1904-08-09

EXPORT OF LIVE STOCK TO UNITED STATES.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to bring to the attention of the government and the House a question which I have been endeavouring to have discussed with the Minister of Agriculture ; but, owing to his multiplicity of engagements, he has been unable to give any attention to it lately, and I desire to deal with it before the House closes. It is in reference to an application either for a refund or an indemnity on account of customs duties paid by one F. H. Page, of Mission, British Columbia, upon horses that were Mr. BRODER.
exported from Canada to the United States upon the strength of a circular sent out by the Department of Agriculture, giving information as to the class of stock that might be imported into that country free of duty. He was told that an understanding had been reached between the Canadian government and the government at Washington that it would be to the mutual advantage of both countries to allow thoroughbred stock to be imported into each free of duty. As he desired to send some thoroughbred horses into the United States, he made inquiry as to what the regulations were, and he was sent the following circular :



EXPORTING PURE BRED STOCK TO THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Breeders of pure bred stock, desirous of sending animals to the United States, frequently write me for information in regard to the regulations governing the importation of Canadian stock into that country. For the benefit of such breeders the following summary of these regulations is given :-
1.	All animals imported into the United States from Canada must be accompanied by an affidavit made by thw owner or importer declaring clearly the purpose for which said animals are imported, viz.:-whether for breeding purposes, for milk production, for work, grazing, feeding or slaughter, whether they form part of settler's effects, or whether they are horses entered for temporary stay as provided by the regulations. Said affidavit must be presented to the collector of customs at the port of entry, who will decide whether the animals are entitled to entry under these regulations, and who will notify the inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry in all cases where the regulations require an inspection to be made.
2.	Horses-Horses for breeding, racing, show and sale purposes, for grazing or for work, must be inspected at the port of entry.
3.	Cattle-Cattle for breeding purposes, milk production, grazing or feeding must be inspected, and must be accompanied by a certificate signed by a Canadian official veterinarian, stating that no contagious disease affecting cattle, excepting tuberculosis and actinomycosis, has existed in the district in which the cattle have been kept for six months prior to the-date of importation. The owner must present an affidavit that said certificate refers to the animals in question. [DOT]
4.	A certificate for cattle over six months old for breeding purposes and for milch cows must also show that they have been submitted to the tuberculin test, and found free from tuberculosis, giving the date of testing, with a chart of reaction, and a description of the cattle with age and markings.
5.	Any animals may be required to be, inspected at ' the port of entry, and any animal showing symptoms of tuberculosis may be subjected to the tuberculin test, upon instructions from the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry.
Sheep.-All sheep imported into the United States for breeding, grazing and feeding must be inspected and must be accompanied by a cer-tfficate signed by a Canadian official veterinarian, stating that no contagious disease affecting sheep has existed in the district in which the animals have been kept for six months prior to the date of importation. The owner or

importer must also present an affidavit that the said certificate refers to the animals in question.
7.	Swine.-All swine imported for breeding purposes, grazing or feeding shall be accompanied by an official veterinary certificate, stating that no contagious disease affecting swine has existed in the district in which the swine have been kept for six months preceding the date of importation, and the owner or importer must present an affidavit that said certificate applies to the animals in question.
8.	Quarantine.-All cattle, sheep and swine for breeding purposes, grazing or feeding, when not accompanied by the required affidavits and certificates, must be detained in quarantine for one week at the expense of the owner or importer, under the supervision of the inspector in charge. Animals found to he free from disease at the end of this time will be released.
9.	Transportation.-All cars used in the transportation of animals must be first thoroughly cleaned and then disinfected by whitewashing with a mixture of lime and carbolic acid before the animals are placed therein. Shippers must see that this is done before the animals are loaded, as unless these regulations are complied with the cars will not be admitted to the United States.
The regulations of the Treasury Department of the United States direct as follows
10.	Registration.-No animal for breeding purposes shall be admitted free of duty unless the importer furnishes a certificate of the record and pedigree in the form hereafter given, showing the animal to be pure bred and that it has been admitted to full registry in the American hook of record established for that breed, and that its sire and dam, and grand-sires and grand-dams were all recorded in a book of record established for the same breed. An affidavit by the owner, agent or importer that such animal is the identical animal described in the said certificate of record and pedigree, must be presented.
Unless the certificate of record and pedigree is produced the animal shall be considered dutiable. In case such certificate is not at hand at the time of the arrival of the animals, duties shall be estimated thereon and deposited, and the animals delivered to the importer, who may within ten days file a written stipulation with the collector to produce the requisite certificate within six months from the date of entry ; whereupon final liquidation of the entry will be suspended until the production of the certificate or the expiration of the six months, Upon the production of the certificate in due form within six moiths from the date of entry, the amount deposited shall be refunded.
Form of record and pedigree to be used for imported Animals :-
Pedigree.. ..			 Sire.
No			
		Dam.
		No. .
No		.. ..No		.... No. .
	Dam		
		Dam,
		No. .
Then follows the following certificate :
trolled by this Association for the breed	
Sgd
Dated at
Sec'y of
None of the Canadian stud, herd af flock books are recognized by the United States Government, and in order to secure free entry for breeding purposes, all animals must be registered in the American or European books of record.

[Stage Direction]
Live Stock Commissioner.
This Wias sent by F. W. Hodgson, representing the Department of Agriculture, to Mr. H. F. Page ; and Mr. Page, according to his own statement and the correspondence, seems to have accepted the allegations of the facts to be correct, and complied with all these requirements. He sent a consignment oif horses into the United States, expecting to have them accepted free of duty. But they were detained at the customs port, and he was obliged to deposit the duty, which he hoped to get hack. Then we have Mr. W. A. demons, secretary to the live stock commissioner, writing to Mr. Page in regard to it as follows :
Ottawa, March 26th.
Dear Sir,-Your favour of March 20th, also marked copy of ' The Ranch,' has been duly received. Mr. Hodson is absent from the office for. a few days. I am sure that he will take up this matter on his return and do what he can to assist you. It seems clear that you have a very decided cause for complaint against the United States customs authorities. Trouble of this sort frequently occurs in the case of customs officers not familiar with the laws regarding importation of pure bred breeding stock. Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. A. CLEMONS,
See. Live Stock Commissioner.
Then we have another from Mr. F. W. Hodson :
Ottawa, March 27th, 1902.
H. F. Page, Esq.
Mission, B. C.
Dear Sir,-On my return to the office, I find yours of the 20th inst., awaiting reply, I have forwarded your letter, together with the copy of ' The Ranch ' to the Secretary of the Department and have asked him to take the matter up officially. If you have furnished us with all particulars the American customs officials have exceeded their duty, and there should not he any difficulty in having the matter arranged for you.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. HODSON, Live Stock Commissioner.
Then on June 27th we have another from Mr. Hodson, as follows :
Ottawa, June 27th, 1902.
I hereby certify that the above is a correct
pedigree of	 No	 That this animal
is pure bred and has been duly registered in the	 which is the book of record con-
H. F. Page, Esq.,
Mission, B. C.
Dear Sir,-Yours of June 20th received and contents noted. The claim now made by the
[Stage Direction]
customs officer is most absurd. We are looking into the whole case very carefully, and will submit a history of it in detail to our Minister again, and will ask him to take the matter up. I am also writing the Hon. John Dryden, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, who is deeply interested in matters of this sort, and am asking him to co-operate with us. I am writing to each of the Agricultural Departments throughout Canada stating the facts of the case, and will send a letter to each of the Canadian newspapers, and to the ' Breeder's Gazette ' in Chicago dealing with the question.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. HODSON, ' Live Stock Commissioner.
Then we have another from Mr. Hod-son, dated Ottawa, July 28th, 1902 :
H. F. Page, Esq.,
Mission, B.C.
Dear Sir.-Please find inclosed a copy of two letters which I have Just received from the Hon. Mr. Dryden. I am doing all I can to help you and am bringing a great deal of influence to bear both in the United States and Canada, and have written over eight hundred persons and newspaper men in both places. I let you know this, not because I wish you to give me credit for the work, but to let you see that this department is not idle when the interests of Canadians are concerned. Mr. Fisher is also doing what he can, and we have made an appeal to the department at Washington, through the British Colonial Office as well as directly through this government. Mr. Sanders you will recognize as the editor and owner of the ' Breeders' Gazette,' Chicago, which paper you are no doubt acquainted with. He is probably the most influential live stock man in Canada or America. Mr. John Dryden is Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario, and a very prominent live stock man.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. HODSON, Live Stock Commissioner. Enc. copy of two letters.
We have following Mr. Dryden's letter addressed to Mr. Hodson :
Copy.
Toronto, July 14th, 1902.
Dear Hodson,-Referring to the difficulty with the Washington authorities about the introduction of pure bred animals into that territory, I would say that a similar ease was fought out some fifteen years ago. This was a case of horses, and the ruling at that time was definite that it was not necessary that the man who received them would be a breeder. It seems to me it would be worth while to hunt that up if possible.
I am writing Mr. Saunders, of the * Breeders' Gazette,' who has always been for freedom of trade in these matters. They would know as to the case.
Yours very tiuly,
(Sgd.) JOHN DRYDEN.
F. W. Hodson, Esq.,
Dom. Live Stock Commissioner, Ottawa.
It seems that the contention was set up by the Washington authorities that the man who received these horses must be a breed-Mr. SPROULE.
er and intended to use them for breeding purposes. Then we have the reply of Mr. Saunders, the editor of the ' Breeders' Gazette.' Mr. Dryden wrote Mr. Hodson :
I inclose a letter just received from Mr. Saunders, of the ' Breeders' .Gazette,' which will explain itself. You will see the strong ground he takes, and I assume the matter will be arranged in that direction..
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) JOHN DRYDEN.
Mr. Saunders' letter is as follows :
Chicago, July 18th, 1902.
Hon. John Dryden,
Toronto.
Dear Mr. Dryden,-I have yours of the 14th and note contents. I cannot imagine how any United States' collector could make such a ruling as that mentioned in the face of the practice of the Department for so many years. I do not imagine there can be any overturning of the prevailing interpretation of the Act. However X will write a personal letter to Secretary Wilson and endeavour to ascertain what it is.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) A. H. SANDERS.
Then we have another from Mr. Hodson regarding the correspondence addressed to H. F. Page, Ottawa, August 25th :
H. F. Page,
Mission, B. C.
My dear ^ Sir,-The copy of correspondence which you sent me is rather startling. This looks to me more like a hold up than anything I have ever seen, howevei*, I may be mistaken. I have forwarded your correspondence to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who is a lawyer and have asked him to look into the matter and write you at once. I see no reason why the entire $1,000 should not be returned to you. We are making it an international question.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. HODSON.
Live Stock Commissioner.
There is another from Mr. Hodson, drawing his attention to a letter received from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, as follows :
H F. Page,
Mission, B. C.
Dear Mr. Page,-Please find inclosed a copy of a letter which I have to-day received from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. As soon as I hear from him again I will write you, probably Mr. O'Halloran will himself write you.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. HODSON,
Live Stock Commissioner.
This is the letter which he referred to from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture :
F. W. Hodson, Esq.,
Live Stock Commissioner,
Department of Agriculture.
Dear Mr. Hodson,-I have your letter of the 26th inst., inclosing some correspondence in connection with the claim of H. F. Page, Mission,

fi,
B. C., for tlie refund of the deposit made by him with the United States Customs authorities with entry for certain Pereheron horses which he was importing into the United States for breeding purposes, from which it appears that Mr. Page wishes your views as to the advisability of retaining a lawyer in New York to prosecute his claim.
From the minister's file in this matter, to which you refer me, I find that the Secretary of State here in June last made, on behalf of Mr. Page, a claim against the United States for a refund of this deposit which claim is still pending. I think it would be very unwise for Mr. Page to prosecute his claim through a lawyer while the claim made by the Secretary of State is pending.
I understand that the minister will be here to-morrow and I would like to retain your file until then to lay the matter before him.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) GEO. F. O'HALLORAN,
Dep. Minister of Agriculture.
The next is a letter to Mr. Hodson from Mr. O'Halloran, in which he says :
I have to-day seen the Under Secretary of State who promises to write the British Embassy to urge the American authorities to give an early decision on the claim made on Mr. Page's behalf by the Secretary of State.
There is a letter from Mr. Hodson which X need not read. Then there is another to Mr. Page from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture :
Deputy Minister's Office,
November 29th, 1902.
Sir,-In further reference to correspondence between you and this department regarding a claim made by you, against the United States government, for a refund of the deposit made by you with an entry of certain Pereheron horses into the United States, in October, 1901, I have to state that the Department of State here have urged the government authorities at Washington to take action in your case, but as yet no further communication in the matter has been received.
I inclose herewith extracts from the United States customs regulations bearing upon the entry of pure bred stock. I understand that in making entry you complied with the provisions of article 473 and 541.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) GEO. F. O'HALLORAN, Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
A. F. Page, Esq.,
Mission, B.C.
This is the memo, of the United States authorities :
Memo, re claim of H. F. Page, of Mission, B.C., for remission of duty paid by him to the United States customs for entry of Pereheron horses in October, 1901.
United States Customs Act of July 24th, 1897, item 220, reads : Horses and mules valued at $150 or less per head, $30 per head ; if valued at over $150, 25 per cent ad valorem.
Article 473 of United States customs regulations reads :
Any animal imported specially for breeding purposes shall be admitted free ; provided, that
no such animal shall be admitted free unless pure bred of a recognized breed, and duly registered in the book of record established for that breed ; and provided further, that certificates of such record and of the pedigree of such animal shall be produced and submitted to the customs officer duly authenticated by the proper custodian of such book of record, together with the affidavit of the owner, agent or importer that such animal is the identical animal described in said certificate of record, and pedigree ; and provided further, that the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine and certify to the Secretary of the Treasury what are recognized breeds and pure bred animals under the provisions of this paragraph. The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe such additional regulations as may be required for the strict enforcement of this provision.
Article 541 reads : No animal imported for breeding purposes shall be admitted free of duty unless the importer furnishes a certificate of the record and pedigree showing that the animal is pure bred and has been admitted to full registry in the book of record established for that breed, and that its sire and dam and grand sires and grand dams were all recorded in a book of record established for the same breed. An affidavit by the owner, agent or importer, that such animal is the identical animal described in said certificate of record and pedigree, must be presented.
Article 543 reads : In case such certificate is not at hand at the time of the arrival of the animals, duties should be estimated thereon and deposited, and the animals delivered to the importer, who may within ten days file a written stipulation with the collector to produce the requisite certificate within six months from date of entry, whereupon final liquidation of the entry will be suspended until the production of the certificate or the expiration of the six months. Upon the production of the requisite certificate in due form within six months from entry, the amount deposited shall be refunded as an excess of deposit. Certificate of pedigree should be returned to the importer and requisite copies be retained for the files of the custom house.
There is a letter from the Customs Department at Puget Sound :
Customs District of Puget Sound,
Sub-port of Sumas, Wash.,
Deputy Collector's Office,
December 30th, 1902.
H. F. Page, Esq.,
Mission, B.C.
Dear Sir,-The decision of the general appraisers in answer to your protest against the liquidation of consumption entry No. 177K has been received at this office. You can see the same by calling at this office. The board holds that the horses were dutiable.
Respectfully,

[Stage Direction]
Deputy Collector.
There is another letter from W. H. Bogle to H. F. Page :
Seattle, Wash., January 6th,1903. Mr. H. F. Page,
Mission Junction, B.C.
Dear Sir,-I have just received a report from Mr. Gibson, in New York, informing me that the board of the United States General Treas-
[Stage Direction]
urers, have decided to protest against you. I inclose you Mr. Gihson's letter to Dow. Since then I have seen the opinion rendered by the board, reported in the Treasury decisions. They hold broadly that animals cannot be imported for breeding purposes so as to be tree of duty except by the man who intends to use them for that purpose. If they are imported for sale to breeders, they are subject to duty.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
In answer to that I have before me a copy of the ' Breeders' Gazette,' giving a notice of the pure bred animals sent into the United States by the W. C. Edwards Company, of Rockland, Hon. M. H. Cochrane, Hillhurst, and Hon. John Dryden, Brooklyn, all for the purpose of being sold at public auction, with a cut of one of the animals Lady Clara, and giving an account of the sale'that took place by public auction. So it cannot be contended that the purchasers purchased them in Canada and imported them for breeding purposes ; the animals were exported to Chicago directly by the breeders in Canada and sold by auction as pure bred animals. No question was raised whether the purchasers intended to use them for breeding purposes or otherwise. So, this shows that Mr. Page complied strictly with the provisions of the law, and that the contention against him could not be justified if it was looked into. Then X have another letter from Mr. O'Halloran, Deputy Minister of Agriculture to Mr. Page stating, that:
His Excellency the Governor General has been advised from Washington that the board of general appraisers have been requested by the Secretary of the Treasury to give attention to your case, and a prompt reply is anticipated, which will be transmitted without delay through His Majesty's ambassador at Washington, to His Excellency here.
There is another communication from Mr. O'Halloran, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in which the writer says :
Referring to your claim against the United States government for a refund of duty made on entry of Percheron horses in October, 1901, concerning which I wrote you on the 10th instant, I am now able to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General has received a despatch from His Majesty's ambassador at Washington to the effect that the board of appraisers have sustained the action of the collector of customs of Sumas, and that, therefore, your claim cannot be entertained.
The board of appraisers have held that in view of your own statements of the advertisements of your horses for sale before they went into the United States, and of your immediate sale there of some of them, they could not be regarded as having been imported specially for breeding purposes, but as having been imported for the purpose of sale. The fact that they were pure bred horses could not affect the purpose for which they were imported, nor the intent of the importer. It was held to he immaterial whether you intended that the purchasers of your horses should use them for breeding Mr. SPROULE.
purposes or for other purposes ; it was held that you had not intended them for that purpose, but for sale.
I have already drawn attention to the fact that these other cattle were advertised in the United States before they were sent from Canada to be sold by public auction in Chicago. Mr. Page did the same thing, advertising the horses as thoroughbred Percheron horses to be sold for breeding purposes, and be did sell them for breeding purposes, but now, it is held that be is not entitled to a rebate of duty.
Now, I have a letter from Messrs. Eicher & Wilson, who control the celebrated stock paper in Iowa, addressed to Mr. Page :
Washington, Iowa, March 2nd, 1903.
H. F. Page, Mission City, B.C.,
Dear Sir,-We have your favour of February 20th, and are under obligation to you for the courteous treatment we have received at your hands.
The ' Breeders' Gazette ' had not exposed this matter because its management know nothing about the pendency of the case. Mr. A. H. Sanders was with me when I "was handed by the custom house officers the opinion of the hoard of appraisers and it was as much of a surprise to him as it was to me. Instead of the ' Gazette ' neglecting its duty, it occurs to me you should have advised the ' Gazette ' and it would have been a favour to the * Gazette ' to have heard from you. We do not think that any of our members knew of the pendency of your action until the decision was announced by the board.
We felt then the construction by the board of appraisers was wrong, and the law as then formed did not contemplate the payment of duties on animals simply because they would be sold for breeding purposes. We were so confident of it that we advised our society to pay no attention to congressional amendment.
As to this congressional amendment, I may explain that there bad been other cases of a somewhat similar character and the parties interested bad applied to Congress to amend the law so that they could get the duty refunded.
-but simply provide for the appeal and speedy submission of this cause, and we made all arrangements with the different departments for such purpose and did not have the least idea that the importer or his attorney would object to the appeal of the case by us for such purpose.
We were surprised when Gibson changed his view and we met the obstacle in him, all of you fully understand by the correspondence that has passed between us. We then resorted to congressional relief which of course made it more expensive upon us. We did not have time to institute another action from the beginning before the hoard of appraisers and rely upon the hearing in the Circuit Court of New York. We were liable to he delayed a year there in the submission, so congressional relief, though more expensive, was the next best thing to the submission of your case. A Bill giving us the desired relief for the future has passed both

