1903-04-03

Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) presented the second report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session, as follows
The Committee recommend that Mr. S. A. Mackay whose appointment at the beginning of the last session as temporary substitute on the staff of translators of the Official Report of the Debates to replace the late N. H. Beaulieu until some permanent action was required to be taken, and which appointment was approved of by the House on the 24th March, 1902, be paid for his services at the rate of $4 per day, said remuneration to be computed from the date of the last payment made to him, viz.: 27th May, 1902 to the 3rd April Instant.
(Sgd.) L. N. CHAMPAGNE,
Chairman.



VACANCY IN ST. JAMES DIVISION.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the notice which I gave a few days ago, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Leonard :-
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, to make out a new writ for the election of a member to serve in this present parliament for the electoral division of St. James (Montreal), in the room of Joseph Brunet, whose election has been declared void.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 79) to incorporate the Bank of Winnipeg.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Canada Northwest Land Company, Limited.-Mr. Thompson (Haldimand).
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Brandon and South-western Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That from this date to the end of the session government orders have precedence on Thursdays, immediately after questions to be put by members.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Has the Prime Minister considered the effect this will have on Private Bill legislation? I have not considered it, I am asking for information. It has been suggested by some hon. gentlemen that at least one more Thursday should be given for private legislation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not see why, because this motion does not interfere with the hour for private Bills on Thursday.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: It interferes with the whole day on Thursday.


Mr. SPROULE.: The translation of Bills is so very much behind that some of them have not been ready, and the time for private Bill legislation ought to be extended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am reserving an hour after dinner for private Bills.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Private Bills may be taken up on Wednesday and Friday night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: It does not interfere with private Bills.


John Graham Haggart: From this day to the end of the session it takes the whole of Thursdays. It takes the first Order of the Day on Thursday, and the questions to be put by members.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: After questions put by members.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is the order for Thursday:
Questions put by members, Public Bills and Orders. Notices of Motions, Government Notices ot Motions, Government Orders.
This is the order for Wednesday.
Questions put by members, Notices of Motions, Public Bills and Orders, and from half past seven o'clock P.M., Private and Public Bills for the first hour.
There are no private Bills on Thursdays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the government to what has been said in the legislature of New Brunswick by the Attorney General of that province with regard to the question of redistribution which has been recently discussed in this House. I will read from a newspaper report:
Hon. Mr. Pugsley, replying to the leader of the opposition, said his attention had been called to the report of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech, but he had not been led by reason of these remarks to retract anything he had said in regard to this matter, or to have any doubts as to the strength of the position the government had taken. The statement in the speech from the Throne in regard to the reference of the question to the Supreme Court, was based on the following telegram from the Minister of Railways to the Premier :
Ottawa, Ont., March 23, 1903.


Hon.  L. J.@: Tweedie,
Chatham, N.B.
You are warranted in stating that while the Dominion government has not agreed in opinion with views expressed on behalf of the pro vincial government on the subject we talked, it Is prepared to co-operate with you in securing an early decision on the question from Ihe Supreme Court. You may state this fact in any way you prefer.
(Sgd.) A. G. BLAIR.
Having received this despatch from the Minister of Railways the government was resting
easy, confident that the promise made would be carried out. We are thoroughly satisfied that Mr. Blair would not have sent this telegram if the matter had not been settled and the Dominion government having agreed to the reference, will take the necessary steps to, carry it out. While it is a matter of regret that Sir Wilfrid Laurier does not take the same view of this question as the provincial government, we need not feel alarmed at the difference of opinion, if there Is a difference of opinion. Sir Wilfrid may have referred to the protest of Prince Edward Island, which is an entirely different case from ours, and which is based on the idea that a province, having gone into confederation with a certain number of representatives, can never have that number reduced. Sir Wilfrid says we must abide by the constitution, and we say the same, but we say also that under the British North America Act we are not entitled to lose any member because our population has not fallen since the last preceding census by one-twentieth as compared with the population of the four original provinces of Canada. He was not at all concerned because the authorities at Ottawa took a different view of this question from that of the provincial government. It had been their experience to have such differences with the Ottawa people, who after confederation took a very low view of the rights of the provinces. For instance, they maintained that our lieutenant governor was not the representative of the Sovereign and that we did not have the fisheries on our own territory. We have been going on fighting for provincial rights ever since ihen, and in most of the contests with the Ottawa government the provinces have succeeded. The mere fact that we live in a small province is not a conclusive argument against our being entitled to form an opinion as to the meaning of a statute. It would probably be found that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not referring to our case at all when he spoke of the opinions that had been expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald and others. While in Ottawa we were told by the Department of Justice that the point raised by us had never been raised before.
Now, I mentioned this because it seemed to indicate that possibly there may be something more in the way of correspondence between the province of New Brunswick and the Dominion government. I mention it as a reminder to the Minister of Justice who said yesterday that he would bring anything further down. I also mention it because I think it is right that the House should be informed as to the attitude of the government in that regard, whether this despatch from the Minister of Railways and Canals correctly announces the attitude of the government, and if it does, what is to he done in that regard. We have had no intimation from the government that any doubt whatever existed in their minds respecting this matter, or in the mind of the legal adviser of the Crown. But you will observe, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. friend will observe, that here is a definite and precise promise that the government will take any steps which are necessary for securing a decision upon this point from the Supreme Court of Canada.
The telegram, which I will again read,
1 says :-

You are warranted in stating that while the Dominion government has not agreed in opinion with views expressed on behalf of the provincial government on the subject we talked, it is prepared to co-operate with you in securing an early decision on the question from the Supreme Court. You may state this fact in any way you prefer.
Of course, I am reading merely from a newspaper report, but, I assume it is a correct report. This is a very important statement of government policy, which, it seems to me, might have better been made in this House than through the medium of a telegram announced in a provincial legislature. A question of that kind was brought to the attention of the House the other day when my right hon. friend was not present. X think the House is entitled to know what the attitude of the government is in regard to this matter and to learn whether or not it is contemplated, if the provinces demand it, to grant a reference of this question to the Supreme Court, and if that is the case, how does it happen that my right hon. friend has made no announcement on this subject to the House, and that there is not the slightest reference to it in the Bill which has been introduced to provide for the redistribution.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Raurier).: The information which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) desires is quite appropriate, and I will give him the fullest explanation it is possible to give. Some time, I think in the month of February, we received a delegation from the government of the province of Prince Edward Island, and also, I believe from the government of the province of New Brunswick, which made representations to the effect that they believed they should not lose the representation of population which it was stated they were to lose. We discussed the matter with them and told them very frankly that the government had no doubt at all, that the lines which had been followed in the previous redistributions of 1882 and 1892 were correct, and that, in so far as we were concerned, we had no doubt whatever that the province of Prince Edward . Island would lose one member, Nova Scotia two members, New Brunswick one member and Ontario six members. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island especially objected very strongly to this interpretation of the law. We told them that we could not alter our views, and after giving the matter our best consideration we still adhere to the opinion which we have expressed in the Bill. They asked us whether we would have any objection to having the matter referred to the Supreme Court. We stated that we had no objection at all, and that we would, in fact, co-operate with them if they would take the initiative, but in the meantime, having no doubt upon the matter, we could not delay proceeding with our Bill. I have had no Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
written correspondence myself on the sub-jec with the government of New Brunswick. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) sent the telegram that was read before the House by the hon. member for Halifax. I have had some correspondence on the subject with the government of Prince Edward Island, and I have just given an order to have this correspondence brought down with the other correspondence which will be laid on the Table of the House, perhaps on Monday. While we will not take the initiative, if the subject is brought up we will be ready to co-operate with them so as to have the matter argued before the Supreme Court.



NAVAL DEFENCE.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: given to the House at the earliest moment as to what the intention of the government is.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government has no information to announce to the House, because all these statements are premature and unauthorized.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend did not take the point that it has not been in the ' Canada Gazette.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will wait until the next issue of the ' Canada Gazette.'



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 8) to amend the Expropriation Act.-The Minister of Justice.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting Chinese immigration (the Prime Minister) read the second time and agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 82) to amend the Act respecting and restricting Chinese immigration.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 13) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.-The Minister of Justice.
Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to object to the order of procedure, but we were told last night that the order of business to-day would be Supply.-Public Works.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I was not aware of that, and if that be so, I will move that we go into Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that some hon. gentlemen who, perhaps, would like to be heard on this Bill, are away, under the belief that the House is going into Supply.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The point is well taken. If the House is not prepared .we will go into Supply.
Order allowed to stand.



SUPPLY-LABOUR TROUBLES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['Stand.\nOrder allowed to stand.']
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, before the motion to go into Supply is decided upon, I desire to take up the time of the House for one minute and especially to secure the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mu-lock) in regard to the very serious condition of affairs existing at the present time and which has existed continuously for some time past in British Columbia. I refer especially to the serious conflicts in the province, interfering with the business interests of the province between capital and labour. At the present time and for some weeks past the great coal mines in the Crow's Nest Pass have been closed down through a conflict existing between the companies and their workmen. The cutting off of this coal supply has very seriously interfered with the supplying of fuel to the smelting industries of the great Kootenay country. For some time past a very serious strike has existed among certain employees on the Vancouver section of the Canadian Pacific Railway. On Vancouver Island, in the district which I have the honour to represent, some of the most important coal mines have been closed off. At the Crow's Nest coal mines, negotiations have been constantly going on between the men and the employers, and to some extent the same thing is true of the strike on the Canadian Pacific Railway. I want particularly, however, to call the attention of the minister (Hon. Sir William Mulock) to the very peculiar and extraordinary condition of affairs which exists in connection with the Wellington Coal Company's mines. The men employed in these mines made up their minds that they would have a trades union, that they would affiliate that trades union with the international union on the other side of the line. For this reason the owners of the mines discharged the officers of the union, closed down the mines, and they have disorganized a happy community of nearly 4,000 people, who were depending absolutely for their livelihood on the operation of these mines. I can quite conceive, Sir. Speaker, how very difficult it is when labour and capital is in conflict, and when negotiations are kept open between the two parties to the conflict ; I can quite understand how difficult it is even for the government to intervene to bring abouf a settlement. But here is an instance in which, because a large number of men employed in a very dangerous industry thought it a proper thing to combine for the sake of their own interests, these coal mines were closed down by the owners and the working men deprived of their livelihood as a consequence. It is important, Sir, for more reasons than one that matters of this kind should be presented to this parliament. In the first place, attention ought to be called to them here because there ought be some authority in the government of this country whereby serious conflicts between labour and capital detrimental to the public interest could be put an end to by the government interceding between the two. When workingmen as represented by trades unions do unlawful acts ; when, for instance, they

attempt to break their contract or when they make unreasonable demands, you hear a great outcry from all quarters condemning these trades unions. Well, Sir, we ought Just be as ready to condemn oppression and wrong-doing on the other side, and to bring to the public attention unwarrantable tyranny perpetrated by a corporation which prevents men from exercising their lawful right to combine in their own interest. Let me say here, Mr. Speaker, that there is not an industry existing in the wide world to-day where combination of labour is as necessary as in coal mining ; there is not an industry operating to-day where men labour under such disadvantageous conditions as to their safety, as they do in the operation of coal mines. I am speaking on the floor of this House, from having a very extensive experience in coal mines myself. I know by practical experience all that it means. There is no industry in the world to-day that is so extensively regulated by government enactment as the operation of coal mines, and why ? It is for the reason that there is no existing industry that lias in its operation such dangerous elements, and that needs such strict regulation and supervision by government authority. Need I remind the House of this painful fact. In the operation of the Crow's Nest coal'mine, less than a year ago over one hundred men lost their lives with one blast. Need I remind the House that less than two years ago, in one of the very mines closed down by the Wellington Coal Company, because the workmen wished to have a union; seventeen men were done to death and buried in the mine. It is unnecessary for me to remind the House that serious accidents have occurred in these British Columbia coal mines resulting in the death of hundreds of the miners. I repeat that there is no industry so dangerous as the occupation of the coal miner, and I say that there is no body of men who so badly need an organization to enable them to protest against oppressive regulations. If the men are to be prevented by the coal mine owners from having trades union organizations, then they would be debarred from complaining of the dangerous conditions that may exist in their surroundings. And, Sir, the day has gone, I think ; the day ought to have gone when the right of workmen to combine should be questioned.
'there is another reason why I believe that this important question should be dealt with on the floor of parliament. Let me point out that the enormous privileges possessed by this particular coal company on Vancouver Island were received from this parliament of Canada. Nearly twenty years ago, this company obtained from the hands of this parliament 1,900,000 acres of. land on Vancouver Island with all the minerals in that belt, free of taxation for ever and with $750,000 in cash to build seventy-two miles of railway. And in spite of this grant; in spite of the enormous extent of this privilege, Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
this government does not appear to hold one single particle of control over the carrying on of that extensive business. These people, who twenty years ago became the possessors of this vast wealth belonging to the people ; these are the people who turn around to-day and say to the workingmen who have to risk their lives:	You shall
have no combination for your own protection. Although the men did not demand anything, never sought a single benefit, the only reason being that the owner objected to the international connection, it may be a matter of opinion whether the miners of Vancouver island are doing the very best thing in thier own interests by forming such a connection before they are united at home ; but this is their own business, and as for the Wellington Coal Co., they have more than once interfered and discharged men because they desired and tried to affiliate with a Canadian union. Up to the time that these men made unreasonable demands it was an act of tyranny to interfere with their legal and moral right to combine. I direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to this condition of things. I say again that when two parties are in conflict and when the public interest is suffering, it is the duty and province of government to step in to protect the public right. In all the affairs of life this principle prevails. If two men on the main street of Ottawa were to come into conflict; were to question each others rights, were as a result to obstruct the public highway, the chief of police would never question the individual liberty of these two men, but would instantly invoke authority to make them settle their difference. That principle if it be right in such a local matter, is a hundred fold more needful when extensive public rights are being invaded. When the public interest suffers because of a conflict between capital and labour ; because of the oppression of labour by capital, then it should be in the power of government to interfere to safeguard the public interest. I would like the Minister of Labour to look into this matter. I believe the condition of affairs is so serious that it necessitates immediate action, and I would like the hon. minister to take the matter into his immediate consideration and contrive some means of dealing with it, such as sending a commission to the province of British Columbia to take evidence under oath, ascertain the reasons for the present disastrous condition of affairs there, and lay the facts before the nuhlic.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: In connection with this subject which has been brought up by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith), I think it would be well for the government to take into consideration the result of the great industrial struggle which took place in the United States last year, and which deranged the business of that country, caused an

infinite amount of suffering, deprived millions of people of a supply of hard coal, and was in every respect most disastrous. That struggle resulted from the refusal of the operators or mine owners to recognize the labour unions, and it was fought out to the death. At last, the companies were forced to have the grievances of themselves and the unions referred to a commission appointed by the President of the United States. That commission visited the mines, examined the miners and the mine owners, took cognizance of all the facts bearing on the question, and have recently delivered their verdict. That verdict does not by any means exonerate the mine owners, but places on them practically the responsibility for that great struggle and the troubles which resulted from it. The result of that deliverance is that the trade unions are recognized, the hours of labour shortened, prices increased, and the mine owners placed in the unenviable position of being forced from the position they took at the beginning of the struggle. Of course, the labour unions were not faultless. There was the question of the employment of non-union men, and some violence was used to prevent them going to work. The commission recognized the right of non-union men to work as well as union men. But I rise to; call attention to this great struggle and the deliverance of this commission, composed of eminent experts in many lines and one judge of the United States Supreme Court, for the purpose of directing the minister'd attention to a source of information which will perhaps be of service to him in dealing with this matter when he takes it under consideration.


