Manitoba that the minister did not know what was going on about it. He sent a telegram to the clerk of the legislature saying that he did not understand that a certain regulation passed by the imperial government was in existence. In other words, he said he did not understand that the imperial authorities were adding to the protection they had been giving to their cattle growers for some time past. It was shown by the correspondence I read in the House that the call for tenders for the beef for the imperial army contained a clause distinctly stating that the beef must be British-grown, showing that they had adopted a species of protection of the most intense character. And our Minister of Agriculture was not aware of it. So, as to his being in Japan, he might as well be in Gibraltar or anywhere else for all he knows of the question, or for all the good he could do us by being here. There are two points with respect to this matter that I would like to emphasize. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) mentioned one particularly when he made reference to the imperial government saying that there was disease amongst our cattle. That, Sir, we deny. And we find fault with the imperial authorities because they decry the health of our cattle and so interfere with our trade. It was the duty of our representatives when in England to deny that with no uncertain sound. It would not have detracted from their dignity if, even in advance of the papers being brought down, they had told us in what emphatic manner they had repudiated this assertion on the part of the British authorities. The other point is that we wish to show that the British people are protecting their farmers and to draw this to the attention of our free traders in this House-and they are getting fewer every year; the government is passing them up to the Senate.
Now, Sir, those are the points I wish to bring out. There is no disease amongst our cattle, we repudiate it, and we wish to say to the people of Great Britain that we are well aware of what they are doing. They are protecting their farmers and others who are raising cattle in the British isles. Those are the points we wish to bring out. When my hon friend from Wellington (Mr. Mc-
Gowan) tries to make the question as easy as possible for the government, let me tell him and others that were not in this House some years ago when the Postmaster General and his friends rang the changes against the government of that day, and found fault with them in season and out of season for not doing what it was pretended they should have done, finding fault with them for doing just what this government is doing now and in my opinion, doing it much better than the present government. I think it ill becomes the Minister of Finance to take such a decided objection to the motion of my hon. friend from Pictou, and to say that it was a clear want of confidence in the government. Now the hon. member for North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt) brought out an important point, and that was the great loss to our Canadian producers from the fact of their having to kill these cattle ten days after they are landed in the old country. That is really where the great loss to the producers of Canadian cattle comes in. I think the least this government should have done to impress upon the imperial authorities, and to impress upon Mr. Hanbury, because he is the gentleman who apparently takes the most decided stand against our request, that there is no disease amongst our cattle. I do not think the government have done what they should have done, and they have not done what they claimed our friends should have done when we were on the other side.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I merely rise to protest against the way in which the Minister of Finance, by a mere wave of his hand, puts this question aside and tells his followers that they must support him because it is a motion of want of confidence. Motions made on going into Supply, the hon. gentleman knows, are more or less motions of want of confidence. The reasons the hon. gentleman gave are very extraordinary, they are of such a kind as Mr. Hanbury will take notice of, and will not encourage him to grant our request. They will in fact furnish him with weapons to resist our demand, because he will be able to say that so little notice was taken of the matter in the Canadian parliament that the question was put aside until the correspondence came down. I venture to predict that the correspondence will disclose one thing very clearly, namely, the weakness of the Canadian representatives at the colonial conference. We were told by the First Minister that the reason this question was put aside was that they I did not consider it of sufficient importance to be taken up by the colonial conference, because it was a matter affecting Canada alone. Why, the right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that one of the weapons used by Mr. Hanbury is that if Canadian cattle were admitted, the cattle of all other countries would have to be admitted on the same terms. Now in what position do we find ourselves ? It has been pointed out by my

lion, friend from Pictou, and by other gentlemen in this debate, that the question was put aside because it was not thought of sufficient importance to be taken up. Who suggested that it was not of sufficient importance ? Certainly it could not have been the Canadian delegates. It was a most natural suggestion to come from a government who has taken so arbitrary a position, and it was the duty of our Canadian delegates to protest against taking any such position. The people of Canada will regard that as a complete abandonment of our position. What was the proposition that followed ? That a better way of attaining the object would be to have a conference with Mr. Hanbury, the gentleman who had set his face against reason, against argument, against fact in his determination to exclude Canadian cattle. I say the period is past when we in Canada should feel called upon to convince the British government that there is no reason why Canadian cattle should be excluded ; the period has now arrived when the people of Canada should enter a protest against the arbitrary position taken by the British government. Mr. Hanbury is pleased to say that possibly there may be disease in Canadian herds in the future. Now there can be no more absurd position for a gentleman occupying his right rank to take as a pretext for excluding Canadian cattle. Mr. Hanbury and every other intelligent man knows that Canadian herds are free from disease, and have been for years. Now it has been pointed out by several gentlemen on this side of the House that Mr. Hanbury is adopting this course as a measure of protection to the cattle raisers of the United Kingdom. He declares himself that to admit Canadian cattle would be to destroy largely the interest of cattle growers in a portion of the United Kingdom. That is plain.
Now let us remember that the Canadian representatives at the colonial conference were prepared to abandon a question that seems to me to overshadow all others. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they think there is a single gentleman in this House who will contend for a moment that the question of the metric system, important as it is in itself, or the question of reduced postage upon newspapers between Canada and Great Britain, are questions that, both together, can be weighed against this question affecting the raisers of cattle in Canada. Why, the idea is absurd. We were told on a former occasion by the Minister of Customs, with a tear in his voice, that we had touched the hearts of the British people, that while we had not a legal preference we had still better preference in the hearts of the people of Great Britain ; and he instanced the case under discussion to-day and declared from his place in this House what a weapon that preference would he with which to go to the British public and ask for the removal of that unfair restriction. As I said at the beginning, I Mr. CLANCY.
merely rose to protest against the attitude of the Minister of Finance, who has given a most trivial reason for setting this question aside, namely, that the papers were not brought down. Surely those papers have been in the departments for a long time. They must be in the Department of Agriculture, or at least in some other departments where they are easily procurable. The hon. gentleman should have laid these papers on the table before this time. He did not have to get the consent of the imperial authorities before he could do so. He might well have anticipated the anxiety of the people of this country on this great question, and have been prepared to treat it on its merits rather than to take shelter behind a pretense that this motion was a want of confidence.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: For a number of years, up to a period four or five years ago, I used to bring this question up annually. When I was in England in 1897 I discussed the matter with a number of prominent people there, and I found that they would not under any consideration entertain a proposition to allow Canadian cattle to enter on any better terms than they were giving us. In other words, it was a straight policy of protection to the British farmer as against Canadian and American cattle. I pointed out at that time that they cculd protect the farmers to a much better extent than by shutting out our cattle. If they examine the freight rates from almost any part of Ireland, from almost any part of Scotland and from even the midland districts of England from the large centres they will find that the freight rates on cattle to the central markets of Great Britain are almost as much as they are from parts of the United States of America to the British islands and that by looking into the regulation of their own freight rates they may protect their own farmers to a much greater extent than any injury that would accrue from allowing our cattle in. It has been said by a very eminent English statesman within recent times that British diplomacy -all diplomacy in fact-consists of personal influence, personal intrigue and personal unscrupulousness. I refer to Sir Edward Mon-son, British Ambassador at Paris. I have to say, here, that as a Canadian I do not intend, so far as I am concerned, that Great Britain shall be allowed to blacken the character of Canadian cattle by saying that tuberculosis and other diseases exist in this country merely in order to carry out their usual policy of intrigue. Let them come out and declare that they are going to protect their own farmers and it would he fair to our people if they do so. I want to point out to the Britisher that, when he taxes Canadians he should put us in all respects on an equal footing with Russians, Germans, Frenchmen, and the nations of Europe. Canada does not cost the people of Great Britain one dollar in taxes, while these

European nations impose a heavy tax on the people of Great Britain. I demand that we shall receive better treatment from Great Britain or that we shall find out the reason why. We believe that we should have better treatment in regard to our cattle, and that we should have better treatment in the markets of Great Britain. I do not see why the government cannot accept this resolution. It declares that this House regrets that no conclusion was arrived at on this subject. Surely the ministers, or some of them, regret that no conclusion was arrived at. I must correct my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in stating that these gentlemen crossed the water and brought nothing home with them. My hon. friend forgets that two or three of them came home with those titles that they formerly spoke of as tin-pot titles. One thing the conference has accomplished, at all events, is that it has enabled some of these hon. gentlemen to get some of their old tin-pot titles. I trust the ministers will take this into their serious consideration and that if they do not arrive at the conclusion to vote for the resolution upon the present occasion, at an early date they will take such steps as will result in impressing upon the British government that Canadians realize that they have done about as much as they intend to for the old land until the statesmen of England are prepared to treat us better than they treat the Russian, the German, the Hottentot and the citizen of every other nation in the world.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the discussion of this question for a great many years in this House and I am bound to say that this discussion, in so far as it has been taken part in by hon. gentlemen on the government benches to-day, has differed from any that I have ever heard in this House before. In defence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), I must say, in his absence, that he was more frank when this question was discussed in this House last year than hon. gentlemen have been on this occasion. Now, Sir, the people of Canada believe this is a very serious question and one which should be seriously considered by both parties in this country, whether Conservative or Liberal. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, last year, when he was asked to produce the papers in connection with the embargo in the motion presented by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said that the correspondence was very slight, that there was very little correspondence to produce, but that at a later period he would bring it down. But, what did he say in the meantime ?-that he had been in the old country, that he had discqssed the question with the British Minister of Agriculture, that he had been in Edinburgh, that he had discussed the question with a large number of people living in that locality and that the British Minister of Agriculture did
not dispute the statement of the hon. gentleman when he said that Canadian cattle were not diseased. The answer that Mr. Hanbury gave on that occasion was something like this:
Hon. Mr. Hanbury said that while he was quite ready to admit that Canadian cattle were perfectly healthy. . . . disease might break out among them at any moment and In such a case the reimposition of the old embargo would be a difficult matter as it would cause greater disturbance in the trade and make the condition of affairs worse than if a settled policy were followed.
That was the statement that Mr. Hanbury made on that occasion. What followed ? He said in Edinburgh that:
So long as he remained Minister of Agriculture he would neither make nor advise any change in the law.
The ministers representing the Canadian government in England have been at the conference. The right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated that this matter was not of sufficient importance for the conference to deal with. If that is true, if the conference viewed it in that light, surely the ministers from Canada had an opportunity of discussing this question with the British Minister of Agriculture, or with the English government. If the government had made it a point that an important question of this kind should be discussed with the British Minister of Agriculture, or with other gentlemen representing the English government, and then, if they had discovered that the English government were not prepared to amend the law, that they were not prepared to admit Canadian cattle, what would be the use of wasting time discussing the removal of the embargo from Canadian cattle in Great Britain? If that is a settled policy of Great Britain on this question, it is simply a waste of time to discuss it here. Let our ministers be frank with us and say to the House that the British government are not prepared to change the law and that it is useless to look for the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. Has Canada anything in her possession that would be of advantage to Great Britain ? Is there anything by which Canada can enter into some arrangement with Great Britain and by which Canadians can have the advantage of sending their cattle to Great Britain ? If this could be done, I think it would be a long step in the right direction, but to pursue the course we are pursuing now is simply a useless waste of time in my judgment, and nothing will be accomplished.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Speaker, as I come from a part of the country where thousands of dollars are invested in the cattle industry, I thought it would not be out of place to make a few remarks on this question although I cannot hope to add anything of an original character to the debate. We had a resolution during the last