Houses of Congress and will become a law, but by amendments imposed upon the Bill during its passage, it operates only in favour of citizens of the United States and provides for the refund of duties that have been collected to such citizens. This congressional action within itself may not be sufficient to recover your money and the submission of your case may be required in the courts.
We still regret the result of our relations with Mr. Gibson mostly because we are so confident that the court would have given us the same relief and we could have had it over before this time with less trouble and expense, and have had an order for the refund of your money at the same time, but we could not depend Upon such a condition, as we sent parties personnally to see Mr. Gibson, in New York, and he flatly refused to permit us to take any action and said that it might be a year or more before he would want the case submitted.
Regretting that your case is not disposed of and thanking you for the courtesy of yourself individually in this matter, we are,
Respectfully yours,
EICHER & WILSON.
We have then the correspondence of Sir Charles Tupper on this subject with the Hon. Mr. Fielding, during the absence of the Minister of Agriculture in Japan. I need not read that correspondence, it practically goes over the same ground. Suffice it to say, that I have shown that at the present time Mr. rage has no redress. What are the grounds upon which they refused him redress? The grounds are, first, because these horses were not imported by citizens of the United States. In answer to that, I refer to the fact that the ' Breeders' Gazette,' of Chicago contains an account of the sale of pure bred animals sent by different parties whose names I have given, W. C. Edwards & Co., Cochrane <& Co. and other breeders in Canada, who sent their stock there, advertised for sale by public auction at a stock sale in Chicago, long before they went there. They were exported by Canadians for the purpose of sale, pure bred animals that were purchased by Americans without any agreement entered into by the seller and the buyer that they were for the improvement of stock or for breeding purposes ; and no objection was raised and no duty was paid on them. Therefore, on the same principle, we claim that Mr. H. F. Page, in sending a consignment of thoroughbred Percheron horses, pedigreed, registered and all, complied with all the requirements, and that he was entitled to a refund of that duty. It seems that nothing more has been done by the department since with the authorities at Washington, there is nothing in the correspondence that indicates that the question has been closed between the Canadian government and the department at Washington. Now what I respectfully submit is this, that Mr. Page was misled by the instructions sent out from the Department of Agriculture here by Mr. Hodson the stock commissioner, on which instructions Mr. Page acted in sending his stock into the United States, and in consequence of which he is mulcted in the sum of $1,075. If that is not refunded to him, I submit that this government should put an item in the estimates to recoup Mr. Page for the loss he has iDcurrred through information that was not correct, or at least, which misled him. I do not think that a member of this House would object to such a thing being done. He has been badly used, and he is helpless ; the representations to Washington of the Department of Agriculture, or the Canadian government, through the Governor General, have eventuated in nothing. The government. might take this case up and go into the courts of the United States to endeavour to secure a return of this money. If they failed in their representations to Washington to secure a refund of this money, I submit that they should put an item in the estimates to reimburse Mr. Page. I wish the government to remember that I do not bring this case up complaining at what the Department of Agriculture has done, or saying that they have done wrong, becaute-it seems to me they have made a commendable effort to get satisfaction ; but it seema to be oue of those cases that drag on from time to time until it is Anally dropped.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: My hon. friend had spoken tome about this matter, and I informed him that it has been gone into very carefully by the department, with the utmost sympathy for Mr. Page, but that the response which the government of Canada received from the United States through the ordinary channels of the imperial and colonial office, was such that we felt that it was useless to make any further representations to the authorities at Washington. The hon. gentleman's suggestion that parliament should vote a sum of money to reimburse Mr. Page has also been considered by us, although the question was not considered in any light of responsibility on the Department of Agriculture or of this government. I venture to think that the information supplied to Mr. Page by the department involved no responsibility on the part of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that. I merely put forth a claim in equity.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand that my hon. friend does not consider that he has any legal claim, it would be a matter more of grace than of law. But it is a question which might well be considered. The whole question turns on the interpretation by the United States of their own law. The information which was supplied to Mr. Page by an officer in my department was merely a recapitulation of their customs law upon the question as to the entry free of duty of thoroughbred stock. My hon. friend baa

quoted an article from the ' Breeders' Gazette ' of Chicago, which shows that that great live stock paper in Chicago had exactly the same Impression of the law of the United States that was given to Mr. Page, and that Mr. Page himself got from reading the extracts from the American law which were put before him. I do not wonder at it at all, because that interpretation had been the practice of the United States customs authorities for many years. The circumstances quoted by the ' Breeders' Gazette ' of the sale by Messrs. Edwards, Cochrane, Cargill and Flatt, I think it was, who sent over stock to the United States for sale, was exactly on all fours with this case of Mr. Page. It occurred only a little while before, and it was only one of many such instances. The United States authorities have always interpreted their own laws in that way, namely, that animals going into the United States intended eventually for breeding purposes should be allowed in free of duty when accompanied by proper certificates, and the question as to whether they might be sold before being used for breeding purposes, to parties in the United States, never seems to have been considered, or if it was considered, it was decided that there was no impediment to their coming in free of duty.
Mr. Page unfortunately met a customs officer who interpreted the law differently. He insisted on the payment of duty and the dispute was referred to the highest tribunal of the treasury at Washington. That tribunal decided that as these animals had come in for sale before they were to be used for breeding, the duty must be paid. That decision was a surprise not only to Mr. Page but to all American breeders and livestock owners. It was the first time the law was so interpreted. The decision, however, was one which could not be overcome except by appeal to the Supreme Court. If this case had been brought to the Supreme Court, it is quite possible that court would have reversed the decision ; but for reasons explained in the correspondence it was not taken to appeal. When we made representations to the United States, the reply was that the decision of the treasury could not be altered and that under the United States law no compensation could be given without a special vote of Congress and such a vote the department was not prepared to propose. They pointed out that an amendment had been made to the law but unfortunately that amendment only gives relief to the United States citizens. It was made at the instance of the United States citizens for their own benefit. The whole course of the United States administration has been of late years to put more and more obstacles in the way of such interchange. This amendment to their law is another Mr. FISHER.
instance of that policy. It is to the effect that if United States citizens import animals, these animals shall come in free of duty when thoroughbreds, even if for sale and not for breeding purposes, but it gives no relief to Mr. Page or any other Canadian breeder or citizen. The amendment even went so far as to provide that the duties to be paid by Americans should be refunded them. The course which the United States authorities have followed they have a perfect right to take, but it seems to me a short sighted and unfriendly legislation on the part of that great people. Under these circumstances I see no prospect of relief at all for Mr. Page from the United States. Mr. rage has suffered most unfairly, and I have the greatest sympathy for him. He acted in good faith on what he knew to be the interpretation by the Americans of the law up to that time. The only possible question which can now arise would be whether this parliament should grant him some compensation. That however, "would seem to me a little out of the course which we ought to pursue in dealing with public matters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a very exceptional case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly. I have no hesitation in saying that I would consider the matter very carefully and if my colleagues will agree I would not offer any objection to putting an item in the estimates. I consider that Mr. Page deserves the sympathy of every Canadian.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you not go further and recommend it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would recommend it as a matter of grace and favour to a man who was very unfairly and unjustly treated. At the same time as the instance occurred with regard to the government of a foreign country. it might be dangerous for us to establish a precedent of that kind by passing an item in the estimates. I can assure my hon. friend that the department and the government through the Secretary of State, made every representation possible to the Washington authorities. I would say further that had not the final reply of the Washington authorities been so very positive, I would have been glad to go on and press the matter, but there is a point at which the self-respect of the Canadian people must lead them to cease dealing with a foreign country when it shows no disposition to meet their views.



CLAIM OF MR. JOHN CAMPBELL.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: What has been done with regard to the Campbell matter, which I brought to the attention of the House some time ago ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have looked into the case and can see no reason -why we should pay any compensation to Mr. Campbell.



CANADIAN HORSES-IMPERIAL CON. NECTION.

[Stage Direction]
air. SAM. HUGHES. In the * Citizen ' of yesterday I find the following despatch from the Canadian Associated Press, of which therefore the Finance Minister will not deny the authenticity :
A parliamentary report issued by the War Office with reference to South Africa shows a forfeit of ten pounds per animal had to be paid on 1,685 horses bought in Hungary, three pounds on those secured in New Zealand, while in Canada the proceeds of a sale of 1,152 remounts bought at an average of $140 per head, amounted to no more than an average of $42.
We have frequently asked to have this matter investigated, but the minister has always refused. I would ask the Finance Minister whether there is any intention on the part of the government of having any inquiry ? I would also ask if it is the intention of the government to take any steps with regard to closer relations with the empire as a whole ? If I understand the sentiment of all nationalities in the Dominion, the vast majority of the people of all parties are of the opinion that the time is now ripe, so far as Canada is concerned, for closer relations. I believe that the people of the outlying parts of the empire would heartily accept any proposition looking towards a full partnership in the concerns of Greater Britain-Great Britain could retain her own parliament, Canada her own, Australia hers, New Zealand hers, and South Africa hers, with certain arrangements for the Crown colonies. It would be a simple thing for the genius of the empire to provide a greater Britain parliament in which in matters relating to international and interimperial affairs, the army and navy, the consular and ambassadorial service, the colonies would have an equal voice with the mother country. The excellent speech delivered by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais) shows that public sentiment is ripe to bring about such a condition of affairs that Canadians should become full partners in the upbuilding of the empire. I intended bringing the matter up some time ago, but as I will not have any other opportunity I would ask the government now if they have any intention of giving an expression of opinion on this matter so as to strengthen the hands of Mr. Chamberlain and his friends in the coming contest in Great Britain ?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not bring the question up when the Prime Minister was present. I can only say that the views of the government on this matter have already been placed before the House,
and I do not think anything could be added to the statements that have already been made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-to increase the salaries of W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographic service, $100 ; J. F. Fraser, engineer and commissioner of lights, $200 ; B. H. Fraser, assistant chief engineer, $200 ; F. Anderson, assistant hydrographer, $250 ; notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $750.
To provide for the appointment of J. B. A. Boudreau as a first-class clerk and assistant accountant from July 1, 1904, in room of F. H. Cunningham transferred to the outside service, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,500 ; $2,250.
Mr. HAGGART.: What salary is Mr. Stewart receiving now ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 


John Graham Haggart: He is a graduate of the Royal Military College.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: He is a very good man.


Mr. BRODER.: In reference to this man Fraser I would ask what reason there was for moving the works which the department started at Morrisburg to Prescott.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was reported we had not sufficient room at Morrisburg and we had acquired property on very reasonable terms at Prescott.


Andrew Broder: There was no trouble in securing property at Morrisburg and you had already gone to considerable expense there.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. J. P. Fraser reported that the property at Prescott was far more suitable than that at Morrisburg, and that we had all the buildings and machinery and power necessary at Prescott and also a wharf.


John Graham Haggart: You have no power at Prescott and no wharf.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have steam power.


John Graham Haggart: Of course you can have that anywhere, but why did you not utilize the water-power on the canal at Morrisburg ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My officials were in favour of Prescott.


John Graham Haggart: That is no reason at, all. There is no possible advantage over Morrisburg in moving to Prescott.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We had the buildings and property at Prescott which we got at a very reasonable price as is vouched for by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid).


Andrew Broder: There was a property lying idle at Prescott and you paid $24,000 for it which would be considered a very high price for such a property. You have 100 men working there now improving the buildngs at a great expense. There must be some other reason for moving to Prescott, that has not come to light.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We had only 48 feet by 40 at Morrisburg while at Prescott [DOT]we had extensive grounds. The member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) stated in the House that we bought the Prescott property at half what we would have had to pay for it a year ago.


Andrew Broder: You would have no trouble acquiring property at Morrisburg because you could have bought at a very low price, the old saw-mill with its water-power belonging to the estate of the late Wm. Mackenzie. I do not understand why you ruhde the change.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The engineer persists in saying that even with this addition it will be too small.
Further amount required lor maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers, $75,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Owing to the increased number of steamers and expenses in connection with the service, the vote of $250,000 is inadequate to maintain this service. The vote is altogether for maintenance and supplies, but no provision is made for repairs and accidents to the steamships during the year. For instance, last autumn the steamship ' Lady Laurier ' stranded while going into the port of Lockeport, Nova Scotia. This vessel had to be immediately repaired at the dry-dock in Halifax at a cost of $40,000. A large portion of this sum had to be taken from the vote for maintenance, the consequence being that in the month of May the vote was completely exhausted, the wages of all the crew had to be held over and accounts for supplies also held. A sum of $30,000 has been placed in the supplementary estimates for 1903-1904 to cover part of the cost of repairs to the ' Lady Laurier ' but the outfitting of the steamers and necessary repairs to machinery to fit them for the spring work also have to be paid. The steamers now being built, particularly the ice breaker, for the St. Lawrence river, will be expensive to maintain and equal, if not more than equal, that of the ' Minto ' which is $45,000. It was was intended to increase the Dominion steamers vote by $125,000, but, owing to the estimates being large the amount has been cut down to $75,000


Mr. MACKINNON.: I would like to ask the minister whether the Marconi wireless system is used on these steamers, whether U is a success, and whether the minister intends to extend it throughout Canada ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is the intention to install the system on the ' Minto ' and the ' Stanley.' It is also intended to establish stations at Charlottetown and at Pictou, in order that, if communication should be interrupted in the winter, the island would not be entirely at the mercy of the Anglo-American Cable Company. We intend also to establish a station at Cape Ray in Newfoundland.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government considered the question or done anything in the direction of providing a steamer for ice breaking purposes on the Georgian bay or Lake Superior ? It is the impression of a great many people that by the employment of ice breakers, navigation on Lake Superior eould be kept open all winter and the season of navigation on the Georgian bay could be extended for a couple of months in the year. If that could be done, it would be a matter of great importance. In Russia, we find that ice breakers can break ice 12 feet or even 16 or 18 feet thick.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman. The whole question has been studied by my officials, and Mr. Cowie, the engineer in charge of the ship channel of the St. Lawrence, has reported in favour of establishing a service of ice breakers on that river, The first trial will be made at Cap Rouge, which is a most important point, about twenty miles above Quebec. It appears that there is a kind of gorge there, where the ice bridge forms about the end of January, and prevents the channel being opened early in the spring. Considering the demands that have been made, and that we required a boat to replace the ' Aberdeen,' which is doing the buoy service between Quebec and the Gulf, the government decided to order a 'boat which would combine the qualities of an ice breaker and a lighthouse boat. If the experiment proves successful-and I think from the report of my engineers that it will be-we intend' to apply the same system to the lakes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that must necessarily result in a year or two of delay before we can ascertain what could be done on Lake Superior.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: After duly considering the matter, we gave a contract to the firm of Fleming & Ferguson, of Paisley, who were the only parties ready to contract to deliver a boat by the 15th November next. So that the trial will take place this fall, and there will be no delay whatever in supplying the necessary aids for navigation on the lakes, if this proves successful.


Mr. BLAIN.: What has been expended to date on the Marconi telegraphic system ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There has been scarcely any money spent by the Depart-

ment of Marine, because the company are obliged to prove the efficiency of their system before it is adopted. The Marconi Company have begun to install stations for which money was provided during the last fiscal year. They have thus far installed -two stations-at Heath Point and Point Fame. The station has been inspected by the telegraphic superintendent of the government, employed in the Public Works Department. Although he has telegraphed to the department that the installation is perfectly satisfactory, I have not yet his report in writing. Until it proves perfectly satisfactory, we pay nothing except the expenses incurred in transporting the material required for the installation. I may say that perfect communication for seventy-five miles has been established.


Richard Blain: When these two stations are completed, what amount of money will the department pay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will pay $5,000 per station.


Mr. FOWLER.: Has the $80,000 which was voted for the* installation of the Marconi system at Glace Bay for a trans-Atlantic service been paid ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The company claim that they have passed signals across the Atlantic, but it has not yet proved to be a commercial success. I visited the station some months ago, and they assured me that they were exchanging signals with Great Britain dally ; but the system had not far enough advanced to be applied to commercial purposes.


George William Fowler: I understand there is some difficulty about getting communication from 'the other side.


William Stevens Fielding: The power at one end is greater than the other and they propose to equalize that.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: At present they are in constant communication with ships leaving this side until they reach the other side. The ships crossing the Atlantic .keep in constant touch with the station on this side.
To provide for a steamer to replace the ' Aberdeen ' to be constructed as an ice breaker for the River St. Lawrence, $300,000.
To provide for the construction of a steamer for winter and summer navigation, Quebec, $125,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This will provide winter navigation between Quebec on the north shore and the gulf and also will provide a service between RiviSre Ouelle and Murray bay. There is a ferry between those two points now provided by the Marine Department, because the company, which had the subsidy last year, refused to continue the service with a proper boat.


John Graham Haggart: This is a new item and the government are doing what ought to be done by private enterprise.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The boat is required for winter navigation.


John Graham Haggart: You have a vote for that purpose immediately preceding. This is an excuse for the purpose of providing what private enterprise ought to do-a line of steamers down the St. Lawrence.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The first steamer could not do that service. She has to remain all around Quebec and draws too much water, but this other one will solve the problem of winter navigation to the ports below Quebec.


John Graham Haggart: I cannot understand why you should establish a ferry to Riviere Ouelle. You are doing there what in every other part of the Dominion is done by private enterprise. This is the only case I know of where the government spends money on a ferry service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is the Mul-grave ' doing the same service for the Intercolonial.


John Graham Haggart: The 1 Mulgrave ' connects two points on the Intercolonial. It crosses the Gulf of Canso. There is no similarity.


George William Fowler: I can see the importance of keeping open the St. Lawrence in winter.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are over GOO miles on the north shore of the St. Lawrence which are perfectly closed to navigation during the winter. Unless some winter navigation is provided, these people will be deprived of all communication whatever in the winter season. Private companies would not accept the subsidy offered by tfie government as they were not sure winter navigation was pcfcsible, and we judged it would be wise to show that winter navigation is possible. It is for this reason we are providing $125,000 for the construction of a steamer.


George William Fowler: I would be rather favourable to the experiment and I can understand that it is difficult to get private capital to undertake the risk. I think it is the duty of the government, if the experiment is reasonable and feasible, to spend public money in trying it.


Richard Blain: Where will this vessel be made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By Fleming & Ferguson, and will be delivered the 1st December.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand why this might be desirable in winter, but this is for winter and summer.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It may be put on (luring tbe summer between Murray bay and Riyi6re Ouelle in case no company will undertake that service. We require a ferry there for the benefit of the Intercolonial, as such a ferry brings a great deal of travel and freight over the Intercolonial for Murray bay which otherwise would be lost to that road.