Mr. II. G. MACPHERSON (Burrard).: wish simply to accentuate, if possible, the remarks of the hou. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), because we have very few men in Canada who can speak as strongly or with as much authority on the subject of trades' unions and the actual working of trades' unions in connection with coal mines as that lion, member. But I do not wish to bring into the discussion any extraneous matters. We in British Columbia, as you are probably aware, are face to face with many labour troubles, which are practically threatening our existence as a province, and I trust that the Minister of Labour will see his way to appoint a commission to investigate the causes which have led to these troubles. I am in receipt of letters every day, from all classes of people and from all parts of the province, calling attention to the terrible state of affairs which exists there, and which, if it is not soon remedied, will have a very serious effect on the industrial life of that province. We had a strike on the Canadian Pacific Railway, which began in a small way in Vancouver, and I am told that strike was caused by the refusal of the company to recognize the right of the clerks to form a union. I
do not wish to discuss the question of trades unions. I think we all recognize that men have a right to combine; and if the strike in question was brought on by the refusal of the company to recognize the union, I think there ought to be an investigation of it. Although the strike began in a small way, it may lead to very serious consequences, because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. The province of British Columbia is a province of great natural resources and is capable of sustaining a large population; but it is not going ahead in the way that it ought to do, and I think these labour troubles have a good deal to do with that fact. I do not suppose that it is necessary for me to say that if these labour disputes existed in the eastern part of Canada, the government would take immediate steps to settle them. Our whole province is practically upset because of them. We have strikes at Fernie, on Vancouver island, and on the mainland. I do not undertake to suggest a remedy ; but I think that if a commission were appointed as suggested, to make an investigation and report to this parliament, some good might result. I am not speaking for any class or any company, but for the whole people of British Columbia, when I say that we must have some remedy, and the remedy must be applied at once.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: The troubles which the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and his colleague, (Mr. Macpherson) have brought before this House this afternoon are of such vital importance to British Columbia and are creating such mischief out there as to demand the serious attention of this House. As to the proposal that a commission should be sent to investigate, probably that is the only thing that can be done immediately; but I cannot myself see that any good can be hoped from it. We have never had any explanation from the government as to why the commission of the Labour Commissioner who was in British Columbia two or three years ago was revoked about eighteen months ago. Since then there have been two commissions sent to British Columbia at great expense to this country ; but here is a case in which I think all the information necessary would have been in the department and before this House now if that commission had been continued. But I also rise to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour to this one common feature in all these strikes, not only those now in progress In British Columbia, but some that hove occurred in eastern Canada ; that is, the refusal of the employers to recognize the unions. The cause of the U.B.R.E. strike on the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has now, unfortunately, extended to Winnipeg, was the refusal of the company to recognize the Brotherhood of Railway Employees. The strikes at Fernie, British Columbia were due to the same cause. The

last ' Labour Gazette ' proves conclusively that the whole trouble is due to a stubborn refusal of the employers to recognize the union at all. Some time last month the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, went to Fernie to investigate into the causes of the strike there. He went to the company's office and in his report thus described his visit :
The general manager had left on the day previous to attend a convention at Victoria, B. C., called for the purpose of forming a mine owners association.
And he proceeds to say that the manager bad left word with his secretary to inform the Deputy Minister of Labour that the mine owners would not deal with their men as an organization. Here is a most remarkable state of affairs. We find these mine owners, who are combining themselves, denying to their men the right to do the same. As a matter of fact all the strikes in Canada to-day, and all those which have taken place within the last two or three years, have turned on the question of the absolute refusal of the employers to deal with organized labour. And that is the difficulty which we must first tackle. The hon. Minister of Labour has a Bill regarding disputes on railways, and I have given notice of a Bill the same as that which I presented last year, to strengthen the conciliation Act, but nothing in either of these Bills will touch this point, which is the critical point in all these troubles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The subject brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend is most important and far reaching. Labour troubles are not confined to Canada, although perhaps the particular part of Canada referred to in this debate has been the special centre of industrial disturbance for some little time. Various governments have endeavoured to deal with this phase of the labour problem, but so far it cannot be claimed that much success has been achieved. We have in New Zealand what is called a compulsory arbitration law, which has been in force nearly ten years. But there are those who contend that it is about to break down. Certainly the employees, to a large extent, in New Zealand are reported as dissatisfied. That measure is one of a strictly compulsory character. The awards are dealt with by a board having legal jurisdiction to enforce them. There is only one tribunal that I am aware of where industrial disputes may be settled outside of legal compulsion, and that is the forum of public opinion. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), I understand, wants us to appeal to that forum in the present instance by appointing a royal commission to inquire into all the facts' and lay them before the public. He alludes to the powers and privileges granted to the company at Nanaimo. These lands, he says, were granted by the government some I
twenty years ago as a concession for the construction of a railway seventy-two miles in length, and he contends that in view of the liberality of the government the company ought to be fair and generous towards its employees. While admitting that contention, still it cannot be denied that if any rights should have been secured the railway employees, the proper place in which to have secured them was the charter granting the company its powers and privileges. But if these lands have passed from the Crown and the fee simple in them is now vested in the company, or in the individuals who are responsible for the trouble, the power of any government to confiscate the lands or apply any special remedy is gone, and we have to fall back upon whatever power parliament may be able to exercise generally. A year ago there was a strike at the Nanaimo mines in which 900 men took part. I sent out my deputy, and he was able in a few days to bring about industrial peace. He induced the parties to enter in an agreement providing for peace for a length of time, but apparently that truce has been broken, although we learn it now for the first time. Within the last couple of months the Department of Labour was asked to interfere in connection with the Crow's Nest strike, and the deputy minister proceeded to the locality. The company, however, declined to accept any intervention and there is no law to force them to do so. It is a question whether public opinion will approve of a compulsory measure of interference in the ordinary disputes arising between employers and employees. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) very properly refers to strikes in coal mines as of a special character. In that I agree with him. Coal is a necessity of life, only to be found in very few spots, so that coal mining is an industry of a monopolistic character, and public opinion would perhaps approve of special legislation dealing with that industry, just as public opinion approves of parliament intervening to maintain the running of railways and prevent their operations being interrupted by disputes between them and their employees. We are unly making a beginning in labour legislation. My hon. friend says that at one time there was a commissioner in Vancouver. Well, a commissioner was appointed there, I think in 1899, but not under any law. He was appointed simply, I think, by the Department of Justice to take note of matters in the vicinity of Vancouver, and later on parliament adopted a Conciliation Act based on tbe Imperial Act of the same name. That Act has been enforced with more or less effect for the past three or four years, but under it intervention is not permitted except with the consent of the parties. When the parties refuse, as they sometimes do, intervention is impossible. Whether public opinion would war-


Arthur W. Puttee: rant our enacting a law which would give the right to the government to intervene in matters of dispute between employer and employee is a matter on which I would not venture to form an opinion. No doubt there is a conflict of opinion, but it seems to me that there is a gradual educational process going on, and that by degrees employers and employees will come to appreciate any measure that will favour the intervention of disinterested parties in order to prevent these industrial wars.	[DOT]
I am not perhaps at liberty to place on the Table the correspondence I have received from parties toi industrial disputes, it is of a semi-private character. But l ean say this without going into details, that since presenting the Bill now before parliament to provide a tribunal for dealing with railway labour troubles, I have received communications from employees outside of the railway world asking if a similar measure might not be with success extended to them. My view has been that it would be better to p:ace the Railway Bill upon the statute-book, and then the industrial classes including of course employees could see for themselves the exact text of it. and have an opportunity of judging of its efficacy when put in force. Then if public opinion asked for an extension of the principle involved in the Railway Act to troubles in other walks of industrial life, I have no doubt parliament rvould accede to that demand. But it seems to me unwise to force legislation too rapidly. If we proceeded and applied the principle in the Bill now before parliament to disputes between private employers and their employees, forcing it upon them before they were ready for it, perhaps we would make less progress than by waiting. There is such a thing as going too fast, and I am of opinion that no labour legislation will be effective unless it carries with it the good will, largely, of the persons to whom it is intended to apply. Entertaining that view I have no hesitation in saying that my own feelings are altogether against the compulsory feature of the New Zealand Act. I believe that in this country where there is such a feeling in favour of freedom and manhood, the working classes would resent anything in the nature of the legal compulsion which is the feature of the New Zealand Act.
Now with reference to the particular trouble in British Columbia to-day, and especially that in the Wellington mines, I am not in a position to offer an opinion one way or the other as to the rights or wrongs of the dispute. My hon. friend has given a statement, which I presume is his explanation of the dispute. No doubt he has given it correctly, as he understands it, and it may be that he is absolutely correct. But it would be inexpedient to offer an opinion on one side of the case only being presented. As to what may be done to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs, that is a
most serious problem. There is no law by which we can compel an employer to give labour to ills employees. We may have some control over companies having charters, and who are more or less under legislative jurisdiction, but when it comes to the relations between the private employer and a private employee, I know of no law that will compel an employer to employ or will compel any man to work. At the same time we must use our best offices to try and bring about harmonious relations, and endeavour to induce both contestants to moderate their views and to settle their disputes. It is in that spirit, I presume, that my hon. friend suggests that we should organize a commission to investigate the causes of all these various industrial disturbances in British Columbia. . I can conceive of great good coming from such a measure. Whether the time is yet ripe is a matter for consideration. Whether the public opinion of British Columbia has reached that stage when it would welcome intervention of this character, is a matter for serious consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You might as well extend it to political strikes out there.


The POSTMASTER GENERAB.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to interject political questions into this discussion, but I think never yet in this House have we bod any political controversy over labour troubles. We have always endeavoured to proceed ns a united body without reference to party, in the discussion of industrial troubles, and in this instance I hope there will be no exception. We are too much interested, the welfare of Canada is too deeply concerned in the labour question, to make it a political football. I have only to say, therefore, to my hon. friend, that the government will consider his suggestion at once, and consider it as a most urgent matter demanding early consideration. It is to be hoped that if we turn the light of public opinion upon these controversies, good may result.
As to the strike upon the Canadian Pacific Railway, when the Bill before parliament becomes law we will then have a legal right to intervene. It is not necessary for me to anticipate discussion upon that point, but that measure, as you perhaps are aware, contemplates giving the government a legal right to intervene, examine witnesses, take evidence, and submit the finding of the tribunal to parliament and to the country. It is hoped that when that state of affairs is attained, the parties to these controversies will respond to public opinion just ns the parties to the coal strike in the anthracite regions of Pennsylvania responded to the demand of public opinion. They submitted that trouble to arbitration, and now, I presume, propose to abide by the result of the award. The government is fully alive to the importance of this question and will give it every possible consideration.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN (Halifax). I would remark to the Minister of Labour that there does not seem to be much of a remedy suggested by anything that he has said to-day. We gather from him that he considers the business of raising coal to be somewhat of a monopolistic character, which would justify government interference more than any other business in the country. At the same time he tells us that he is applying to the railways of this country a measure which he shrinks from applying to the business he has just named. I do not regard that as a very logical position. I am expressing no opinion at the present time as to whether it is advisable to adopt that course, but taking the statement the Minister of Labour has made to-day, certainly we are constrained to believe that there is much more reason for applying this principle to the case of a great corporation engaged in the business of mining coal than to any other class of corporations in Canada. The hon. gentleman has suggested that we turn on the light of public opinion, whatever that means. I do not know exactly how the government or parliament are going to turn on the light of public opinion any more than it is turned on at present. The light of public opinion is turned on through the press of this country probably as effectively as it could be done by any other means.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: By getting at the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: He does not seem to offer much comfort to the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), who has brought this matter to the attention of the House. With regard to the strike in the United States, I am informed that there was a measure in the laws of the state of Pennsylvania providing for arbitration in case of such strikes, and that it proved absolutely ineffective in the recent strike. Has the Minister of Labour any information on that point ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver could give us some information with regard to that, because it might be of assistance in considering the matter which he has brought to the attention of the House. I know he is well informed on these labour questions.


Ralph Smith: I am sorry that I have not got that information in my possession at the present time, but I will be very glad to procure it and to present, it to the House.


Hon. WM. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: A word about the compulsory New Zealand Act which has been in operation in that province for a number of years. There were only three cases submitted to that tribunal, two of them have given the greatest satisfaction To prove that that legislation is acceptable to the people of New Zealand, I may men-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
tion the fact that Mr. Seddon, the premier of that colony and of the government who introduced that compulsory Bill, was returned to power last November with a larger majority than he had before. I have among my papers not only the New Zealand Act, but the details of the trials that have taken place under it. Public-opinion in the United States condemned the great strike that was so injurious not only to that country but to the Dominion of Canada, but public opinion was as lieiy>less to deal with it as a parcel of children, until the President of the United States took it in hand liiftiself. Public opinion condemns strikes, but then public opinion in Canada is quite helpless to deal with such matters under present circumstances. The remedy must be in the hands of the government, otherwise the people will be as helpless here as they were on the other side of the line


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works-chargeable to income-public buildings, Ontario-Toronto Dominion public buildings, improvements, renewals, repairs, &c., $8,000.
['A word about the compulsory New Zealand Act which has been in operation in that province for a number of years. There were only three cases submitted to that tribunal, two of them have given the greatest satisfaction To prove that that legislation is acceptable to the people of New Zealand, I may men-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.\ntion the fact that Mr. Seddon, the premier of that colony and of the government who introduced that compulsory Bill, was returned to power last November with a larger majority than he had before. I have among my papers not only the New Zealand Act, but the details of the trials that have taken place under it. Public-opinion in the United States condemned the great strike that was so injurious not only to that country but to the Dominion of Canada, but public opinion was as lieiy>less to deal with it as a parcel of children, until the President of the United States took it in hand liiftiself. Public opinion condemns strikes, but then public opinion in Canada is quite helpless to deal with such matters under present circumstances. The remedy must be in the hands of the government, otherwise the people will be as helpless here as they were on the other side of the line']
Edward Frederick Clarke: When we were in Supply considering these items two or three days ago, the hon. Minister promised to bring down certain correspondence on the subject. Will he lay that correspondence on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: The correspondence has been prepared, and I will send it over to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke).


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that this item be allowed to stand until the arrival of the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy), who will be here in a few moments.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well, take the next item.
Item allowed to stand.
Toronto post office-alterations and additions, including elevator and fittings, $23,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Only $10,000 was voted for this last year. What does the hon. Minister propose to do with this money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations have been made for some time that the accommodation in the Toronto post office was not sufficient, that the building was in a poor state of repair, and that considerable improvements were needed. A contract was let for this work amounting to $35,000, tenders being called for by advertisement. This vote is to complete the work. The total estimated cost of the work made by the chief architect was $34,413. But after consideration, they thought they could complete it for $33,000. This vote, with the $10,000 voted last year, will make up the amount.


Mr. CLANCY.: Will the lion. Minister say if the contract was let to the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not.


James Clancy: I shall have to ask my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to lay upon the Table the tenders and the contract, as well as any other papers in connection with the Toronto post office improvements that he may have.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no objection. If there is anything further, I shall be glad to furnish it.


James Clancy: I will let my hon. friend know if there is anything fui'ther.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


James Clancy: No ; I understand that the item stands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last week the request was made that this item stand in the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy). I understood then that he wanted some information brought down. I do not know any reason why the item should stand again. Any information the hon. gentleman wants I am quite prepared to give.


James Clancy: My hon. friend will see, of course, that we are early in the session and early in the estimates ; and, since he himself states that the contract was not let to the lowest tenderer, I think we should have full opportunity to consider this item. No time will be lost, it seems to me, by letting this item stand ; on the contrary, it may facilitate the work very much if we have an opportunity to look at the papers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman requests it to stand I have no objection at all.


Peter Macdonald: Stands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What about the previous item ?


James Clancy: I should like both to stand because I understand they are both for the same purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: It is the item for the Toronto post office alterations that I want particularly to stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the hon. Minister of Public Works was giving us some information respecting the work at the Toronto custom house he promised to bring down the correspondence. I understand from the hon. minister that there is no correspondence. What he laid before us is a memo.
and a list of prices that are allowed the contractors who are doing the work. There is no correspondence to show who suggested the work should be done this way, or as to whether these prices are fair prices, or who assumed the responsibility of advising the hon. minister to do the work on these terms and conditions. Did the local architect, Mr. Curry, advise that these prices should be paid to Messrs Brown & Love to do the work under these conditions without asking for bids from other reputable contractors In the city ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I explained on a previous occasion, reports received in the department showed that this building was really in a very dangerous state. The chief architect himself went to Toronto, discussed the whole matter, made this arrangement and took the responsibility of it, and I endorse what lie did. I believe everything is proper and that the prices are reasonable.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did he. have any consultation with the local architect up there ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any correspondence between the local architect and the chief architect ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the chief architect was on the ground himself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom was the report received as to the critical condition of the building ? Was it from the local architect 7


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The local architect reported that the building was in a critical condition, the chief architect went up, and between them they gave out a contract to have the work done ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Without asking for bids to do the work from other contractors ?
Nortli-west Territories-Court house, lock-up and police accommodation, &c., $1,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is this court house ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a general vote for the territories. The previous vote was $1,000 and it has been increased by $500. This is found necessary owing to the increased number of buildings, and these buildings, being of wood, the vote was not found sufficient to keep them in repair.
Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is only one explanation ; we are asking $1,000 more because of the increased number of buildings in the territories. The $4,000 previously voted was found to be insufficient. Our property is being destroyed owing to the fact of our not having money enough to look after it and repair It properly.
Maeleod court house, $10,000.


Mr. BENNETT.: May I ask the hon._ minister what public building there is now' at Maeleod ? There is a public building of some nature but whether it is owned by the territories or the Dominion I do not know; yet, when I stop to think it must of necessity belong to the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that there is no public building except the one under construction now; that is the new court house.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know whether Maeleod is an incorporated town or not. I was only there once In my life. There is a brick building of fairly considerable size and I assume it must be a public building and a government building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know the building myself that the kon. gentleman refers to and it is a very good hall. It must belong to the municipality. Tlie deputy informs me that we have no public building there except this one which is under construction. This building is under construction and under contract and this amount is to complete the contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: If my recollection is right, Maeleod was one of the first towns in the North-west Territory and it hardly seems conceivable that there have been no public buildings at that place for the transaction of public business outside of the buildings of the Mounted Police force. Can it be possible that in connection with the administration of justice there is no public building at Maeleod ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They had a rented building previously.


William Humphrey Bennett: Which building was it that was rented ? Was it the public hall ?


Robert Laird Borden: There is a contract, I suppose for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: [DOT] What is the total amount expended, and what will be the entire cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount of the contract is $13,973, and printing and advertising, heating, furniture and fixtures, electric wiring, fenc-


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: ing, sidewalks, clerk of works and incidental expenses, bringing the total to $21,735. The chief architect informs me that this is quite sufficient to complete the whole building.