session introduced by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) which was intended, as he stated, to strengthen the hands of the government in the endeavour at the interimperial conference to bring pressure to bear upon the imperial government in order to have this embargo removed, and as far as we can learn fx-om the public press and from the other documents at our disposal nothing transpired at the conference to show that the government took those steps that we Canadians expected they would take as our representatives. They seem to have screened themselves to-day behind the plea: Wait until the papers are brought down and then you will see whether anything in our actions should merit your condemnation or not. There would be no impropriety in the members of the government, who had this conference with Mr. Hanbury, explaining at least the gist of what arguments were bi'ouglxt to bear on him, and then we would be in a better position to know whether to condemn the government or not. Since the resolution was passed in the House last session, Mr. Henderson, of Scotland, the representative of the Canadian Cattle Importation Association, has been in Canada, and he has spoken before our Boai'ds of Trade and other bodies who are interested in having this embargo removed. Mr. Henderson has urged that strong resolutions should be addressed by the Canadian parliament to the imperial parliament, and he has stated his own opinion that it is useless further to approach Mr. Hanbury after the remarks that gentleman has made on the question.
The Prime Minister read to-day from an imperial document, a statement that the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-lcck) was delegated by the Canadian government to interview Mr. Hanbury. If there is any member of this government who could fill this mission with least grace it is the Postmaster General, because as the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has shown he was the member of the Liberal party who from this side of the House condemned the Conservative government for relaxing the quarantine regulations between the United States and Canada which was alleged to be the reason why the embargo was levied in the first place; and he is now a member of a government who did away with the ninety days quarantine thus allowing the free intermixture of the cattle of the United States with the cattle of Canada. Mr. Hanbury now admits that there is no disease among our Canadian cattle, but he says it would not be advisable to remove the embax'go because it would injure the trade in Irish cattle. Evidently he has an eye more to Irish votes than he has to doing justice to Canadian cattle, and in that respect Mr. Hanbury is probably playing the politician rather than the statesman. Mr. Hanbury has ventured the opinion that Canada is not a loser, because we can fatten our cattle and get more per head for them than if the Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
embargo were, removed, but I take it that our Canadian people are better judges as to whether we are losers or gainers, and if you consult practical cattle exporters such as the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), Gordon and Ironsides and others, they will tell you that we are lieayy losers by reason of this embargo. At the present time our cattle are admitted only at the port of Glasgow in Scotland, at three or four ports in England, and at no port at all in Ireland. They have to be slaughtered within ten days after landing, and as the hon. member for North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt) has pointed out, the beef deteriorates on the passage across, and having to be sold merely to local butchers without competition, only the lowest price can be obtained. If other ports were opened and this embax-go removed, not only the local butchers bxxt the bixtchers from all over Great Britain would be present to purchase our cattle and competition being keener the prices would be better. I believe also that no cold storage facilities are px'ovided at the ports of entry, which is a further loss to us. Mr. Henderson who is a practical man has estimated, notwithstanding Mr. Hanbury to the contrary, that there is a loss on our cattle of from $10 to $15 per head because of this embargo. It has been pointed out to-day that one million Canadian cattle have gone to England since the embargo, and at the lowest estimate of $10 per head that means a loss of $10,000,000 to Canada. In his interview with the Winnipeg Board of Trade, Mr. Henderson stated that 8,000,000 consumers in England were in favour of the removal of the embargo and that they were supported in this by a large section of the British press, and by a large number of the members of the House of Commons. I will not say that the abolition of the quarantine between Canada and the United States is a bar to the removal of the embargo on our cattle in England, but if there be a suspicion in the minds of the English people that there is disease amongst United States cattle, our quarantine regulations would have to be more stx-ingent than they are at present in order that the British embargo might be removed. It has been stated by the Prime Minister that .Tolxn Bull never mixes up sentiment with business. I quite agree. The embargo on our cattle is an evidence of it. He has in profound words of wisdom in trade xnatters said :	That business is business, and sentiment is sentiment, and business is no more sentiment than sentiment is business. John Bull looks out for No. 1, and he thinks all the more of any son of his who does the same thing. I do not think we are standing in our own light either commercially or sentimentally when we inform the Bi-itish government that so far as Canada is concex-ned we are granting a preference of 33J per cent on Imports from England, and that she should gi'ant a preference,

or rather do us justice in removing the stigma which is now placed on Canadian cattle by condemning them before the whole world as diseased. We do not ask any preference for our cattle over the cattle of any other country which is free from disease. We are told in England that they cannot remove this embargo from Canadian cattle without removing it from American cattle as well, and we might as well say that Canada should have a fiscal policy universal to the whole world and should not give a preference of 33$ per cent on British goods. In view of the fact that we have already granted Great Britain a preference, it is natural for us to expect that our cattle should be admitted to the British market when they show a clear bill of health. It has) been proven beyond peradventure that there is not any disease among Canadian cattle, and now that Mr. Hanbury has been forced to admit that no disease exists, why should not the embargo be taken off unless it be retained as a system of protection- unless Mr. Hanbury is practising protection while he is preaching free trade exactly as our government is doing in Canada. We are therefore only calling upon the Canadian government to do their duty when we ask them to show stronger reasons why we should not pass this motion condemning them. I think, Sir, that they could without any impropriety tell us what took place between the Postmaster General and Mr. Hanbury, notwithstanding the fact that the papers are not yet on the Table of the House.
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) This question is of great importance to the farmers of Canada, and as I am a farmer myself, I take a great interest in it. A great deal has been said with regard to the sentiment in Great Britain towards Canada and the loyalty and patriotism of the people of Canada. We are all proud of what Canada has done in connection with the trouble in South Africa ; and after our young men have shed their blood on the veldt of South Africa in upholding the British flag, and after Canada has granted a preference in her markets to the products of Great Britain, the government of Great Britain should at least show a preference to our cattle in their markets over those of foreigners. Instead of that, they have been insisting on protection to the farmers of England against the farmers of Canada, and at the same time, as my hon. friend says, blackening the character of the products of Canada. If we are going to have a united empire all round the globe, then the people of all parts of the empire should be treated in the same way. Some hon. gentleman has stated that Mr. Hanbury wishes to protect the Irish cattle. Sir, the Irish people have done no more for Great Britain than the people of Canada, and there is no more reason why the cattle of
Ireland should be protected than the cattle of Canada. Why is that embargo not removed at this time ? A year ago we were told that we should have a short session because the premier of Canada and the local premiers were going to England to have a great colonial conference for the purpose of advancing the interests of Canada. For that reason we made the session short. The premier has said this evening that the session may be so long a one that the snow may whiten the ground before it comes to an end. If it does, it will be because a large amount of government work was left over from last session to allow these gentlemen to go to England to take part in that conference. What have they accomplished ? Somebody says they were looking after tin-pot titles. I do not know that they have brought many back. The premier of Prince Edward Island went to attend that conference, and it was stated in the government organ of that day that he would come back as Sir Arthur Peters. He did not, however. He came back as plain Mr. Arthur Peters.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. HACKETT.: Before recess, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out the importance of this question. We know in general that stock raising is the principal part of the farming industry, and that in order to effectively promote that industry we should have the right of entry on the English market, the same as British subjects all over the United Kingdom. Since recess there has been placed in my hands the Montreal ' Star ' in which there appears the following dispatch :
London, March 24.
The statement of the Secretary of War, Rt. Hon. St. John Broderick, in the House in reply to Mr. Alfred Davies, shows that the War office still excludes Canadian beef from the army contracts.
That, I consider, a very unfair policy. Why should Canadian beef be excluded ? The people of Canada are just as loyal to the British flag as those of the United Kingdom, and while we are willing to shed our blood for the British flag, the British people should at least give a preference to Canadian beef over beef from the Western States. I would ask that this resolution moved by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) should be adopted by the government without division. Our Canadian farmers are the mainstay of the Dominion. They are the men who provide the bread and beef for the people of Canada and who also ship a large surplus to other countries. They therefore should be looked upon as the first people to be protected by the government of this country. I see by the Year-book of