George William Fowler: I do not think the government should go into competition with private parties.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Nor do I. But it was impossible to find private parties who would carry on the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says that the ferry was remunerative. Will he tell us what the receipts were last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not received the return of the receipts. It was started only at the beginning of July when the other boat ceased to carry on the service. It was disabled for three or four days, and during that time there were demands for another boat, but the service had to be discontinued for a time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it is so remunerative, it seems to me there should be no difficulty in getting private parties to take it up, because there are always boats which people desire to keep employed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the service this summer is remunerative no doubt we shall find private parties who will take hold of it another year. One of the objects in maintaining thei service -is to show that it is remunerative. But, up to the present time, we have not been able to find any company to take it up in a permanent way. A company did make a contract with a view to earning the subsidy, but they refused to carry on the service properly and the contract had to be cancelled.


John Graham Haggart: Why do not you use the other vessel you are building, the ice breaker ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: You cannot use the ice breaker there. As I said, she draws too much water. She is a very heavy steamer, fit to break the ice of the St. Lawrence and she could not carry out the service.


George William Fowler: That is, the summer service ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She will carry on the buoy service but not the ferry service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not seem to be able to get from the minister any information as to the earnings of last season. If we had those figures we should be able to judge whether that service was remunerative or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: During the summer of 1903 the ferry service was carried on by a company in which Mr. Connolly was interested. But they did not keep the ferry going during the winter. This spring they refused to go on with the service, so we had to step into the breach and do the best we could under the circumstances, so that the branch of the Intercolonial terminating at St. Denis might not be rendered useless.


John Graham Haggart: When parliament had voted a subsidy and thereby directed that this service should be carried on by a company, where did the minister get the authority to carry on the service himself ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The people have to be provided for.
Ocean and river service-gratuity to the widow of Achille Michaud, in his life time engineer of the ss. ' Druid ' two months' salary, $166.66.


Samuel Hughes: I remember that a case similar to this was up last year. I do not object to these gratuities, but I would like to know if they are paid in all cases ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: And the rule is to give the same relative gratuity.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, two months' salary.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of civil servants the gratuity is given as a matter of practice and charged to unforeseen expenses. But outside the civil service the amounts are specially voted.


Samuel Hughes: Last year there was a railway wreck on the Intercolonial in which some engineers were killed. I asked if gratuities were given to the widows of these officers, and, if I remember well, I was told that they were not given. I do not see why, if gratuities are to be given, they should not be given to the widow of a railway man who is killed in the service of the country through no fault of his own -for certainly one of the engineers I speak of was not in any way responsible for the accident in which he lost his life. I am not objecting to this vote, but I want to see what is fair and just done all round. I think the minister was going to look into this matter of the Intercolonial employees. Has he done so ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that I am sufficiently informed to make a definite statement. But my recollection is that there is a difference in the treatment of the railway employees and others because in the railway service there is a special insurance fund to which the government contribute.


Samuel Hughes: Very little.


William Stevens Fielding: The government makes a contribution


Mr. LENNOX.: They give $6,000.


William Stevens Fielding: They give this amount in the case of the railway service but not in others. I am not saying that is sufficient reason for the distinction that is made, but it is well that it should be kept in mind in considering the question.


Samuel Hughes: The government promised last year to look into the matter and consider the question of insurance for these men. What the government pays for the Intercolonial system is a small thing for the thousands of men that are employed in that service. We passed a Bill this session providing that if a man was killed at a rifle range through no fault of his own, his family should get a gratuity. Here is a man who through no fault of his own, is killed while in the service of the country and in "performance of his duty, and yet his family get no gratuity.


Haughton Lennox: Not only do the government give no gratuity in these railway cases but, by reason of the insurance fund, they plead that the representatives of ail Intercolonial employee who is killed are deprived of the ordinary right to damages to which they would be entitled. The widow lias to accept some $250 from the insurance fund when perhaps but for that fund she would get $3,000 through the courts. I brought in a Bill relating to the Grand Trunk in this same matter and had the satisfaction of getting it through. The gov-iernment refused to have it apply to the Intercolonial on the ground, as the minister will know, that they were proposing to introduce another system. I hope that will be carried out at an early day. I think it was understood that something was to be done this session. I believe that nothing is being done, but something should be done to place these employees of the Intercolonial on at least an equal basis with those of other railways.


George William Fowler: With respect to the Intercolonial, when a man is injured on that road so badly that he cannot finish the rest of the day, he is docked his time for the rest of that day, because he is unable to finish out the run, although the accident occurred absolutely through no fault of his. In the case of the Belmont disaster where a brakeman was so severely injured, that he was laid up for nine or ten months, he received the magnificent sum of $3 a week from this insurance company of which the Finance Minister speaks. Because lie did not return to Moncton in order to finish his run for. that day, he was docked half a day ; because the train was wrecked at Belmont and the engineer and four or five passengers were killed, and this man narrowly escaped 283
with his life, he was docked his pay for the half of that day because he was unable to run down to Moncton. I do not think any such disgraceful usage was ever administered to any employee by any other department of the government or by any private corporation. I do not see why the Intercolonial should treat their employees differently from other departments of the civil service. The reason put forth by the Finance Minister, I do not consider is sufficient, when he says that the government contributes a small amount to this insurance society. Why do they make that contribution? It is in order that the men may not have an action against the government for damages, supposing thejr are injured, just as the Grand Trunk makes its contribution of a paltry amount in order to prevent its employees having action which otherwise they would have against the railway if, through no fault of theirs, they were killed, or met with some accident. So this is not done by the government out of kindness towards the employees, but it is done as a protection to the government against action for damages. Therefore, I do not think the Finance Minister should put that forward as a reason why officials on the Intercolonial should be placed on a different footing from those in any other department.


William Stevens Fielding: The gratuities paid in the civil service under the vote now asked would hardly be regarded as meeting the case to which my hon. friend alluded. The widow of this poor man in the Marine Department receives the magnificent sum of $156, so we cannot be accused of dealing too generously." I do not understand that the hon. gentleman is opposing this. But if we are going to consider the payment to the man the hon. gentleman referred to as a gratuity, it would still seem to be insignificant in view of the conditions he mentioned. But I do not understand the hon. gentleman is opposing this.


George William Fowler: Not at all. But would it not be better to pay these small gratuities than dock a man half a day's pay ?


William Stevens Fielding: Docking a man's pay is one of these little things that might occur as a result of the system. The man is obliged to render a day's service, and if something happens by which he fails to render it, there is no great injustice in the accountant recognizing the fact that lie has not rendered it. If the rules make it necessary for men to return to Moncton to report and if a man fails to return, it is natural and proper for the official accountant to take account of that day. But there may be other circumstances connected with the transaction which the department should consider.


George William Fowler: The minister did not expect a man who was killed to report in soirit to Moncton.	.


William Stevens Fielding: So far as liis wages are concerned, lie would be entitled to pay for services rendered. But if there were circumstances in connection with his death which called for recognition, that would he another question ; but so far as his wages were concerned, thei'e would be nothing wrong in paying wages for services actually rendered.


George William Fowler: -It is pretty small business to dock a man under those circumstances.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it probably arises from the system which prevails, and which here and there may be capable of working some injustice.
Ocean and river service-further amount required for removal of obstructions including sunken elevator at Montreal and obstruction in Ostall river, B.C., $9,000.
Mr. PRE-FONTAINE. The shipping authorities of Montreal have been asking us to take this matter in hand, because there is a misunderstanding between the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and the proprietor of the sunken elevator as to who is responsible for raising it. The matter cannot remain in that position any longer.


John Graham Haggart: Either the Harbour Commissioners have to pay for it or the person whose dredge was sunk.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The removal has to be done by somebody, and we are obliged by law to remove obstructions in a navigable river.


John Graham Haggart: The harbour of Montreal is under the control of the Harbour Commissioners, and it is a question whether the man who owns the elevator should remove it or the Harbour Commissioners. The government have nothing whatever to do with it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The statute says that in case it is not done by the proper party, the government is obliged to do it, and then look for reimbursement to the responsible party.


Samuel Hughes: Will the government own this elevator ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If it is worth anything it will go to pay part of the expense.


John Graham Haggart: What statute does the bon. gentleman refer to as compelling him to remove this obstruction ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not got it under my hand, but I know a dispute has taken place, and we came to the conclusion that there was nothing else to do but for the department to remove the obstruction, and we ask for this vote of money to help the shipping of Montreal in removing the obstruction.


George William Fowler: 


Haughton Lennox: Has the minister taken advice as to who is liable for the removal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The company is liable for the removal, and they have not done it, and whilst the dispute is going on the shipping people are suffering from the obstruction and clamouring for its removal.


Haughton Lennox: I ask the minister if he has taken advice as to who was the proper party to remove it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We notified the Harbour Commissioners and they notified the owners of this sunken elevator, and they are quarreling about it, and during the quarrel navigation is suffering.


Haughton Lennox: Either the owner of the elevator or the Harbour Commissioners should remove it. I am asking the minister if he has taken advice as to which of them should remove it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In case the proprietor does not remove it the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal who have control of the harbour have got to remove it, and neither of them have done so. There is a lawsuit pending between the proprietor and the Harbour Commissioners, and in the meantime navigation is suffering, and the government have concluded to come to the rescue.


Samuel Hughes: Who own the elevator '1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Montreal Elevator Company has guaranteed to pay.


Samuel Hughes: How did she get sunk ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She struck against an angle of the wharf.


Haughton Lennox: The minister has not yet answered my question whether he had taken advice as to who was liable to remove it


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The department does not require to take advice. When the parties themselves come to us and ask us to take the obstruction away, we have to do it, and we reimburse ourselves afterwards.


Haughton Lennox: That is a new development, the minister did not tell us that before.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I said it twice.


Haughton Lennox: What I understand from the hon. minister now is not that this is a question of these parties refusing to do this or quarreling amongst themselves, but that they have come and asked the department to remove the obstruction promising to reimburse the department. That is not what the hon. minister said a few moments ago, when he said that under the statute the department is liable and compelled to remove it. The hon. minister now says that
-AUGUST 9. 1904
the parties hare requested the department to remove it. What guarantee have the department that after they incur an expense of $9,000 they will be reimbursed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All wrecks have to be removed. Are you going to allow navigation to be interrupted because a private party is responsible for the removal of the obstruction ?


John Graham Haggart: How much is it expected to cost ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister now gets away from the point he made a moment ago. He says that he was requested to refnove it by parties who promised to pay him, and then he says he is compelled to remove it. I ask him again what security the department has that the money that they have to pay out for the removal of this obstruction will be recouped ?
Mr. P R EiF O NT AI NEt, This is a rich company and- we have no doubt that the expense that will be incurred will be reimbursed to us. We will force them to reimburse it.


Haughton Lennox: If the company is a rich company it has a right to do this work.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman does not seem to understand or I cannot make him understand. I will have to speak French to make myself understood or he will have to speak French. The law obliges us to remove obstructions to navigation. Whoever is responsible for the cost of the removal of these obstructions will have to pay it back if he is a person of any financial responsibility. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot contest these two points : first, that we are responsible for the removal of a wreck, and second, that the party to whom the wreck belongs is responsible to the public for the cost.


John Graham Haggart: We deny that you are responsible to the public for the removal of a wreck in the harbour of Montreal. Where is your law ?
he may think fit, including the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance if he deems it advisable, and may cause such vessel, craft or its cargo or the material or thing causing or forming part of such obstruction to be conveyed to such place as he may think proper, and to be there sold by auction or otherwise as he may deem most advisable, and may apply the proceeds of such sale to make good the expenses incurred for the purposes aforesaid,-paying over any surplus of such proceeds to the owner or owners of the things sold, or other parties entitled to such proceeds or any part thereof, respectively.


John Graham Haggart: Does that apply to the harbour of Montreal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course it does. Does the hon. gentleman say that this parliament has no control over the harbour of Montreal ?	*


John Graham Haggart: The parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over everything, but we have parted with a portion of our jurisdiction and given it to the Harbour Commissioners.	[DOT]


George William Fowler: That section is merely permissive as far as the department is concerned. It says that the minister may do so and so, but it does not say that he shall do so. I think it is quite proper that he should remove these obstructions and make the people pay for them. I trust he will do so and that the person who is responsible will pay for it.


Haughton Lennox: I submit that the proper method for the hon. minister to adopt is this : Any person who obstructs a navigable river is liable to indictment and is similarly responsible. The person who placed his obstruction in the river should be compelled to remove it. Action should be taken by the department to compel the party who is responsible to remove it. I will not go any further at present but I predict that we will find that we will have a great deal of difficulty, notwithstanding what the hon. minister has said, in recouping ourselves for this expenditure.


John Graham Haggart: Where is the Ostrell river in British Columbia ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The law is as follows :
Whenever in the opinion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the navigation of any river, lake, bay, creek, harbour, or other navigable water over which the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada extends, is obstructed, impeded cfr rendered more difficult or dangerous by reason of the wreck, sinking or lying ashore or grounding, of any vessel or craft whatever, or of any part thereof or other thing, and whether the cause of such obstruction occurred before or after the passing of this Act,-then if such obstruction continues for more than twenty-four hours, the said minister may, under the authority of an order of the Governor in Council, cause the same to be removed or destroyed in such manner and by such means as 283J


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not remember exactly as I have not the file with me. It is a navigable river.


John Graham Haggart: Unless it is a navigable river and is under the jurisdiction of this parliament the provincial authorities should remove these obstructions.


Mr. EARLE.: Where is the Ostrell river ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does the-hon. gentleman not know ? He is from British Columbia.


Thomas Earle: I do not know ; I never heard of it. I presume that before putting this item in the hon. minister would know where it was.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I hare not the file here. I will give the information after recess.


Thomas Earle: Well we will allow the item to stand.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: When the House rose at one o'clock there was some discussion as to the location of the Hocsall river.
I may say that this river is known as the Hocsall and Ecstall, tout I believe the real name for it is the Hocsall. Possibly my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) would recognize it under tire euphonious name of Oxtail, which it is sometimes called. It rises above the head waters of the Kitimak river and flows north into the Skeena river, near the Balmoral cannery, just below Port Esslngton. About thirty-five miles from the mouth of the Hocsall is a tributary upon which there is a large lake, which is a favourite spawning ground for spring salmon. There is below the entrance of the lake a large log jamb, 200 feet long, 160 feet wide and 12 feet deep. I asked a report from a friend of mine, and he was strongly in favour of having that log jamb cleared out, because it makes it impossible for the spring salmon to get up to spawn, although a number of the fall salmon do get up. This is a very desirable expenditure of money.
To provide for the organization of a naval militia for Canada, $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: What do you want with this money when you did not get your Bill passed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have 680 men engaged on the cruisers and in the fishery protection, and the idea was* to form the nucleus of a naval militia by engaging them for three years and paying them the whole year round instead of during the summer months. This money would be necessary to make preparation.


John Graham Haggart: The minister cannot spend that money legally without having his Bill.


Samuel Hughes: If he goes on with this vote I will require a detailed statement of all the plans in relation with this militia.


Mr. CHANCY.: You had better drop the vote.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will let it stand for the present. If it is not used it will not be spent.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Let it drop.


John Graham Haggart: I ask that the report of the departmental officer with reference to the change in the workshops from Morris-burg to Prescott be laid on the table.


Thomas Earle: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the report is in writing I will bring it down.
Repairs to lighthouses, $75,000.	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We want a full statement as to the installation of acetylene gas in these lighthouses.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The departmental engineers recommended this change, and several experiments were made in 1902. which proved satisfactory. The Sunlight machine, however, had not sufficient power, but alterations have been made, and it is now in perfect condition. At first we had some difficulty with the gas in cold weather, but Mr. J. F. Fraser, after experimenting, with the assistance of others, succeeded iu producing a perfect automatic machine which is proof against cold. The report on this matter Is very voluminous, and I will merely read the following extract:
In the fall of 1902, Mr. J. P. Fraser, then engineer in charge of aids to navigation between Montreal and Kingston, was instructed by the department to carry out a series-of experiments to determine whether acetylene was suitable for the gas buoy and lighthouse service.
A report on the experiments carried out by Mr. Fraser appears in the annual report of the department, page 94. The result of these experiments demonstrated that acetylene was suitable for gas buoys and for automatic lights on shore where the gas could he supplied through a gas hose from a steamer, and experiments are being carried out with reference to designing a generator which will be suitable for independent lights where a keeper is employed. . This work is well under way and results are expected very shortly.
The machines mentioned in the early part of this memorandum were patented and purchased by the department from the makers. The apparatus in use on the steamer ' Scout,' which is entirely new and original, was designed by Mr. Fraser for the department, and no royalties or any other charges were paid for its use. The plant -employed on the steamer ' Scout ' is the largest generating acetylene plant in the Dominion or probably in America, and has given great satisfaction.
The next independent lighthouse installation undertaken by the department was at Maug-her's Beach, Halifax harbour, on the recommendation of the commissioner of lights, and v^as carried out on the compression system.
The candle power of the gas buoys now in use throughout the Dominion is, at least, five times as great as' that of the oil gas buoys employed heretofore, and on the basis of cost per candle, the acetylene is cheaper than oil gas.
The one great difficulty in the lighthouses of the Dominion is the fact that so many of them are fixed lights, which is the most unsatisfactory class of lights that can he installed, inasmuch as they have no character and are often misleading.
It is the aim of the department to render the lights throughout the Dominion as powerful and as characteristic as possible. The use of acetylene in the light service will enable this to be done, at a comparatively cheap cost, inasmuch as the gas light may be occulted and so give a flashing light, and with oil, this could

only be accomplished by expensive mechanism and close attention on the part of the keeper, while the gas occulting mechanisms employed by the department have operated for years with no attention and no repairs.
The improvement of the lights and fog alarms of the Dominion have recently been entrusted by the department to the branch of the commissioner of lights which was organized for this purpose, while the construction of lights and other aids remains' with the chief engineer as heretofore, and every effort is being made by the department to provide a complete and up-to-date system of lighting for the Dominion.
As regards the cost of acetylene, Pintsch gas which was formerly used, cost 56 cents per 7 1-5-candle power. Acetylene gas now used costs 65 cents for 46-candle power, thus giving over six times the light for about the same money. City gas at $1 per thousand, which is considered cheap in Canada, costs for a 16-candle power light J cent an hour. Acetylene will give 23-candle power for an hour for 3-10 cent, therefore giving more light for less money. The penetration of the light in fog is more than double : that was ascertained by the chief engineer himself. It is the intention of the department as the means are placed at our disposal, to change the lights and substitute acetylene, which we consider a good deal cheaper than any other illuminant. To give the committee an idea of its power, I may mention that on Lake St. Louis there were four lights, for which the illuminant was coal Oil. For three of them the commissioner of lights substituted acetylene, and in the fourth left the old system. A few days afterwards one of the boat captains reported that at five miles distant he could see three of the lights, but not the fourth. He thought it was burned out, but it was the light in which coal oil was used.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many lights have you changed now ? Would the minister give us any idea of what will be the cost of each light as well as the cost of changing all the lighthouses of the Dominion to this system ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are about thirty-five in which acetylene has been substituted. We shall save $5,000 a year on the upper part of the St. Lawrence. The cost differs according to the importance of the light. It amounts to from $300 to $2,500 per light.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that you contemplate introducing this system in all the lighthouses of the Dominion. Before doing so I suppose you have gone into some kind of calculation as to the cost.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are changing them gradually, at the rate of twenty-five or thirty lights a year.
IMr. SPROULE. How many lights have you in all ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About 1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I imagine that a good business man would not commit the country to a change like this without first ascertaining what it will cost the country, and whether the new system can be run more cheaply than the system we have at present.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are looking to efficiency rather than to the question of the actual expenditure every year. That will depend on parliament. In some years, if parliament votes the money, we shall probably replace 100. This year we propose to replace about 100; but this is all done systematically, according to the money we have at our disposal. We save the cost of the lightkeeper. There are differences in the lights, of course. Some may require special machinery, and the cost of the installation in some places will be more than in others. In starting to make the change we are not bound to go on and change the whole system. We will do it gradually, according to the success we have. There are some places where the old lights may not be replaced. With the boats carrying the gas holders and supplying the ,gas and the tanks, such places will be left as they are, in others where it is cheaper to run the acetylene gas and more advantageous, we will make the change.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will these thirty-five cost?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $1,000 each.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I right in the opinion that you have made no estimate in the department as to the total cost ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No general estimate has been made. According as the occasion presents itself, an estimate is made. Whenever we get an application for a better light and the officers think it is necessary to make the change, we get an estimate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who recommended this charge ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I have already very fully explained, there is no estimate by any one in particular. The matter was | studied out and experimented upon by the chief engineer and his assistants. They talked it over with the lighthouse board and the board recommended it. It was recommended by Mr. Fraser, our commissioner of lights, and the thing has been going on under him, according to the recommendation of the lighthouse board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did Mr. Anderson, your engineer who is at the head of the branch,
* recommend it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course he did, but he made no written recommendation. As J I have repeated over and over again, the ! thing was studied by the officers of the

department and the lighthouse board and it was experimented upon until it has come to be a success, and we make the change whenever the officers of the department consider it advisable. It has been considered advisable in the interests of the economical working of the system to have depots at a certain point. There will be three depots.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the minister, thirty-five lights will cost $35,000 and therefore a thousand lights will cost $1,000,000. What do yon buy now to generate your light ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We buy carbide.