Robert Laird Borden: The contract has been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the contract has been let to the lowest tenderer.
Red Deer-Court house, lock-up, &c., and land office, $10,000.
Mr. BENNETT!" Has the contract been made for this building ?


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


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the site been purchased ?


Thq MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site has been purchased for $830. One of the causes of delay was that there was some question as to whether it would be a wooden or a brick building, and there may be a further report as to whether the building will be of wood or of brick. The chief architect thinks that a suitable building can be put up for this amount.


James Clancy: One would come to the conclusion that there should be a considerable difference between the cost of a wooden building and the cost of a brick building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect informs me that on a rough estimate there would be a difference of $6,000 or $7,000. This estimate would be for a wooden building but if it were decided to be in the public interest to put up a brick building we would have to ask a further amount of $6,000 or $7,000.


James Clancy: This is practically voting an appropriation in blank Neither the minister or the chief architect appear to have decided whether they will put up a wooden or a brick building. Now when we are voting money in this way we should know as nearly as possible what the character of the building is to be and what it will cost. I do not think that the minister himself will contend that the principle upon which he asks this vote is a proper principle.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. I said this estimate was made for a wooden building and the vote was for a wooden building, but there was a petition asking for a brick building. I told the hon. gentleman that a report had not been made on that, but if it were in the public interest to erect a brick building we would have to ask for a further vote. None of this money will be spent for a brick building without a further vote being asked and an explanation givem.

JH'. CLANCY. Do I understand the minister to say that none of this money will be spent until he comes back to the House for a vote under the changed conditions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it would be right for me to ask a vote for a wooden building and then if we decided to put up a brick building which would cost a great deal more, to make that change without informing the House.


James Clancy: Then I misunderstood the hon. gentleman.
Yorkton court house and jail, $5,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this let by contract to the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is under construction and it was let to the lowest tenderer at $8,760. The total cost is estimated at $14,529. There will be the heating to do and the furniture to put in and so on.


Mr. MORIN.: I have already told the Minister of Public Works that the money of the people was not properly spent throughout the country and here is a case in point. You are asking a vote of $10,000 for a court house, lock-ups, &c., and land office at Red Deer; and $5,500 for a court house and jail at Yorkton. Now if you can afford to spend $10,000 to build a post office in a town like L'Assomption with a population of 1,605 and $10,000 in Thetford Mines;; it would only seem reasonable that you should expend more money for these important public buildings in growing towns in the North-west Territories. There does not seem to be any system about the thing. The government does not seem to have any rule to guide it in these matters.
Dominion public buildings generally, $34,500.


Mr. FOWLER.: What does this item apply to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to cover miscellaneous items of expenditure, chiefly in the architect's office in connection with public buildings throughout the Dominion.


George William Fowler: Does any portion of this vote go to the armoury at Sussex in the county of King's, N.B. ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the chief architect had occasion to do any work in connection with that building, or to send any person to inspect it, that expense will be paid out of this vote. This applies particularly to the head office staff of the chief architect. The subject my hon. friend refers to will come up under another vote.


James Clancy: Has the $5,000 which was voted last year been spent ? If not, how much of it has been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year there was a supplementary vote of $2,000. The total amount expended was over $7,000. We thought we might manage next year with $5,000.


James Clancy: Do I understand that there was an over-expenditure of $2,000 last year?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A supplementary vote was taken to cover that amount. I cannot tell my hon. friend just what the amount of the expenditure for the present year is; but a vote of $5,000 was taken, and I hope we shall be able to remain within that amount.


James Clancy: I am anxious to kuow the reason for the somewhat exceptional expenditure of last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There seems to have been an increased amount required for telegraph stations, &c.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand the reason for these different items :	public buildings in Nova Scotia,
public buildings in New Brunswick, public buildings in the maritime provinces, public buildings in Quebec, public buildings in Ontario, public buildings in Manitoba, public buildings in the North-west Territories, public buildings in British Columbia, and then public buildings generally. I suppose this arrangement is a relic of some old system ; but I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he does think it a very business like way of bringing down the estimates. We might have half a dozen more items for public buildings in detail.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend seems to take the view I did myself when I came to look at these estimates. I suppose this arrangement was forced on the department by parliament wanting to know everything in detail. If one vote were taken, including all these items, there might be a feeling that some of the provinces did not receive the attention they were entitled to. That was perhaps the first reason for the system. There is also some advantage to the department in giving the items in detail. If the officials of the department were allowed to draw on a general vote, instead of being limited by these detailed votes, the expenditure might be thought excessive.


James Clancy: With regard to the item under consideration, the expenditure last year was $7,132.33. Out of this there was expended for stationery for the office $2,482.80. This does seem to me to be an extraordinary sum for stationery, and perhaps the hon. minister can give some explanation of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not having been long connected with the department, lam unable to say whether that item is excessive or not. However, on COD-



m
sultation with the deputy minister, we think we can make the total for this year $5,000, instead of $7,000, and also for next year, for which this vote is asked. X may say that the stationery is all purchased through the government Stationery Department.


James Clancy: I can quite understand that the hon. gentieman, in the short time he has been in the department, may not have mastered all these details, but it seems to me that his deputy should be able to give him the reasons for this heavy expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: Over a thousand dollars seems a great deal for photographic supplies, and it seems a little strange that they should come under the head of public buildings generally.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These photographers are all in connection with public buildings.


George William Fowler: Are you making a collection of the photographs of public buildings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These photographs really save a great deal of expense and loss of time, as they save the copying of plans and also travelling expenses. The engineers and architects are photographers themselves and save the department the expense of sending photographers to do the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A local newspaper suggested, respecting the hon. gentleman's predecessor, that he was very active and ambitious and could do all the work of all the other departments, and the Toronto ' Globe ' suggested that he thought his colleagues had nothing to do but sit in front of government buildings and have their photographs taken. Would there be any connection between that suggestion and this item ? We are certainly entitled to fuller information than we have had.
Salaries to resident clerk of works, $10,500.


George William Fowler: Is the salary of Mr. McLean included in this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is for the resident permanent clerks. The gentleman my hon. friend refers to was only clerk of works while the work was going on, and he is paid out of a special vote.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the duties of these officers ? Are they permanent officers of the department stationed at different points ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are three in Quebec, three at Ottawa, two in Manitoba, two in British Columbia, one in New Brunswick, and none in Nova Scotia. My deputy informs me that in Nova Scotia the chief engineer there acts as clerk of works. These men are practi-1


Robert Franklin Sutherland: csilly the representatives of the department in these various provinces. They look after the public buildings and report and are held responsible for the different expenditures thereon.


James Clancy: Are these men sent about from place to place ? I understand that there are local clerks employed as well where public works are being done. If these men are not architects, their position would seem to be merely ornamental.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These men act as agents for the department in the various provinces and besides there are local clerks of works who act as foremen and see that everything is done according to specifications, These men were appointed previous to this government taking office and no changes have been made, and my deputy informs me that they render valuable service. They are supposed to be practical men and well qualified for the positions they hold. As I have tried to explain, this does not refer to the clerks of works, foremen, or whatever you call them in charge of the works under construction. These are representatives of the department in the various provinces. I do not know that there has been any reason to find fault with the qualifications of these men.


James Clancy: The hon. minister will see that I was not finding fault,but trying to gain information with respect to representatives of the Public Works Department who may be necessary, as the hon. gentleman states, in places a long distance from the capital, and who stand between the engineer acting for the department and the clerks of a works locally. I simply asked if they were architects, and, whether, if called upon to discharge the duties of architects, they would be able to do so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The officers referred to are not architects. Of course, you could not engage architects at the salaries paid to these men.


George William Fowler: I would like to know upon what principle these local men are appointed. Is a mason selected in the case of a building to be constructed of stone, a carpenter or master builder for wooden structure, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The policy of the department has been to take practical men. I myself favour, as far as possible, the appointment of architects. But there is no fixed rule. The clerk of works is recommended by the member for the riding. Practical men are appointed, who are supposed to be qualified, to see that the specifications of the architects on which the contracts are taken, are carried out.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a resident engineer in each province where these clerks are at work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are in the provinces several engineers in the different branches of the department, in addition to these men. The staff for which this vote is taken have duties altogether connected with building.
Public buildings generally-construction of armouries, $9,000.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the hon. minister can tell me now whether any portion of this is being expended on the armoury at Sussex, and if so, how much, and for what purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I And details of expenditure during the current year, 1902-3, amounting to $2,276.17.


George William Fowler: Is that expenditure up to the present time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, up to the 1st of January last.


George William Fowler: Would the hon. minister kindly give me the details of that expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) can hardly expect the full details. If the hon. gentleman moves for a return, I will bring down all the details in the usual way.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. minister allow this item to stand until that information is given ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see any objection in allowing the item to stand.	*


George William Fowler: I wish the opportunity to discuss this matter. There are some things in connection with it that ought to be brought to the attention of the department. If that had been done before perhaps these things might have been stopped.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not desire to prevent the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) from having every opportunity now or on a future occasion of discussing this matter. But he will see that the expenditure he wishes to discuss is only a small portion of this whole item. When I bring down the details, the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity, for the item can be passed with that understanding. Besides there will be, in the supplementary estimates, a special item for the Sussex armoury and the matter can be discusssed on that item.


George William Fowler: I do not see why the item should not stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have tried to explain to my hon. friend- there are fourteen public buildings covered by the item we are now discussing ; hon. gentlemen on either side may wish information with regard to any of these matters 31i
and I am ready to give them all I can. It would be more convenient for the committee to give whatever information is required now and allow the item to pass. The hon. gentleman can reserve his right to discuss the matter on some other item of these estimates, or the item in the supplementary estimates will afford him an opportunity.


George William Fowler: The only thing I desire is to bring to the attention of the department the condition of affairs in connection with the Sussex armoury.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I guarantee my hon. friend that he will have an opportunity to do so.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would ask the hon. minister why the improvements in connection with the armoury in the public building in Brampton were not gone on with, as promised.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have consulted the deputy minister, who informs me that the matter referred to by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has not come to the attention of the Public Works Department. It may be an item in connection with the Militia Department, and perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) may be able to answer.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: I do not remember it.


Richard Blain: I brought this matter up the year before last, and I will read what was then said for the benefit of the minister :


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand there is a proposal to fit up a room in a public building for the armoury.


Richard Blain: Have tenders been asked for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a small work, and we shall not ask for tenders. I think it will cost about $1,000.


Richard Blain: Will that be under the charge of the hon. gentleman's department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The request has been made to us.
So there must have been a request in the department for the expenditure of that money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is the expenditure asked for in connection with the public building there, or with the armoury ?


Richard Blain: It is a joint building, partly a public building and partly an armoury.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will come up under another item, I will try and get the information.


Richard Blain: Will the minister lay on the Table for a general discussion of armouries hereafter, a return to the request

that was made to the department concerning the expenditure of that money ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring that down on Monday.


George William Fowler: Before this item passes, 1 want it distinctly understood that this return will be brought down containing this information, and that I may have an opportunity to discuss this question under any other item of the hon. gentleman's estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I promise to give the hon. gentleman ,id opportunity of discussing it, after the report is brought down, on any other item in the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has mentioned that several armouries are under construction. Perhaps it would be well to tell us in a general way where they are, and the amounts expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will give the names of all the places where the last vote has been expended, that is where the largest amounts have been paid. Small amounts under $100 are not referred to. Baddeck, N.S., $1,398; a small item for the Halifax drill hall; Middleton, N.S., $5,410; Sussex, N.B., $2,110: Woodstock, N.B., $780; Brockville, Ont., $3,150; a small amount for the Brantford armoury; St. Thomas. Ont., $490; Windsor, a small amount. Then there are new armouries; Kaslo, B.C., $3,504; Kamloops. $6,004: Nelson, $7,703: Revelstoke, $0,439, making a total of $37,126.


James Clancy: I would like the Minister of Public Works to give us some information as to the status of those clerks who seem to have permanent positions, but are not classified. The leader of the opposition asked a moment ago if they were permanent clerks. Now there are some cases where they seem to be in the outside service, and some of them are located in Ottawa, but they do not appear in the civil service list. We ought to know something of the positions they occupy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is right. I think under the Civil Service Act they are not recognized as permanent officials, but they are recognized as such in the departments. Most of them have held their positions for a long time. Not all of them are even appointed by Order in Council: but in the department they are considered as permanent, and some of them are responsible representatives of the department in the various provinces. It is in that sense that I used the words 'permanent employees'; but according to the Civil Service Act they would not come under that term.


James Clancy: It would be very convenient if these officials were classified in
some manner so that we could know where to find them. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman is following the course adopted by a preceding government, but that is uo reason why it should be continued. The hon. gentleman will see how inconvenient it is to find in the Auditor General's report that sums are being paid to these officers, while we find no mention of them in the civil service list; there is no means of tracing them, no means of ascertaining what position they occupy. There should be some class in which we would be able to find all the persons who have permanent employment in the department, whether in the inside sei'vice or the outside service.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will take a note of the observations of the hon. gentleman, and see in what way these employees may be classified. When the returns are brought down, I will be able to show hon. members who these employees are, when they were appointed, and what their salaries are.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the building used as an armoury at Orillia. In that town two companies have their headquarters, and I find on reference to a local newspaper there, that the building is of such a nature that they are not permitted to store rifles in it, and instead of these rifles being at Orillia, they are kept at the town of Barrie, a considerable distance away. The result is a lack of interest in these rifle companies in the town of Orillia, and I suppose that condition and that result will apply all over the country. I think some system should be adopted of constructing, perhaps, cheap buildings, but such as will serve the purpose in different towns, particularly in places such as Orillia where two companies have their headquarters. May I ask the minister to consider seriously the question of the erection in the town of Orillia of a building that would meet the requirements of the local militia, and one in| which they might store all their arms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already had that matter under consideration. As I mentioned at a previous sitting of this House, I think it is a disgrace to the country that we have not better provision made for taking care of the rifles of the various companies. I am in favour of adopting a system of erecting a cheaper class of buildings at the various headquarters, buildings which would supply all the needs, and which would not cost a great deal. I think smaller buildings might be used, and yet be quite sufficient for the storing of rifles and other things.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps the hon. minister would permit me to read an article from a local newspaper of Orillia, which


Richard Blain: will give liim an idea of the condition of things there :
The new rifles were issued some time ago, hut they are all stored away at Barrie and it seems they are going to stay there. The rifles will be very useful locked away in Barrie, and in the meantime the soldiers here can become expert shots with peashooters, which will be very useful in time of war. They will likely parade on May 24th with a lath and a butter knife tied on the end for a bayonet.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister read an item for an armoury at Middleton. What is it to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount spent is $5,501.74, and the total probable cost is estimated to be $8,400.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any difficulty about the construction of the building, or the taking of it over ? There was some statement in the public press that a difficulty had arisen in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not quite understand my hon. friend. Does he ask if there was some difficulty about taking it over ?


Robert Laird Borden: About taking it over-some difficulty, either about obtaining the land or taking over the building. Has there been any correspondence on the subject ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think, if my memory serves me rightly, the party we purchased the site from complained that he had not been paid, although the building had been erected. He was getting very angry, and wanted an increased price. The delay was in the Justice Department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The man thought he was not getting justice.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter has now been put through, and it is all settled up satisfactorily. There was some delay in getting the papers to the stage when we could get a certificate from the Justice Department to issue the cheque for the land.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it a wooden or a brick building ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A wooden building.


Sir. PORTER.: I observe in the statement of expenditure read by the lion. Minister of Public Works of this sum of $37,120, that no portion of it has been set apart for the erection of an armoury at Belleville. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether it is the intention of the government to provide for that in the supplementary estimates ? I may, while referring to this subject, call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact, which, no doubt, has been represented to him, that within the last year it was found, upon inquiry, that the drill hall, or armoury, in Belleville, which had been in existence for a number of years and which had been occupied by the 15th battalion, had become unsafe, and in consequence of a promise made, the drill hall was demolished, torn down entirely, the battalion being led to believe that a new drill hall would be erected during the present year. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether any provision is being made for that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Porter) is somewhat mistaken in stating that I referred to the expenditure during the year. An application has been made to the department. It is quite impossible for me to say whether or not there will be anything in the supplementary estimates. Speaking for myself, personally, as I know there is a good bat-tallion and a good militia spirit in the city of Belleville, I would be very glad if my colleagues and the House could see their way clear to granting an appropriation for the erection of a building at Belleville.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) was quite mistaken in saying that there was any condition in reference to the taking down of the old drill hall. There was no promise made. It was taken down because it was condemned by the architect as being unsafe, and it had to be taken down. The question of building a new drill hall is under consideration. I have no hesitation in saying, speaking from my point of view as Minister of Militia, that a new building should be erected, and I shall advise the hon. Minister of Public Works that as soon as it can be done, a new structure should be put up at Belleville.


Mr. TAYLOR.: While the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) is in his place, I wish to draw his attention to the state of affairs that exists in Gananoque. We had a drill hall and armoury there, and it was taken down without being condemned. A new site was purchased, and we hoped to have had a drill hall and armoury erected on the new site. That was four or five years ago, but nothing has been done yet. A warehouse was rented to store the battery and arms in and they are stored in that building yet. I hope provision will be made in the supplementary estimates to carry out the promise that the government gave when they took down the old drill hall and purchased a site, and that a new building will be erected providing suitable accommodation for our battery and rifles so that the arms may be removed from the place in which they are now stored, because the warehouse is in the middle of a lumber yard and beside the railway track.