1901 that the value of our exports to Great Britain amounted to $8,000,000. Well, if we were allowed equal privileges with the people of Ireland and Scotland, if our cattle were admitted into the markets of Great Britain without being subjected to this embargo, our exports would amount to $1,000,000 more in the year. That is something worth contending for, and I trust that the government will see the importance of adopting this motion and allow it to be adopted unanimously.
Before recess I said a few words about the trip made to England by our ministers to attend the coronation festivities. Their expenses were paid by the Canadian people and our people were entitled to expect some results. We supposed that when the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of each of our provinces attended the conference of premiers of the whole empire at London, they would bring back some tangible result. But, Sir, they came back with nothing. The only thing they accomplished was the passing of some resolution with regard to weights and measures, but not one single thing in favour of the Canadian people did they accomplish. There was one result, however, from the trip which was worth noting. During their absence, the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who was alive and active to the interests of the Canadian people, was advocating what should be done to promote our wealth and our prosperity, but when these gentlemen returned to Canada the right lion, the First Minister asked the Minister of Public Works to resign. Why did he ask him to resign ? Simply because the ex-minister was advocating the interests of the Canadian people. We are told by the hon. gentleman on the Treasury benches that they cannot reply to the motion of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) because the Minister of Agriculture has gone to Japan. Is that a reason which we ought to accept ? Why should ministers of the Crown, who are paid to reply to questions of this kind, be unable to reply because one of their number happens to be in Japan ? I say that the gentleman who is at the head of so important a department as that of Agriculture should be here to answer the questions put to him by the representatives of the people, and when he is not here he is derelict in his duty. I trust the government will allow the motion of the gentleman for Pictou to pass without a vote because it affects the interests of a large part of the population of Canada. Should this matter come up in the imperial parliament what would they say ? They would say :	You divided on this question in Canada which shows that you have different opinions concerning it. This is not a motion of want of confidence, Mr. Speaker, but a motion in the interests of the Canadian farmer, and I trust the government will take that into consideration and allow it to pass without calling for a vote.
Mr. HACKETT


John Graham Haggart: I see that the right hon. the leader of the government is not here, but in his absence I would make a suggestion to his hon. colleague the Minister of Finance. The opposition desire to get the unanimous opinion of the House on the important matter brought up by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). But as the Finance Minister has declared that he will call upon his friends to vote down the motion and as he has promised to have the papers laid on the Table in two'or three days, I would suggest to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) that he should withdraw his motion in order that he may have an opportunity, when the papers come down, of renewing it should they not be in accordance with his opinion. We do not want to prejudice the matter at all, it is not a question of private politics, we have no desire to make political capital out of it, our only desire is to have this embargo removed, and therefore with the consent of the government I would suggest that my hon. friend, if the government will consent, should withdraw his motion, reserving the right to renew it on another occasion when the papers are before the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government can have no objection to the hon. gentleman withdrawing his motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the understanding that the hon. gentleman will not be estopped from dealing with the same subject on another occasion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whatever is open to the hon. gentleman within the rules of the House, he is free to do. I am not aware of anything which would prevent his bringing the matter up again. But that is a matter that will have to be governed by the rules of the House.


Mr. BELL.: The leader of the House in his place to-day stated that he thought these papers would be laid upon the Table-in the course of this week. In that case, if the government Will-as I have no doubt they will-use diligence in giving us these papers at an early day, as I would much prefer that the resolution would be prepared that would be unanimously supported, I would ask leave with the consent of my seconder that I withdraw my motion.
Amendment withdrawn.



John Graham Haggart: I would like to ask what is the earliest day when we could expect the Redistribution Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The Bill is in a very advanced stage. I would not like to fix a definite date for its introduction, but I can promise that it will be introduced very shortly.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
William Findlay Maclean: Before the motion for Committee of Supply is put,
I would ask the Minister of Justice if it is ; the intention of the government to introduce a general telephone law this session ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) asked that question before, the leader of the House suggested that there should be a formal notice. The Prime Minister is absent at the moment, but if the hon. gentleman will put a notice on the paper it will be a reminder, and an answer will be given.


William Findlay Maclean: I think this is sufficient notice, and the next time the Committee of Supply is moved for I shall press for an answer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman cannot get an answer if we have not one ready for him.


VACANCY IN ST. JAMES DIVISION.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention and that of the House to a matter of very great importance to the city of Montreal. I refer to the vacancy in St. James division. We have had the announcement in the speech from the Throne that very important matters in connection with the transportation question and other matters of interest to the city of Montreal are to be brought up this session. I think it extremely desirable that this important division of the city of Montreal should be represented without delay in this House, as its interest in these questions is so great. You, Mr. Speaker, have, no doubt, issued your warrant, and an election can be had there in time enough to have here from St. .Tames division a representative who will be able to sit and deliberate upon these important questions. Besides, the division having been represented as it has been for the past two sessions, and in view of other circumstances to which I need not refer, it is but right and pvoper that an election should be had there without delay and the division represented. I do not think it should be necessary to insist at length upon the urgency of this matter. I live in the division and have a vote there, and I know that the electors of the division are extremely anxious to be represented in the present session. I would ask the government if it is the intention to have an election there without delay.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is, no doubt, aware that there has been a special finding in that case, and a report that there was a general system of bribery in the election. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the
warrant should be issued direct by the Speaker, or whether it should not be taken cognizance of by the House itself. There are several precedents on the subject, and we must consider them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I was not aware that there was such a report.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As my name was brought into the discussion, I may inform the hon. member (Mr. Monk) that I was prevented from issuing my warrant because a report was made that a general system of corruption had prevailed in the election. Section 48, chapter 9, of the Revised Statutes seemed to cover the case and to prevent my issuing my warrant.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to bring it before the attention of the House ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a matter to he considered by the House, not by the Department of Justice.


William Findlay Maclean: When will it be brought before the House ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At the proper time.


THE BUDGET.
John Graham Haggart: I see by a report in the Toronto ' Globe ' that it is likely that the budget speech will be made on Thursday next. Is there any intention on the part of the Finance Minister to-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The report is not correct. An announcement will be made, as usfial, a couple of days in advance.


IMPERIAL DEFENCE-LORD ROSEBERY'S SPEECH.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that this is the best time for bringing up a matter to which I wish to refer, but I think I shall be in order in doing so. I notice in yesterday's paper a cable despatch, part of which reads as follows :
The Earl of Rosebery will to-morrow move in the House of Lords : ' That this House expresses its approval of the establishment of a council of national defence and earnestly hopes that the first efforts of such a council will be directed to the adjustment of national armaments, to the naval, military and financial conditions of the empire.' Lord Rosebery will then probably make an announcement upon the question of colonial contributions, probably urging that it is necessary for the colonies to send members to the House of Commons, and reform the Lords as the necessary preliminary.
Has the Minister of Finance any information he can give us ns to any correspondence going on between the government here and the colonial office regarding this question ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I have no information, I am afraid, that I can give my hon. friend. I need hardly remind him that Lord Rosebery is not in the imperial government. He speaks from the opposition side. Whatever views he may have, he would hardly open official correspondence with the government of the Dominion. However, I am hardly in a position to give the hon. gentleman any information upon the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works, chargeable to income-public buildings, Nova Scotia-Halifax, new public buildings, $60,000.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) have any objection to leaving this item over until my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) returns ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Mr. Sutherland).: I have no objection, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) desires it. But I do not think this is a debatable item.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: It is not a new item, but it is to provide for the continuation of the work upon a building begun a year ago.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The building is under contract, and $60,000 is what the architect estimates will be spent ^he comin" year. This is in addition to $50,000 already voted. All particulars and details with regard to the building "Jv<La!ready been given. Besides, if desired, there will be another opportunity to discuss the matter.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I do not think the hon. member for Halifax would wish to have it kept over.


John Graham Haggart: Generally, what is the explanation of the item ?
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS This is for a public building at Halifax, the contract for which was let on the 30th June last.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the building for -a post office ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Customs house and general offices.
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS The chief architect of the department has made a careful estimate, and he thinks that $60,000 is all that can be expended on this building.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: $250,000 is the amount of the contract. The total amount expended to the 31st of December was $43,874. That Includes the site. Mr. SPROULE.


James Clancy: When does the contract call for the completion of the building ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: On the loth of September, 1904. Of course the balance we are asking for will be for the fittings, &c. The contract is given to the lowest tenderer, M. E. Keefe, of Halifax.
Quarantine station, Lawlor's Island, $1,500.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for repairs.
Public buildings, New Brunswick-Ricbibucto, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This building is under contract for $9,716. The contract was made on the 15th of November, 1902, and the building is to be completed by January, 1904. The balance is required for heating, boilers, fittings, &c. The total cost is estimated by the architect at $15,000. It is a general public building for post office, custom house, &c.


John Graham Haggart: What was the statement of the Minister of Public Works last year as to the probable cost of this building ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got that information. I will be pleased to look it up and bring it down. The total cost estimated by the architect, including everything, is $15,000.


John Graham Haggart: There seems to have been a vote of $5,000 last year. What was the promise made to the House as to the probable expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say what statement was made last year. I will make a memorandum and find out, if the hon. gentleman wishes.


James Clancy: Who is the contractor in this case ?
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS James Reid, Sydney, N.S. He was the lowest tenderer.


James Clancy: Has there been any change in the plans with regard to that building ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that no change has been made in the plans and specifications as they were first send out.
St. John, immigration building, $12,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide for the foundation, and to make some alterations required in the St. John immigration building. Representations were made by the city, by the steamship companies and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that there was not room enough to accommodate immigrants | landing at St. John, and it is necessary to

make these improvements for their accommodation. I may explain that we are putting a third story on the present building, and increasing the fire protection. The third story is estimated to cost $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: What was the total amount expended on those buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount previously expended was $35,517. It is a pretty large building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you expend the money voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the minister give us an idea of the probable number of immigrants that will land there ? I thought they usually came by Halifax.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got a summary of the number that have arrived. But we had communications from the Immigration Department that it was necessary to increase the accommodation for second-class passengers. The Elder-Dempster Steamship Company expect to land at St. John 2,000 immigrants per week for the season of 1903. The Allan Steamship Company, whose boats arrive on the same day as the Elder-Dempster line, also expect to bring large numbers of immigrants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The present year ends on the 30th of June.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That means for the present season. They were urging that this work should be done early this season. We have also communications from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company urging improvements.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The present building is a great deal too small. A few weeks before I left office, I went down there and saw myself that the size of the building ought to be increased. It was built too small at first.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I am sure that we are obliged to the bon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) for the information he gives us, and which it is almost impossible to get from the Minister of Public Works. It is a good thing that the hon. gentleman is in the House, because otherwise we would be pretty much in the dark as to what is going on in that department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not mean to convey any new information, but as I was Minister of Public Works when that increase was decided upon, I thought it would be no harm for me to tell what has come to my personal knowledge.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is what I said. We are thankful to the hon. gentleman, and the House is pleased that we have him
here to give us information that we cannot get from other sources.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been only a short time in the department, and I am pleased indeed to get any information from the ex-Minister of Public Works, or any other member that is able to give it. I am most anxious to give all the information provided for me by the officials of the department.