Mr SPROULE.: From whom do you buy it, and at what price and what kind of a contract ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We buy it from the Ottawa company controlled by the Bronsons, and we buy it at the market price of $65 a ton. That is the price the Canadian Pacific Railway are paying and they get much larger quantities than we do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a patent which prevents any one else from manufacturing that carbide in Canada ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there are two different companies, one in Ottawa, and one in St. Catharines, and that a Mr. Willson who has the patent, is interested in each. What time has the contract to run V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no contract. We buy it at the market price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I am correctly informed, somehow or other the department conceived the idea of making the change and we do not know who originated the idea. I am told that the change is not recommended by the chief engineer, but of course I am [DOT] not speaking from personal knowledge. We will be in this position, that we will have to buy from either of those two companies in Canada, which are practically under the one control.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are not obliged to buy in Canada. We can buy in the United States or any other country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are going to make the change and the minister cannot tell what it is going to cost. Judging by the very meagre information given us, it will cost about $1,000,000 to change the lights and buoys, then we will be under the control of these two companies in which Mr. Willson, the patentee, is interested, and in which I am informed one of the ministers of the Crown is interested as well, and the government are purchasing from one of these companies without competition. It said that there are men behind this company very closely connected with the government and Mr. PREFONTAINE.
that these men have been instrumental in having this change made, and the country is being put in this position that we will have to pay whatever price this company asks. We build large and extensive plants, we are going to build three depots in the Dominion, and after the change is made, should it not prove a success, we will be helpless, because it will have cost $1,000,000 to make the change and it would cost another extravagant sum to go back to the old system. It is most humiliating to think that the government should have entered into such a contract under such circumstances and put us in a position in which we will be practically helpless. They are playing into the hands of some of their own ministers. The minister knows all this, and yet we can get no information about it. It is no wonder, because the less information is given the less damage is done to the reputation of the government. But I want the country to know what I believe to be the reason which actuates the minister in making this arrangement. If it is true that ministers of the Crown are making, or will make within the next quarter of a century, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of this scheme, the country should know it. And, if there is a better explanation of this case than I have given, let the minister give it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no cause for suspicion in this matter-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is cause for more than suspicion.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) be precise. Let him make his charge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let the hon. minister make his explanation, and let him deny, if he can, that one of the Ministers of the Crown is part owner of both these plants, that both plants are practically owned by the same parties, and that from this monopoly the government must buy its supplies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I deny in the most formal manner that we are obliged to buy from these parties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can you get this carbide from any other company ?
Mr.	PREFONTAINE.	Yes,	a company
started manufacturing this material at Shawenegan Falls about six weeks ago.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Would the minister allow me to say that the company at Shawenegan is practically identical with the other ? I know that as a matter of business.
Mr.	PREFONTAINE.	That	is anothererror,	a flagrant error.	The	ShaweneganFalls Company is a very large concern, and I	know personally	who	control the
capital that is in it. They are Americans, from Boston. When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says we are at the mercy of one company an answer is easily found. Does he think that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a concern that does not look after its own business ? Does he imagine that, if they were to be at the mercy of one concern for their supplies they would equip all then-cars with the apparatus for this light ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I venture to say they made their contract before they did it,


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Nothing of the kind. No contract is to be made with any of these people for even a year's supply, for the simple reason that nobody can tell what changes may take place in the conditions under which the manufacture is carried on. The cheapest price at which carbide can be had laid down in Canada at the present moment is $65 a ton. We are able to purchase the article in this country at such a price as to defy competition from other countries.


Andrew Broder: I suppose this new company that has undertaken the manufacture must have bought the right from the owner of the patent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know that they have to buy the right to manufacture from Mr. Willson. He does not control the whole world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He controls the patent for Canada.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But other processes are .used in other parts of the world and they can be used here in Canada. There is nothing to prevent English, French or Belgian capitalists from coming to Canada and establishing works here if they think they can make money. Carbide has been known for a century. Of course it had not been applied for lighting purposes in a practical way until a few years ago. Mr. Willson is a Canadian and he invented a way of using carbide that is perfectly safe and odourless, and gives a fine light by means of an apparatus that can be easily installed. It is so adaptable that the Canadian Pacific Railway, after trying electricity, Pintsch gas and oil, have come to the conclusion that it is better to use acetylene. They have adopted the Willson process, and are fitting up their cars with the system. It may be-I do not know the facts myself, but the hon. gentleman (Mir. Sproule) makes the statement-that one of the ministers of the Crown has some shares in the capital stock of one of these companies. The law provides for that perfectly well. A member of parliament can Ibe a shareholder in a company that does business with the government. It's done every day.
If we use what is acknowledged to be the best light, the light that has been asked for and insisted upon by the shipping conference using a standard article the supply of which can be had anywhere else in the world, where is the scandal and where is the monopoly ?


Samuel Hughes: I understand that ithe gas is pumped into large iron receivers for these gas buoys ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Mr.. SAM. HUGHES. Can these buoys be used with other gas ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Certainly. In some of them Pintsch gas was used at first and acetylene was substituted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister tells us that there is no monopoly as there is an independent establishment at Shawenegan. From whom does that company get its right to manufacture ? Is it not from Mr. Willson ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) seems much concerned, about Mr. Willson.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am showing that this is a monopoly. This one man controls all three of these companies, and he owns the patent. The government cannot use this material without paying Mr. Willson. One minister of the Crown is interested in this enterprise, and his colleague changes this great lighting system of the country at a cost of practically a million dollars, thus committing himself to the use of this material which he must buy without contract, getting his supplies from time to time at the prices which the monopoly may fix. Is there no scandal about that ? I asked the hon. minister to give us an estimate of what it would cost;

he could not tell us ; I asked if the chief engineer had recommended it ; -he cannot tell us that that officer did recommend it. It is said that some of his subordinates recommend it, but it is also said that some of his subordinates are interested in the concern. In the absence of information and explanation by the minister, we can only form conclusions upon such information as comes to us.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I repeat that the article can be bought on every market in the world, it is a standard article. Now if Mr. Willson has made some improvements in the production of this article, and has perfected it so that it is better than any other article, why should the hon. gentleman reproach Mr. Willson because he has been intelligent and enterprising enough to produce something in Canada that cannot be purchased elsewhere as cheaply ? The article is required everywhere, not only by our department. The first year we bought $2,000 worth and last year $8,000 worth. If this

company had not been disposed to sell this article at a reasonable price, so as to make the lighting cheaper than the old system of lighting by oil, we would have bought the article elsewhere, from the United States, from England, from Belgium, or wherever it is produced ; it is produced in all the countries of the world, there is no monopoly. Mr. Willson is not interested except as a shareholder in the Shawenegan Company, ninety per cent of the stock of which is controlled by Americans.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who controls the patent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Carbide is not produced exclusively under Mr. Willson's patent, all the carbide sold in the world is not manufactured by Mr. Willson's process. There is nothing that prevents us from importing carbide from elsewhere.


James Clancy: There is not one dollar's worth of carbide imported.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: For the reason that it is unnecessary to import it. If this company manufacturing carbide through the Willson process took advantage of the situation to charge us a higher price than we could buy it on the foreign market, we would buy it from abroad, and we import articles from a foreign country without paying duties. But we cannot get carbide at $65 a ton anywhere else, and there are immense quantities used in other countries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the hon. gentleman invite competition for this ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We knew the market price, and we knew that we could not get the article cheaper than we are buying it at the present time. Do you think the Canadian Pacific Railway would buy it from them at $65 a ton if they could get it cheaper elsewhere ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course we want to see it manufactured in this country ; but what we blame the government for is in making an improvident bargain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We made no bargain whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have changed thirty-five lights at a cost of $35,000, and you are building a plant in Prescott that will cost $100,000 or more, and two more besides, each of which presumably cost $100,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have appropriated $15,000 to install the Georgian bay plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that conditions are changing every moment, therefore it was unwise to make a contract because conditions may change so that he may get it cheaper.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not made myself understood to the hon. gentleman.
I told the committee a moment ago that if we were dissatisfied with carbide we could go back to the Pintsch gas, and there would be nothing lost.


Samuel Hughes: Is the system of lighting by gas generally used in other countries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What kind of gas do they use ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We- are using Pintsch gas yet in some cases. But carbide costs less than gas, and gives double the lighting power. When I said that conditions might change, I referred to the conditions of manufacturing carbide, not in the power of the light itself. It is now an admitted fact that the illuminating power of carbide is double that of either oil or Pintsch gas, and costs less.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want it to be known that we cannot get any estimate of what it is going to cost the country to make this change. If the minister has the information he has not given it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We calculate that R, wall cost over $300,000 to make the cnanges throughout the Dominion, that is for the buoys and the light. The shipping interests are asking for improvements to navigation, and rve have concluded to install new lights and new gas buoys, and at the same time to make an improvement in the light. That work is now going on. Between Montreal and Sorel, a distance of forty-five miles, w-e have installed a certgjn number of new lights which make navigation perfectly safe during the night. These new lights and gas buoys are put in in such a way that we can use either Pintsch gas or carbide ; we are using carbide because it gives a better light and is cheaper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now, $300,000 are required to change the lights. Then it would take at least $300,000 for the plants, which would be $600,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said anything of the kind. The most important depot will be Prescott. That might cost, in a couple of years, after all the improvements are made,' $100,000. The Quebec plant is installed already, and it has not cost $25,000. It is the old gas plant we are using. AVe are converting it to this system. In connection with the Georgian bay station there is land to buy which will cost $15,000 and the installation is estimated to cost $10,000. We have purchased the property on which there is already erected a building, an old mill, and ive estimate the whole cost will be $25,000. Ten thousand dollars and $25,000 make $35,000 and $100,000 for the plant at Prescott added makes $135,000.

All that does not go Into machinery or Into the installation of the plant. The works that will be carried on in these different depots will consist not only of repairing the barges to be used in connection with the Pintsch gas and carbide lighting system but they will also be used in connection with necessary repairs to all the apparatus. All this work will be done at these depots instead of having separate depots twenty-five or fifty miles distant from each other, so that it is not fair to say that an expenditure of $300,000 is necessitated by the change from Pintsch gas or coal oil to carbide. The cost of the change from Pintsch gas to carbide will amount to about $50,000. This will not be any useless expenditure because the works will be used for other purposes. If we get a light six times more powerful than we were getting before and if we get it at a cheaper price than the old system, even adding interest to the capital invested, I think that we are doing right in adopting it and especially when all the shipping men have approved of the action of the department. I have had letter after letter asking that the change should be made. Under the circumstances I do not think the government should be blamed for doing what is right in the eyes of business people and shipping men generally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that anybody is blaming the government for doing what is right in the eyes of business people, but we have been told for five or six years past that the lighting was perfect. I remember the predecessor of the hon. geptleman who is now on the Supreme Court bench standing up in this House and saying in the most positive terms that the department now had a channel lighted in a manner equal to daylight and yet we are told from year to year of the desirability of improving the lighting. Now, it is said that we have reached the stage of perfection.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, I said that between Montreal and Sorel the light was perfect, but I did not say that the channel was perfect.


Samuel Hughes: Are the pilots perfect ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is another question.


Samuel Hughes: I should think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am talking about the lights.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: I venture to say that the lights for forty-five miles between Montreal and Sorel are perfect. I have travelled a good deal not only in this country but in other countries and I am convinced that the lighting of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Sorel will compare favourably with that of any other country in the world. We are trying to equip the channel but we cannot do it in certain parts because even with good lighting it would not be safe to navigate it during the night. We are at present equipping thirty-five miles of the channel between St. Francis and Batiscan. There the channel has a depth of thirty-one feet and the necessary width. It may be widened in the future, but for the present it is in good condition and can be navigated safely during the night if proper lighting is installed. We are installing it at present, so that instead of saving six hours, as at the present time, there will be a saving of eleven hours, which on an ocean trip means something not only for passengers but for freight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had no information upon this matter and I suppose we might as well give it up, because the hon. minister does not want to give it or he has not got it. I am inclined to think it is the former ; he does not want to give it, but it might as well be known toy the country that this is what is proposed. I am not objecting to the quality of the light because I do not know anything about it. I believe it is a better light for the purpose. As to whether it possesses the candle power which is claimed for it or not, I do not know, but we have very frequently heard of newly invented lights possessing such wonderful candle-power which has very materially simmered down afterwards. What the hon. minister says may be correct, and if it is correct he would be doing the right thing in his endeavour to install this system if it wer.e done on a proper business basis. I object to the government placing themselves under the control of a monopoly. 1 object to the hon. minister putting the government in such a position that he has to deal practically with his own colleagues for the product that is supplied the system devised by his department. I object to it as well because it is a monopoly. The patent is held by one man. One man is interested in all these companies and it is said that one if not more than one minister is interested in one or more of these companies and enjoying the profits that result from every dollar's worth of carbide that may be bought by the government. The expenditure will go on. It may be that in the future we will have occasion to draw the hon. minister's attention to it, and I want him to remember that while we have been endeavouring to get information which he has been so very reluctant to give he would have been obliged to give a great deal more information if it were not so near the end of the session.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has referred to the superiority of this light. The British army has made tests of these various lights for signalling purposes and the acetylene gas light is by all means the most penetrating that has been used. It

penetrates through a fog to a muc-h greater extent than any other light. It is also coming into use for stereopticon purposes, and for signalling purposes generally. Another advantage it possesses is that because of its peculiar whiteness it is easily distinguishable and is not so liable to be confused with shore lights as some other' signal lights would be. I would like to ask the hon. minister a question in reference to the royalty paid to Mr. Willson on this light. I think it is a credit to a young Canadian to have invented this new process. The question I want to ask the hon. minister is whether there is not a royalty on the Pintsch gas light which is also controlled by patents.
Building and maintenance or new fish hatcheries, $30,000.


Mr. BOYD.: 
Samuel Hughes: He is trying to sell it. [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister tell us the authority he has for granting such concessions as that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By Order in Council.


John Graham Haggart: Has the Crown a right to alienate the fishing of a large bay like James ba;v ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is not alienated. He has only the privilege of fishing ; not the exclusive privilege.


John Graham Haggart: It is nearly half of Hudson bay-the southern part of it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is not one-eighth of it, and he has no exclusive privilege at all.


John Graham Haggart: How many miles does that privilege extend along the seashore ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: From the information I have, he has simply paid the rent and has not taken advantage of his lease.


John Graham Haggart: The lease is of no use until there is railway communication there, when it will become a most valuable concession. Has the Dominion government ex-

elusive jurisdiction over the seashore within the three-mile limit for fishing ? You have leased a part of Ontario and a part of Quebec.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have leased what belongs to the Dominion and nothing else.	.


John Graham Haggart: The northern part of Ontario goes up to the shores of James bay and so does Quebec under the new Act, which extends the jurisdiction of Quebec to that country.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Markey represents the North American Shipping Company and the lease gives no exclusive privilege.


Nathaniel Boyd: You only except a reserve to the Hudson bay, the Indians and settlers -that is all. .


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is also a condition obliging the company during three years to spend the sum of $100,000 on exploration and during ten years they will have to spend $50,000 in explorations and improvements of the property under lease.


James Clancy: Has Mr. McNee done that?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That condition was not in his lease.


John Graham Haggart: What kind of exploration are they to make ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I sent out an officer of my department, Mr. Cunningham, who has just returned to-day and has not
had time to report. He says that there is no possibility of settlement out there or of taking other fish but the sturgeon, because there is no communication possible, and the sturgeon can be fished only at three or four places on the Nelson river. The other part of the river is composed of rapids and rocks with scarcely any trees, so that the company, if they want to take advantage of this lease, would have to spend certainly $50,000 before they can start fishing.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. gentleman sent the officer out after he made the lease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, because some difficulty arose about it and I want to know exactly the facts. I discovered, for instance, that licenses had been granted some people out there and they cannot be dispossessed.


Mr. MORIN.: What did it cost to send a man out there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He went out to make his ordinary inspection in the Northwest and Manitoba and to ascertain and give a report of the condition^


Jean-Baptiste Morin: He must have spent a few days anyway examining the country.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It took him six
days to explore the River Nelson.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How much a day ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is employed by the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The giving of a lease like this is an outrage on the rights of the people. If the minister has the right by Order in Council to grant practically an exclusive right to one man to fish in such a large section of James bay for twenty-one years, he has the right to do it for fifty years or a hundred and practically alienate what belongs to the people. And it is alienated in return for the insignificant sum of $10 per year. The minister says it is not exclusive. The lease says :
Provided that this lease is granted and accepted without prejudice to the rights of the Hudson Bay Company, and furthermore, on the distinct understanding that the right to fish for their own use, but not for commercial purposes, is hereby reserved for all settlers, Esquimaux, tourists and the employees of the Hudson Bay Company.
These are the only parties who have the right to fish, and they may take fish only for their own use. And this company are given the right to use fishing nets-that1, I take it, includes every fishing device in the shape of a net, without restriction. Then, as the hon. member for Lanark says, there can be no doubt that a part of this territory is in the province of Ontario, and part o.f it belongs to Quebec. I repeat, these rights belong to the whole people of Canada and not to the government. The government do not own them and they have no right to sell them-or to give them away, for this is practically what they are doing.