Robert Laird Borden: There was some communication made to me two or three years ago in regard to some assistance towards an armoury and drill hall in the eastern part of the county of Halifax. I think the sum suggested was a very trifling one indeed. There are some companies organized, or proposed to be organized, in that part of my constituency. I suppose there must be some 25,000 people east of Halifax. The place to which I refer particularly is the Musquodoboit valley. I think some consideration might be given to this request, if there is any necessity, which I believe there is, for a place to store the arms of the men who are in the sendee there. I suppose that this armoury at Middleton is intended for the whole county of Annapolis '1


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: For the 69th battalion.


Robert Laird Borden: How much of it is in Annapolis ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Part of it is in Annapolis and part in Lunenburg.


Robert Laird Borden: The population of Annapolis would be somewhat in excess of that of the district I have mentioned, but it would not be greatly in excess, and I observe that an expenditure of $8,000 is being made at Middleton. Middleton is only a small town of possibly a thousand population, I should think.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think about that.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the armoury is intended not for Middleton, but for the whole district. Looking at the claims of the district of Musquodoboit valley, I think they might justify the expenditure of a moderate sum of money. I do not know whether the bon. minister has any recollection of the claims which were made by some of the people in that village for assistance. I think he will find some correspondence in his department in regard to it, and I would invite him to give it his attention, because I think it is well to encourage this spirit in the country districts. I know that companies organized in the Musquodoboit valley would be composed of as good material as you could find in Canada.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not recollect having received any correspondence such as the hon. member for Halifax speaks of, nor am I aware that there is any military organization in the section unless it is connected, possibly, with the 78th regiment, which has its home partly in Truro and partly in Pictou counties. The city of Halifax" has two battalions, the 63rd and 66th.


Robert Laird Borden: And the Halifax garrison artillery.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. These are all city corps. I will look into the matter now that it has been suggested to me, and certainly my desire is, so far as possible, to provide everywhere a home, or a suitable headquarters for the different organizations of the militia.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax;. My recollection is that there was a small drill hall in Middle Musquodoboit, a number of years ago, which had fallen so much out of repair that it could not be used, and the claim which was made was that a small sum of money should be expended in putting it into such repair that it would be an encouragement for military organization in that district.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I will look it up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was not present when the minister read the list of armouries on which it was proposed to spend this money and I did not hear how much he intended to expend in completing the armoury at Toronto. I see that the Minister of Militia and Defence is in his place and I am quite sure that with his co-operation there will be an item in the supplementary estimates to complete the Toronto armoury, if it is not provided for in this vote.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total of this vote is $9,000 and that would not go far in Toronto. There will be an item under which we can discuss the Toronto armoury.
Experimental farms-new buildings and renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What new buildings are you putting up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be a new horticultural building at Ottawa to cost $2,500; repairs, Nova Scotia farm, $600; new barn Brandon farm, $2,500; repairs to buildings, $500; Indian Head, repairs, $500; Agassiz, repairs, $400; Total, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This must be for an extension or addition to your present horticultural building at Ottawa. Where is the horticultural building on the experimental farm ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know that I can describe where it is. It is one of the buildings on the farm. The hon. gentleman must have seen it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have a place for raising plants and flowers and I suppose this is an extension of that. You take a vote of $2,500 for a new barn at Brandon. I was looking at the buildings there last fall and I thought there was a fairly good building there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is undertaken at the request of

tlie Department of Agriculture as being urgently needed. The chief architect of the Public Works Department has no personal knowledge of the state of these buildings but in view of the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) I will make further inquiries.
Mr. SPItOULE.' I am not complaining of the expenditure if the buildings are needed and I presume they are. I sometimes thought that a more liberal expenditure should be made in the interest not only of the farmers but of the agriculturists throughout the country. I thought there was a fairly good building at Brandon when X saw it last fall.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall get the report of the Department of Agriculture and show it to the hon. gentleman.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of the department to erect any new buildings on the Nappan farm.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have no request this year from the Minister of Agriculture for new buildings.


George William Fowler: Are these repairs done by day's work or by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the repairs are done by day's work under the supervision of the clerk of works of the province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would not erect a new barn by day's work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A new building would be let byt tender and contract.


Richard Blain: Is there any change in the policy of the department as to the method of constructing public buildings and doing public work generally ? The hon. gentleman's predecessor took the ground that very many buildings should be constructed by day's labour, and I would like to know whether that is the hon. minister's policy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At the present time it is the policy of the department to let all public buildings to the lowest tender if it is satisfactory.
Ottawa public buildings, including repairs, ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $125,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: As this is a large item, will the minister give us the details-the different amounts for the different purposes V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be pleased to give the information as far as I have it. This covers general repairs and maintenance in connection with gas, power, lighting, heating, ventilation, closets and fire services. The buildings that have to be maintained are the parliament buildings, the eastern block, the western
block, the Langevin block, the Supreme court, the geological museum, the printing bureau, the fisheries building, and the national art gallery. I suppose my hon. friend does not want the different amounts spent on the different buildings ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister might state how much is for maintenance, how much for rents and how much for other services.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The information given to me is not subdivided in the way the hon. gentleman suggests. The work, as my hon. friend knows, is generally done by day's labour, by the staff employed under the architect and the engineer of the department. I can give him the amount expended for wages and the amount for materials.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was more a question of rents.


Peter Macdonald: The rents come in the next item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is betweeii $90,000 and $100,000 paid in wages, and about $35,000 for materials, which would include lumber, paints, oils, glass and some furniture. A good deal of the furniture is made in our own workshops by the carpenters and other mechanics. This item also Includes the furniture purchased for the different departments.


George William Fowler: What do you do with the furniture that is cast aside ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that, under the supervision of the present architect, they are making very good use of the old furniture, by making it into new furniture. The policy is of course to collect the old furniture and sell it by auction.


George William Fowler: You do not buy the furniture '!


Tne MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We buy some. The repairs are largely done by our own men, and a good many tables and desks are made by the carpenters in the workshops.


Richard Blain: I notice that there has been some change in the system of lighting this chamber. Perhaps the minister will give us a statement as to the cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no cost for the change of light. As I stated yesterday, a request was made by the electric company to try the arc light instead of the incandescent. I gave them permission to make the test, and I would like to have the opinion of hon. members as to whether the change is more satisfactory or not. For one thing, the new light is very much more natural, more like daylight, than the other.


George William Fowler: What change has been made in the system of ventilation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The architect says there is no change. It is the same system, but there is a different method of using the blower, the air being brought from the top.


George William Fowler: What did that cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cost was merely nominal, the work being done by the staff of the department.


George William Fowler: Did it cost $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The architect informed me that the total expenditure for ventilation this year, for materials and wages, would be about $1,500. These little jobs are done by the workmen employed in the shops, and no separate account is kept of them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is it that the lighting of this chamber is sometimes so much better than at other times ? Sometimes, under the system you are experimenting with, we have a beautiful light, easy to the eyes and very natural, but at other times it is very dim. ' If we could keep it at the degree of excellence we have had it at times, it would be a great improvement on the lighting of last year and a very great improvement on previous years. Is the light on full now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, at present I can read very plainly. Of course, this new system is only in an experimental stage, and perhaps when the lamps are put in permanently it will be more satisfactory. But we will give it a little trial before adopting it. I think that the light is an improvement, and if perfected would be much appreciated by lion, members.
Mi-. BENNETT. Is there any uniformity in the purchase of these fittings and furniture ? If not, it is high time that some little economy should be practised and not allow every gentleman who wishes to purchase such articles to get whatever may best seem to suit his taste. Who makes the purchases of office furniture and fittings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are made by the deputy minister and certified by the minister.


William Humphrey Bennett: It will be well to look into some of these items. I find, on looking over the Auditor General's Report, that there are some fearful and wonderful expenditures. At page 126-V, the Census department saw fit to buy last session two medicine chests at a cost of $6 each. Why should the Census department require these medicine chests. If we are to have medicine chests for every department, we had better buy a job lot at once and get them cheap.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That item does not come under my department. I do not find any item of that kind under the heading of Public Works.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will look at V-126 in connection with the Census department he will find that Mr. Valiquette bought, among a variety of other things, two medicine chests at $6. But if that item is not in the bon. Minister's department, here is one that is. I find that $19.50 worth of gray hair was bought. Was gray hair bought because it was cheaper than red ? That will be found on page V-131.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That could hardly have been the Minister looking for gray hair.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want to call the attention of the Minister to the expenditure of two of his colleagues. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) seems to be a mild mannered gentleman when disbursing the public moneys, for when he wants a desk for his department it only costs $40. But the Minister of Militia is extravagant in his tastes, for I find on Y-129 that he purchased a desk-I presume it was for himself-which cost $155. I have out of my humble means bought a desk for myself and thought that an expenditure of $40 or $50 purchased a very fair desk. I have seen a $100 desk arid thought it something to be envied. But I never saw a $155 desk. Perhaps the bon. Minister can describe the beauties of this article. But while the Minister of Militia has been extravagant, still greater extravagance has characterised another lion. Minister in the purchase of a desk, for I find that in this no less a sum than $165 for one. I know that the House will shudder when it hears who this extravagant minister was. It is no less a personage than the Minister of Labour and the Postmaster General. It is due to the House and the farmers of Ontario that he should explain how he possibly could have disbursed $165 of the people's money, drawn from the pockets of the farmers, to purchase a desk. Before the item passes, I would ask the Postmaster General to rise and give a realistic description of this desk that he purchased with the money of the people of Canada.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.

Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Bazinet.
Bill (No. 54) respecting the Canada Permanent and Western Canada Mortgage Corporation, and to change its name to the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation.-Mi-. Osier.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Central Ontario Railway.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 50) to incorporate the Quebec, Saguenay, and Gulf of St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Niagara Grand Island Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Edmonton Street Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 01) respecting the Winnipeg Western Land Corporation, Limited-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Ontario and Qu'Appelle Land Company, Limited.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 63) respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company.-Mr. Alc-Gugan.	„
Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 65) respecting the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Bruce.
Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Brockville and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the Northwest Coal and Coke Railway Company.- Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Macleod, Cardston and Montana Railway Company. -Mr. Scott.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 59) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.-Air. Alonlt.
Air. A1ARCIL (Bonaventure). I ask that this Bill he allowed to stand. It is not printed in French.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stand.
Order allowed to stand.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Ottawa public buildings, including repairs,
?125,000.
['The caretakers appear to have almost absolute control over the public buildings, and this remark applies to the departments of Inland Revenue, Post Office and Customs. I think the caretaker in each building should be subject to the orders of the head of his department. They should receive instructions to keep their places in proper condition. In our district we have found that the caretakers will not take their orders from their superior officers.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.', 'Monday, April 6, 1903.']
William Humphrey Bennett: At page 131 V of the Auditor General's report, I find an item, [DOT] Goldie & AIcCulloch safe with marble top, 3185.57.' I have never yet had the pleasure of seeing a safe with a marble top. Will the lion. Alinister of Public Works
kindly tell us what is the necessity for a marble top on an ordinary safe, and if it added to the cost to any extent.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the figures at hand giving the difference in cost between a safe with a marble top and a safe with an iron top. But the hon. gentleman having brought the item to my attention, I shall make inquiries among the officers of my department and will let the hon. gentleman know.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems that this recklessness of expenditure is to be found in every department of the government. The necessity of having a marble top on a safe, is something that never dawned on my mind until I saw this item. It seems to be about in keeping with the other expensive appointments of the department. This afternoon we had the expenditures on ordinary roller-top desks purchased by the departments. Some ministers, modest in their expenditures, will get a desk at $40 or $50, which, from experience I should think would be a very fine desk. But the Alinister of Alilitia (Hon. Sir .Frederick Borden), according to the public accounts, made an investment of $155 for a desk, and, not to be outdone, the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Alulock) it would seem, had invested $165 in a desk. I assume that that was one of the roller-top style also. I assume it to be only fair to the House and the country, as hon. gentlemen opposite, when in opposition, preached from the house tops that expenditure should he rational and altogether on the same basis as incurred in one's private business, that the Postmaster General should rise in his place and, at least, give a description of the desk, for many hon. gentlemen, like myself, may not have an opportunity for a few years at least, of gazing on tliat wonderful piece of furniture.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I inquired of my deputy since we adjourned at six o'clock in reference to this article of furniture. He informs me that it is not merely a desk, but that it has certain post office additions to it. It is a structure partly a desk and yet it is not a desk, because in addition to being a desk it is fitted up with drawers, files, and pigeon-holes set apart for the different officers of the department, and also for the work connected with the various countries that Canada is in communication with on post office business. The work is classified in these various departments. the respective officers of the department have keys and access to this structure. each going to the portion of it that contains the work coining under his particular charge. It is rather an elaborate structure, but there is great economy of time on the part of the officers, because, instead of having an officer detailed to distribute the various papers and documents to each of the branches which require attention, the

papers are sorted and placed in these various compartments as in a post office and each officer lias access to his compartment.


George William Fowler: It is unfortunate that the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence is not here so that we could have a little explanation as to this very expensive desk which was purchased for his department. Perhaps it will be found that it has a whole set of accoutrements attached. The desk of the lion. Postmaster General has a post office attachment, and, therefore, it would only be natural to suppose that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, who is a close second in the matter of expenditure with the Postmaster General, have a regimental attachment to his desk. I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General whether it is necessary to have all these particular accoutrements.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman uses the word ' accoutrements.' I do not know whether he has reference to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, or not.


George William Fowler: Yes, I thought you might be able to give an explanation of the matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I know nothing about the organization of the Militia Department. If the hon. gentleman's question has reference to my own department. I think I have given the reason why these divisions are supplied. It is for the same reason that you would have compartments, or boxes, in a post office. Instead of having to have officers in attendance to hand out the documents, the documents are classified in these compartments and the various ofli-cers are furnished with keys to them and have access to them. In economy of time and the proper despatch of business this is considered a very ingenious and suitable method.


Richard Blain: Where was this desk made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not able to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) where it was made. We give a requisition to the Public Works Department, and they supply what is asked for.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General whether, in consequence of this labour-saving machine, he has been able to dispense with any of the clerks in the Post Office Department. He has paid a very extensive price for this desk. Of course, if he has been able to save in the matter of the services of clerks and thereby reduce the amount paid in salaries, he might have some justification for purchasing this expensive piece of furniture.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think my hon. friend is serious in presenting a question of that kind.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Richard Blain: I notice that the desk was made by the Harris. Campbell & Boyden Furniture Company. Is that a Canadian company ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the name of an Ottawa firm.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to suggest that the sums paid for these desks would appear to be a little high, although they may be good value for the money, the hon. Postmaster General knows that he has under his charge postmasters, especially village postmasters, who complain that their salaries are remarkably low. I would also like to remind the hon. Postmaster General, who is something of a farmer himself, that if he goes into the county of Grey, or into the northern portion of York, the farmers will think that what is paid for a desk would make a fair payment on a farm. They would think this a little expensive.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have made some inquiries in regard to the purchase of this article of furniture. It is only fair to say to the committee that the item as recorded in the Auditor General's report is somewhat misleading. What is described as a desk, is practically an office for the deputy postmaster general. I dare say the other desk in the Militia Department was for the deputy minister and for the better accommodation of the department in doing its business. This is not a desk, as we understand it-one of those roller-top desks. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said that we may have got good value. I think if hon. gentlemen saw the desk of the deputy postmaster general, they would say that it was a great convenience and facilitates very much the business of the department. Considering the size of the various compartments, and the convenience provided for the holding of papers and the saving of time, I think it will be found a very valuable improvement in the equipment of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to say, while this item was under consideration, that I have noticed several rooms around this House for the use of members, which seem to be rather luxuriously furnished. They have fine roll-top desks and everything convenient and comfortable, while in other rooms occupied by other members, there are few, if any, conveniences at all. I happen to occupy a portion of a room in which there are six or seven of us. There are three tables that would cost, perhaps, $2.25 apiece, there is not a place to lock up anything except within the drawers of the tables and the room is even without shelving of any kind. There are only three electric lamps for seven members and two or three chairs.
I have applied to Mr. Speaker-I am sorry that he is not here to-night, because I am informed that he is responsible for this condition of affairs-for some additional fur-

niture, and he says that the parsimonious economy insisted on by this government is such that he cannot afford to give me any more furniture.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: An economical government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Noticing the very handsome outfits which ministers have in their departments and in some of the rooms about this House-and I am not saying it by way of grumbling-I think we might fare a little better nevertheless if we do belong to the opposition. I asked Mr. Speaker if he could furnish a little cupboard or anything where we could put papers away.