Samuel Hughes: The House is well aware that the Minister is new in the position, and he is no doubt doing his best. Are these immigrants expected to remain long at these seaports ? Do they not push right through, and should not facilities be afforded for expediting their departure from the seaports ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a certain delay at these landing ports. I have satisfied myself from the information given to me by the steamship companies and the railway companies, as well as by the immigration agent responsible for the report which he makes to the department, that this increased accommodation is really necessary. I may say to the committee that when we consider the number of people arriving and likely to arrive during the present season we will see that they can hardly be properly accommodated even when the increased provision that we propose is made. There are on the way now on one of the Allan ships 1,800 immigrants who will arrive at St. John, and the Elder Dempster Company inform us that they will be bringing about 2,000 immigrants a week. Therefore, the accommodation which we propose to provide will scarcely provide for the large numbers which are coming, and I am informed that it is really necessary.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the hon. minister that the total cost of the improvements would be $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The balance.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the total amount of the improvements will be $22,000, $10,000 last year and $12,000 this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
St. John Quarantine station-water service, drainage, heating, &c., $8,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. minister be kind enough to tell us what steps have been taken in reference to this water service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote of $8,000 is to provide fresh water to the quarantine stations on Partridge Island. It is necessary to carry the water main across the channel from the city to the different quarantine buildings. The estimate has been made by the chief architect


John Graham Haggart: Wliat is the total amount required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is estimated to cost $24,000. I have all the items here if the hon. gentleman requires them.


John Graham Haggart: It seems an enormous sum for drainage and the connection of the water1. works with these buildings.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it has been a costly work, but I think the committee will agree with me when I say that it is very necessary that these unfortunate people who are quarantined there, some ill and some not, should be supplied with drinking water.


Samuel Hughes: Is the quarantine station on Partridge Island ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the distance over which we have to carry this pipe to connect with the quarantine station ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The main is 5,400 feet long to be carried from the city across the channel.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he will ask for tenders, or whether he intends carrying out the work himself with his own officers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that au arrangement has been made with the city of St. John to do that part within the city and the balance will be done under contract let by tender.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to ask the hon. minister what part he intends doing himself ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About three-quarters of the expenditure will be for work done by the department under tender and contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What kind of work does my hon. friend want to make a contract for-the laying of the pipe across the harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Let me draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to the enormous expenditure for a purpose of that kind. Twenty-four thousand dollars would furnish a small town in Ontario with a water works system.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I am informed by the deputy minister that every effort has been made to procure water in other ways. Tests were made for artesian wells and it has been found that this is the only system by which they can get a plentiful supply.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 


Samuel Hughes: Will there be an extra charge for the water in addition to the cost of these works ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the city of St. John paying any part of this expenditure or do we pay it all ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think there is any reason why the city should be called upon to pay for any part of the work. It is entirely for the benefit of the quarantine station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We get the water from the city water works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any understanding as to a permanent arrangement and as to what charge shall be made for water by the city ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we will pay $252 per annum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that for a length of time or for one year only ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is by the year for the present; there is no fixed time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did I understand the hon. Minister of Public Works to say that the installation of a water service and a drainage system at the quarantine station in St. John was going to cost $24,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. *


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think, under the circumstances, the committee is entitled to some more details. It seems an immense sum to pay to supply the quarantine station with fresh water and a system of drainage. Even $5,000 would do a great deal but $24,000 entitles the committee to some details as to how that sum is going to be expended. We are absolutely in the dark as to the details of the expenditure, and it appears such a large item that I think we ought to go into the details.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I do not know that there is any other information that can) be desired whieh can be given by the department. If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) wants a detailed statement of every item as estimated by the architect I will be very pleased to bring it down and give it to him. I have not these details here, but in a general way I have given the fullest possible explanation and all the information that is in my possession.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has given no explanation at all. In view of the largeness of the item, $24,000 for providing the quarantine station with fresh water and a system of drainage, I would like to know

how much of this is going to be spent in plumbing, for instance ? If there is to be a pumping station to pump the fresh water how much of this sum goes for that ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: The water will be taken from the city water works, so that there is no pumping station required.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never heard of such an amount as $24,000 to provide such an establishment as this with water and heating and drainage. What sum is to be applied under each of these heads ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The building, is already heated, but a pipe 5,400 feet long has been laid from the city of St. John, through the channel to the island, and the excavation is very expensive. A careful estimate of the cost of the work has been made by the chief architect, and he says it cannot be done for less than this sum. Last session $17,000 was voted but that was found insufficient, and it was deemed better to wait until enough money was voted before going on with the work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must say that we find very great difficulty here in getting proper details in connection with large items of expenditure. No school board, no municipal council, not to speak of an individual, would say that the amount here asked to vote for this purpose, is at all within a reasonable limit. We had better postpone this vote until we get those details which any ordinary administrative body would be entitled to. I have no desire to delay the business of the House, but I do say that this item should not pass until we get sufficient information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I agree that the fullest possible detailed information should be given on every vote, but I think the information given with regard to this vote is full and sufficient. It is most inconvenient to allow these items to stand, and I will suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he is not satisfied, then at a later stage I will bring down the detailed statement made by the chief architect, if the hon. gentleman wishes.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I cannot agree to that proposition, because on many occasions we have been told that detailed information would be brought down afterwards, and for one reason or another we have never seen it. Here we are asked to vote $25,000 under the heading of water service, drainage, and heating, for a quarantine station, and I am in the judgment of the House when I say that this appears at first sight to be an exorbitant sum to ask for such a purpose. The minister cannot tell us how much of this money goes for water service, how much for drainage and how much for heating. Surely, with his deputy minister at his elbow, he ought to be able to give in-14


BEVISED
[Stage Direction]
formation on that point. I am again in the judgment of the Committee when I say that we have not had a single satisfactory explanation to enable us to pass this vote.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I also am in the judgment of the Committee when I say that it has never been customary in this House to ask for the number of nails and the number of feet of lumber which enter into the calculation of the architect. I think I have given the fullest possible explanation in a general way, and I have proposed to the hon. gentleman that if he is not satisfied I will bring down the detailed information later. Why, it would take tons of paper if we were to bring down full details in connection with every departmental item, such as this.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What information has been given already ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell me what information he would like ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I asked the minister to distinguish between the cost of water service, the cost of the drainage, and the cost of the heating, and he was unable to do so. The minister tells us that it is unusual to ask for such information. I have not been in this House so long as he, but my parliamentary experience extends from 1886, and I can say that not only is it usual but that it is the rule to ask and to obtain such detailed information. While the Hon. Mr. Tarte was Minister of Public Works, when these details were asked for they were always given and given cheerfully. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) knew everything that was connected with his department, and the same rule should be followed now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same rule is being followed. I think my hon. friend gave every detail at that time, and I do not think it could be expected that that should be given over and over again, especially when I have promised to bring down full details of the estimate made by the architect for the work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I left the department the position was this. The department had tried to dig artesian wells, and a great deal of money had been spent without getting water, although the experts had told us that we could get water easily. Then it was suggested that a system of surface water could be arranged for. I went down during the month of August, and it was not very difficult for me to make up my mind that that suggestion had no sense whatever. The only practicable means of getting water for a quarantine station is to lay a pipe across the bay, a distance of 5,000 or 6,000 feet at least, to connect with the city of St. John water system. It is a very rocky place.


EDITION
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How much would that
cost ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: It would cost $20,000 or $25,000 at least.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then we are not voting enough.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course, I have not the details. I had Mr. Shewen, our chief engineer, make a complete report on the matter. When I left the department that report had not been received. It is very important that we should have water at the quarantine station, and I am very much surprised and sorry that we have not sooner provided the accommodation that we should have there.


Samuel Hughes: One would infer, from the hon. gentleman's remarks, that it was proposed to bury the pipe in the rock. Surely that is not the intention. It might rest on the bottom of the bay.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When my hon. friend who has just spoken rose, I was about to rise for the purpose of making a statement of the facts so far as I know them, and they entirely correspond with the statement made by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). The problem of obtaining a water supply for Partridge Island has been a very serious one indeed, and has given to all who have been interested in the matter a great deal of anxiety and concern. I am personally acquainted with the efforts that were made in the direction stated by the ex-Minister of Public Works, which efforts failed. Partridge Island is simply a rock where no water has been found or is likely to be found.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the distance from the city.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About a mile across the west channel of the harbour.


Joseph Israël Tarte: About 5,000 feet.
THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Tlie water supply is obtained from the western or Carleton side of the harbour, in connection with the public supply, and I do not believe it will be possible to secure such supply in any other way than that now proposed by the Department of Public Works. My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) spoke as if this were a very large expenditure to be made in an unimportant locality.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He rather spoke of the place as not being of special consequence. Of course, if it were in the city of St. John, my hon. friend would at once admit that aiiy reasonable expenditure for any proper


Joseph Israël Tarte: purpose would be justified ; but he spoke of the work on this island as if it were not a matter of great importance. I can assure him that a quarantine station at that point is an absolute necessity. Hundreds and even thousands of people are brought into the harbour of St. John, largely immigrants, for the west, and it is of the most vital consequence to the health of the people of Canada that proper precautions be taken there, and that a thoroughly equipped station be established there. What has been done has not been done without much consideration on tlie part of all who were interested in the matter. I think that the sum named in this estimate is a very moderate and reasonable sum. if it is found to be sufficient to cover the actual outlay. I do not wish to speak on that point, however, because I have no special knowledge to qualify me to do so ; but T a in sure that my hon. friends who criticised this item rather severely-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, I a pi glad to hear that they did not, because I think it will be found, on a searching investigation, that there is no vote asked for in these estimates which is more justifiable or necessary than the one now under discussion.