George William Fowler: One of these leases is granted to a gentleman named Markey. A gentleman of that name is frequently seen about these buildings. Is it the same man ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know to whom the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) refers.


George William Fowler: The gentleman I refer to comes from Montreal and is a lawyer. Has he gone into the fishing business ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Markey came here representing the British American Fish Company.


Nathaniel Boyd: He got the lease with the right of selling it to the company.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been the rule of the department since I entered it, to grant licenses or leases for fishing only to people who are in business or intend, bona fide, to go into the business.


George William Fowler: Has Mr. Markey gone into the business ? When I last heard of him he was a lawyer. I would like the

minister to tell us if lie ascertained from any reliable source the value of these fisheries, and whether it was reported to him that value was $10.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course $10 does not represent it at all. But we consider, in these cases, the expenditure the people would be obliged to make in order to give value to the lease. The lease itself is not worth even $10 until it is exploited by the use of a capital of $50,000 or $100,000.


George William Fowler: But the same is true of a coal mine or a gold mine. No matter how much mineral there may be, it is wortt nothing until it is developed. But the government does not give privileges of that kind for nothing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is not an exclusive privilege.


George William Fowler: It is clearly exclusive. The minister has not read the lease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The copy of the lease that I sent to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) evidently does not contain the clause which I was very particular to insert. This copy does not bear my signature or show that I had signed the lease.


George William Fowler: But it comes from the kon. minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, ihe error is mine. But I am sure that in the lease I signed we reserved to ourselves the right to issue licenses to other people, provided the establishment should not be within less than ten miles of theirs.


George William Fowler: Fifty miles.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Fifty miles on the lake and ten miles on the river.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to see Mr. Markey's lease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have sent for it. I am sure that the copy I signed contained the reservation 1 spoke of.


George William Fowler: The company could easily corral the whole river by simply putting their establishments ten miles apart and the lake by putting their establishments iuty miles apart.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: Yes, they could. If it is a valuable privilege they have got it all.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But, getting the privilege to fish on these conditions does not give them the privilege of the land.


George William Fowler: But the fish do not grow on the land.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But to cure the fish you must go on the land. The Depart-Mr. FOWLER.
ment of the Interior has a word to say as to the privilege of putting up establishments.


George William Fowler: The minister says that he is relying upon the Department of the Interior to protect the country against an improvident bargain that he made with these people. Now there is a question in law. as to whether the grant of fishing rights would not carry with it the right to dry fish on the shore, just as the right to boom a navigable river carries with it the right to attach your boom to the shore.


Mr. COWAN.: Do you mean that, in the absence of any specific authority in the Act, it would give you the right to attach a boom to the shore ?


George William Fowler: I think so.'


Mahlon K. Cowan: Have you any authority for that proposition ?


George William Fowler: I think that is absolutely correct. The point here is that the minister, for the paltry sum of $10, has granted to a map in Montreal, who is not engaged in the fisheries, who has only taken this lease for commercial purposes, in order to dispose of it at a profit, to speculate in the franchises of this country-that is what it means-for the paltry sum of $10, and by means of that lease he is preventing settlers in that section of the country from fishing in these waters in order that they may help support themselves and families. Now if these fisheries are valuable, as we know they are, it would be a very important thing for the men who go out into that country to settle that they should be able, when they are not working on their farms, to catch fish and sell them. Under this lease, it is true, they are allowed to catch fish for their own eating but not to sell.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by Mr. Panet that there are no settlers there, because there is no place for them to settle on the Nelson river.


George William Fowler: But we are discussing the whole question. The hon. gentleman has granted leases all along the rivers and (lakes of that country, and will the hon. gentleman say that on none of these waters are there any settlers ? If there are no settlers, why do you put in the lease that settlers shall have the right to catch fish for their own use ? The minister is condemned out of his own mouth, condemned by his own lease. He should have gone further, and said that no rights granted by this lease should interfere with the rights of bona fide settlers in that country to catch as many fish as they please.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is giving to a lawyer in Montreal, who I suppose never did any fishing in his life, part of the shore of the Hudosn bay. nearly the whole length of Nelson river, the whole of

the Great Slave lake, a lake nearly as large as Lake Ontario, together with West river ancl Hayes river. I never knew that the government had authority to do anything of the kind. If they can do that, they can alienate the whole territory altogether. 1 asked the minister a while ago what was the length, within ten or twenty miles, of the territory covered by this lease to Mr. McKee. Then I want a copy of the lease to this Mr. Martin.


George William Fowler: Not Martin, Markey.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, I know him now.


George William Fowler: It is time to speak out on this matter, it is too serious to be treated as a joke.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have here the lease which was signed by me, and It states :
His Majesty reserves the right to grant other leases in and upon said rivers and lakes ; but no other lease will be granted to fish in and upon the said rivers and tributaries, within a limit of ten miles from any fishing or refrigerating station erected by the said lessee or the said company thereon, or in said lake within a limit of fifty miles from any such station erected on said lake.


Nathaniel Boyd: I read that out to you, ten miles from the stations, and fifty miles in the lakes.


George William Fowler: This is a very serious matter, and it illustrates the hon. gentleman's methods. We were warned before the minister was sworn in, we were told, by the leading Liberal newspapers of this country, what sort of a minister we would have if the hon. gentleman was appointed to that high office. Despite the warnings of the best friends of the government this gentleman was appointed by the premier,-and we have seen during the present session of this House every prediction that was made by these newspapers verified to the full. What was the first sample the minister gave ns of the manner in which the properties of the Dominioif have been disposed of by this gentleman. It was the sale of that steamer to some friends up on the Georgian bay for a sum considerably less than the amount that had been expended upon it for repairs within two or three months, a steamer given to friends of the hon. gentleman without tender. That is the way in which the public revenues of this country are to be administered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. What do we find in the next case ? We find a timber limit on an island up somewhere on the Georgian bay as well-this seems to be a favourite scene for the hon. gentleman's peculiar manipulations and operations-a timber limit that was shown by indisputable testimony in this House to be worth at least $3,000. sold to a personal friend of the minister, to a political friend at least of the minister, to a brother, as I undersfand,
of a probable Liberal candidate, or a nephew or some close relative of a probable Liberal candidate, for the paltry sum of $100, the amount that was paid for a fur coat for Commander Spain when he went to Newfoundland-a timber limit worth $3,000 sold for $100. Now we have a gentleman from Montreal, a lawyer whom we see often around this House and in its precincts, obtaining valuable fishery concessions for the paltry sum of $10, a man who is not engaged in the fishing business, and the minister said not ten minutes ago that there was an understanding that these leases were only to be given to men who were engaged in the business. This gentleman gets a fishing lease for $10 a year, for twenty-one years, and then renewable ; and the settlers, the men who go into that country to make a living, are debarred from fishing except that they may take what fish they require for their own consumption. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is time that the attention of the country was called to these things. Of course if the hon. gentleman's colleagues are silent when things like this are done, if they permit such nefarious orders to pass the council, they are just as much responsible as if they were the originators of the acts, and I think the country will hold them responsible.


John Graham Haggart: I' want a copy of the lease to Mr. Markey.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will give you the original.


John Graham Haggart: Can the hon. minister tell me the number of miles under lease in James bay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I notice another clause in the lease which lias not been read, and which is very important, limiting the size of fish to be caught.


George William Fowler: Why would you not limit the size of the fish to be caught ?


Nathaniel Boyd: Will the hon. minister send over the lease I had, so that we may compare it with the other copy ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This provision is as fallows :
The said lessee or the company shall not take from the said waters any sturgeon weighing less1 than twelve pounds, nor whitefish, trout or catfish weighing less than two pounds, nor any yellow pike weighing less than one and a half pounds.


Nathaniel Boyd: I read that in the other copy.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, it is an important clause. There is nothing very extraordinary in a concession of this character.


Nathaniel Boyd: All I have to say is that if the supporters of hon. gentlemen in the House -and in the country approve of concessions of this character they are welcome to do so. The most stringent opposition has

been manifested towards these concessions by people in Manitoba, who have written to me and who have asked me to ascertain whether it is possible that such concessions have been granted. I asked a question in this House and learned that they had been granted. Then I was asked to obtain a copy of the lease. All I can say is that if the hon. minister is going to regard the lease he has given to Messrs. McNee, Mackenzie and Markey as a precedent, it will only be a short time when there will not be a fishing lease in this country that he has not conceded to his friends. The least I can say about it is that it is a most preposterous act on the part of the department. Other hon. gentlemen who are members of the Privy Council cannot hold themselves irresponsible in regard to this, because every one of these concessions has to be granted by Order in Council. Every minister who sat around the Council Board when these leases were granted is equally responsible with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I think the least these hon. gentlemen could do would be to stand up and defend themselves and their colleagues in regard to this matter.
Mr. PREFONT AI Nil. As regards the lease made with Mr. Mackenzie, it is only for pound-net fishing. The rest is perfectly' free, not only to settlers, but to every one else. There is no monopoly whatever.


Nathaniel Boyd: One of the great difficulties when you give concessions of this kind is that they interfere with settlers who have been in the habit of catching fish and selling it in the highest market. The result of this concession being given to party-I do not know what to call them ; my hon. friend says ' hacks,' but I will not say that-is that it gives them the right to say to these people who are selling their fish at 6 cents a pound, that they shall sell them at whatever the lessees see fit to offer them-about 2 cents a pound. I also asked for the lease that was given to Mr. Merritt, another party man, of fishing rights on Lake Winnipegosis. This is a great interference with settlement in that part of the country. What are these concessions going to be worth in twenty-one years from to-day ? No man can estimate their worth when railways are built through that country, as they will be built in a few years. Yet the hon. minister grants these "concessions for a paltry sum of $10 a yrear.


John Graham Haggart: This is a lease between Fred. H. Markey and His Majesty the King.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If you read a clause farther down, you will see that the lease is taken by Mr. Markey for the benefit of the British American Fish Corporation, Limited.


John Graham Haggart: No, there Is nothing of the kind. The clause says he may assign it; it is not compulsory. Under the conditions of the lease he may assign it to this particu-Mr. BOYD.
lar company, but he may keep it altogether to himself.


Mr. DAVIS.: Suppose he did ?


John Graham Haggart: He has a lease :
In and upon the waters of the Nelson river and Its tributaries, from West river to its mouth also the estuary of the Nelson river, and Cape Tatnam to Owl river, extending three miles from shore ; also Hayes river and tributary waters, in the district of Keewatin ; also that portion of the Pigeon river and its tributary waters in the district of Keewatin ; also the waters of Great Slave lake, in the district of Mackenzie.
For $10 a year, renewable at the end of twenty years on condition that' he expends $100,000." It is a lease for forty-two years.


George William Fowler: Has the hon. minister passed over a copy of the lease ?


John Graham Haggart: Here Is the clause that the hon. minister has drawn attention to, and which he says would oblige the lessee to transfer his rights to the British American Fish Corporation :
That the said lessee shall not transfer his interest in the present lease, except to the British American Fish Corporation, Limited, for which letters patent have been granted by the Governor General in Council of Canada, without obtaining the written consent of the minister or that of some other person or persons authorized to grant the same.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is what I said from the beginning.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. minister's pardon. The hon. minister led the committee to believe that this man, who is a lawyer in Montreal, took the lease for the purpose of giving it to the British American Fish Corporation, that he held it as agent for them, and that he was obliged to give it to them. There is no condition of that kind in the lease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is as I understood it.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister is too good a lawyer to understand it in any such way as that. This clause is very plain :
That the said lessee shall not transfer his interest in the present lease except to the British American Fish Corporation, Limited, for which letters patent have been granted by the Governor General in Council of Canada, without obtaining the written consent of the minister.
This does not oblige him to transfer the lease to the British American Fish Corporation. He may organize another company if he likes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then he cannot transfer it to that company.


John Graham Haggart: He may transfer it to any individual with the consent of the min-isterf


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With the consent of the minister.


George William Fowler: With the consent of the minister. Why give this lease to Mr. Mar-key ? That is a very suspicious circumstance. A'lawyer in Montreal, who has an active practice, gets a lease for a few thousand square miles of fishing territory in the Northwest for $10 a year, and the hou. minister does not think that is a suspicious circumstance.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With the obligation to spend $50,000 a year.


George William Fowler: Why did you not make the lease with the British American Fishing Corporation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was not incorporated at the time.


George William Fowler: Not incorporated at the time ? The lease says that the lessee may transfer his interest to the British American Fish Corporation, Limited, ' for which letters pqtent have been granted.' Yet the hon. minister says it was not incorporated at the time. There it is in black and white and yet the hon. minister says, in face of that, that it was not incorporated. We are used to having statements from the ministers which are not in accordance with the facts. That is an awful thing to have to say, but one cannot be tt-uthful and not say it. Here is a minister who tells us that the reason be did not give a lease to the corporation but gave it to Markey, was, because the corporation was not in existence at the time the lease Was given, but the lease itself says that the lessee should not transfer his interest in the lease except to the British American Fish Corporation. Limited, for which letters patent have been granted by the Privy Council of Canada.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does that mean that the company was in existence ?


George William Fowler: What else does it mean ? If the minister takes such a view as that I suppose there is no use in talking further.


James Clancy: Where are these fish hatcheries to be located ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The sites have not yet been chosen. The officers will choose the sites as'soon as the session is over ; but it is the intention to establish them in the different provinces.


James Clancy: There will be two on the great lakes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, but they are not located yet.
Mi-. CLANCY. How many applications have been made for them on the great lakes ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Four or five, I think. .


Thomas Earle: With regard to the hatcheries in British Columbia, is it the intention of the government to select the sites and construct them this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If we have time we will. I am leaving for British Columbia in a day or two and in company with Mr. Bancroft of the provincial government, I intend to select the sites.


Nathaniel Boyd: As the hon. minister has not seen fit to hand me back the copy of the leases which I quoted from, I will read the lease which I now have to the House.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I gave it to someone on the other side.


Nathaniel Boyd: sum of at least one hundred thousand dollars, then he or the said company shall have the option of renewing the present lease, subject to the same terms and conditions, for a further period of twenty-one years.
These presents are made and issued subject to the following provisions, terms and conditions :
1.	That the said lessee or the said company, shall in* the use and occupation of the fishery privileges hereby leased, conform in every respect to the provisions, enactments and requirements of the Fishery Laws now, or which may hereafter be in force, and comply with all the rules and regulations that may have been or that may from time to time be adopted or made by the Governor General in Council relative thereto.
2.	That the said lessee shall not transfer his interest in the present lease, except to the British American Fish Corporation, Limited, for which letters patent have been granted by the Governor General in Council of Canada, without obtaining the written consent of the minister, or that of some other person or persons authorized to grant the same.
3.	That the said lessee or the said company shall not have any right or claim to indemnity or abatement of rent by reason of a decrease or failure in the fishery by these presents leased.
4.	That the said lessee or the said company shall annually make a full return of full details and particulars to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the operations carried on in every branch of the fishery hereby leased.
5.	That the said lessee or the said company shall, during the three years following the 1st day of May, 1904, expend a sum of at least one thousand dollars per annum in the exploration of the territory hereby leased, and during the period of ten years from the 1st day of May next, shall expend and. lay out at least fifty thousand dollars in the exploration, development, equipment and improvement of the said property hereby leased.
6.	That if the said lessee or the said company shall fail or neglect to pay the renh hereinbefore reserved and stipulated for, or any part thereof, or shall neglect or fail to perform any of .the other conditions, terms or provisions hereinbefore mentioned, or if the said fishery is being improperly operated by the said lessee or the said company, contrary to the terms of this lease, so as to prejudicially affect the public Interests, the minister may give or cause to be given three months' notice in writing to the said lessee or the said company, that the term of the lease by these presents created will be determined and cancelled, and the said term and lease shall thereupon and thereby be determined, ended and cancelled, and His Majesty may thereupon resume possession of the said fishery and the privileges hereby created wthout indemnifying the said lessee or the said company for any improvements that may have been done, and His Majesty may thereafter, without let or hindrance from the said lessee or the said company, resume possession of the said fishery and the privileges by these presents hereby created, and may continue to enjoy the same, or relet them to others as His Majesty may deem fit.
7.	The said lessee or the said company shall not take from the said waters any sturgeon weighing less than twelve pounds, nor' any whitefish, trout, or catfish, weighing less than


Nathaniel Boyd: two pounds, nor any yellowT pike weighing less than one and a half pounds.
8.	That the said lessee or the said company shall be liable for any damage or loss that may accrue to His Majesty by reason of any act or neglect of the said lessee or_ the said company in connection with the said fishery and shall indemnify and hold harmless His Majesty from all costs, loss and damage in connection therewith.
9.	His Majesty reserves the right to grant other leases in and upon said rivers and lake ; hut no other lease will be granted to fish in and upon the said rivers and tributaries, within a limit of ten miles from any fishing or refrigerating station erected by the said lessee or the said company thereon, or in said lake within a limit of fifty miles from any such station erected on said lake.
In witness whereof the minister hath subscribed and set his hand and seal of office, and the lessee hath hereunto set his hand and seal.
R. PREFONTAINE. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of



F. GOURDEATJ.

[Stage Direction]
FRED. H. MARKET. Witness-R. N. VENNING.
I place this on ' Hansard ' so that there may he no mistake with regard to it, because of tlie suggestion of the minister that there was some difference between the lease I had and this one.
George William Fowler: The hon. minister spoke of the way the public interest was safeguarded by that lease. I listened carefully to the reading of it, and there is not a condition in that lease the observance of which is not greatly to the advantage of the fisu-ing company. There are no onerous conditions imposed upon them at all. The hon. minister said it was not uncommon toga-ant leases of this kind. I challenge the hon. gentleman here and now to point to any single concession made hy any predecessor of his, whether a member of a Conservative government or of a Liberal government, on all fours with the lease which the hon. gentleman has made of these fishing rights. The hon. gentleman signalized his coming into office by doing what ? Acting the pirate, and robbing the Public Works Department and other departments of then-powers-for what purpose ? Merely to re ward bis friends. The hon. gentleman's boodling friends were not coining quickly enough to eat of the great feast he was spreading for them, and he issued a circular in Montreal, saying : IIo, all ye that hunger and thirst for boodle, come. That circular was published in the newspapers. So they came, each one carrying his ladle, to take part in the soup. X am surprised, not so much at the hon. gentleman, as at some of his colleagues who will permit such a scandalous state of affairs to continue.
Additional amount required for outfitting new cruisers for the fishery protection service, $30,900.