Mr. COWAN.: You want an ice box.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is tickling the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) now.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You ought to have an ice box.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no doubt whatever that my hon. friend will profit very much by his advice if he will take it to himself, so that he will keep himself moderately under control. I think this is hardly fair. It does seem to me that when we are here to do the country's business we ought to have some more conveniences for doing it in our rooms than we have.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You will be there for a long time. You ought to have more accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is an argument in my favour. I am drawing the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to this matter because his predecessor was always very good to us. I know that when we applied to him for anything he always tried to meet our views, and I know his liberal and generous successor is quite equal to the late minister. I hope he will take note of this and that he will profit by this discussion.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I really think the accommodation provided for hon. members of this House is small enough. The members ought to be entitled to such furniture and lamps as the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has referred to so that they can do their work with some comfort. I know it is a great advantage for a gentleman having to attend to correspondence and other business to have a desk which he can lock up and find his papers in order when he returns. If an application were made for furniture, sucli as the hon. member referred to, I feel satisfied that the House would be very willing that it should be granted by the department. I quite agree with what the hon. member says as to the desirability of having these conveniences for hon. members. Only one or two hon. members have come to me and I have only been too glad to supply their wants in that direction. There is, of course, a limit. The
amount of the vote is based upon a fixed expenditure, but there is always a margin for the purpose of supplying these conveniences each year. I shall be glad to give every application I receive the consideration it deserves, and so far as I can, help to increase the comfort and convenience of the members.


Mr. BELL.: What is done with this furniture which must be accumulating in large quantities in the different buildings ? Every year there seems to be extensive purchases, and still the members of the opposition find it impossible to get anything more than a plain table, in fact they cannot get a cabinet or a desk. I suppose there must be occasionally a cleaning out of these departments; what is done with this old funiiture after the purchase of new furniture ? Is it sold at auction ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The great bulk of this new furniture has been bought for the new buildings, new rooms that have been made during the last two or three sessions. There was no old furniture to store away. The business in the different departments has increased so much that we have to rent buildings outside, and some of the furniture has been used in them. As I stated before six o'clock, in case of a room that was refurnished, if there was an old table, or desk, or anything of that kind past usage, it was sold by auction. Latterly, as I explained, the man in charge of the carpenters has been taking some of the old furinture to the workshop and having it made over by the workmen under his charge. Any that is of no use is sold by auction. But these new purchases that are made, most of them, are to furnish some half a dozen new rooms that were opened during the last recess.


William Humphrey Bennett: On referring to the Auditor General's Report of last year I find a startling state of affairs revealed. If the general public of this country were aware of it they would be filled with amazement when they are told that it costs every day of the year, on the average $300 for looking after these buildings. Referring to page Y-120 I find that there was spent last year for labourers and carpenters about these buildings, $00,530. Turning to the next page I find that there was paid out for a staff to oversee these men, no less a sum than $8,220. Further down there is a so-called mechanical staff costing $20,410. It is a startling fact that it costs $100,000 a year for the maintenance of these buildings. I have not the figures of a few years ago, but I cannot believe they ever ran up to such immense amounts ns this. Tt is about time that the pruning knife should be applied. As to furniture it must be plain to any man who knows anything about it that it must be a most extravagant desk that costs $105. You go on through this expend!-

ture and what is revealed ? Chairs costing $12 or $13 a piece. I suppose it is the old story of having a good time for the first time in your life. That seems to he the rule followed throughout these departments. Every page of this Auditor General's Report shows that there is a most reckless and extravagant expenditure in every department of the government. This expenditure ill becomes gentlemen who for years made the burden of their song some little trumpery, trivial, petty expenditure that a decent man would have been ashamed to mention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any portion of this money being spent to fit up offices outside of the main building ? I understand there are several buildings in Ottawa rented for the use of the government; is this money being used to fit up those buildings as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When a building is rented and furniture lias to be procured for the staff, the Public Works Department is called on to furnish the necessary furniture for these rooms out of this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What proportion of this was used for that purpose ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, About $35,000.
Mi-. SPROULE. Was any portion of it used for the census staff ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would include repairs done by our own staff ?


George William Fowler: On page V-131 I see an entry : ' W. C. Edwards Company, Limited, biack walnut back for book case, $50.' Would the minister tell us what the front of that book case cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that he thinks that must be a misprint. It probably means a black walnut book case.


John William Bell: How are these supplies procured ? Are they bought from time to time on an order from the department, or is there an effort made to procure them all at once by asking for tenders for the articles required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some cases when there are a number of articles to be bought, tenders are asked for them, but as a rule they are bought by the architect's branch from the different manufacturers and dealers as the case may be.


John William Bell: Are prices asked for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: There seems to be a great number of desks and ofiice chairs bought for the different departments. There is an 1 Mr. BENNETT.
account here for decanters and tumblers, and absorbent cotton even, which some years ago would have been made a text for a sermon by our friends opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since they have opened up the bar in the restaurant, and now that the temperance question has died out, and the referendum has been defeated, we must expect them to furnish the bar. We were exempt from those items for some years, but I suppose we must look for them in future.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That must have been a mistake ; it must have been for a water bottle.


William Humphrey Bennett: At page B-135, of the Auditor General's Report, there is an item for a ' pair of crutches with iron tips.' What member of the cabinet got the crutches ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One of the carpenters was seriously injured, and the department thought it only fair to do something for him, and among other things he was supplied with crutches.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister promised us before dinner that he would explain that item for ' $19.50 worth of gray hair.' Has the minister had any light upon it since the dinner hour?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will have to take my word that the gray hair was not for the Minister of Public Works, but for some of the other members of the cabinet.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will accept the explanation that it was for some of the baldheaded members.


Mr. CLARE.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The system is to keep a regular list of everything that is purchased from time to time, and if anything is disposed of, which is not very often, that is entered.


George Adam Clare: Is there any system by which the government take stock annually of the goods which they have on hand ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it has been the custom to take stock annually, but the books would show for a number of years, when an article was purchased, from whom it was purchased, and so on.


George Adam Clare: An enormous quantity of these things has been purchased for the

last five years, and there should he some system of tracing these articles and knowing whether they are on hand or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are constantly furnishing new buildings on account of the increasing business of the country. There may occasionally be an item for replacing furniture which has worn out, but the great majority of these articles were purchased to supply new offices to accommodate the increasing staff which is necessary to carry on the increasing business of the country.


Mr. BROCK.: The business of the country is certainly growing at an enormous rate, and naturally you have to extend your buildings and you have to furnish them. Instead of having a few thousand dollars for this expenditure, as we had some years ago, we have now a few hundred thousand of expenditure. In view of this, it is not out of place to say that you should have some way of taking stock of the quantity of furniture and the enormous amount of stationery that you must have on hand. Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of stationery are used every year. An ordinary merchant would keep an account, not only of his stock in trade, but of his furniture and other assets as well, and why should not the government conduct its business in the same way ? It might give some trouble, but it would be a safeguard for the public, and it would be consoling for honest employees to know that they had the same furniture in their offices at the end of the year that they had at the beginning. The minister would do well to start a set of books which.would show what furniture and what stationery is on hand. I do not know where all those beautiful fancy goods come from that are distributed among the members every year. I think perhaps that is an item that might be very well dispensed with. I do not like to find fault with it, because having taken them and kept them, I am possibly not in a position to do so, but there must be a great many thousand dollars expended in that way every year, and I think we might dispense with that. Under these circumstances, I think it would be well to keep stock of the quantity bought, the quantity disposed of, and the quantity on hand at the end of the year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend's suggestion is quite proper, but I believe that each department has an officer for the special purpose of keeping track of the stationery. I know that in my department I could not get a lead pencil myself without applying to the officer in charge of the stationery. Honourable members will admit that one could not make an estimate of what it might cost to maintain and equip and keep in proper order the buildings which we have in Ottawa. I think it is a fair criticism, however, to
say that we should see that we get value for what is expended; and if any purchases are not proper or the prices paid are not fair, I would be only too pleased to have them brought to my attention at any time. I have not had sufficient experience to say whether the system is as perfect as it might be; but I may say that there is nothing particularly extraordinary in this vote, because I find, on looking over the totals for many years back, particularly to 1879, that a great deal more had been voted in previous years than we have at the present time. But I will look into the matter and endeavour to see that proper books are kept, so that we may keep track of the purchases and avoid waste-so that we may see that only purchases are made of such articles as are required, and that we get value for the money expended. The cheapest article, as my hon. friend knows, is not always the most economical for a permanent institution, and due regard should be had for the service got out of it.


William Rees Brock: Does the government insure all the furniture it has, or take the risk itself ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None of the departments carry any insurance at all. The government carries its own insurance in all the departments, except in case of some special contract; but after the contract is delivered, we carry our own insurance.


William Rees Brock: If you carry insurance, you would have to keep stock, otherwise in the event of fire you would have no way of establishing your claim.


George William Fowler: As the Minister of Militia and Defence is now here, perhaps he will give us an explanation of this very expensive* desk which he has purchased.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have not had an opportunity of looking up the matter, and was not aware of having purchased a desk of this kind. I have no doubt a requisition was made to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works for a desk, and he probably thought that the importance of the Militia department and the excellent work that has been done there justified the purchase of a desk in accordance with the importance of the department. This is the first intimation I have had of what that desk really cost. I am not able to give a very full description of it. It is a desk and table combined, a very handsome piece of furniture, and I shall be very glad to have any of my friends on the opposite side of the House, or any others, call and see me there, and I will show them the desk. That is the only explanation I can give at the present moment.


George William Fowler: It seems that we are to judge of the importance of a department

by the gorgeousness of its furniture. According to that standard the department of Agriculture is a very mean department, because the desk of the chief officer there only cost $35 or $40. If the Minister of Agriculture were back from the east, it seems to me he would not be pleased with the explanation the Minister of Militia and Defence has given as to why his desk is so much more expensive and gorgeous than that of the Minister of Agriculture. I suppose it was not on account of the honours which have been showered on the Postmaster General and the Minister of Militia and Defence lately that they had to tone up their departments.


An hon. MEMBER.: They had to oil up.


George William Fowler: I am glad, however, that we have had some sort of explanation from the Minister of Militia and Defence.


William Humphrey Bennett: I notice that the Secretary of State also seems to be indulging in luxurious appointments, because when he dangles his feet on the floor, they rest on a rug that cost $45. May I ask if the Secretary of State has show'll a disposition lately to indulge in other extravagances, by making further requisitions ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not had any requisitions lately from the Secretary of State. I think he must be supplied now.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the real necessity for spending such an enormous amount on labourers ? $90,000 seems to me a great deal of money to spend on labour in connection with repairs and maintenance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, the number of buildings that have to be taken care of is pretty large. They are the Senate, the House of Commons, the Governor General's Secretary's office, the Privy Council, the Department of Justice, the Auditor General's office, the Department of Finance, the Secretary of State's Department, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of Customs, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Inland Revenue, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Postmaster General, the Library of Parliament, the Supreme and Exchequer Courts. It is a pretty extensive institution to look after. Iam not prepared to say that there are not more men employed than are really necessary. We keep a certain number employed from year to year, and at certain times we engage temporary help. The officers in charge of these men are all under the jurisdiction of the chief architect, in whom we all have a great deal of confidence, and I Mr. FOWLER.
am sure that if he were aware that more men were employed than were necessary to attend to the work, he would report the fact to the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many men are employed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is in the neighbourhood of one hundred all the time in the employ of the department at Ottawa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is being done about lighting ? I have noticed that occasionally this session the lighting is very bad.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I explained before recess, the electric company asked for the privilege of making a trial of the arc light instead of the incandescent, and we have allowed it to do so. It is not going to cost the country anything. We have drawn the attention of the company to the fact that the lighting is not regular, but it has been very good the last few days. It is merely an experiment, and the great majority of the members think it an improvement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do the electric lights in the buildings cost ? Some years ago we went into that question at considerable length, but the plant then had not been installed, and we could not get definite information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two dollars per light of sixteen-candle power per annum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a very high price for a number of lights. In many of our country villages, we pay very little more, and of course, use fewer lights.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will have an inquiry made into the matter and see if we cannot make some reduction. The average price I find is about $4, but we have a contract for a number of lights at $2.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You can get lights at $3. In our village we only pay $2.25.


Mr. FRASER.: In the town I come from it is not that cheap. It costs about $50 a year for eight lights.


Mr. BUREAU.: It costs $3.75 per light per year at Three Rivers, where there is abundant water power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are sold right in our place at $25 per year for eleven lights of sixteen-candle power each. In some places the charge is even lower, and a portion of the time the electricity is supplied by steam. Throughout our part of the country, I could count up many towns where the charge is below $3.


Mr. PARMELEE.: For a continuous light?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not all night. Only until 12 o'clock, and then on again at 5.30 a.m., but we are offered an all night service for the same price by another company.


Mr. ERASER.: Usually in small towns they pay by measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We pay a flat rate per light, and there is no meter at all. Will the hon. minister be good enough to tell us what he is doing about improving the ven-tillation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ventilation will cost something like $1,500. There is no change in the system, but we have added some apparatus for pumping in fresh air, which I think is an improvement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some places about this building, you occasionally use gas as well as electricity. Is it the same company that supplies both ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, separate companies.
Rents-Dominion public buildings, $33,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this cover all the outside rents ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $14,500 is the total amount for leased buildings. I think that out of that item the city of Ottawa is paying something over $30,000. Glancing the items over, I am pretty well satisfied that it runs over $30,000 in Ottawa. I shall have to ask a sum in the supplementary estimates. This is $33,500, but the total in the departments is $44,500.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Some announcement was made a short time ago of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite as to the erection of another public building in Ottawa. It would be a good move to procure the necessary land and put up a decent building. The government would save money, instead of paying this enormous sum in rents every year. Has the hon. minister any statement to make as to the erection of a new departmental building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at the present time. But I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke). Not only would we save money by putting up a new public building, but we should have far better facilities for conducting the public business than at present. Of course, I have been in the department only a short time and have had a good deal to do. But before the session is over, I hope that, with the assistance of the officials I may be able to prepare something to propose to the House to remedy the difficulty we are now labouring under.


George Adam Clare: I hope the Minister of . Public Works will carry out this resolution and lay before the House a plan for a
new building. Every year for the last three years when this matter has come up we have had the same answer-that the matter would be taken into consideration. I find that, in looking over this list, for instance, that the building used by the census commissioner and his staj was to cost a rental of $3,000, according to the statement of the cx-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). A few days later, in bringing down his estimates, by some mysterious process, the rent had doubled, and was $6,000 instead of $3,000. The then Minister of Public Works called down his deputy minister for not having corrected his first statement. In looking over the expenditure, I find that this item has again increased and is $0,500, instead of $6,000. I notice other peculiarities about these rentals. For instance, here is an item for $2,000 paid to the Misses Thistle for two years rental. I cannot understand why rent for two years should appear in this account. In several instances this crops up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was the rental of a building that was rented as a matter of urgency by the Department of the Interior.


William Humphrey Bennett: Referring to the building used by the census department, may I ask the Minister of Public Works, in view of the fact that the department are not only paying $6,500 a year, but that last year they spent upwards of $10,000 in improving the building, is that $10,000 to be deducted from the rent or has any agreement been made under which that amount is to be paid back partly or altogether ? It seems almost incredible that the government while paying this enormous rent-for it is an enormous rent, for capitalized it amounts to $130,000- should expend about $10,000 in repairs and improvements.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under the arrangement that has been made, improvements made by the department are not allowed for.


William Humphrey Bennett: Can the hon. minister tell us how much longer they are going to use the building-how many years before the term for the lease will expire ?


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that the lease is terminable at the option of the department at the end of any year.


William Humphrey Bennett: And, on the other hand at the option of the landlord also ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that he would have to bring down the lease to be sure of its terms. But it is terminable at the end of the year at the option of the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems strange that the department should conduct matters on

this basis. In tlie first place an enormous rent is paid, and then $9,000 or more is spent in repairs. If I understand the items, and I think I do, the department have actually installed a system of hot water or steam heating-which is it ?
The MINISTER <#' PUBLIC WORKS. A system of hot water heating. _


William Humphrey Bennett: Can the minister tell us whether it is intended to make any more expenditures on this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no intention of making any changes or improvements in this building. If repairs are needed during our occupancy of the building we are liable for them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were any repairs put on the Thistle building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Mr. LENNOX.: Why was the rent increased from $6,000 to $6,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that $6,500 is the amount of the rental under the lease.


George Adam Clare: When this hot water system was put into the building, were there any arrangements made that at the end of the government's term of occupancy that system could be taken out again ? Surely it is not intended to present these people with a system of hot water heating in addition to this large amount of rent. I cannot imagine such an arrangement being made in a business matter. Some arrangement should have been made for taking out this hot water system. Second hand radiators are as good as new. If the system was to be put in, arrangements should have been made to allow of its being taken out again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no arrangement on the subject. The building had been occupied for a good many years and the system of heating, I understand, was suitable for the occupants of that time. The building was rented by the Department of Agriculture and fitted up by the Department of Public Works for the purpose for which it is used. But the heating was not satisfactory. Many of the rooms had not any heat at all. So, the department put in a new system of heating.


George Adam Clare: I can well understand that, when men were working in these rooms the rooms had to be properly heated. There is no objection to that. But there should have been an arrangement that the government could take out the system when they left.


Mr. BARKER.: Was it any part of the terms of the lease that the government should spend $9,000 in improving the property ?


William Humphrey Bennett: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that the terms of the lease provided that the government had to make any changes or improvements they required for their own purposes.