James Clancy: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has spent some time in eloquently answering a charge which was not made. No one questioned the probable necessity or utility of this work; there was no criticism, so far as I know, on that point at all. The point of criticism, as the hon. minister well knows, was that the hon. Minister of Public Works was unable to give any information. My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) stated specifically the items on which he asked for information, namely, the water service, the drainage service and the heating, and I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that the committee should be put in possession of this information. The hon. Minister of Public Works is pleased to say that he will bring down the information after we have passed the item, and if it is not found to be satisfactory he will consent to a rehearing of the case. Surely my hon. friend would not propose a course of that kind in this House. Where would it end ? He knows that we could not do that kind of thing. He knows that without the consent of the House the case could not be heard again. If the hon. gentleman would give us the information, we would be under no necessity of putting these questions to him. I am going to take the liberty of asking again what is the cost of the heating and the nature of the heating, what is the cost of the drainage service and the character of that drainage, what is the cost of the water service, whether there is a contract with the city of St. John and what is the Dature of that con-

tract, liow long is that contract to continue and what sum is to be paid. Those are very reasonable questions and it is no severe criticism to ask the Minister of Public Works for the information.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I thought that I had answered the most important of the questions the hon. gentleman put, but I find that the department are a little short in some of the details we should have with regard to this expenditure. The item is somewhat misleading. This $12,000, I understand, was for the purpose of putting in a water pipe under an arrangement with the city. The pipe has to be extended down to tide water, and we agreed to pay two-thirds of the cost on the report of the engineer, our share being some $4,000 out of $6,000. I would prefer having the item stand until I can have an opportunity of sending to the department for further details.


Samuel Hughes: Before the hon. minister leaves St. John harbour, I would take the liberty of drawing his attention to another point. I understand that the Public Works Department is charged with the care of the historical landmarks of the country. At the mouth of the River St. John is old Fort Latour, built in the very early days of the settlement of North America by the Huguenots, and one of the most interesting landmarks of the country. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways that an appropriation should be made to keep that old fort in a state of preservation. I am sure that the descendants of the old Huguenots, who were the first French colonists in that portion of British North America, will be greatly pleased if the government should do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To how much water is the quarantine station entitled for this $200 a year ? Is any arrangement made for the use of this water for protection against fire ? If the city have the right to sell this water at a high price, we should not pay such a large share of the cost of laying down the main. The city is getting a good return for its disbursements and we ought to know what we are getting for ours.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that I have not the report from the engineer in charge at St. John, and would ask that the item be allowed to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Dominion buildings, 13,000.


James Clancy: Was that expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is the usual vote for general repairs and the full amount was expended.
Dominion public buildings, maritime provinces, renewals, repairs, &c., $12,000.
14}


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the same vote asked for a number of years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not sufficient explanation. We are entitled to know every year how the money is to be expended. If we put a new furnace last year in a building, we require to know what we are going to do to that building this year and should have a statement showing how that $12,000 are to be expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a general vote for repairs to public buildings throughout the province. It would be quite impossible to tell just what repairs would be required for the coming year, for unforeseen conditions will arise. We can only account for the money that was voted in previous years, and my hon. friend knows that that is given in the fullest detail in the Auditor General's Report. I can give the hon. gentleman the details of expenditure for the past year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not require that, so far as I am concerned. But I would like to know how this sum of $12,000 is divided.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that, if the annual vote were too large or too small, the minister would have to explain why he asked for so much, or would be obliged to ask for an increase. For the past year, for instance, I have a list here of repairs running from 75 cents to $800, and applying to twenty or thirty public buildings throughout the province, and amounting in all to about $7,000. That left a balance of $5,000 unexpended. The deputy minister informs me that this $12,000 is about the usual amount required from year to year for the maintenance of the different buildings throughout the province.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do these repairs cover furniture ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we have a separate vote for that. This is only for repairs to the buildings themselves.
Public Works-chargeable to income, public buildings, Quebec-Dominion public buildings- renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $12,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. minister tell ns how this is divided ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a pretty long list, but I will give my hon. friend the expenditure so far this year, which amounts to $11,988.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I wished to know is not how this money was expended last year, but how this estimate is made up-what amount is allotted to the different parts of the province. A board of school commissioners, for instance, will provide a certain
*

amount for repairs at each school. What I want to know, in two words is what is the hon. minister's basis of calculation in making up his estimate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimates are not made up in the way suggested by the hon. gentleman. They are made up on the basis of a number of years' experience. Showing what is likely to be required for the repairs of the public buildings in the province. Owing to special causes, much more may be required in one place than in another. For instance, we spent in the Aylmer public building this year, $166 ; in Hochelaga, $404 and in Drum-mondville, only $8. The committee will easily see that the necessity for repairs arises from causes which cannot be foreseen. The method of the department in the past has been to get the vote which experience has shown to be necessary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If that is the system adopted, I believe this is the only administration throughout the country, the only public body where such a system is followed. The hon. gentleman thinks what has been spent in the past is a guide for what he shall ask in the future. He tells us we have spent $166 on the Aylmer building. I suppose he counts on the same amount next year. Does the hon. minister mean to say that, before this item is made up those in charge of the different buildings are not required to send in an estimate of the repairs that will be necessary ? I venture to say there is not a board of school commissioners, nor municipal body throughout the country where such a plan is not adopted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman says he has had great experience in school and municipal bodies-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that, but I was speaking of what everybody knows to be their method.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I have had experience in both, and I take issue with the hon. gentleman. Every one can understand that there are certain unforeseen contingencies which involve expense and which must be provided for. In the case of the department, if any repairs are required at the first of the fiscal year, no douht, reports will have reached the department from the officers in charge of the different buildings. But, suppose a roof leaks, or a pipe bursts, or a door breaks, we cannot know of these things in advance of preparing the estimates. The estimate is made up, I think, in the only business way for places of this kind. We do not expend the money unless it is required. In some cases balances are left over, while, in other cases there is an over expenditure which must be justified and a vote given to cover the amount. .


Mr. LENNOX.: I entirely disagree with the statement of the hon. minister as to the mode usually adopted by public bodies. Of course, there must be a certain amount provided to cover unforeseen contingencies. But, that we are to be guided entirely by the past, is certainly not a correct system. As has been said, it surely would be expected that the department would ascertain from the parties in charge of the respective buildings what sum each of them would require. A very strange condition of things otherwise would arise. The government is not entitled, as I understand it, to expend the public money unless it is voted by parliament. Unless the information is collected on which to base a careful estimate, we are not in a position to take a fair, business view of what is required within the time the estimates cover.
It may arise that the estimate may be too large, it may just as well arise that it may be too small. Suppose that some of these buildings require extensive repairs, more than have been required for several years, that a large building in some part of the province of Quebec requires reroofing, involving an expenditure of several thousand dollars of this appropriation. Is it a business principle that the department is to close its eyes to this necessary information, and come down here without the first glimmering of knowledge as to what is required in that behalf ? It may well happen that a building which has been used as a public building of the Dominion may be abandoned, or that the repairs have been so extensive that no others may be needed upon it for a long time. I submit that what we are entitled to from year to year is an investigation by the department, and that the result should be placed before us, some general information as to the condition of public buildings and the amount necessary for their repair, judged by their condition at the present time. In addition to that, I admit that provision should be made for contingencies that are unforeseen. We should not discard the past altogether, and judging by the past we can form some opinion of what may be required from year to year. Until we have such an investigation from year to year, and the result laid before parliament, the department is not doing its duty by this Committee or by the people whom we represent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. There is another item where provision is made for repairs. This is simply an item for unforeseen expensesi in the various buildings, of which there are 37 or 40 in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman will see that it is not a very large amount, considering the value of the property, and the number of buildings for which this general vote is asked to provide for contingencies, In cases where we know that considerable


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 

repairs are required, we ask for another vote and the department give the details for which it is required. Cases do arise, as the hon. gentleman says, every year where unusual damage is done by some heavy storm, for instance, and where the department) has to expend more money than has been voted. In such case we account to parliament for the extra expenditure when the House meets again.


Haughton Lennox: Probably I did not make myself clear to the hon. gentleman, but the item itself is clear. It comes exactly within the lines upon which I addressed myself to the committee. * Dominion public buildings, renewals, improvements, repairs, etc.' I submit that the Minister of Public Works has not explained away the difficulties that arise in the statement lie made that he judged of the necessity of $12,000 by the fact that for several years we have had $12,000 expended.
Grosse Isle-Quarantine station, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will give the details as furnished by the department in regard to this work. It is carried on in accordance with the estimate submitted by the Department of Agriculture. Disinfector for hospital, $2,000; building for bathrooms, $1,800; building for office of surgeon and vaccinating rooms, with four rooms upstairs for non-contagious cases, $2,000; fixing eighteen doors, $18; wire work over baths, $50; bath pipes, $30; smallpox hospital, $40; ventilation, $75; drain to the hospital for water supply, $300; repairs to disinfecting building, $387; repairs to police headquarters, $872; official quarters, $2,000; hydrants, $180; whitewashing, $800; walks, $795 ; incidentals, $353. As the Committee knows, a very large expenditure has been made during the past year at this station. I am informed by the deputy minister that this sum is expected to complete these improvements that are being made in the quarantine station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I remember correctly,
it is only a few years ago that we made a similar apparatus for disinfecting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for a general building, this is for the hospital.