Mr. TURGEON.: (Mr. Chairman, I deem it my duty to refer to a statement- which was

made lay the Lion, member for St. Jolm (Mr. Daniel), in the course of his remarks last Saturday evening, in relation to the carrying out of the fishery regulations in the county of Gloucester. So far as the regulations are concerned, the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has given an ample explanation, and it is not my intention to refer to them at this closing hour of the session. But X desire to call attention to the statement made by the hon. member for St. John, that a real attempt at murder had been made by some of the fishermen of the county of Gloucester. Having read a statement sent by one William G. Good, of the parish of Bathurst, to that effect, the hon. member for St. John went on to say :
I take it that this is a matter which concerns very closely indeed the Department of Marine and Fisheries. And I would ask the minister what he proposes to do under the circumstances and whether, in view of what is really an attempt at murder, he will talc.e any action towards finding out and prosecuting the guilty parties.
When I heard the statement that an attempt at murder had been made by constituents of mine, fishermen of the county of Gloucester, knowing that such a misfortune has never yet occurred there, I was naturally startled. Although two or three weeks had elapsed since the alleged occurrence, it had not come to my knowledge, and the local newspapers made no reference to it. Moreover, if such a thiug had occurred, the local criminal authorities would have been only too prompt to have taken note of the fact ; for we have our criminal authorities in Gloucester county as well as In every other county of the province of New Brunswick. .More particularly wras I astonished at the fact that the statement I refer to made this accusation against the fishermen of. the fine settlements of Youliall, Salmon Beach, Jane-ville and Clifton, where the Armstrongs, the Scotts, the Ellises, the Whites, the Jenningses, the Millers, the' Buttimers, the Ronalds and the Eddys, all live together in amity, in the most hospitable, cordial, charitable neighbourliness, and are among our most industrious people-people who may be heard singing over their nets at the dawn of the morning and may be seen work ing in their fields the rest of the day, until the setting sun bids them to their homes in the evening ; whose sole ambition in then-arduous labours Is to provide for their farm-lies due comforts and the best possible education the province can afford ; some of whom have received and are now receiving an academic education in some of the best institutions in the Dominion of Canada , who have given to their families, I may say, the most refined domestic and Christian education ; whose every fireside is inspiring of the loftiest sentiments of British citizenship. Therefore, when such a statement was made by the hon. member for St. John, not only was I startled at the conduct charged against some of my constituents in that locality, 284 "
but I regretted that the hon. member had allowed his credulity to be imposed upon by such a statement made by such an irresponsible man as I know the said William G. Good to be ; and I placed a telegram in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, stating that no attempt had been made to fire on any one on the day stated or on any other day. It may be that the said William G. Good felt remorseful for his actions on that Sunday, and might have thought that he was aimed at by somebody and got despondent. X am informed by the fishery overseer of the locality that no such occurrence took place, and the said Heber Buttimer, who is accused, wired me yesterday as follows :
O. Turgeon, M.F., Ottawa.
Please deny in strongest possible terms state-, ment made by William J. Good that I fired at him. Get copy of affidavit so that I can proceed against Good.



HEBER BUTTIMER.

[Stage Direction]
I do not wish to refer to the disturbances that have taken place. The minister, as I have said, has made a statement on that subject ; but I thought it my duty to give this House a denial of this statement made by the hon. member for St. John.
George William Fowler: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment ? The telegram which he has read from Mr. Buttimer does not deny that he fired the shot. He asks the hon. gentleman to deny it, but he does not deny it himself.


Onésiphore Turgeon: He signs this telegram authorizing me to make the denial in. his name and that ought to be sufficient.


George William Fowler: I would again call attention to the fact that the telegram does not make the denial on the part of the person accused. He asks his representative to make a denial hut does not make the denial himself. He does not say it Is not true. I can endorse what the gentleman says with respect to the people of Gloucester, but even the best people sometimes violate the law, and in this instance the party accused has not contradicted the charge that he violated the law.
Further amount required for a steamer to replace the * Acadia ' and one to replace the ' Petrel ' on the great lakes, $285,000.


George William Fowler: I just wish to call tlie attention of the hon. minister to a matter affecting Mr. Charles S. Horton, county of Guyshorough, N.S. He complains that although he has had a license for over thirty years to use a trap-net off his property in Chedabucto bay and although last year the license was renewed the fee paid by him, subsequently the license was taken from him on the plea that a '-Mr. Hudson, who is employed in this House, had made application for same territory. He wrote to the minister but got no reply and then set his



trap-net and got notice to remove it. Has this matter been brought to the attention of the minister ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I shall make the necessary inquiries into it.


George William Fowler: I trust the hon. minister [DOT]will not allow any political proclivities to interfere, as this is not a matter in which politics should be concerned.
Further amount to assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait for deep-sea fisheries, $25,000.


George William Fowler: It would be desirable if some experiments should be made in the way of using refrigerator cars for bringing fish to the province of Ontario from the coast. I think it would be well if the government would do for the fishermen in this respect as they have done for the cheese and butter men.
Arts, agriculture and statistics, general statistics, $15,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been suggested by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) that certain information might be advantageously collected between censuses. This is for the purpose of collecting certain revenue statistics and statistics of crop productions which at present are not available except when the census is taken. I have not quite elaborated the whole scheme but hope to be able by means of the small staff here and . through correspondence to collect statistics which will be available between the decennial censuses.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister expect that $15,000 a year will cover the expenses?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Blain: Will the minister keep a permanent staff ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have already a permanent statistical staff in the department. I would have to add to it if I took up this extra work.


Richard Blain: Does he refer to the cenus staff ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The census work was finished on 1st July.


Richard Blain: When may we expect the other volume ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: One is in the printer's hands and the other is all ready.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that three volumes will cover all the work ? And when may we expect them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope that three volumes will practically cover it. I cannot say when the Printing Bureau will finish the work, but, so far as my department is concerned, the work is finished except reading the proofs and correcting.


George William Fowler: 


Richard Blain: The census was taken in 1901, and it is now 1904. So far one volume was issued. At that rate, we may expect the last volume out about the time when the census is taken again.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The last volume of the census of 1891 was not issued until 1897.
Mr. FOW'LER. Has the minister done anything about the matter I spoke to him about last year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I sent an official and had an investigation made. The result confirmed what the enumerators had done. The officers I sent down went from house to house in the parishes mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Fowler) and also by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queen's (Mr. Wil-mot)-perhaps not to every house, but to a sufficient number of houses to corroborate the returns.	.
Mr. FOW*LER. That may be true, but it seems very remarkable. Why should these people not give their correct' religious denomination, particularly when attention was called to it by this officer going around the second time ? He must have got into the wrong house.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The officer's returns were based on affidavits. Under the Census Act I have power to appoint men to take evidence under oath and this officer was clothed with that power. The persons questioned swore that they were the persons referred to in the schedules filled out by the census officers who first called upon them and that the record in the schedules was according to answers they had given.
Mr. FOWLER, Did these people swear that they gave wrong statements as to their religious denomination ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they said the answers accorded were those they had given. When asked if they were Free Christian Baptists, some said they were but had given the other-answer. Others said they had belonged to that sect, but they now belonged to another sect of Baptists. I cannot give all the details from memory. But I will be, glad to show the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) the papers.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. minister have them brought here. _
Mr. FISHERr I will have them brought to-morrow.


Richard Blain: Through what channel does the minister expect to collect the information ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A good deal of it by correspondence. We have the basis of the information in the census. For instance, in industrial statistics, we can inform people whose industries are entered in the census of their status at the time and ask ijhem to

fill out a form which indicates the changes. As to the agricultural part of it, we shall have to enlist the aid of the municipal officials or others. The experience is that information will be given in return for sending the information to them, as a general rule.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister could get the information from the provincial government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Ontario government has it for that province, and the Manitoba government has a part of it, but none of the other provincial governments have it.


Richard Blain: I was speaking more particularly of Ontario. Any information gather* in Ontario between censuses should be got from the assessors.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will take advantage of the work of municipal officials as far as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many additional hands will he required ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot state that until the work develops.


Samuel Hughes: I was at the experimental farm the other day and saw a field there which was such a mixture of wheat, oats and barley that it would be impossible to get a clean sheaf of any of these giains from it. In case some farmer should come along and see it the minister had better cut it down and burn it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not been able to go to the experimental farm for the last two weeks or more. If there is such a field it must be a field of mixed grain sown for a purpose.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This is wholly out of order. It has nothing to do with the gathering of statistics, and I must call both the minister and the hon. member for North Victoria to order.
Quarantine-Public Works Health Act, $3,000.
Cattle Quarantine and Veterinary Division, $50,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is in addition to the $100,000 voted for cattle quarantine. As I explained to the House the other day, there is considerable disease that is spreading amongst our cattle in the Northwest Territories. I do not want to speak too much about it. It is very important that we should stamp it out. There is also disease amongst the horses there, and I want to stamp that out too before it spreads any further.
Bounties on iron and steel ; on smelting of lead contained in lead ore ; and on manilla fibre used in the manufacture of binder twine. To cover expenditure in connection with the amendment of the Acts, $6,400.
284J


Richard Blain: With respect to manilla fibre used in the manufacture of binder twine, will the right hon. gentleman give us the amount that was paid out for this fibre last year, as a separate amount ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: I have not got that information by me, I will try and get it for the hon. gentleman to-morrow.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys and other expenses, $500,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What have they done in connection with these surveys or has anything been done ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: There has been nothing done in respect to the surveys. The matter is under consideration. Under the law the chief engineer has to be appointed and the surveying parties will be organized. Until the appointment of the chief engineer is made nothing can be done.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a chief engineer ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John Graham Haggart: Nor have you appointed any commissioners ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is doing the surveying east of Winnipeg ?


William Stevens Fielding: Any that is being done is being done by the Grand Trunk Pacific. There is no doubt that the Grand Trunk Pacific were doing some, but the government has not done any in consequence of the delay in the passage of the amended legislation.


Richard Blain: How much was voted for these surveys last year ?


William Stevens Fielding: The same amount.


Richard Blain: How much was expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing was expended.


Nathaniel Boyd: Are there not a number of survey parties out about North Bay, Lake Nipigon and east of Winnipeg ?


William Stevens Fielding: No government parties.


Nathaniel Boyd: Why are the Grand Trunk Pacific people doing surveying work on that section of the road with which they have nothing to do ?


William Stevens Fielding: If they are doing it they are doing it for themselves.


Nathaniel Boyd: What have they to do with the road east of Winnipeg ?


William Stevens Fielding: We had that question pretty fully discussed last session and also this session. The Grand Trunk Pacific people have had some surveying done out there but whatever they are doing is on their own account. If any part of that

survey should be found to he useful in connection with the National Transcontinental Railway that would be a matter of subsequent adjustment, but at the present time the government has nothing to do with it.


Haughton Lennox: That is a peculiar kind of position to take. Last year we were told by the hon. Minister of Finance that there were surveying parties out and that steps would be immediately taken after the session to ascertain whether any of the surveys were available or not, and to put parties on behalf of the government in the field. Several months elapsed before there was any difficulty between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific. We were given to understand that the government would immediately take action and have these surveys made. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, although they have nothing to do with this part of the road, continue to keep their surveying parties in the field and the government know nothing about it. Some definite arrangement should be come to. The state of affairs will be particularly disadvantageous to the government and the country in the end and I do not think it should be allowed to continue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the government no information to give us regarding what is being done or what is intended to be done ? Or are they totally in the dark ? A year and a half ago they were in such a great hurry that they could not wait an hour. Now they seem to have relapsed into a state of indifference and are either doing nothing or if they are doing anything they can give the committee no information as to what is being done.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that I can add anything to the statement already made. I differ from my hon. friends opposite in thinking that the government were in a position to proceed with the work. The legislation which it was necessary to obtain had to be completed before we could proceed with these surveys. It is only within the last few days that this legislation has been completed. The chief engineer will be appointed and surveying parties will be put in the field. I do not think the government have been in a position to take that step up to the present time.
Mr: FOWLER. Is some of this work being done by these aliens who have been brought here ?


William Stevens Fielding: If they have been working they have not been working on government surveys, at any rate.


George William Fowler: They are working on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Stevens Fielding: They may have been.


William Stevens Fielding: 


George William Fowler: And it is the intention, as the lion minister knows full well, that the government will pay for all surveys done east of Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk people.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman may say so.


George William Fowler: That has been stated over and over again.


William Stevens Fielding: Not exactly.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. gentleman deny it V


William Stevens Fielding: I deny it in the sense in which the hon. gentleman says it. I state that there is no arrangement on this subject, but if a fair and reasonable arrangement can be made and if these surveys are found to be on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific it would be the part of wisdom that we should make use of them rather than to make new ones. There is no bargain or arrangement whatever. It is perfectly open to the government to accept these surveys or refuse them as they see fit.


George William Fowler: That is all very well. It is perfectly easy to have an open understanding as to that, especially when the parties are in accord as the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government are. It is a very easy matter to give a wink and say : We cannot make any arrangement in the meantime but we will fix this all right when the time comes.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not give any winks.


George William Fowler: These surveys are being made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway on the eastern section. They are making them now. For those that they had made up to the time that the government had decided to build the eastern section of this road it would be quite reasonable that they should be paid for, but why did they not leave off then ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. gentleman will have to ask the Grand Trunk Pacific people why they are continued.


George William Fowler: They are continuing and they propose to continue this work. It has been done by these alien engineers and the money of the people of this country is to be paid out to give employment to a lot of American engineers while our own engineers are idle.


William Stevens Fielding: That is what the hon. gentleman states, not what I say.


George William Fowler: That is what the result will be.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps so, but we will
see.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.

After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BROCK.: We have been given to understand that the Grand Trunk Company are making surveys for a road which is to be built and paid for by the government of this country. We have been told that the Grand Trunk Company have no arrangement with the government under which they are to be recouped for the expense of these surveys. I would ask the government to be very careful in dealing with men who are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a transaction of this kind, without having an agreement about it. It is not a business-like way of proceeding and there must be some ulterior motive in it. We were told at the inception of this scheme that haste was absolutely necessary, and yet for two years the government has done nothing, while it now appears the Grand Trunk Company have been going on with the survey. We are not told that they are yet approaching Moncton, and I think the member of Cumberland (Mr. Logan), who forced this. extension upon the government and upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company, should be able to explain how it is that Grand Trunk surveyors and not government surveyors are surveying this line. If the thing is a failure it will be a disaster to Canada now, because we will have advertised through the world that Canada has a government of incompetents.
. Mr. BARKER. We shall be able to save discussion if the Minister of Finance will give us the assurance that no part of this 8500,000 for surveys shall be used to pay the Grand Trunk or any other company for doing work which has been carried on without the authority of parliament. If the Finance Minister will assure us that this money is for surveys yet to be made, we on this side of the House will be content. But, if the. government wants to use what is voted for surveys in the future, to pay for surveys which the Grand Trunk have already made, then I want it distinctly understood that we shall discuss the question so long as we are able to stand here and discuss it. Neither the Grand Trunk Company nor any company has authority from parliament to make surveys. If the minister has any idea of using this money or any part of it to recompense the Grand Trunk for work they have done in the past we should know the fact. We should have a distinct statement from the Minister of Finance. He should be explicit whether or not he intends to use this money for any past work.


William Stevens Fielding: We have been very explicit in speaking on that subject in the past, and I cannot hope to make it any more explicit. ' I can only repeat. In the first place I am not able to give the hon. gentleman the assurance he asks for, because it would be inconsistent with every statement that has been made by the government in relation to this appropriation. We have repeatedly stated that while there was no arrangement with the Grand Trunk to recoup them, yet when we come to need our surveys and are in a position to carry on the work, if the Grand Trunk have made surveys of a portion of the line, which are suitable to our road, it would be a useless waste of money for us to make other surveys, and if we can take over some portion of the Grand Trunk surveys at a fair and reasonable price, I do not hesitate to say that that would be a very proper thing to do. There is no contract; we are perfectly free to take them over or not to take them over. If my hon. friend asks me to engage that we should in no case take over any surveys that have been made, but that in every case we should insist on making new surveys, I do not think that is a reasonable proposition. At all events, I cannot give my hon. friend the assurance.


Mr. BARKER.: I think we now know precisely where the Finance Minister stands. . It is perfectly clear that this vote of $500,000 is being obtained in order to recompense the Grand Trunk Railway Company for surveys which it has been making without the authority of parliament. The hon. gentleman is asking for a vote for surveys. If the government find that the surveys that have been made in the last eighteen months or two years are useful to them, they can come to parliament next session and ask authority to pay for them. We surely are udt to be asked to give the Finance Minister or the Railway Minister authority to buy these plans and surveys from the Grand Trunk Company. Parliament surely has something to say on the subject. We are willing to grant to the government any reasonable sum, even $500,000, which they upon their responsibility as ministet's of the Crown may see fit to expend on surveys for the purposes of this railway ; but I shall be very much surprised if hon. gentlemen behind them will be found disposed to give them power to buy plans and surveys which the Grand Trunk Company has been making for its own purposes and in its own interests. and to pay for them out of this grant. That is the position. Parliament will be quite prepared to discuss the question whether the Grand Trunk ought to be paid for those surveys when that question arises. The hon. gentleman does not pretend at this moment that the Grand Trunk is going to ask for payment. The hon. gentleman does not know that those surveys were in the interest of the country. They have been made, in all probability, In the special interest of the Grand Trunk, and not in the general interests of this Dominion ; and why should parliament give carte

blanche to the Finance Minister or the Railway Minister to pay for such surveys ? It is not unlike the case of Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann with regard to the Yukon Railway. Parliament discussed that case after the claim was made, and voted the money. We should reserve to parliament the right to discuss the surveys made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company when the company wants payment for them ; and it should' not be paid by the government until parliament has considered the subject, and has decided that the surveys are in the interest of the country and that' we ought to pay for them. It is perfectly plain that what the hon. Finance Minister wants is to get power to pay for the surveys without the approval of parliament-to use this vote, which on the face of it is not a vote for work already done, but for work yet to be done, to pay for the Grand Trunk.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to deprive my hon. friend of the glorious privilege of discussing this till to-morrow morning if he wishes. I have only to say that the explanations given of this item now are precisely the same as those that were given last session ; they do not differ a hair's breadth. My hon. friend comes forward now for the first time with the suggestion that if the Grand Trunk surveys are to be purchased, they should be made the subject of a special appropriation. I do not know what view might have been taken of that suggestion if it had been made last session or earlier in the present session. I can only say that at this stage of the session I have no authority from my colleagues to deal with the new proposition which my hon. friend has advanced. I never heard the suggestion before, although this matter has been discussed a dozen times.


Samuel Barker: I do not know what authority the hon. gentleman has. He is asking for authority to expend $500,000 for surveys yet to be made ; and there is nothing on the face of these estimates to show that His Excellency, in approving of them, has ever had brought to his attention the fact that it is not for surveys to be made that this money is to be used, but to pay for surveys already done. That is not the estimate.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is not within the terms of the estimate, it cannot be done.


Samuel Barker: I think we must know from the hon. gentleman that he agrees with us in that respect.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not.
Mr. BARKER, I know the hon. gentleman does not. I know that he intends to use the money contrary to w'hat on the face of the vote appears to be the intention. This, I repeat, is a vote for surveys to be Mr. BARKER.
made. The hon. gentleman will not say that it is not to be used for another purpose. I say that before we grant this, we must know from the hon. gentleman that it is to be used only for the purpose for which it professes to be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by other expenses ?