George Adam Clare: And though not obliged under the terms of the lease the government have spent $9,000 in improving the property.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they simply did this because they found it necessary in order to make the place suitable for the staff to work in.


Robert Laird Borden: How long will these buildings be required for the purposes of the census ? Is it expected that the census will be completed before the next one is taken ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall have to get the information from my hon. friend, I could not give it off hand.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this building used exclusively for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So I understand. I have never had the pleasure of being in it.


George William Fowler: I understand it is not the intention of the minister to renew the heating apparatus for this building. How about the furniture '! Will they leave the furniture in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The furniture comes under a different head. We will move that out, of course.


Haughton Lennox: It would be interesting to know if the interest of the country has been preserved in another way. In the new Ontario Act there is a provision concerning landlords and tenants that if the lease is drawn in a certain way the tenant can, at the end of the term, remove all the fixtures. Perhaps the minister could inform us if there is a clause in the lease which will enable them to remove those fixtures at the end of the term ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got the lease here, but I have not the slightest doubt that the interest of the public has been safeguarded In that direction.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister have the lease brought down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will have a copy brought down.


George William Fowler: The other day we had a statement of the cost of the census up to date. Would the minister tell us if, in that statement, are included the rents that are paid for these outside buildings that are used exclusively for census purposes V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are not included in the cost. The *

-.A, 'Vv\ V'\\ 1^SA\	\ N *
rents are paid by the Public Works Department out of this appropriation, and would not be included in the expenditure of the other department of the census.


George William Fowler: How much rent has been paid up to date for the use of these buildings for census purposes exclusively ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the three years that this building has been used for census purposes, the rent would now be about $19,500. That is the one building that we pay rent for which is used for the census.


Richard Blain: Is that charged up to the item for taking the census ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it would not be included in that.
Rideau Hall, including grounds, renewals, improvements, furniture and maintenance, $17,000.


Mr. WILSON.: I am glad to see the Postmaster General in his place, because in 1895 or 1896, I think, he made a very strong speech about the extravagance of the government at Rideau Hall.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Get the speech and read it.


Uriah Wilson: I have read it, it is a very good speech, and it would have been very much in the interest of the country if this government had lived up to the sentiments of that speech. If they had torn down the old building and built a new one, it would have been in the interest of the country, because the buildings are not very ornamental, and I should judge are not nearly as comfortable as they ought to be for the money expended on them. I have been looking over the expenditure under this head for the last three or four years, and it has been almost enough every year to build a decent building. In 1899 we spent on that building in the way of furniture, additions, repairs, &c., $29,736 ; in 1900, $24,991 ; in 1901, $31,249.11 ; in 1902, $14,012. I see in the estimates for the coming year, $28,000. Now I think in one of these years they built a new addition to the hall at an expenditure of about $40,000. I think this is a very lavish expenditure, and something ought to be done to stop it. My hon. friend when in opposition took very strong ground against this expenditure. I believe he was acting Minister of Public Works during the absence of the late minister in the old country, and he was in charge when there was a very large expenditure. Had the hon. gentleman began when in office to carry out the principles he laid down when in opposition it would have been better for the country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is confounding my views with his own. I do not think he will find that I ever discussed the expenditures at Rideau 32
Hall. I did discuss a feature connected with the Governor General, but I did not, so far as my recollection goes, discuss the internal economy of that house. He suggests that the expenditure on Rideau Hall was especially high during the time I was acting minister. I was acting minister for a few months in 1900, and during that time it was my duty to carry out certain works, not originating during my temporary occupancy of the office, although I share the full responsibility for them. Those works consisted, among other things, of the thorough underdraining of the building. The hon. gentleman will be surprised to know that the drainage of Rideau Hall was so defective that the water lodged to the extent of several inches, and sometimes a foot, in the cellar, and it is a wonder that many lives were not lost. It became necessary to construct drains, much of them through rock, which made the cost very high. I saw myself the condition of affairs in the basement at Rideau Hall, and I am sure my hon. friend would have been one of the first to say that such a condition should not be allowed to continue. I presume, like others, he occasionally shares in the advantages that that institution affords. But when he presses us to be economical, I would refer him to his colleague the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-I was going to say the minister ; I hope some day he will be minister. It is only a few moments ago that that gentleman was complaining of our economy. He wanted us to spend more money.


Uriah Wilson: I was surprised at that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was surprised too ; nevertheless he shows that he is becoming more enlarged In his views, and I would commend his example to my hon. friend.


Uriah Wilson: I will undertake to furnish the speech made by the Postmaster General if this item is allowed to stand. I had occasion at one time in this House to quote extensively from it. I have a vivid recollection of the criticisms that he offered on that occasion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think I discussed Rideau Hall, but I have discussed the classes of expenditure the hon. gentleman is now discussing. I have explained that during my temporary occupancy of the department there was a large expenditure for drainage, and an additional building, which became necessary. If the hon. gentleman were to visit it, lie would see the need of it, and the need of furnishing it. The late ex-Minister of Finance was familiar with all the circumstances connected with the furnishing and the expenditure, and he did not see anything in it to take exception to. He asked a question or two across the floor of the House, and when he learned how the expenditure



was carried out, without so expressing himself, by his dropping the subject, he satisfied me that he was perfectly content with the expenditure.


Uriah Wilson: How does the hon. gentleman explain the next year ? If they left Rideau Hall in such a good condition for $24,000 or $25,000 a year, why was it that the very next year there was over $31,000 spent on it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I Was not there then.


Uriah Wilson: No man can evade the responsibility of the government if he is a member of it. The expenditure was cut down next year to $14,000, but this year it has gone up to $28,000. My recollection is that the hon. Postmaster General did not only criticise the expenditure of Rideau Hall, but be also criticised the number of cabinet ministers and he also objected to the' Governor General's salary. He made a comparison between the cost of the government in the United States and of our government in Canada showing that they had only eight ministers while we had fourteen. We have not heard him saying anything in that direction since he and his party took office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is a growing time.


Uriah Wilson: Yes, it is a growing time and I say that these hon. gentlemen are benefiting by the growing time, but that does not excuse them for having failed to carry out what they advocated while in opposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know whether I have any sins to answer for, that were committed while I was in opposition. I had the same views then that I have now. There is a certain class of criticism that is legitimate, and it perhaps matters very little to the public who have to pay the bills what any hon. member has said either on the opposition or on the government side as to the actual facts of the money expended. What I want to draw the attention of the Committee to is that I have been looking into this matter a great deal and have gone back fifteen or twenty years. I find that for some reason the department has not been quite frank in regard to the expenditure on Rideau Hall. So far as I can find out it costs the country about $25,000 a year to maintain Rideau Hall and that from time to to time smaller estimates have been brought in than were required with the result that accounts have been running over and debts have been accumulated. I think that parliament and the people are entitled to know what the actual cost of maintaining and furnishing this place is. I do not, as a minister, wish to come here and submit an estimate pretending to maintain Rideau Hall for less than it is possible to do it. If, on carefully looking into the matter with the Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
officials of the department, I think any saving can be made I am quite willing to try and make it. I am quite willing that any hon. member on either side of the House should point out the fact if he thinks that any undue or unnecesary expenditure has been made in this connection. As I have just taken charge of the department, I thought that I should come frankly to the Committee and tell them what it has cost the country for a great many years to maintain this place. It is my intention to ask the Committee for an additional expenditure to clean up the back debts that exist and I say it frankly to the Committee that the maintenance of Rideau Hall will cost about $25,000 per annum.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has been expended on an average for 20 years on this ramshackle place ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: $25,000 will pay the interest on three-quarters of a milion dollars at 3.per cent. Surely it would be better to put up a building for $250,000 and stop this leak.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You would have to maintain a larger building at greater expense.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This of course includes the cost of the maintenance of the grounds. It is not all for additions or improvements.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is $8,000 for heating.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not for heating.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A modern building would save half of that on the heating alone.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There would be $3,000 for the maintenance of the grounds. I do not think they are kept up extravagantly in comparison with private grounds even in Canada and certainly not in comparison with public grounds in other countries. The grounds could not be kept in the state in which they are for much less than $3,000 a year. Hon. gentlemen in this House know from their own experience that much smaller grounds cost a great deal of money to maintain them properly. Unless there are other items in which some saving can be made I want the Committee and the country to know that it takes the sum I have mentioned to maintain Rideau Hall and it has taken that for a great many years.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we are all agreed that Rideau Hall should be kept up in an efficient state or rather in such a state as will be creditable to the country as a whole. What my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has suggested is a

subject that was passing through my owu mind. The expenditures on additions and improvements and repairs to this building during the past twenty years must have aggregated an enormous amount. Is it not a fair question for the hon. Minister of Public Works to ask himself whether it would not be in the interest of the country to tear that building down and erect another that would not require so mubh money to maintain. It seems that $8,000 a year for lighting and heating a building of that kind is absolutely absurd. In my limited experience of such things I should consider it altogether out of the question, although I do not doubt it has been expended, and is necessary to be expended in the present condition of the building. If you have spent $100,000 in additions and improvements in the last ten or fifteen years, and I dare say you have expended that sum, that sum itself would put a good modern building which would not be so expensive to maintain as this one. I do not believe very much in this policy of patching up an old building and adding to it from time to time, and in the end having still an old building difficult and expensive to maintain.


Richard Blain: I want to refresh the hon. Postmaster General's memory as to the statements he made in 1895-
These sums are .quite beyond the resources of the people of Canada. We have disbursed annually during 25 years an average of $21,785. and in addition $4,754 for furniture for Rideau Hall.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell us how the resources of the people of Canada will stand an annual expenditure of over $30,000 which he will stand up and defend to-night while condemning a smaller expenditure under the administration of the Liberal-Conservative party in 1895.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has read the answer iu the light of the circumstances under which I made the observation. He says that in 1895 I expressed the opinion that $21,785 and $4,754 was too much for the then resources of Canada. I was speaking in 1895. We are now in the year 1903. Canada is a different country under a Liberal government from what it was in 1895.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am glad that my views are concurred in by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The patches on the farmer's trousers are as bright to-day as they were then.


Richard Blain: Is this the policy that the hon. gentleman advocates that when the revenue of the country is larger the government propose expending more on furniture and other things at Rideau Hall ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman had better make his own speech.


Richard Blain: I would like the hon. gentleman to give us an explanation how it was that he condemned in -this House an annual expenditure of $25,000 when the Liberal-Conservative party was in office while now he stands up and defends an expenditure of more than $30,000 per annum for the same purpose.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I should think that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) is an observer of the times and if he is he can supply the answer to himself. The condition of the country in these days was very different from what it is now. We then had an unprogressive party in power; they paralyzed the trade of the country and it was necessary to be economic at every point, even to the extent of hampering the public service. With the limited revenue of the country at that time you were plunging into debt-do you want me to make a campaign speech and explain it all to you. You know the state of the country and of its finances in those days and you know the state of the country and of its finances to-day. We can now afford to manage our affairs more in harmony with the requirements than we could then, and as long as the present administration is in office and its policy produces such happy results the country will be in a position to deal in a more progressive spirit all along the line.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The letter carriers will come in then.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The letter carriers and all classes will benefit. During my regime it has been a great pleasure to me to improve the status of the letter carriers over what it was when my friends opposite were in power.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is refreshing to hear the Postmaster General talk about the condition of the country in view of the fact that in his own department they will sell you a postage stamp that you cannot use in the ordinary postage business. What did his department do to inflate his revenue. Some time ago they sold the jubilee stamps to a denomination as high as $10, and if to-day you take one of these $10 stamps to any post office in the country they would not even exchange it for two cent stamps. That is done to inflate the revenues of the Post Office Department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It makes the country look like two cents.


Samuel Barker: The Postmaster General has made a comparison between 1895 and the present day justifying large expenditure now because of the growing time. I take it that in 1895 this country was willing to pay whatever was necessary for the keeping up of Rideau Hall. The prosperity of the

country or anything like that has nothing to do with it ; it was and is simply a question of keeping up that property in a fitting manner for the Governor General of Canada. The Postmaster General when he was in opposition complained that it took $21,000 a year to maintain the property in a fitting manner for the representative of our Sovereign, but he now spends $30,000 a year in doing that identical work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And not doing it as well.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has misapprehended my speech. If he will read the speech he will find that I spoke of nothing else except as to what the country could afford. Looking at a comparison of our revenues, the country could not afford to do then what perhaps it ought to have done in this matter. It can afford now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Postmaster General seems to misapprehend the situation entirely. The hon. gentleman from Peel (Mr. P.iain) quoted from a speech of the Postmaster General a strong denunciation against his predecessors in office because of the expenditures in connection with Rideau Hall. When the Postmaster General came into office he found that the expenditure for a quarter of a century averaged $20,000 or $50,000 a year, but the Postmaster General and his colleagues who have been presented to us as a good business administration are spending $30,000 a year. If there was any business about them they would erect a modern building that would be much more economjcally maintained.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What
price.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Say $500,000 if necessary, and at three per cent it would cost you $15,000 per annum. The Postmaster General now justifies an annual expenditure largely in excess of the expenditure made by his predecessors which he denounced at the time. I venture to say that if an examination of Rideau Hall were made to-day, it is in no better condition than when he came into office when it was maintained at a much less expenditure.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Oh, yes, it is. It is a different building altogether. It is the difference between white and black.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That old building ought be pulled down and a new building put up and if the hon. gentleman would advise the doing of that he would be saving money to the country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It must be apparent to every one who has visited Rideau Hall that it is a waste of money to spend $.30,000 an-Mr. BARKER.
nualiy in trying to keep up that aggregation of old apartments. It is my opinion that it is the duty of the government to make the necessary provision to put up a decent modern building.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would we not be at the expense of maintaining that too ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It certainly would not cost so much for maintenance as the old building does.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the cost of maintaining the city hall in Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is a different matter altogether.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is expensive enough.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The city was obliged by the grand jury and by legal process to put up a court house and it was thought that a saving would be effected if both the court house and the city hall were under the same roof. That is an extravagant building but the city was forced to make the change because of the action of the grand jury and of the judiciary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is not the slightest doubt but that if we had a new modern building a considerable saving would be made in the annual maintenance especially with regard to heating and lighting. I do not think there would be a very great deal of saving in other directions. It would be much more satisfactory as my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) says if we had a building more creditable to the country. However, we are dealing with the item as it is before us and I felt it my duty, after an examination of the expenditures for some fifteen or twenty years to ask for a vote according to the expenditure in the past. These estimates were prepared two or three weeks after I came into office and I have since found that it will be necessary to bring a supplementary estimate equal to the average cost for the past few years. It is only fair to say that out of this amount some $3,000 was spent for maintenance of the grounds. I do not think that is extravagant; I think that must be fairly well managed. The question of putting up a new building is one well worthy of consideration. It would give greater satisfaction no doubt to the occupants and to the people of the country. The maintenance could be reduced somewhat, not very materially, but perhaps about twenty-five per cent, unless that new building would bring around some new expenditures that we do not think at the present time. The aggregation of old and patched up buildings that are there now certainly cost more for maintenance than would a modern building. I wished the House to know what the actual

facts have been and there is no use deceiving ourselves with regard to the maintenance of these buildings. As long as I occupy the office I shall invite criticism as to whether or not that money was properly expended. If I find that any reduction can be made I shall endeavour to make it, but the experience has been that for fifteen years it has cost about this amount to maintain the property.


Robert Laird Borden: The sum of $33,500 is paid by the government every year for rents. I suppose some of that will be dispensed with when the census is completed, if it is ever completed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend was not in when I gave the explanation of that. The total amount we pay in rents throughout the Dominion is $44,500. In the city of Ottawa we pay in round figures about $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That represents, at the rate of interest which the government is obliged to pay, about $1,000,000. There were discussions during the past session as to the erection of another building ; and it seems to me, if that were done, some economy might be effected. It has been suggested that there is some difficulty in regard to a site. I think the government has plenty of land for the purpose of another building without buying any more land. There is a site where the Supreme Court building is now, affording plenty of room between Bank street and the location of the conservatory for a very large and suitable building-a building that would be an ornament to the grounds, and would afford accommodation for many offices, besides having the additional merit of providing a suitable room for the Supreme Court, which is very badly housed at present, and suitable accommodation for the library of the Supreme Court, which is now in a disgraceful condition for lack of room. I would like the minister to take this into consideration. I know that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists on the part of members of the bar who come to Ottawa with the accommodation provided for the Supreme Court. In addition to that, I may suggest to the Minister of Public Works that we have really enough space in the buildings now at the command of the government to carry on the business of the country if that space were properly economized. I do not suppose it could be, because the buildings have been constructed in a different way. But my hon. friend has, no doubt, been in some of the great buildings in New York, such as the Produce Exchange, in the basement of which many clerks are provided with all the accommodation they require in a comparatively small space. If a building were constructed where I suggest, I believe the annual expenditure of the country could be reduced, and the Supreme Court could be housed and many offices Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
provided, in such a way as would do credit to the country.