Haughton Lennox: Could the minister tell us how much has been expended up to the present time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry to say the department nas not furnished me in this memorandum the total amount expended at, this station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a distinct recollection that for a good many years past we have been spending heavily at Grosse Isle quarantine station, which suggests that the work could not have been mapped cut along intelligent lines at first, otherwise we
would not require to make these improvements from year to year. We were assured a few years ago that the heavy expenditure then required was intended to complete the building. Every year we have the same answer : This is to complete. But we have no guarantee this will complete. Last year we were asked for $10,000, and this year for $12,000. If I remember right, we needed more than that the year before. However, it appears to be going on and I have listened to items being read out which seem to be very much as they were before even to the laying down of the walk. Here is nearly $2,000 for the official quarters. These quarters must be lavishly furnished and very extensive when $2,000 are required to furnish new quarters there after we have been called upon to make these improvements. I think there is either a reckless expenditure or there is something unbusinesslike in the way the money is spent, because we ought to reach a finality some time and we ought to know what this station will cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The $2,000 is for a new building. The only information which I can give to the Committee is that this station was established about 1845. The deputy minister informs me that it had gone very much to wreck and that in 1892 the rehabilitation of the whole establishment was commenced. We have spent, up to the present time, about $200,000. I quite agree with my hon. friend that in laying out a work like this if a full, detailed statement had been given and the expenses known it probably would have been better. The deputy minister informs me that this about completes the work as a quarantine station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is in charge of the quarantine station now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, that is in the Agriculture department. Dr. Martineau is at the head of the station locally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Dr. Montizambert is at the head of the service.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: The statement is made by the hon. minister that this about completes the work. What other work is there in contemplation that will be done and what is the probable cost of completing It ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, this estimate is based on a request made by the Department of Agriculture. We do not expect any further requests for improvements to be undertaken there. If any are received, they will, of course, be closely scrutinized. In connection with a large station like this there would be from time to time some expenditure required, but I trust that for the present there will

be no further improvements of a permanent or substantial character. I visited the station myself last fall and I must say that very great improvements have been made of a very permanent kind and I should think-I can only give the information furnished me by the department-that we should expect no further requests for a large expenditure at this station for some time to come.


James Clancy: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the $12,000 voted last year had been all expended ?
rl'hc MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes.
L'Assomption-public buildings, $10,000.


Mr. BROCK.: I see that last year $5,000 was spent and that this year $10,000 is to be expended. Would the hon. minister tell us what the population of L'Assomption is ? The item says ' public building ' but it must be for buildings, because, surely, there would not be an expenditure of $10,000 on one building in a place like this.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I regret I could not hear all the hon. gentleman said, but I understand he asked the population ?


William Rees Brock: Yes, for the population of L'Assomption.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the town of L'Assomption there is a population of 1,665 and in the adjoining parish there is a population of 1,275.


William Rees Brock: What kind of buildings are those that are being put up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The building is to be a two and a half storey brick with stone dressings-I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) wants to know what the building is for ?


William Rees Brock: Yes, what is the purpose of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a general public building for the post office, &c.


William Rees Brock: A town hall, or fire stationV Surely, it is not for the collection of customs dues in L'Assomption 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sometimes large customs dues are received in small places. I think, however, this is mostly to be used for a post office.


William Rees Brock: In a town of 1,600 inhabitants, does it not strike you, Mr. Minister, that $15,000 in two years is a very large sum to spend ? I think there must be some mistake. Are they county buildings ? Is it the county of L'Assomption that this building is to be erected for or is it a village building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Their municipal constitution down there is Hod. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
different from ours in Ontario. It is more for the town and the parish surrounding it that this post office is furnished.


William Rees Brock: Does the Dominion of Canada, because there is a difference in the municipal organization, supply municipal buildings in Quebec ? Are the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to supply the wealthy province of Quebec with municipal buildings ? I think there must be some mistake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say a municipal building, I said a post office. I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) is right in insinuating that the province of Quebec has public buildings in small places any more than the province of Ontario has. If there is any rule it has, perhaps, sometimes been violated ; perhaps, occasionally, for some reason or other, we have built public buildings in places where the population and revenue were rather small. The Committee must try and stick to the rule that the revenue and population should be taken into consideration in erecting public buildings. This rule has not been violated any more in Quebec than it has in other provinces.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if a contract for this building has been let, what is the amount of the contract, and what the purpose of the building is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract has been let and it is for a post office.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Mr. PRINGLE.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what the revenue of the post office is at L'Assomption. My reason for asking is that I see an item following, No. 110. public building at the village of Alexandria, $17,000. I suppose that also is for a post office. I would like to get an idea whether it is the policy of the government to erect $17,000 post offices in villages throughout the different provinces. We have one in L'Assomption costing $15,000. and one in Alexandria costing $17,000, and I would like to know what the rule is in regard to post offices in villages of that size ? It seems to me that the revenue must be very small in a village the size of L'Assomption or Alexandria. While I am asking the question I would like to ask also whether these buildings are to be used for any other purposes than that of the post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be used for all Dominion purposes : customs, inland revenue or any Dominion service. The general policy of the government has not been changed in this respect from the past. It seems to have been the will of the majority of the House

that at least in the chief town of a county there should be a public building erected. Parliament perhaps had not as due regard to revenue as it might have had. In this case the revenue is $942.


Mr. MORIN.: The government has certainly not much regard for the revenue received from a town in which they erect a public building. This building will cost more than $10,000, and the population of L'Assomption is 1,605 people. Now, if the government is going to put up a public building in every town of that size which will cost $10,000, where are they going to end ? In my own village we have a court house, a recording office, and a public building, and it is better entitled to a Dominion post office building than is L'Assomption. The government is very extravagant and if they keep on at this rate it must end in failure. I cannot conceive of any other town in the province of Quebec where this expenditure would be so wasted as in the town of L'Assomption.


Mr. BENNETT.: 
William Humphrey Bennett: If that riding estimates that the real reason for returning a representative is whether or not there should be a little public money spent in it, I am quite willing that should be taken as a gauge of the intelligence of the people. It is not only the initial cost of a building that has to be considered. There must be a caretaker, at a salary of $400; there must be fuel at a cost of $200 or $300 more, and so throughout the ridings that return Liberal supporters this expenditure will go on. If towns like Owen Sound and other important centres have the hardihood to oppose the government then they can rest assured that Mr. Justice Lount's principle of warm justice and cold justice will be their reward. It is not the Minister of Public Works alone who is responsible. The whole government pass these estimates, and the whole government is to blame. I remember on one occasion during a session of the late parliament, a grant was made in the riding of East Peterborough to build a dock on a creek, and the hon. member for that riding, who was a government supporter,

defended it on the ground that there had not been any money spent in that riding before. Perhaps these grants may have that same sort of argument to back them up, and nothing else.
Levis public building, $5,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is this sum for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is towards putting up a public building in the town of Levis.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the site been acquired?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The department has been negotiating with the Department of Railways in the hope that that department may be able to provide a site on land owned by the Dominion. Levis is a growing place and is entitled to a building.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend knows that the town of Ldvis is almost all situated on the hill, and if the jjost office is located on a portion of the land belonging to the Railway Department, the people will have to come down from the top of the hill to visit the post office. There must be something wrong here. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend ought to be more frank and explain the matter fully. He knows that those who have business in LSvis come down by the roads leading to the ferry, and therefore the most convenient place for a public building would be in the neighbourhood of the Intercolonial station. The board of trade of the town of Levis made representations to that effect.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I take issue with my hon. friend, and I would like to see the petitions of the board of trade which represented that the public building of the town of Levis should be situated at the bottom of the hill. My hon. friend and all others who are familiar with the town of Levis know that it extends from the brow of the hill very far back, that a large portion of the population live on the brow of the hill, and that only a few stores are below the hill near the Intercolonial station. If my hon. friends says there was a representation from the board of trade of the town of Levis in favour of such a site, they are in a better position to know than I am; but I would like to see that representation. The public buildings of the town of Levis, as my hon. friend knows, are on the hill. The town hall is on the hill, and if it is convenient to have the town hall there, it would be convenient to have the post office there also.
Mi-. TALBOT. I would ask tile hon. member for Montmorency to be kind enough to tell the House where the market of the town of Levis is-on the top of the hill or below it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There are two markets, one below, a very small one, and the larger one on the brow of the hill, near the church.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A deputation from the board of trade of the town of Ldvis, in addition to their written request, visited me at my office in Ottawa a short time ago and urged the selection of this site as in their opinion most convenient for the town. There were present Mr. Carrier, the president of the board of trade, and four or five others. That is the reason of the delay.	-


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend probably knows that Mr. Carrier's store is at the bottom of the hill, and that is the reason he wanted the post office there.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I happened to be present at the time, and this Mr. Carrier is not the merchant at all, but is connected with Carrier, Lane & Co., and a supporter of the hon. gentleman opposite.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: His factory is down there also.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: His factory is there, but when he visited the government, he came to make representations on behalf of the people of Ldvis.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: If my hon. friend says there is a petition from the board of trade, I would be pleased to see it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be pleased to have a copy of it sent to the hon. gentleman.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not doubt what the hon. Minister of Public Works and the hon. Minister of Justice says; yet it does not look reasonable. They have a post office in Levis close to the station. Then they have one on the top of the hill, on the main road leading south. Are the people of Levis going to close their post office on the top of the hill and go down to the bottom of the hill to get their mail ? It does not look reasonable at all. In the town of Levis there are four post offices. There is a post office half a mile from the station, near Mr. Couture's store, and do you mean to say that he and others have signed a petition to have that post office closed and a general post office placed at the bottom of the hill ? I have no doubt that some people want a good post office near the station, but the rest of the people know nothing at all about it. I know a good deal about that town, and I would like to see some of the people send another petition here. If the people of Levis find out that a petition has been sent here, asking for a post office at the foot of the hill, you will have another to the contrary pretty soon.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the hon. minister to say that the proposal is to get a site on some land belonging to the Inter-

colonial Railway. That being a government railway, I apprehend that there is not much difficulty in ascertaining quickly whether it will be proper for the Railway Department to part with that land or not. This I find is a revote; the money was appropriated last year. If the ministers are in harmony-of course, we sometimes think they are at loggerheads, and one will not speak to another-how is it that it has not been ascertained up to the present time definitely, whether or not that site is available ? The minister ought to able to tell us what is the difficulty or where the hitch is; so that if we are not going to have that site, we may get another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be pleased again to explain to the hon. gentleman. I was asked how this matter stood. The board of trade of Levis visited Ottawa and made representations to us that this site would be suitable. It turned out that it was on property belonging to the Department of Railways and Canals. We have referred to the chief engineer of railways to know whether or not we can get the land. If we can, it will save considerable expense in the way of securing a site which will be satisfactory to the people.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that instead of the Intercolonial Railway being in a position to dispose of any land, they are anxious to extend their territory.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They do require more land, but it is represented that at this particular place they could spare the small amount that we require.