William Stevens Fielding: It would include any expenses in connection with the commission-the salaries of the commisisoners and the office staff, and anything else in connection with the Transcontinental Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then this is to pay the salaries of the commissioners as well V


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that they are not provided for in the statute, and in that case this would pay their salaries.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry the hon. Minister of Finance has taken such a decided position as he has just announced. We have generally found him pretty reasonable in the way of accommodating himself to the views of the opposition, but he is hardly bearing out his usual course to-night. I may say that this is a revote, and last year the minister explained to us the position of the matter. He pointed out that there were then some surveyors of the railway company in the field,, and stated that so far as their surveys could be reasonably made available for the purposes of the railway, they wrould be taken over, and reasonable compensation would be allowed. No one, so far as I know, objected to that position at that time. But it is somewhat different when another year has elapsed and the same state of things has been allowed to continue. Up to that time the railway company was acting on the assumption that it would probably build the line itself. At all events, the government had. not committed itself to the scheme of building the railway from Winnipeg to Moncton. From the time we passed the legislation of last year, it became definitely known that any surveys the company were making were being made on the government end of the line. Now the minister comes and asks for a revote and that revote must remain upon the same terms as the vote of last year. Without anything being said by the minister or any question asked by this House, it must be taken that the revote would be exactly on the same basis as last year. Last year it was explained that the government proposed utilizing the money to immediately put surveyors in the field and it was anticipated that the expense would amount to about $450,000, as stated by the Minister of Finance, If that be the theory upon which we voted last year, there is nothing in the circumstances since which would justify" the administration in using that money for the

purpose of paying the Grand Trunk Railway for any surveys they may have made.
I therefore submit that the amount which the company claims for surveys should first be ascertained and then parliament should have the right to vote whether we should pay that money or not.


William Stevens Fielding: Our position is that we have not hitherto had the opportunity of proceeding with the construction of this road. We passed an Act last session designed to accomplish that purpose, and we expected that at an early day we would be able to proceed with the work. Difficulties arose, and we concluded it was not wise to proceed with the undertaking until we had come to a further agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific which would have to be followed by legislation. That is an explanation and a reasonable one, of the delay.
I agree that the general lines on which the vote was obtained last year must stand with us to-day, but it would not be reasonable to say that in no case should we pay the Grand Trunk Railway for their surveys. I do not know what surveys they have done or whether they have made any surveys on this particular line. Surely in the absence of the amended legislation, which we believed necessary for the carrying on of this undertaking, it was the part of wisdom that we shoufd not proceed until we could know really where we were standing. If, after' the differences which arose between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, we had come forward and said that we had spent $300,000 or $400,000 on the work and then failed to come to an understanding with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the whole thing came to an end, hon. gentlemen opposite would properly say that when we became aware of the differences, it would have been the part of common sense not to spend anything until we had completed the legislation.


Samuel Barker: We were urged to make the surveys before you had committed yourselves to anything.


William Stevens Fielding: We obtained legislation on the undertaking that the money would be spent through a board of commissioners. Until that board was appointed, we would not have been justified in proceeding with the work. That is the explanation of the delay. The hon. member for Hamilton has proposed for the first time that we should take a special vote for the Grand Trunk Railway surveys when we ascertain what amount is to be paid. If that suggestion had been made earlier, I am not prepared to say what might have been done, but I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues and consequently am not now in a position to accept.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is very indefinite to vote an amount for survey and then take a
considerable portion of that for the commission.


William Stevens Fielding: Not a large sum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you have three commissioners and the personnel of the office, that will take quite a respectable sum. I understand that this is to be spent through the commissioners land not through the government.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to suggest that there would be no great hardship on the Grand Trunk Railway, since they have made the surveys themselves, to allow them to keep that account in abeyance until next session.


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite possible we might take that view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One object for which we gave this vote before was that we desired the government should make explanatory surveys. We said, we are willing to give you the money to go on and make your surveys and let us know what we have before us rather than commit ourselves to the enterprise with the imperfect knowledge we have. The idea was that the government might go on at once with the survey and in another session the information would be conveyed to parliament, so that if we had to deal with the-question again, we could deal with it intelligently. If it is desirable to make these surveys to get the information and if this money is to be expended by the government themselves, through their own engineers, there would be no objection from this side, and what might be required to pay the board of commissioners and the Grand Trunk Railway might be held over next year.


William Stevens Fielding: There may be much force in the hon. gentleman's argument. It is quite possible that if the Grand Trunk Railway claim compensation for these surveys, the government might take that view and decline to pay it, but I am not in a position to agree to that suggestion to-night. It is quite possible the government might say we prefer to take an appropriation from parliament, but as the question is now raised for the first time. I cannot give that guaranty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could you not hold it over for consultation with your colleagues ?


William Stevens Fielding: Not at this stage of the session.


William Rees Brock: Does the minister not see that if the government hold this in abeyance and refuse to pay on the ground that the money is not voted, they will be in a better position to deal with a company which has not been found hitherto always reliable 1 That company concluded an agree-

ment with the government and did not live up to it. It is not the fault of the government if that company are in the position in which they are to-day because the government were willing to give away almost everything, but in consequence of the action of the Grand Trunk Railway we are in a different position from that in which we were last year. Last year we voted tliis money under the impression that the contract was sealed and signed and had to be carried out. The Grand Trunk Railway backed out of that position, and you may depend upon it that having failed to live up to their agreement, if we should vote this money now to pay them, they will use that fact and compel the government to accede to their demands. But they would be much more likely to make reasonable terms if the government were in a position to say that the money was not voted. In that case the government would be in a much better position should the company demand too much.
I do not think it absolutely necessary to vote it. The hon. minister probably will not require to use it for a year. A year and a half or two years has passed since this was first introduced, and we have made no advance. It may not be many months before there will be another session, and by that time the minister may be in a better position to deal according to the interest of the country with this Grand Trunk Company.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister, on two or three occasipns this evening, has said that this question has been raised for the first time. Last year the hon. gentleman did not suggest that the vote of $500,000 or any part of it wits to be used to pay the Grand Trunk for work that they had done on surveys. It is true that when the question was asked whether the Grand Trunk were making surveys and at whose expense, he said that they were making surveys and that, no doubt, if the government found these surveys useful to the country, they would pay the company for them. But there was no pretense that the vote of $500,000 granted to the government was to be used for that purpose. The hon. gentleman was only telling us that we might be asked to pay for the Grand Trunk surveys, not that we were granting the money to pay for them. Now, what we are willing to do is to grant the minister any money that the government may wish for the purpose of surveys for this railway to be made by the government. That is what we wanted long ago. We believe that if the government had their Transcontinental Railway Bill, that Bill would have been a very different one. We complained that they were going it blind, that they did not take the trouble that business men would have taken to make a survey before they committed themselves to the route. We never sought to interfere with government surveys. Quite Mr. BROCK.	.
the contrary; we have been urging the government to make surveys. But it is a very different thing when the hon. gentleman, in askng a vote of this kind, plainly shows that what he wants is power to pay the Grand Trunk for surveys that that company has been making, not necessarily in the interest of the country but solely in its own interests. We all know-nobody can doubt-that the Interests of the railway company may be to find a route quite different from that which would serve the purposes of the transcontinental railway contemplated by the government. The Grand Trunk. I think most people will be ready to believe, have interests very much opposed to what the government propose in the Transcontinental Bill. The government want a line up by Lake Abitibi. The Grand Trunk do not want a line there at all, but a very different line. And the hon. minister wants power to take from this $500,000 to pay the Grand Trunk for its surveys without submitting the question to parliament We do not say it may not be equitable to pay the Grand Trunk, but we want to know what the facts are before we pay. And we on this side do not feel disposed to give the government a free hand to pay the Grand Trunk whatever they may see fit to pay them. We do not propose-willingly, at all events -to leave that in the hands of the Minister of Finance, or any other minister, or all the ministers. We say that is a question for parliament to decide. For that reason, and not because we are objecting to the course the Grand Trunk have pursued, we say that this money we are now granting for surveys should be used by the government in making surveys, and should not be misappropriated to any other purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has made a suggestion which, if such a thing could happen, would justify his criticism. But it does not happen. He suggested that the Grand Trunk Pacific people will want to locate this line, under the advice of their engineer, at places that would not be in the interests of the government-


Samuel Barker: May not he.


William Stevens Fielding: Let me say to my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that this line will be located by the commissioners under the advice of the chief engineer. He has not yet been appointed, but hon. gentlemen opposite may be sure that he will be a man of eminence in his profession. He will advise the commissioners, and through them the government, as to what is a fair and proper location of the road. If the chief engineer reports that the surveys of the Grand Trunk are not useful to us for the road we want and where we want it, they will not be paid for.

Railways and canals-chargeable to revenue -Rideau canal-repairs to dam at Poonamalie lock station, $2,500.


John Graham Haggart: As the minister is aware there are a lot of claims against the department for the breaking away of that dam. Will he please explain whether he intends to pay these claims or how he intends to consider them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I referred the whole matter to the Department of Justice as to whether the department was responsible. If the department has been negligent with respect to this dam, of course they are liable ; if they have not been, then of course these people have no claim.


John Graham Haggart: You give them in every case a fiat.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It would seem from the report of the hon. gentleman's engineer that these parties have a good claim. The dam which broke away was built about seventy-seven years ago by the Royal Engineers, a wooden dam. It was repaired in 1899, a top was made on it which raised the water in the Rideau lakes. Then the engineer stated that the dam when it was repaired in 1899 was only good for two or three years more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a question of law as to whether the department has exercised proper care.


John Graham Haggart: Here is a dam built seventy-seven years ago at.the bottom of a lake twenty miles long, and in some places four or five miles wide. The dam is only six feet high


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a question whether the department is required to keep up the dam at all.


John Graham Haggart: It was carried away by the ice this spring, and a lot of damage accrued to the parties below, to the exteu't of several thousand dollars. No doubt it was caused by the dam breaking away. The minister has referred the matter to the Department of Justice on an ex parte statement by the officer who was in charge of the canal, Mr. Phillips, the superintending engineer, and in his report to the chief engineer he gives away the whole'case. He says that the old wooden dam was seventy-seven years old, partially repaired in 1899. and that these repairs would make the dam good for two or three years. Last winter it breaks away and causes considerable damage, and the department refuses to recompense the parties injured. But as I understand the minister has consented to a fiat being issued on behalf of these parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So as to settle the question of negligence.


Richard Blain: I understand that the item for the Galops Rapids Canal was held over so that the minister might give some explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That went through, and I furnished the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) copies of the contracts.


John Graham Haggart: We had the other night a distinct understanding that the two items of the Galops Rapids would stand. I wanted to discuss the Galops Rapids contract.


Mr. HYMAN.: The understanding wals that one item was to stand and that both c-ould be discussed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think by later arrangement both items were passed.


Richard Blain: I differ with the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: However, I have no objection to discussing them.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose we can discuss this item of the Galops Rapids on this item, which is before the House. I wanted some information on the subject. Will the minister be kind enough to tell us the amount expended in each year .since 1896. The contract was finished in 1896. and in 1897 a new contract was entered into with the Gilbert Bros., and the latter contract does not specify at all what they are to do.


Peter Macdonald: It must be understood that this discussion is taking place under the Rideau canal item, which item has just been passed. It will therefore be necessary to- make a motion to reconsider the Rideau canal item. We will assume that the item is reopened.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That item No. 77 be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the Galops Rapids.


Peter Macdonald: The Galops canal has been passed and the report has been sent back to the House. Now we are going to discuss it in this way so as to have the resolution before the committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That item has gone through. I am perfectly willing to give my hon. friend the information, but I will give it to him in the morning.


John Graham Haggart: I have the contract here. I just want to know the amounts paid.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expenditure up to the 30th June, 1902, was $878,441.85.


John Graham Haggart: How much was paid up to 1896. when the contract was terminated ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I only have the total up to 1902. There was nothing paid in 1903

or 1904. The total amount Of progress estimates up to the 30th June, 1904, was $275,323. We have in the main estimates for 1904-5, $40,000. and in the supplementary estimates for 1904-5, $28,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is $6S,000 altogether.


Henry Robert Emmerson: $68,000 for the present year.


John Graham Haggart: There was nothing paid [DOT]in 1903 ?	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Andrew Broder: I would like to know whether it is the intention of the government to lengthen the lock at Morrisburg to 800 feet and make it the same as the Iroquois one. A good deal of interest is taken in reference to it. It is supposed to be necessary and it would be a great convenience to navigation. There has been a good deal of pressure for some years to get the government to extend the flume from the canal on the eastward and I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to deal with these matters.
Mr. EMMERtoON. That particular question has not been brought under my notice. It has not been presented to me as a necessity.' Of course the matter will be taken into consideration.


John Graham Haggart: As we are going to discuss this matter to-morrow, I will put the questions which I want answered. I want the amount expended on this Galops Rapids up to 1896 when the contract terminated. There was a new contract entered into in 1897. The contract with the Gilbert Bros'. Engineering Company does not specify any work to be done at all except this :
And whereas Her Majesty, represented by ithe Minister of Railways and Canals, desires to have made a satisfactory test and survey of the bottom of the said channel, and at the same time to be prepared for the removal of any material which may be discoverd above such original or contract grade, and further in view of the apparent permanent lowering of the water surface of the River St. Lawrence in said channel that provision be made for the execution of such additional work as may be considered advisable.
The work is not mentioned at all in the contract. I want to know what work the government authorized them to do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was the sweeping out and the clearing of the channel.


John Graham Haggart: And whereds the said E. Gilbert & Sons, did by letter, dated the 22nd day of October, 1892, offer to supply all the necessary plant, &e.
You paid $1,000 to put one of the scows ip order and-


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the conditions that the government pay for the services of said plant the sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars per day of twelve hours ; time to commence when the plant is in position as designated by the engineer in charge.
This plant is solely used for the purpose of removing gravel above the prism which was excavated by Mr. Gilbert and for which he was paid in full.
And also on the further condition that any rock found in situ above the original contract grade line shall be removed by the said Gilbert Bros. Engineering Company, Limited, at their own expense.
And also on the further condition that if it should be required to still further improve the channel by deepening and widening that they the said company will perform such work of drilling, blasting and dredging as may be ordered, for the sum of $8.40 per cubic yard for rock necessarily excavated.
I want to know the number of days that this plant was employed at $425 a day, since 1897,' the beginning of the contract, and the orders the hon. minister has given for the removal of the material and how much has been paid for that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume that the hon gentleman is perfectly willing that the item shall be taken at this moment and passed. For the purpose of expediting the business of the House I will give him the particulars of the whole expenditure in the morning.


John Graham Haggart: It is for the purpose of having it on ' Hansard.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will furnish it in the morning and make reference to it so that my hon. friend will have it on 1 Hansard.'


John Graham Haggart: What opportunity will we have .in the morning of discussing this matter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the morning.


John Graham Haggart: The first item. That is all right.
Inland Revenue-to provide for one second-class clerk, R. A. Wiallard, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,200.


John Graham Haggart: When did Mr. Wiallard come into the service ?


Mr. BRODEUR.: He came in when I was appointed Minister of Inland Revenue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought you could take a man in the service and pay him $600 for private secretary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The private secretary of the former minister did not stay in the service and I had to replace him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you more than one private secretary ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have only one who knows shorthand and typewriting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What position does the other occupy ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are doing departmental work and attending to my private correspondence ; the other gentleman is a second-class clerk or a junior second class.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told that some of the ministers have each two private secretaries. Formerly one secretary was enough for a minister but in these days of expansion you have become either luxuriant or extravagant. I am told that some of these private secretaries are doing a good deal of political work.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the case. These gentlemen are simply doing my private correspondence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could you not find one who would combine the qualifications of a shorthand writer and typewriter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is extremely difficult to get stenographer in both French and English. I have been several months without being able to obtain one. and I had to pay out of my own pocket for some time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 cap understand how that might be the case.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have a good deal of correspondence in French and English and I require a secretary who knows both languages.
The Senate-salaries and contingencies, $75,576.


John Graham Haggart: Are these items passed by the Committee of Internal Economy of the House ?


William Stevens Fielding: Of the Senate.


John Graham Haggart: You have no supervision over them at all ?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I am afraid not ; we have supervision over all money matters but I do not know how it can be exercised in that case.
House of Commons-salaries, $72,700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of $1,450 here, and it seems to me last year that there was also an increase. How many employees have we in the House of Commons ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Board of Internal
Economy in the month of October, 1903, adopted a resolution the-effect of which was to place the officers of the House on the same footing as officers of the Civil Service.
The clerk of the House was requested to prepare a report fixing the grades and the salaries of the officers of the House in a permanent manner. At a meeting of the commission held during this session, the report of the clerk was submitted to the board and the salaries and duties of the officers were determined, both for the present and the future, with a view of
avoiding the yearly demands which have hitherto been made by officers of the House for increases of their salaries. The increases will now go on automatically in the same way as those of officers under the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the Speaker give us the names of the different employees, with a statement of their present salaries and their salaries three years ago ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 
Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not see why the government treat Mr. Laplante in the way they do. We all know that he sits here every day from the time the session opens until it closes ; and yet you have increased the salaries of others from $200 to $400 a year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman *will pardon me. Mr. Laplante's salary was $2,500 until this session, and it is now put up to $2,800.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I spoke about that last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS: That is why we did it.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: You raised his salary, but you still owe him several thousand dollars. The man who occupied that place before him had $2.S00 a year, and you appointed this gentleman at $2,000. Now, you only give him a part of What belongs to him, and you still owe him.


John Graham Haggart: Has the sergeant-at-arms not been behaving himself I see that he has only got an increase of $50 a year, while the assistant sergeant has had an increase of $300. It must be encouraging to the sergeant.
All-. SPEAKER. The salary of the sergeant-at-arms, under the new rule, is fixed at $2,500. His salary is now within $50 of the maximum. The matter is now before the Internal Economy Commission, however, and I have no doubt that his salary will be put up to the maximum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: AVhat we would like is to get some intelligent idea of what increases these several officers have received during the last few years, so that we can judge whether their salaries have been increased gradually or by a sudden jump. It seems to me there is a good deal of inequality about them. We should know what salaries these various officers receive and what increases they have been given.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think that the increases have been at the rate of about $50 a year. 'To meet the very objection made by the hon. gentleman, the Commission of Internal Economy last year had the clerk of the House go into the matter fully and the commission adopted a rule by which all these clerks will have their salaries increased Mr. SPEAKER.
automatically by $50 a year, the same as other civil servants. The commission fixed the minimum and maximum salaries of these officers, so that by annual increment, each will come to the maximum of his class.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then how do you manage to increase one $400 and another $500 in two years and another only $50 or $100 ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Take the case of the assistant clerk. When his predecessor, Air. Rouleau, was retired, he was getting $2,SOO. When the present clerk was appointed, it was understood that in time he would reach that amount. His salary for the first year was $2,000 and it was gradually increased until last year it reached $2,500. It was thought by the commission that as he is doing at least as good service as his predecessor, he should get the $2,800 and we gave it to Jiim. His successor will come in at $2,000 and get an annual increase of $50 a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to have a statement showing the length of service and the increases during say the last three years.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: During the last three years when I was Speaker, we always gave an increase of $50 to those who. had not reached the maximum of their class. In two or three instances, we gave an increase of $100. When I became Speaker we were spending $70,000 for these salaries, and when I left the aggregate was about the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see how that can be when one man gets $500 increase, another $100, another $150, another $200 and some $300. AYe do not know how the salaries are going at all and cannot get any definite information. From time to time it accidentally comes to our knowledge that one man is increased $50, another $200 and another $300, which indicates favoritism.