Mr. COCHRANE.: When looking at the estimates this afternoon, I must confess that I was very much surprised at this vote of $30,000 for rent of extra offices. I do not require to go back a long way in my memory to recall the time when the members of the present government were sitting on this side of the House, and when they made the corridors ring with their shouts about the extravagance of the Tory party in filling all the public buildings in Ottawa from cellar to garret with civil servants, and when they used to picture to the farmers of the country how they were robbed to support such an extravagant lot of civil servants. They made them believe that the buildings here were so full of civil servants that they were almost forcing the roofs off. Are the buildings too full now ? Yes; the census staff used to be in the Langevin block, but now it is in a large building by itself ; then the models were moved out; and now the building is filled with officials from cellar to garret, and the government are paying $30,000 a year to rent other buildings. Can you say, you are another, you did it too ? I recollect very well that a gentleman who is now relegated to a sublimer sphere-and we know what contempt the hon. Postmaster General used to have for members of parliament who accepted offices of emolument-used to visit my constituency and find fault with the extravagance of the Tory party for expending more money on Rideau Hall ; he even complained of the cost of washing the napkins. Now the Postmaster General tells us the country can afford it. Is that the way a prudent farmer manages his business ? When his finances are buoyant, does he not first take the mortgage off his farm instead of indulging in greater extravagances ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We can never afford extravagances.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You just keep still. You told an hon. member to make his speech. I am making mine. I want to tell the hon. Postmaster General that he is there to answer questions that we ask, and not to put questions in my mouth. The hon. gentleman thinks he is the monarch of all he surveys, his right there is none to dispute ; but I look on the hon. gentleman as the people's servant, and he should recognize that fact, and not attempt to dictate to me what I shall say. I am here to answer the very bold and extravagant charges which the Postmaster General used to make. What is his policy ? The policy of the Conservative party, which he used to say was bleeding the people white. Now it is a buoyant revenue, and the extravagant expenditure is only a liberal one. How things have changed. I wonder that the hon. gentleman does not have remorse in his sleep, and wake up crying, 'The Lord have mercy on me for my hyprocrisy.'


Haughton Lennox: In the expenditure for Rideau Hall, at page V-144 of the Auditor General's Report, I see this item :	J. A.
Teasdale, 12 pillows, at $3, paid twice, $72. This is an Rem that ought to he explained. I may say, with regard to the question of a new building, that if this matter had been looked at in a judicious way some years ago, before the expenditure referred to by the hon. Postmaster General had been made, it might have been wise to consider the question of pulling down the present buildings, and erecting more suitable ones. But in view of the fact that within very recent years, large additions have been made to these buildings, I do not think this is the time for us to consider the question of going into increased expenditures. I submit whether the reduction in the annual charges would be such as to justify our incurring an expenditure of a very large amount. In this account are a great number of items that would not be lessened by the putting up of new buildings. In fact I am inclined to think that if we went to the expense of erecting new buildings, that would involve the expense of new furnishings and fittings and a variety of expenses which we are not able to anticipate at present, and there would still be the ordinary annual charges as great, or perhaps greater, than they are to-day. ' It is to be regretted, whether we attribute it to the present government or preceding governments, that the advisability of putting up more modern and compact buildings was not considered years ago. But having regard to the large expenditures made in extensions within a few years. I do not think it is well to have the idea go forth that we are contemplating the expenditure of a very large sum to put up entirely new buildings.


Sir. INGRAM.: The hon. minister has said that $44,500 is what is paid in rents, out of which $30,000 is paid in Ottawa. Will that $14,500 cover all the rents paid throughout the country ? Does it include the various post offices for which the government pay rent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It includes all the department pays.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that mean post offices ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we rent any post offices it does, but I do not think we do.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are several small towns where there are no government buildings and in which the department gives an allowance to the postmasters for rent. Is that included in. the $14,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Public Works department have nothing to do with these post offices. This is for rent paid directly for public buildings throughout the Dominion.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I wanted to distinguish between what the Public Works department pays and what is actually paid by the government of the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not aware that the government of the country pay any other rent.


Andrew B. Ingram: I certainly have not made myself plain. There are several post offices throughout the country, which are not government buildings, and for the use of which the department makes an allowance to the postmasters for rent. That, I presume, is not charged up in this $14,500, but comes out of the Post Office department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We make an allowance to a postmaster for supplying the department with office accommodation. We have nothing to do with keeping it in repair. The postmaster supplies the boxes and collects the rents, and we make a rental allowance to him for supplying us with accommodation.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the point. But I do not want it to go forth that the government are paying only $44,500 for rents. I think it is much larger. Take the city of Ottawa. You have $30,000 charged for rents. Is that a fixed rent liable to last a number of years, or are the leases affecting certain buildings on which the government pay rent liable to cease soon, and thus the rents be decreased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is likely to increase to meet the demands of the various departments for increased accommodation. I have refused in several cases, and tried to get along with the accommodation we have. In connection with the large immigration into Manitoba and the North-west, the business of the Department of the Interior has so increased that more place is urgently demanded to carry, it on. I would not like to say that I see any prospect of decreasing the amount of rent unless we put up a building of our own.


Andrew B. Ingram: The government should consider the advisability of erecting a building, because it is a well known fact that the high rate of rent paid to parties in Ottawa for the use of their buildings is altogether in excess of what it ought to be. Would it not pay the government much better to buy land and erect a building ? Even if that should cost more to begin with, it would be a source of economy in the long run. That item of rent, instead of decreasing, is liable to increase, and I think it would be a proper policy for the government to erect public buildings of its own. I judge from the remarks made before recess that the government are considering the advisability of erecting some building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: While I did not make any definite promise

before six o'clock, I promised to bring in a report before the close of tlie session as to what I thought should be done in this direction. It will cost a considerable sum of money, and it is wise that we should have an opportunity of carefully considering the plans, &c., before making any recommendation. I think it is a matter we must' deal with as quickly as possible.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If we are ever going to have the census completed, the building in which that work is being done might well be dispensed with. I have always thought it was a most extravagant rent for the government to pay, namely, $30,000, for some ten years for that plain building, four stories high, on Medcalfe street. I do not think that it is nearly all occupied, and surely. if the census is ever to be completed, we might save that $10,000 or $15,000 rent we have to pay on that building.


Peter Macdonald: This item was passed half an hour ago.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And I would draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Public Works has been answering the questions we have asked on the subject.


Peter Macdonald: I know it. But the question under discussion is ' Rideau Hall, $17,000.'


Haughton Lennox: Is the minister prepared to answer the question I asked with reference to the item paid twice ? At the same time, I might call attention to another item of the same class-the eighth item on page Y-114, two mats at $3.50 each, paid twice, $7, extended $14. It seems that there is some mismanagement in this affair. Apparently, the accounts have not been looked after carefully, when, on the same page we find in two places items which admittedly have been paid twice.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A careful audit showed that these amounts were included twice and the amount was refunded. I will have a memorandum from the accountant's branch giving full inforifia-tion of how this occurred.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) will have something to say with regard to this.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have always supported this item. I think my record is all right on this.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What kind of fuel do they burn there, Mr. Chairman ? This is a dreadful expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that some years ago-1 think during the incumbency of Lord Duff-erin-an arrangement was made with the
Governor, which has been continued ever since, that, instead of furnishing fuel aud light, the government was to make an allowance of $8,000. We pay that over to the Governor.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was not aware of that. This is a mere matter of book-keeping, then. As a matter of fact, His Excellency gets $8,000, and the amount is charged to heating and light.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was that sum allowed when the Postmaster General moved his memorable resolution to reduce the salary from $50,000 to $35,000 7 I am not aware whether the Minister of Public Works voted for the resolution or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Could the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) give me the date 7 According to my recollection, and to the information given to me now, this arrangement was made in Lord Dufferin's time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I remember the vote. I voted against the Postmaster General's resolution. I think it was in 1892 or 1S93.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This arrangement was made previous to that.


Richard Blain: When was this agreement entered into to pay this sum of $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During Lord Dufferin's time-twenty-five or thirty years ago.
Furniture-Dominion public buildings, $12,000.


George William Fowler: Is this to furnish new buildings the government is erecting outside 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for furniture for all the public buildings throughout the Dominion.


George William Fowler: Has it anything to do with the Ottawa public buildings 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. If the hon. gentleman cares to know how the amount is expended, I may give the summaries of expenditure for last year : Nova Scotia, $704 ; Prince Edward Island, $63 ; New Brunswick, $1,112 ; Quebec, $1,800 ; Ontario, $2,500 ; Manitoba, $847 ; North-west Territories, $423 ; British Columbia, $944. These expenditures are up to 1st January last, and make a total of $8,490.


Andrew B. Ingram: As there is a small balance on hand, is it the intention to pay some of the accounts that are outstanding 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should be sorry to know that there are amounts not paid. I am afraid that the departments, including the Department of Public Works are a little careless in paying accounts. This arises from the system of taking too small a vote and not having

enougli to pay for tlie services of the year. That I do not approve of-it is bad policy. If there is money to the credit of the account, I will pay outstanding amounts ; if not I will ask for a supplementary vote and pay them.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is a balance left unexpended ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There was on the first of January.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any since ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is probably a small amount.


Andrew B. Ingram: I should be glad to call attention to a small item or two that might be paid.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should like to know when the salary of Mr. John Frawley, caretaker of the Orillia public building commenced at $300 per annum ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) put that question when the item is under discussion under which that salary is paidV I will then give the information.


William Humphrey Bennett: Very well. The comment I wish to make is this-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) will excuse me, but we are soon to reach the appropriation out of which this salary is paid.


William Humphrey Bennett: Very well.


Robert Laird Borden: We have reached the foot of the page, and perhaps the hon. minister does not propose to go further.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are now at the general item No. 124. I think we had an understanding that so many nights having been passed on these votes, this one should be passed. This applies almost altogether to the Ottawa buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, many hon. members are absent, this being Friday night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 would be willing to reserve the right of any hon. gentleman to make any remarks he wishes regarding this, whether it passes or not. But there is no item here, so far as I know, that will not be included in the supplementary estimates for 1902-3. So, there will be the same opportunity for discussion that there is under these items. My hon. friend will notice that these items refer to the Dominion public buildings at Ottawa. But there are two or three items besides, upon which the discussion might be resumed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $67,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does this include fuel purchased by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it includes fuel for the buildings at Ottawa alone.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the cost last year ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS The votes for many years past have been taken in a very unsatisfactory manner, one year's expenditure running into another year's expenditure. But so far as I can ascertain from the department, it costs about $85,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This business administration will lose its reputation if it permits this condition of affairs to go on much longer, allowing the cost of one year to dove-tail into others.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a somewhat serious matter, and I would appeal to the members of the Committee on both sides to treat it as such. The system has existed for a great many years. This government is perhaps just as responsible for allowing the system to continue, as was the preceding government for initiating it, that Is, taking votes too small, and carrying the expenditure over into another year. I would like the assistance of hon. gentlemen on both sides in remedying this unsatisfactory condition of the accounts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the Committee rise now, and in the meantime the minister can give his attention to this serious matter, as lie admits it is. We have made substantial progress to-night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I appeal to the hon. gentleman to allow me to put this vote through.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We should have to get all the particulars of the prices paid for this coal, to whom paid, and how much was bought, and how much is owing to each person now. i


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This item might be allowed to go through, because there woud be abundant opportunity for discussion on other items. I want the fullest investigation made into these accounts by the officials of the department; but they must have time, and hon. gentlemen must remember that the officials are here from three o'clock in the afternoon till all hours of the night. I assure the leader of the opposition that this matter will come up again, and can be discussed, and full explanations will be given. There is nothing to be gained by letting this vote stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure we lmve uo desire to interfere with the operation of the department by keeping the officials here to an unreasonable hour at night. In view of the statement made by the minister that before the final disposition of the estimates he will bring down all this information, personally I have no objection to the item passing, i


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister could give us a good deal of this information now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was going to state to the House that I have conducted an investigation for a number of years, and I find that a special vote has not been taken to meet this item.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A regular slip-shod method.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Somewhat.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do we understand the hon. gentleman is going to bring down the amounts paid, and from whom the coal was bought ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am prepared to give that information now; for the present year. I find this system has been going on for a' number of years, taking a small vote and every year expending more than we have voted. There are two objections to that system. In the first place, we have not a clear knowledge of what we are expending for this purpose; secondly, we cannot do business in a satisfactory way without getting somewhat near a correct estimate of the vote that is required. The contract for the supply of coal for the present year was let to John Henay & Co. The prices were :	Furnace coal,
$6.45, egg coal. $0.50, stove coal, j$G.50, blacksmith coal, $6.


Andrew B. Ingram: In what season of the year were tenders asked for ? Because if you apply early In the year you are in a position to get your coal cheaper ; whereas if you wait till late in the season, it will cost more.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year the advertisements for coal were sent out in May ; this year the advertisements are out now. I do not think that it is necessary to make the contract earlier in the season than April or May.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this per ton of 2,000 pounds, or per long ton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Per ton of 2,000 pounds.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The price seems to be a pretty long price.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my bon. friend had the responsibility of furnishing the coal under the contract he
would not think so. I must say that the Ottawa contractor stuck to his contract, unlike dealers in other places in the Dominion and furnished the coal at the price at which he had agreed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The coal would be ordered in the summer, I presume.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know when it was ordered, but the contractor here has been delivering right along every week, or month, as it was required and is doing so yet at the price agreed upon.


Richard Blain: What quantity does he supply under the contract with the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Six thousand four hundred and twelve tons were called for under the contract.


Richard Blain: What system have you of weighing the coal ? Is it left in the hands of the company that sell it or do the government have an inspector ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is weighed on the government scales and checked by our own man.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There was some wood, was there not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, 276 cords of mixed hardwood at $4.75 a cord-very cheap.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. minister read the prices of the coal again ? It was all anthracite coal, I understand ?


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: All anthracite coal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there no bituminous coal used in the buildings at all ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend refers to the coal that is used in the grates. This grate coal costs $7.70 a ton. There is no bituminous or soft coal burned in the furnaces of this building ; that is all anthracite. We paid for grate or cannel coal $7.70 a ton.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And for the anthracite coal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Six dollars and forty-five cents per ton.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And there was another item of $6.50 a ton.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for 200 tons of egg coal ; soft coal, $6.50; blacksmith coal, $6. There were only twelve tons of that.


George William Fowler: Would the hon. gentleman tell us when the contract was made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In May last.


George William Fowler: May, 1901, or May, 1902.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: May, 1902.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is an outrageous price to pay at that season of the year. I got my own coal for that and I did not put in a thousand tons of coal the same as the government did. Did you call for tenders in Ottawa to supply the departments with coal, and if so, what was the lowest tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We called for tenders.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many tenders were received ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the names of the tenderers here, but six tenders were received last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And this was the lowest ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.	%


Andrew B. Ingram: I must say that the government is paying a pretty high price by contract for coal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We were fortunate in having a contractor who delivered the coal. I am sorry to say the tenders this year are much higher. We advertised in the public press for tenders. It is a nice large order, and I do not see why coal dealers in any part of the country should not put in tenders. My hon. friend is perhaps comparing the price we paid with the price at the place where there is a very much lower freight rate than there is to Ottawa. There is a very great difference in the freight rates between here and Toronto for instance ; that is from the anthracite field. We take only anthracite coal from Pennsylvania. If the hon. gentleman will compare the price we have paid with the prices of coal in other cities, he will see that it is a reasonable price.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am prepared to admit that if you made the contract in May, 1902, and did not have it delivered until December of that year, the prices are all right, if the contractor carried out his agreement. I know that many dealers did not carry out their agreements throughout the country generally. If he carried out his agreement and he was to deliver the coal during the summer months, comparing the price with that in other places, then, the price is high. Of course, I do not know what the freight rates are. I am only judging the price from that prevailing in my own locality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is understood that we are to get all this information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring down all the information when I ask for the balance of this vote in a very short time.
Ottawa public buildings, elevator attendants. $9,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What does this mean ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is to pay the cost of running the elevators in the public buildings at Ottawa-in this building, the east block, the west block, in the Langevin block and the census building. In the parliament building there are four elevator attendants, and they get $45 a month each. They are striking for higher pay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are not getting too much if they are only getting $45.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that; they have been bothering the life out of me. In the east and west blocks there are three elevator attendants, in the Langevin block one engineer, one fireman and six elevator attendants, and in the census building one elevator attendant.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many are there altogether ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifteen.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is an attendant in connection with the elevator service in the Seybold block. What did it cost to Install the elevator there ? Is it an electric elevator ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the department put in an elevator at a cost of about $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: That gives us rather a shock. I did not find that in the other expenditures, and it will be a tribute to the department over which the hon. gentleman presides, that not only have they installed a hot water service, but that they have put in an elevator service for the owner of the building. Certainly this is a business administration.
Ottawa public buildings, gas and electric light, including roads and bridges, $24,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: After looking into this item I think that this sum of $24,000 will cover the lighting.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the cost of maintenance of the Ottawa public buildings must be more than $200,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The $125,000 was for installation and work in connection with ventilation and lighting; for materials used and work done.