Haughton Lennox: When did the Public Works Department apply to the Railway Department to see if they could get this land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three weeks ago, when the deputation came up from the town of L6vis.
Montreal examining warehouse-additions and alterations, including fittings, furnishings, &c., $15,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see that we spent $15,000 last year on this same building, and this will make $30,000. How did we spend the $15,000 last year, and what is intended to be done with the $15,000 this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year we put an additional storey on the annex. The masonry and brickwork cost $5,050; carpentering work, $3,167; plumbing, $400; heating apparatus, $3,800; concreting roof, $1,200; plastering repairs, $525; tile floor. $700.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then you have spent $15,000 adding a story. What is this further expenditure for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is besides all the remodelling and furnishings inside.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Two years ago you spent $10,000 painting, kalsomiuing and whitewashing and repainting the third story of the customs warehouse. The following year you added another story. You spent nearly $10,000 finishing the inside and then spent $15,000 the following year adding one more . story. Why are you now spending another $15,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two thousand dollars are due on the contract for the furnishing and fittings. The passenger elevator will cost $4,000; lighting fixtures, $3,000, and incidentals. $1,000. This will complete.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is all this work done by contract ? I notice that always the same contractors get the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Every item appears to have been by contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were public tenders asked for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were not advertised for but a number of contractors were asked to tender.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a great pity that in Montreal, where we require so much for other improvements, we should spend in three years $40,000 on repairs that, as far as I can judge from the Auditor General's Report and the minister's explanation, appear to have been made wrong side up. We began in 1901-2 completely repairing the customs warehouse, painting, finishing, kal-somining and whitewashing the interior of the building. The following year we tore one-half of the building down in order to put up another story. This year we are going to destroy partly the work we did last year. But what I want particularly to draw attention to is this : This work is done without carrying out the principle of advertising for tenders through the press, and it is always the same men who get the work. Before we vote the $15,000 for next year, we should have the hon. gentleman's assurance that tenders will be called for through the newspapers published in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In small appropriations such as this, the advertising would take up the greater part of it. Divide up this into different items and advertise them in the different newspapers for tenders, and you will find that the cost of advertising would take up a considerable expenditure of the appropriation. We ask for tenders from those who are in the trade, and we get all the tenders we would by public advertising and at much less cost.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is contrary to law that you should undertake a work of $15,000 without advertising for tenders. In the next place, the reason given by the hon. gentleman is surely not serious. All the minister has to do, in order to give the public a chance to compete, is to advertise three or four times in the pap^js published in Montreal, stating where the specifications can be examined. If he does this he will realize an immense saving. We have expended $40,000 in the examining warehouse in Montreal, and I am sure the work could be done for half the price. For my part I would ask the minister to give his pledge before we vote this $15,000 that tenders will be .advertised for in the papers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have been looking over the items and I see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is right. I shall be prepared to advertise the work for which this $15,000 is voted.


Mr. BARKER.: I think this question of advertising or sending out circulars should be discussed in the House. It appears, from the Auditor General's report that the matter has been under discussion during the past year. The Auditor General has called attention to it and has taken the advice of independent counsel as to how far the government has the right to go. I understand the conclusion arrived at to be that where there are only half a dozen people in a particular trade in the Dominion, as, for instance, builders of railway cars or locomotives, it may be proper for the government to send circulars to these people asking for tenders. There is no object in spending hundreds of dollars in advertising where a few circulars will answer the purpose. But, that where there is a general trade, as, for instance, the building trade, the government has no right under the statute-it would be unlawful-to let contracts without advertising in the press. It seems to me absurd for the minister to say in the case of an item of $15,000 that it will cost more than the item to advertise. It ought to cost but a very little sum. If the advertisements were put in the papers of the city of Montreal, I am sure there would be many builders competing for the contract. I only rise to call attention to the facts, because it seems to be the general practice of the government to do as was done in this case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I undertake to say that that has not been the general practice since I became the head of the department. In practically every case, even the cases involving small amounts, I have advertised in the papers. But there are special cases to be considered. It is very easy for the hon. gentleman to talk, but one of the items in this case, for instance is an elevator. I believe there are only two elevator manufacturers in the Do-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
minion, both in Toronto. There may be one in Hamilton, though I am not sure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are two in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, even so-we have a list of the people in the business and would send these specifications and ask for tenders. Could we do any better if we advertised ? If we put the advertisement in one paper, at once there would be a howl that it did not go into all. I have carried out the rule of advertising for tenders to the fullest extent, and I intend to do so, unless there is some change in the Act. But I think the department should have more latitude in these small matters, because of the delay and expense and because the public are not so well served as if we were to apply to the reputable people in the trade for tenders.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) takes the exception I put to be the rule in his department. If you want an elevator it may be proper to send out a circular to the few manufacturers in that line.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $15,000, as I explained, is made up of small items like that. We have to advertise each separately.


Samuel Barker: Of course, every extension of a building involves a number of small items. '


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where there is a large quantity of repairs, as in the present instance, they might be given to one contractor. Or repairs generally might be advertised under specifications which show the details. I believe we spend too much money in advertising for government work. If the law was that repairs, and even more extensive works to be done by the government, should be advertised in such jfiaces as the post offices all over the country, people who wish to tender would go there to look for such advertisements and there would be an immense saving. Of course, that is a matter of administration. But where we see the government spending $40,000 to repair the examining warehouse in Montreal, and when we know what a miserable post office we have, one quite inadequate to meet the requirements of the city, we begin to look with a little caution and to wish that greater care should be taken in the expenditure of public money.	.
Montreal public buildings-improvements, alterations, repairs, &c., $8,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask the minister if he has given consideration to this city of Montreal post office. I have called attention repeatedly in this House to the condition of this building. We are erecting public buildings in very insignificant places all over the Dominion, and yet, in the city of

Montreal we have a post office which is absolutely inadequate to the wants of the city. It is a great deal too small and quite insufficient in many ways. I believe the government has had under consideration for several years a scheme by which additional accommodation might be given in the Montreal post office. The hon. minister, no doubt, is aware that the government pays a very large amount of rent in Montreal. I do not know7 the amount, but 1 feel satisfied that it is more than sufficient, if it were capitalized, to give us in Montreal a large post office, where all those government offices now occupying rented premises, could be installed, and where the ministers themselves, when they come to Montreal, would have suitable rooms for the transaction of public business. I do not know if the present minister has given his attention to that subject, but I think some arrangement might be arrived at by which, by spending even less money than is actually spent, we could have a suitable public building in Montreal for the post office and other public buildings as well..


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter has received some attention since I have been at the head of the department. The Post Office Department have recommended a new system in dealing with the mails in large cities, where they think the service can be more efficiently carried out by the establishment of branch offices. They think that especially in large manufacturing centres it would be better to take the mails from the station, as they do now at Toronto and Montreal, directly to the branch offices. In the city of Montreal it is intended to have a public building at some distance from the present office, which will relieve the congestion in the head office.


William Findlay Maclean: Regarding public buildings in large cities, I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that great progress is being macTe in architecture, and commercial and business reasons now decide the style of architecture rather than outside appearance. Architects will now give you a building that is expressly adapted for the business that you have in view, and I hope that hereafter the department will devote their whole energy, especially in the large cities, in adapting their public buildings to the business they are destined to serve. In Toronto we have a custom house which is a very florid piece of architecture, but is deficient in light. The public have to go up a large staircase in order to do business, there are no elevators, no telephones or anything of that kind. I hope the department will follow the example of the corresponding department in the United States and make their public buildings suited to the purposes, with all modern conveniences, and especially with an abundance of light. These improved
buildings are now being erected in all advanced countries. They have got rid of this idea of monuments, and florid architecture, and sculpture, and are putting up purely business buildings where utility is the chief end in view.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the minister state about what amount the government pays in rents in the city of Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Public Works Department are not paying rents for all the departments, so we cannot give the information at the present time. But it is an important subject and I am going to have the amounts made up in Montreal and some other cities, and will give them to the Committee.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Since the attention of the minister has been drawn to the post offices in Montreal and Toronto, I would like to join the chorus of hon. gentlemen opposite and direct the attention of the minister to the post office in the city of Ottawa. This capital city is growing rapidly, proportionately more so perhaps than any city in Canada. The post office was built many years ago, and for a long time it has contained in addition offices for the customs, the inland revenue and the Ottawa Improvement works. Business is certainly in a very congested state in the Ottawa post office, and when the minister is looking into this question I hope he will not forget the capital. Of all the cities I am acquainted with, Ottawa has the greatest need of additional accommodation.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Since attention is being drawn to public buildings in the large cities, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that probably the most urgent case in the Dominion is the post office building in the city of Winnipeg at the present time. This may not be the proper time to speak of that subject on the estimate that is before us, but I would urge the minister to give his attention to Winnipeg, and hope that he will be prepared when the estimates for Manitoba are reached to announce his intentions of providing buildings adequate to the demands of the public services in Winnipeg.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully recognize the importance of this question. As the country becomes more prosperous no doubt additional facilities will have to be provided in all the large commercial centres. In regard to Winnipeg, I have had a careful report prepared and will have to ask the House for money to enlarge the building there. The situation in Montreal depends, as I have explained, somewhat on the policy of other departments. I believe it is the intention to build branch offices so as to relieve to some extent the central office. The same remark may be applied to Ottawa. I endorse every-

thing that has been said by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) with regard to architecture. I think if he will look at station ' O ' built by the chief architect of the department, he will admit that it is a very decided improvement, and will give better satisfaction to the public than a more expensive building. There is no doubt that as regards the large commercial centres the question of increased accommodation will have to be met, and at a later stage I will have to submit some particulars to the House, and perhaps ask for a vote of money for this purpose.


William Findlay Maclean: So far as I can gather, this new system of distributing the work of the post office and centreing it around the railway stations instead of taking it all to one building, is in the right direction. It will facilitate the handling of the mails and correspondence and, considered in its purely business aspect, the system cannot be expanded too soon. I am glad to hear the minister say that hereafter he will have the commercial and business aspect more in view in erecting or enlarging public buildings.