Robert Laird Borden: But still one is rather staggered at the aggregate of all these amounts. Leaving Rideau Hall out of the question I see the following items here :	$125,000, $67,000, $9,000, $24,000.
$7,000, $8,000, $5,500. There is nearly a quarter of a million dollars which seems to be pretty large for the mere upkeep of these buildings.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since I came to the department I have been

making every possible investigation with a view of finding out how the money was expended. X am anxious to make a saving if I can, and X wish the House to have full information as to the actual cost.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the actual cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this particular item this will cover the cost.
6; Secretary of State, 5; Senate, 4; Trade and Commerce, o. Total, 223.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the minister's own department there are thirty-eight telephones. Are they working overtime or how do you come to have so many ? I cannot expect the minister to be familiar with the location of the telephones in the other departments, but perhaps he could tell us where the thirty-eight telephones in his department are located.
Ottawa public buildings, telephone service, 57,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know whether room sixteen has a telephone or not, but I think room six should have a telephone.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no telephone in room sixteen; some think it is necessary but I do not think it is.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is a telephone in the Liberal whip's room, but there is no telephone in the Conservative whip's room.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When I had the honour of being whip along with the present occupant on the other side of the House, we always applied mutually for any advantage and I was not aware until this present moment that there was not the same privilege given to the opposition whip as to the government whip. So far as this House is concerned a grant to one party should be equally given to the other.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the chief whip of the opposition desires a telephone and the government whip has one I certainly shall feel it my duty to grant the request.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many telephones are in use in these buildings.
. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. We have 223 telephones in connection with the departmental and parliament buildings.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I appeal to the minister if that is not an enormous number. Why, if you had one in every room I don't think that there are 223 rooms in all the buildings. Are there any outside ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The following is the number of telephones : Department of Agriculture, 14; Auditor General, 3; Customs, 5; Dominion Police, 8; Finance Department, 3; Government House, C; Geological Survey, 3; House of Commons, 34; Indian Affairs. 3; Inland Revenue, 9; Department of Interior, 39; Department of Justice. 1G; Department of Labour, 1; Mounted Police, 3; Militia and Defence, 20; Marine and Fisheries, 8; Ottawa River Works. 3; Post Office, 8; Printing Bureau, 5; Parliamentary Library, 4; Privy Council, 30; Public Works. 38; Railways and Canals,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not made myself familiar with them, but I have been looking into the matter somewhat.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think it would bear investigation.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it not a fact that many of these telephones are in the private houses of the officers of the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would apply to the ministers and deputy ministers and to the chief officers.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the Privy Council Department not only has the minister's secretary got a telephone in his house, but the assistant to the secretary has one as well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In a growing department like the Department of Labour there is only one telephone and in the important Department of Finance there are only three, and they seem to get along with that number. It seems unreasonable that we should have thirty-eight telephones in one department. It appears to me that it requires some explanation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the Department of Labour there is one telephone and one chief officer, but the bon. member will admit that in the Public Works Department it is reasonable to expect that the deputy minister, the chief architect, the chief engineer and the engineers in charge of outside work should have telephones. I shall look into the whole matter. In fact the list is on my desk now and under consideration to see if there can be a saving made, but I cannot promise a saving because I do not know what the conditions are.


James Clancy: Out of the total of 223 telephones how many are in the public buildings and how many outside.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are 13S inside and eighty-five outside. It does not necessarily follow that they are in dwellings, but they are outside of these grounds. I will bring down a full list, so thnt the hon. gentleman may see them for himself. I may mention an application which I had to-day. We fitted up the third floor of the House of Commons. A great many members attend the Railway Com-

inittee on that floor from eleven to one; and it was represented to me that it would be a great advantage to the gentlemen, I think on both sides of the House, occupying the rooms on that floor, to have a telephone. I do not see how the minister can refuse that request. Some of these telephones are sessional.


James Clancy: I was not aware that gentlemen having rooms for their private convenience were asking for telephones. I was not aware that there were rooms for gentlemen belonging to both sides of the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. I said that we fitted up these rooms, that they were occupied by gentlemen on both sides of the House, and that they applied for a telephone. However, that will come up when I submit the list.
Ottawa public buildings-grounds, $8,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that for the maintenance of these grounds ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are they maintained by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day labour. We have a foreman in charge.
Major's Hill park, $5,500.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase here of $1,000. Wliat is the reason of that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The increase has been asked for because it was found that the amount previously voted did not meet the expenditure. There has been a new building erected there, and perhaps the park is kept up better than it used to be. Half of the salary of the superintendent is charged to this account, $720 ; there are two gardeners at $40 a month, and seven labourers at $35 a month, for nine months ; new plants, seeds, water system, manure and contingencies : making up the $5,500. 1 do not see very well how the park and the buildings cau be maintained in the state they are in now at much less cost. I have looked over this item, and I think it desirable, while we have charge of the park, that it should be kept up in as good a state as at present ; and we ask this amount rather than overdraw the account.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think that is the proper policy, and it does not appear that the gardeners and labourers are paid too much ; their salaries are very small. If there has not been sufficient money voted, where do you get the money to pay these accounts, or do you have to stand off the men until the money is voted by parliament ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the usual way, and it is a very poor principle.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman get Treasury Board orders ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.
Salaries of engineers, firemen, caretakers, &e., Dominion public buildings, $99,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works when the salary of John Frawley, caretaker of the public building at Orillia, commenced at $300 per annum ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman let me take a rnein-I orandum of that and give him the information on Monday? I have not the information here.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I will ask the hon. gentleman another question : Does he propose to pay to John Frawley $300 next vear as the caretaker of that building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is he a new appointment ?


William Humphrey Bennett: He lias been there a year or so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter has not been brought to my attention before.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no fault to find with the payment of the salary ; but I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the whole matter of the caretaker of the Orillia public building. A man named Baskerville was appointed by the late government, about 1893 or 1894, to perform the duties of that office, I think at the same salary of $300 per annum. There was a by-election in East Simcoe in 1S97, when the Postmaster General came into the riding and camped there with his camp followers ; and, smarting bitterly under the defeat administered to him by the electors of that riding, that hon. gentleman came down here bound to revenge himself on any person and every person who had assisted to bring about that defeat. It was shown to him that there was a caretaker in the Orillia public building who, in all probability, having been a Conservative, had voted for me ; and forthwith his decapitation was proceeded with. It was utterly impossible to show that the man had not discharged the duties of his office well, or that he had in any way interfered in the election beyond the exercise of his franchise as a free man. What happened ? He got peremptory orders that he was to vacate the building. When the matter was brought up here in the House of Commons, the then Minister of Public Works informed the House, as the debate at that time will show, that he had decided on a new line of policy in regard to the Orillia public build-

ing In accordance with the wish of one of his colleagues ; and the line of policy that he pursued was this, that the caretaker's services were to be dispensed with, and for the future the postmaster of the town would have charge of the building. That was simply a means to an end. Though it was utterly impossible to formulate against the man a charge of inefficiency or of having interfered in the election, he was thrown out by the Postmaster General's instructions- because he was the minister who had charge of that district, and to whom the then Minister of Public Works referred in very plain terms as the colleague whose instructions he was endeavouring to carry out. A little later, this Mr. Frawley-and I have nothing to say derogatory of him, because I believe he discharges his duty all right-was installed. And in order to give a little appearance of decency to an intolerably indecent transaction, he was kept down there for a limited time at the small salary of ?10 a month. But when the hon. gentleman thought sufficient time had elapsed to work out his little scheme, without too great a shock to the public, Frawley was given the same salary as that paid the former occupant, Mr. Baskerville. If ever there was a miserable display of party spitefulness, it was this. Smarting under the defeat which he had met in the riding, he took this roundabout way to gratify his little vindictiveness and put this man out of his position. But this man is still alive and recording good Conservative votes in East Simcoe, and the minister's treatment of him will stand as a disgraceful monument of party spite and mean vindictiveness.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The observations of the hon. gentleman from East Simcoe, so far as I have any recollection of the matter, are utterly without foundation.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would simply ask the hon. minister whether it is not the case that he was in that riding and conducted a campaign and that he came back smarting under defeat, and that the man whom he appointed to fill the office formerly held by Baskerville is receiving the same salary as Baskerville was paid. When I remonstrated with the hon. Minister of Public Works at the time in his own office, he asked me not to blame him, that it was too small a transaction for him to take in hand, but that orders had been given him from another quarter. That quarter I knew, however, was the quarter occupied by the Postmaster General himself.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is hardly necessary for me to repeat my contradiction. I have no recollection of ever hearing of the existence of the man to whom the hon. gentleman refers. I do not think that the circumstance ever occurred such as the hon. gentleman describes of my
having been a party to turning this man out of office. I do not think I ever heard of his existence before to-night.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. the Postmaster General if, when dismissals are made throughout the country, as mauy have been, without any charge having been preferred, these dismissals are made with his knowledge or do his officers take it upon themselves to make them. 1 would like to know from the hon. gentleman whether in all cases these dismissals are made) with his knowledge and approval. I am now speaking more particularly of cases where no charges were preferred, and the man was simply told that his services would cease on a certain day and some person be appointed in his place.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is the hon. gentleman alluding to postmasters ?


James Clancy: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Witli regard to postmasters, it is my duty to know of every dismissal or removal from office. I have no doubt that I authorized every such transaction ; but whether I did or not, I assume the full responsibility. Occasionally, one of my colleagues has been acting In my absence, but I presume he would only do what I would have done myself if present. It may be assumed that I have authorized every removal which has taken place.


James Clancy: I am very glad that the Committee and the country should know the position which the hon. minister takes. But I fear he would scarcely stand on a crossroad in this country, and make the denial he has made to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). I know nothing about the particular case to which the hon. member for East Simcoe referred, but I know of other cases so small and so mean that I hesitated coming to the conclusion that the hon. minister had any knowledge of them. He says now that he has knowledge, or even if he has not, he takes full responsibility. Well, I know of many cases where men were receiving small salaries and were simply told to go. No complaint was made against them, their public service was good, but some persons conspired to turn them out and the minister dismissed them. The country will be shocked at the hon. gentleman's statement to-night. He takes full responsibility of these dismissals from one end of Canada to the other and then makes the most flat denial of a case of dismissal which occurred in East Simcoe.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend asked me about post offices, and the case in East Simcoe was that of the caretaker of a public building. I take full responsibility for every removal from a post office. If the hon. gentleman desired to be fair with me, he would give me the cases

to which he refers and discuss each case on its merits. He would then be able to judge whether I was warranted or not in the course I took I am prepared to justify every removal of a postmaster that has taken place. I think the hon. gentleman will find that I have protected the postmasters. He will find that his remarks will not have the sympathy of the Conservative postmasters, and that I have made very few chnuges in the vast army of postmasters who were in office when I took charge of the department.


James Clancy: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I intend drawing his attention to some cases concerning which I have the correspondence and which will bear out the statement I make to-night. The hon. gentleman has told us that the Conservatives have been very well treated because he has permitted them to occupy their positions. That is the substance of what he has said.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is the return I get for treating them well.


James Clancy: All that the Postmaster has the right to demand of any postmaster, whether Liberal or Conservative, is a fair, and honest service, and if a postmaster, who has given this service is permitted to retain his position, he is simply getting just treatment. If any postmaster whether Liberal or Conservative is not doing his duty fairly, he should lose his office. But so long as he does his duty, he should not be discharged, and I do not see that the hon. minister is entitled to any particular credit for not having discharged such a man. He has told us that Conservative postmasters will say he has treated them well. Has he given them exceptional 'treatment ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In many cases I have stood by them when I would be quite as well warranted in removing them from office. I have always given them the benefit of any doubt. I have always favoured the postmasters in office. I would like the hon. gentleman to inform me of any particular cases in which he thinks injustice has been done. The removals have been very few indeed. In the western provinces, the removals have been infinitesimal, and that I presume is the section of the country to which the hon. gentleman refers. There have been grounds for removal that were in my discretion ; and I think I have in all cases leaned to the side of those who were in office. My hon. friend has a neighbour who has had some experience of my practice.


George William Fowler: Do I understand that the Postmaster General is prepared to discuss now the removals he has made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When the proper time comes-not now.


William Mulock: 


George William Fowler: We will discuss it when the time comes.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I have been referred to, and as I desire to do what is fair by both sides in the discussion that has arisen,
I may say that my brother is postmaster in St. Thomas, he was suspended and a thorough investigation took place. He was reinstated and paid his full salary while out of office. I think the Postmaster General was fully satisfied that the complaint was not warranted, and for that reason he reinstated him.' I think the Postmaster General did justice, and I am prepared to give him credit for doing justice after investigation. Also the postmaster of the city of Windsor was suspended. I do not know the details of the investigation, but I know that the result was that the postmaster was reinstated. Of course, I know that, when the government came into power in 1890, by a ruling they made, certain persons who were appointed to office within a certain period previous to the change of government were dismissed. In the town of Aylmer, in my own constituency, Mr. D. H. L. Price was appointed by the Conservatives as postmaster. He served several months under this administration, then he was dismissed and another put in his place. No fault was. found with him, but the reason for his dismissal was the ruling which had been made, providing for the dismissal of those appointed within a certain time of the Liberals coming into office. These are the facts, and I state them candidly.


William Humphrey Bennett: On the 24th April, 1899,
I asked the question :
1.	Who is the caretaker of the public building at Orillia ?
2.	When was he appointed ?
3.	Upon whose recommendation ?
4.	What salary is paid to him ?
The Minister of Public Works of that time answered the questions as follows :
1.	John Frawley. 2. Fourth November, 1898.
3.	Frawley was the man employed by the former postmaster who was at the same time caretaker, to do the cleaning of the building. It was found that he performed his work very satisfactorily, and that was the reason why he was appointed caretaker. 4. $15 per month.
Now, every word in that bears out the statement I made a little while ago, that after the dismissal of Baskerville, who was the former occupant, the work devolving upon the postmaster, the Minister of Public Works appointed Frawley as caretaker at $15 a month. My recollection was that it was $10. No man of common sense will believe that the then Minister of Public Works had any animus against this man Baskerville, and I challenge the Postmaster General to show that there is in the Department of Public Works any complaint against him for having been derelict in the discharge of his duties. And I here say, and say without reservation, that the report

of the debates will show that the Minister of Public Works, when endeavouring to explain why he had dismissed Baskerville, plainly intimated that it was by reason of political pressure brought upon him by a colleague. The Postmaster General will not deny that he was in that riding-as he had a perfect right to be, and as I have no doubt lie will be again. Every one knows that each minister has a certain portion of the country of which he takes charge for campaign purposes, and these constituencies are in charge of the Postmaster General. 1 leave it to any man of sense on the other side to say whether it was vindictiveness and spitefulness on the part of the Postmaster General that brought about that dismissal of Baskerville, or whether it wa s because the then Minister of Public Works sitting in his office, knowing nothing about the matter, made up his mind, for the reasons for which nobody can divine, that Baskerville ought to be decapitated. I shall place the statement of the Postmaster General before the people of Orillia, and I do not think they will have a very high regard for his veracity.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the appointment of caretaker for the town of St. Thomas public building been made yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


George William Fowler: There is an increase in tliis item of $10,000. Why is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The department is taking over the caretaking of post office buildings of Montreal and Toronto, 'and it also has six new buildings to. take charge of during the coming year.


George William Fowler: How was the caretaking for Toronto and Montreal paid for before V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe the caretaking was very unsatisfactory. It was done by the Post Office Department. We are in a better position probably to look after that sort of thing, having the clerks of works, who will hire the men and have the work done properly. Great complaints were made that the offices were not properly cared for.


George William Fowler: By how much will that reduce the expenses of the Post Office Department ? The Postmaster General has been boasting of a surplus. He started with a surplus, but came out with a pretty heavy deficit before he got through with the Auditor General's Department and the Finance Department. His Newmarket story is pretty threadbare. How much would this reduce his expenditure 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know exactly-a few hundred dollars.


George William Fowler: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) knows that the vote has not been increased in accordance with the service. There were sixteen new buildings added to the list last year, and this year there were six. I am not prepared to say what the saving would be to the post office department in our taking over Montreal and Toronto. The complaint of the officials was, apparently, that the work was not done at all. Perhaps my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) can speak about that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was going to ask the hon. minister if there were any complaints on file. I never heard of any complaints of dereliction of duty on the part of the caretakers. Have the officials complained ?


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there was a letter written by the post office inspector regarding the state of the building


Edward Frederick Clarke: That letter will be brought 'down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who was the post office inspector who complained ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I don't remember now. It was done at the request of the department, on the complaint that he was not keeping the post office in a proper state.


George William Fowler: I want to understand this thing. I understand the minister to say that a saving to the post office of about $200 was effected by the change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


George William Fowler: Then how much could be saved by transferring this expenditure to the Public Works Department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not prepared to say just how much it will cost to keep the post offices at Montreal and Toronto in a proper condition, perhaps a few hundred dollars a year. Some labour will have to be employed, some charwomen. We are not taking these over for fun. Representations were made officially to the department of the necessity of assuming this charge.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not want to object to the change being made if it will result in economy. But must there be a new caretaker and more persons employed in this post office at Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some of these caretakers have been urgently requesting a little increase in salary. Many of them get less than $400. They complain bitterly that they cannot support themselves and their families on their present salary, and a small increase of $25 or $50 will be given to some who appear to be underpaid.


Andrew B. Ingram: The caretakers appear to have almost absolute control over the public buildings, and this remark applies to the departments of Inland Revenue, Post Office and Customs. I think the caretaker in each building should be subject to the orders of the head of his department. They should receive instructions to keep their places in proper condition. In our district we have found that the caretakers will not take their orders from their superior officers.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Monday, April 6, 1903.