Mr. BRUCE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if I heard him correctly when he put the question whether there were elevator works at Hamilton. I desire to tell him that the largest elevator works in Canada are established at Hamilton.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would like to ask the hon. minister for some explanation in regard to the public building in St. Hyacinthe. There was $12,000 spent last year, cr rather $12,000 voted last year and $12,000 is asked for this year. I would like to ask the hon. minister if the $12,000 voted last year was expended or is this a revote ? What are these additions which are to be made to the public building at St. Hyacinthe ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote.


Haughton Lennox: It does not say so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, it is not a revote.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It should state so. The deputy minister informs me that this sum was voted last year and that none of it was spent, and that this is a revote of the same amount to be expended upon addition to the building there to provide for the excise.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What is the public building for in St. Hyacinthe ? I suppose there is a post office ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There was a building erected in St. Hyacinthe, if I remember well, about 15 years ago, which has been used for the post office and customs house. About three years ago the division of St. Hyacinthe was enlarged. The excise service is in the same building and there are two or three rooms occupied by the gas and electric inspection service. The building is not sufficient to accommodate all the services. The revenue has increased; it has doubled, or trebled, and a new building is going to be erected next to the present post office.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is a very satisfactory explanation, but what I would like to know is why] it was that the work was not begun last year. Can the hon. gentleman give a reason for that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was delay in procuring the site as there was some difficulty in the Department of Justice about the title. The matter was just settled two weeks ago.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: From whom was the property purchased ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The first intention was to make an addition to the old building, but as the site was not found convenient the Department of Public Works thought it proper to buy another piece of land. The property was owned by Jule Laframboise, or rather by his wife, formerly Miss Buckley.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


Haughton Lennox: Has the item been amended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no amendment necessary.


Haughton Lennox: I submit there would require to be an amendment. The item appears as if $12,000 had been voted last year and that $12,000 is being voted again for the year 1903-4. If it is a revote it should appear in the first column and the item would require to be amended so that it will appear that we are only revoting that amount and not adding $12,000 to the vote of last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was perfectly correct in stating the amount voted last year, but I am mistaken in saying that this is a revote of the same amount. Four thousand dollars has been paid for the site and the chief architect says that the cost of the building will be about $15,000 or $16,000. This would leave the balance of the $12,000 after paying for the site and $12,000 additional.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand that we are to pay $12,000 in all or $24,000 in all for this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $24,000 in all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will that finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will complete the work.
Thetford Mines-public building, $8,000.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: May I ask the hon. minister what kind of a public building he is putting up at Thetford Mines ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost is estimated by the chief architect to be about $10,000.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: May I ask what kind of a public building the government is erecting at Thetford Mines ? Is this a post office, custom house, or excise office or is it a mint ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is used for a post office and custom house.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I want to call your attention to the fact that the population of Thetford Mines, according to the last census, is 1,605. Yet, you are spending $8,000 for a public building in that locality. I know that there is Thetford North and Thetford South but the population of Thetford South is only 600. Thetford Mines is in Thetford North and the population is only 1,600. In a place of this importance are we going to erect a public building which will cost $12,000 1 I cannot see what you are going to put in the post office or the custom house.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pleased to say that the revenue warrants this very much more than some that have been voted. The postal revenue is $2,405, and the customs duties are $3,544, so that the revenue is very good.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether a site has been acquired ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the deputy informs me that a site has been procured.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much has been paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From whom was the site acquired ? Was it given by the village, or the town, or bought outright by the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site was purchased from King Bros, of Quebec for $1,900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 50 x 100 feet.


Nathaniel Boyd: The hon. minister gave as a reason for the expenditure in Thetford Mines that there was an income of $2,405 from the post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And a customs revenue of $3,544.


Nathaniel Boyd: And you are spending something like $12,000 in that place.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Nathaniel Boyd: For the whole province of Manitoba the estimates only include $5,000.
I will read to the minister a few of the towns in Manitoba and the North-west which are left out in the cold, because the members who represent these constituencies seem to be backward in drawing the attention of the government to the post office revenue derived from them. Boissevan, a growing town, has a post office revenue of $2,651, but we don't hear the member who represents it asking for a post office in that town.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who is he ?


Nathaniel Boyd: The Minister of the Interior; he is away. Take the town of Carman, in the county of Lisgar, which has a post office revenue of $3,440, and we are spending nothing there, and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Stewart) does not protest. The town of Deloraine, also in the constituency of the Minister of the Interior, has a revenue of $2,281, and there is no expenditure there. There is the town of Carberry, with a revenue of $3,335, and there is no expenditure there. There is the town of Neepawa, with a revenue of $4,135 and no expenditure ; the town of Selkirk, represented by that stalwart gentleman (Mr. McCreary) has a revenue of $2,193, and there is no expenditure there. The town of Souris, with a revenue of $2,728; the town of Yirden with a post office revenue of $2,926, and also a large revenue from customs, is to have no expenditure. Then we come to Edmonton, in a constituency represented by a supporter of the government; its revenue is $6,039 from the post office, and there is no expenditure In that growing place. It is the same in the town of Lethbridge, which has a revenue of $4,524. The town of Moosejaw, that can scarcely accommodate the immigration flowing in there at the present time, has a post office revenue of $4,427. It is represented by my hon. friend from West Assini-boia (Mr. Scott), and we do not hear a protest from that gentleman because there is no expenditure in that town. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that I have to get up to speak of these things. Surely, in the great province of Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories, towards which the eyes of the world are directed now, $5,000 is not sufficient for public buildings, when the little town of L'Assomption with a post office revenue of $465 is to have $10,000 spent on a public building. The town of Prince Al-

bert, represented by another stalwart supporter of the government (Mr. Davis) is to have no expenditure made there. Why do we not hear from him ?


William Humphrey Bennett: He is building railways.


Nathaniel Boyd: The town of Yorkton has a revenue of $2,410 and there is no government expenditure there. I could continue to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there are twenty-three post offices in Manitoba with a revenue of from $1,000 to $2,000, and fourteen towns in the North-west Territories with a revenue running from $1,000 to $2,000 that X have said nothing about.


William Humphrey Bennett: You throw them in.


Nathaniel Boyd: We will make a job lot of them. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of Public Works, who is a particularly good friend of mine, will admit, that it is most unfortunate that I should be compelled to become the champion of these towns in view of the fact that they are represented by stalwart and outspoken Liberals, who are usually here to speak for themselves if not too embarrassing to the government. I trust that when I come here next year 1 will not have to accuse the Minister of Public Works of neglecting these growing towns.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sly hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) has referred to the small vote for incidental and unforeseen expenses in the province of Manitoba. Now as a matter of fact there is $12,000 voted for Quebec and Ontario, $12,000 for the maritime provinces, and I think the committee will agree with me that considering the number of buildings in Manitoba the vote of $5,000 is comparatively large. I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) that the department oyer which I preside could not think of putting up small buildings in the towns he has referred to. In view of the great progress and prosperity of that country, I have no doubt that in a short time they will require very much larger buildings than we would be able to give them at present. They will have due consideration when the time comes.
Valleyfield public buildings, $15,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How long is it since this building was determined upon ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is two or three years since this vote was first taken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any correspondence between the local authorities and the department with regard to the selection of the site.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister says that he does not remember of any.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the ex-Minister of Public Works could give the information. Mr. BOYD.	'


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know Valleyfield very well and before determining on the site I paid a visit to the town. There was practically only one site available. There were other pieces of ground but they were not fit for such a building. The population of Valleyfield is to-day about 15,000, and if things go on as they have been going on within five years it will be a city.


William Findlay Maclean: Provided the tariff is alright.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, it is to a large extent due to the fact that the tariff on cotton has been kept all right. I may say that I am responsible for the choice of the site.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When was the site decided upon by the department ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I paid a visit to the place with one of my officers, and chose the site without telling anybody. I then instructed Mr. Dandurand, who is the agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway for land purchases, to purchase the site. Let me say immediately that the site formerly belonged to the sitting member, but it was not bought from him. It was the only site available for a public building there, all other available sites having been bought in the rush of business. I instructed Mr. Dandurand not to say a word to the sitting member, but to take an option on the site. It had been sold previously by the sitting member to a man named Johnston, if I remember rightly. Mr. Dandurand took every possible precaution to secure the site at a reasonable price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What price did he pay ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not remember exactly ; I lost sight of the transaction. But it was conducted all through by one of the ablest real estate agents in Montreal, and I think everything was done uprightly-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When did Mr. Dandurand close this transaction ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think it was closed after I left office. But I gave instructions and was responsible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister might tell us at what date the transaction was closed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Order in Council was passed on the 22nd of November, 1902, authorizing the purchase from R. B. Johnston for the sum of $10,000. The land is 77* feet by 160 feet deep.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Bank of Hoche-laga has bought a property there which is not worth half as much as this property' and has paid a great deal more. I know we have made a good bargain.


William Findlay Maclean: Speaking of this question of sites, I would like to throw out this suggestion. If the policy is to be continued

of giving public buildings to all these small places, at least put the onus upon them of supplying the sites. That will be a buffer between the government and the demand of these small places for public buildings.
I believe it would often have the effect of preventing their construction ; and in cases where it did not, the country would at least be saved the cost of the site.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Who is this R.W. Johnston ? Is he in the employ of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He certainly is not in the employ of the Public Works Department. I am not acquainted with him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When was the money paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was paid on the joint order of the agent of the government at Valleyfleld and Mr. R. B. Johnston.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is it R. B. Johnston or It. W. Johnston ? In the answer given by the minister the other day it was R. W.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The memorandum of the deputy says R. B. Johnston.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When was the money paid ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The date of the cheque is not stated here. There was some delay in the Department of Justice after the Order in Council was passed ; but so far as the deputy minister can remember, it was about the end of January.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I instructed Mr. Dan-durand to secure the site without the knowledge of the sitting member. I suppose Mr. Dandurand arranged with Mr. Johnston so that he might purchase the site from Mr. Loy without Mr. Loy knowing that it was being purchased for the government. Mr. Dandurand did not let anybody know for whom the site was purchased. All who know Valleyfleld know that my hon. friend could have sold the site at a greater price than we paid. Property is going up there by leaps and bounds.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Wednesday, March 25, 1903.