Samuel Hughes: AVould Air. Speaker give a list of those who have been increased $300, those who have been increased $250 and $200 and $150 ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The clerk assistant, and Air. Frechette, chief translator are the only ones who got an increase of $300. Air. Frechette is now getting $200 a year less than his predecessor.


George William Fowler: Has there been a general raise all around ?	.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes.


George William Fowler: Has anything been done for the official reporters ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Not yet.
Air. FOA\rLER. Is it the intention to do anything ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The official reporters up to the present have been under the jurisdiction of the Debates Committee.


Samuel Hughes: Not in the matter of salaries.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Their salary was fixed hy the Debates Committee in 1880 and has remained the same ever since. Within the last week the committee reported asking that the Internal Economy Commission consider the matter of their salaries and that is a question for the commission to consider.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman give those who have got an increase of $250 ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Unframboise got an increase of $250/ He is a translator. Mr. Desaulniers got $200. Mr. Bowie, the deputy sergeant-at-arms got $250. The sergeant-at-arms is within $50 of his maximum.


Andrew Broder: You might be on the river's brink and die of thirst.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What increase has he got in the last three years ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 


Samuel Hughes: Who got $150 ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. O'Brien.


Samuel Hughes: What is his salary now ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: For the next fiscal year it will be $2,300. Mr. Mills, the postmaster, gets an increase of $200, making his salary $1,700.


Samuel Hughes: What do the assistants in the post office get ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They are sessional clerks who are paid a per diem allowance, except the assistant postmaster.


Samuel Hughes: Who is he ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Lemieux.


Samuel Hughes: Are there any that get an increase of $100 ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Cairns gets $100, making his salary $1,200 ; and Mr. Cameron gets the same increase, making his salary $1,500, and so does Mr. Foran, whose salary is thus made $1,350, and Mr. Tremblay. Mr. Colwell also gets $150.


Samuel Hughes: What is his salary now ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is $1,700.


Samuel Hughes: And what is the salary of the assistant ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is Mr. Macdonell. His salary is $1,450.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Colwell is the chief and Mr Macdonell is the assistant. Was not Mr. Macdonell there before Mr. Colwell ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes ; but I understand that Mr. Colwell was appointed to the office
which was vacated by the superannuation of Mr. iMcGllilvray.


Samuel Hughes: Did Mr. Macdonell get his regular statutory increase this year ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes ; everybody got it. The hon. gentleman expressed a doubt as to their being a decrease in the figures. As a matter of fact, there is a decrease o,f $2,150 in the salaries of the staff.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some items there is a decrease. Will Mr. Speaker give us the number of employees of the House ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I make the total of the list before me to be 44.


Samuel Hughes: That does include the sessional clerks ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No.


Samuel Hughes: How many sessional clerks are there ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Thirty, including the whips' clerks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has Mr. Speaker gone over all the House of Commons salaries ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes ; all the permanent staff.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many are temporary employees ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The temporary employees include the sessional clerks, messengers, pages, charwomen and servants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much do the sessional clerks receive ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They receive $3, $3.50 or $4, according to the work they do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is their pay graded?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Those employed in the post office get $4. Those who are typewriters and stenographers get $4. Those who are typewriters get $3.50. And copyists get $3.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many sessional messengers are there ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Fifty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And how many pages ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Sixteen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are their salaries ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The pages were in receipt of $1.50 a day, but for this session they are paid $1.75.
Mr. CL A S'C Y. Has there been an increase in the per diem allowance of the charwomen ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Not yet.


James Clancy: I fancy that these are a class of women very much dependent. Many of them are widows, I suppose, and with

families to take care of. Why should there be an increase made elsewhere and not here?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There was a difficulty about that. But I may say I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Clancy). The hon. member is right also in assuming that these women are widows. So far as I have had anything to do with the matter, I have made it a rule to recommend only widows for these places. There are a certain number of charwomen in the departments who receive 75 cents a day, while others receive only 50 cents a day. The whole matter has been under consideration by the Minister of Finance, and I think he has concluded to increase the salaries of the charwomen all round, and make it 75 cents a day in all the departments. If that is done, there will be a corresponding increase for the chairwomen of the House of Commons.


Samuel Hughes: Has the Speaker any record of the woTk done by the sessional clerks ? I have heard they are not always overworked.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have no returns of that.


Samuel Hughes: I was going to suggest that the leader of the opposition should have one of these sessional clerks at his disposal for his sessional work. I would ask Mr. Speaker to see to that next session, but I trust that by that time the present leader of the opposition will occupy the position of Prime Minister. On his behalf I venture to promise that the leader of the opposition on this side will be given an extra room, and the services of a sessional clerk will be placed -at his disposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What wages do the sessional messengers get ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: $2.75 a day. They were getting $2.50 until this year. We have increased their wages this year to $2.75 per day. Then there are two night watchmen who are employed permanently by the year, their salaries are $700. Then there are six or seven servants whose wages are about the same as the messengers, some get $2 and some $2.50. I think one gets $2.75. They get the same increase as the sessional messengers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that the poor charwomen are the only ones left out in the cold.	1


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, they are being increased as all the rest of the service.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I hope the Minister of Finance will look after them.


William Stevens Fielding: Although my own item is not under consideration, I may make a statement here. The charwomen by some curious arrangement which I am not able to understand, come under the direction of the Minister of Finance. I found when we came into office a number of these women Mr. CLANCY.
were getting 75 cents per day and others 50 cents per day. It appears that some years ago an arrangement was made to reduce the rate from 75 cents; to 50 cents, but those who were receiving 75 cents were allowed to continue at the old rate, and the new rate was made to apply to those who might thereafter be appointed. The effect of that is that at present a large number of those women are receiving 75 cents per day, while about an equal number are getting 50 cents for precisely the same work. There is an apparent inequality, and in view of the fact that increases have been granted in almost all directions, I have decided to ask the House to grant an appropriation for the charwomen so that they may all receive hereafter 75 cents per day.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That is right.


Andrew Broder: Will that apply this session ?


William Stevens Fielding: That will not apply to the House of Commons. But I have no doubt the Internal Economy Committee who deal with the House of Commons will probably take up that matter. But the appropriation to which I refer does not touch the House of Commons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think I have got exactly yet the number of employees around the House of Commons in various branches. Will the minister tell us whether the aggregate is larger now than it was three or four years ago, or what increase there has been in the number ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I can give some instances. I have not made any totals, but I can say that the aggregate of the different branches show but a slight increase. I will give my hon. friend some figures :
Y ear.	Sessional Messengers.	Servants.	Pages.1892	45	4	191895	47	4	181890	
...	46	4	171900	52	6	151901	50	6	151902 	49	7	171903	50	7	101904	56	7	17


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some lines you have an increase of nearly 50 per cent during the last two years.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, there has been an actual decrease in some branches of the service. Of pages, while there Were nineteen in 1892, in 1904 there were seventeen only. In 1892 there were four servants and in i904 there were six.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know whether they would come under the item, but I would like to mention the messengers in the Library.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They are not under the Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there was some committee of the Internal Economy Commission who made a report on the matter of salaries last year or the year before. I understood the Speaker to say that this was taken up, and all the salaries were rearranged on a new basis, and in future they would go up automatically until they reached the maximum. Who composed that committee ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: At a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy, 28th April, 1904.
Present :	Mr. Speaker, Sir Richard Cartwright, Mr. Fielding and Mr. Sutherland.
The following resolutions were adopted unanimously :-
1. Resolved, that the salaries of the officers on the staff of the House of Commons be increased upon the same basis as to maximum and minimum salaries first provided for by this civil service generally under the Act amending the Civil Service Act just passed. In order to carry out that resolution the Speaker will prepare, with the aid of the clerk of the House of Commons, a series of resolutions and schedules determining-
(a.) The different branches of the service.
(b.) Grade, present salaries, the salaries under the new law, the grade of the future appointments, and the maximum salaries of the future officers, and the minimum salaries of the future officers.
That said resolutions and schedules be submitted as soon as possible to the members of the board for approval, and the same be laid before the House of Commons next session as a report of the board for the concurrence of the House.
Then follows the list of the officers with their present salary and the salary of their successors, the minimum and maximum in both cases, with a statement of the duties they perform.


James Clancy: Coming back to the question of making restitution to those who are denied their statutory increases, I have been looking at the question of the sergeant-at-arms. I see that he had a salary of $2,400 in 1897. It appears that there has been no statutory inerease from 1897 up to the present year. You. Mr. Speaker, say that the maximum is $2,500 a year. If he had received the statutory increases which he was entitled he would in 1899 have reached the maximum. It will be seen that there is some discrimination between the increases that are given to the others and these which are given to the sergeant-at-arms. Perhaps you will be able to explain why this is the case. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the clerk assistant had been given an
advance partly on the ground that he had not received any statutory increase and partly because his predecessor had received $2,800 a year and it was thought the services that he is performing now are quite as good as the services performed by Mr. Rouleau. That is not at all, perhaps, unreasonable, but what seems to be a strange thing is that the officials of the Housd are not dealt with in accordance with some uniform rule by which men get even justice. Here is the sergeant-at-arms ; he was entitled to have reached the maximum in 1899 and now receives $50 of an increase. I am in this, pointing out the injustice that has been done to the civil service. Hon. gentlemen opposite cried out in every back school-house in Canada, at least In Ontario, against the sums that were paid to the civil service. I am not here as an advocate of the salaries of the civil servants. I think first that we must have a good service and to have a good service it must be reasonably well paid for. I think that there are many in the service who ought not to be there, but an efficient officer must be reasonably well paid. If we have a good service we must pay for it and we cannot afford to take any other ground. Hon. gentlemen came into power, and weak in office as they were in opposition, they found themselves confronted with the expenditures which they had criticised in the country. They withheld the statutory increases and now they have come down and made partial restitution. That is not creditable to the government. It shows a deplorable weakness, first to have taken the course they did in the country. I believe that under our system it is a very difficult thing not to made appointments that should not be made. I do not know whether we will ever come to a time when we shall sufficiently profit by experience and when any government will have that complete courage to do what they ought to do in a matter cf that kind, but hon. gentlemen opposite were not at all content with making appointments that should never have "been made, but it was made a campaign cry in the country that men went to their offices at nine and ten in the morning, that they closed them at five in the afternoon and that they were paid immense salaries. I say again that I am not here to advocate the cause of the civil service ; it is not my business, but it is my business in my humble way as it is everybody's to state the truth. However it does seem to me that there has been a very extraordinary inconsistency in regard to the way that the civil service has been dealt with in regard to statutory increases. I am not now saying whether officers of the civil service are overpaid or underpaid. That is a matter entirely aside from what I have to say and I think there ought to be some explanation of these inconsistencies. I think, no matter what party is in power, that we

should forget what the former leanings were of those in the service. I should hope that every man in the service would be faithful and loyal to his chief and to those who are over them, and the best way to secure loyal service is for those in superior positions to treat fairly the mein who are under them. I am speaking now of the sergeant-at-arms ; I am not saying whether he is paid too much or too little, but T do not understand upon what principle these salaries have been dealt with.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman's
remarks have been of a general character. He speaks of inconsistencies generally, while the only inconsistency he has given has been that in regard to the sergeant-at-arms.


James Clancy: I simply took up that case for the purpose of saving time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman bases an argument upon that, but when I state the facts in connection with the serjeant-at-arms. I think he 'will agree that there is no inconsistency. The last classification of the officers of the House was made in 1885. At that time the salary of the sergeant-at-arms was fixed at Tlie nresent government thought that the salary ought to be increased to $2,500.


James Clancy: When was that?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is what was done by virtue of the resolution which I have iiist read. The hon. gentleman will remember that besides his salary the sergeant-at-arms has apartments in the House of Commons He is provided with apartments and that includes light, heating and one or two servants who are paid by the House.


James Clancy: Are there not some others os well ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is the housekeeper. These rooms and the incidentals connected therewith, I am sure must be worth $41)0 or $500, so that his salary would be equivalent to $3,000 putting a very moderate estimate on the apartments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The main object'is to find whether there have been many increases in the expenses of late years, and if so, to what extent. I understood Mr. Speaker to say that there had not been many increases. I have the estimates of 1900.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman must not misquote me. I was comparing the statement for 1903-4 with that for 1904-5. and I said that there was only an addition ol $2,150. I did not pretend to go back of last year, because I have not the figures.
committees, sessional clerks and extra clerks, 1901, $21,000. last year. $41,000 an increase of nearly 100 per cent within a few years.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, but you had an eight months session last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An eight months session last year but the estimates for last year were for the year before that. It seems to me that this is a very large increase and that there is nothing in the situation except -I was going to say extravagance, that would justify it because it is not justified by an additional amount of work. Then, take the next item-contingencies, including $300 for clerical assistance for the leader of the opposition. 1901, $19,700. last year. $26,403 an increase of $7,000. Is that evidence of economy ? The estimate of the sergeant-at-arms as approved was then $34,307. and the same estimate last year was $01 508 or nearly double. There is no economy about that; that is a case of extravagance.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My hon. friend is not quite fair in intimating that there has been extravagance. We generally provide for a session of 100 days, but last year there was a session of about 240 days, and in the increased amount would be included all the employees who are paid by the day. If the hon. gentleman takes the salaries of the permanent officials he will find that there is little difference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have great difficulty in getting these salaries and so I have to look at the estimates. There is a disposal to withhold information, or at all events there is no effort made to give it.	.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In 1S99-1900 the salaries of the permanent officials were $70,000 ; in 1900-1901, $69,850 ; in 1903-04, $71,250, and in 1904-5, $72,700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The supplementary estimates are not included in that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In the, main estimates there is an increase of $2,450 ; in the supplementary estimates there is a decrease of $2,150 so that the net result would be an increase of only $300.
Contingencies, including $600 for clerical assistance to the leader of the opposition, $25,500.


Samuel Hughes: Does Mr. Blount only get $600 ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is 100 per cent more than the clerk of the leader of the opposition in former times received.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is $150 more than the Speaker is allowed for his secretary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked for the figures for three years back. Take 1900 and let us compare some of the items-expenses of Mr. CLANCY.


Samuel Hughes: 
Richard Blain: The hon. gentlemen opposite have been making comparisons and I will refresh their memories with some comparisons myself.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I made no comparison. I was asked the number of employees at different periods and I simply gave the information.	!


Richard Blain: When the salary of the secretary of the leader of the opposition was mentioned, the Minister of Finance said it was double what it was formerly.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, because the hon. gentleman opposite was stating that it was not enough. I said it was a hundred per cent more than the former allowance.


Richard Blain: The Finance Minister was quite correct. The Speaker said it is $150 more than,is allowed for the Speaker's private secretary. So that I am following out these comparisons. I find that in 1891, when the Conservative party was in power and Mr. Ouimet was Speaker, the amount spent for the Speaker's apartments, furnishings, &c., was $1,175.62 ; in 1892. when Mr. White was Speaker, it was $589.51 ; in 1893, $1,928.50 ; in 1894, $1,119.20 ; in 1895, $1,246.02; in 1896, $1,514.41 ; or an average during those six years of Conservative rule of $1.262.21. Then a new administration came into power with all their pledges of economy, and they commenced in 1896-97, with Mr. Edgar as Speaker, with an expenditure on the same accodnt of $2,386.19 ; in 1898, $2,579.91 ; in 1899, $1,819.03 ; in 1900, $900.47.


Samuel Hughes: Who was Speaker then ?


Richard Blain: Mr. Bain. The average of the five years was $1,537.12. And now the growing time has commenced. In 1901 and 1902 the expenditure went up to $8,776.19, or an average for those two years of $4,388.09. In other words, we had a yearly average from 1891 to 1896 under Conservative rule of $1,262.21, from 1896 to 1900 an average of $1,537.12, and in 1901 and 1902 an average of $4,388.09. I am quite sure there will be some explanation of this expenditure, which shows that this government, as it grows older, gets more extravagant. I thought it would be worth while to make these comparisons while we are discussing this question of economy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is no doubt there has been an increase in certain years past; but I may say that this year-and I make


Richard Blain: The hou. gentleman will pardon me. So far as I am concerned, I did not ask the Speaker for a desk, and did not get one.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I did not name my hon. friend, nor do I propose to name any hon. member ; but I was going to say that gentlemen who were formerly content with an ordinary table at a cost of $2 to $3, this year required a desk which cost $30, $40 or $50.


Samuel Barker: Does the Speaker say that these desks are charged to the Speaker's apartments


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, but they are charged in the accounts summarized and compared by the hon. member for Peel.


Richard Blain: No, I do not understand that the desks supplied to members of the House of Commons and used in the different rooms throughout the building, have been charged under this heading.
Hr- SPEAKER. From the knowledge which I have of the accounts, I do not think it woud be possible to give figures which would be applicable to the Speaker's rooms only, as distinct from the expenditures throughout the House. That is the reason why I think the expenditures for members' desks, tables, chairs, sofas, and so on, are included in the figures which my hon. friend is giving to the House.


Richard Blain: I am quite sure my hon. friend misunderstands this item. He will not say that the splendid extravagance he is administering now in the purchase of desks for the members, would be charged under the head of the Speaker's apartments?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: All these purchases are made by the sergeant-at-arms.


Samuel Hughes: They are classified. Mr. SPEAKER. No, they are not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long has it been the case that these articles are all purchased by the sergeant-at-arms ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: So far as I know, all the time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How far does the hon. gentleman's knowledge reach back ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: About twenty years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know as a fact that they are not purchased by the sergeant-at-arms, because last year I applied and was



informed that he had no authority to purchase any of these things, and that they must be purchased by the Speaker. I found when 1 went to the rooms occupied by members on the government side that they were furnished luxuriously, while others were furnished very scantily. I may say that there has been a great deal of furnishing this year which was not here before, and I think it has been done with perfect fairness. In that regard the present Speaker is entitled to every credit. I think he is doing what his predecessors should have done-he is allowing the sergeant-at-arms to do the .'furnishing instead of doing it himself. Had that been the case in the past, I have no doubt that a different tale would be shown on the accounts to-day.


Samuel Barker: I understand the Speaker to say that the sergeant-at-arms' accounts and those of the Speaker are not kept separate ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The .sergeant-at-arms, under Rule 107 of the House, is the custodian and guardian of everything here. He is responsible for the purchases and the custody of the goods purchased, not only in connection with the Speaker's apartments, but the whole House-the rooms of the officers and members and of the ministers and every part of the House.


Samuel Barker: I am afraid Mr. Speaker is a little off in his information, because those of us who have been reading the AuditorGeneral's Reports know that such is not the case. In the last report we read that some dispute had arisen upon that very point, and that the Internal Economy Commission decided some time ago, in 1902, that the sergeant-at-arms should no longer purchase the articles for Mr. Speaker's apartments.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken.


Samuel Barker: I shall state my view and the hon. gentleman may state his. The contention was made, according to what appears in the Auditor General's Report, that the sergeant-at-arms had the right to certify the accounts because he was custodian, and there was correspondence with the clerk of the House on that subject which appears in the report. The clerk of the House informed the sergeant-at-arms that the Internal Economy Commission had decided to take the certifying of the accounts and the (purchasing out of his hands and to confine him strictly to what the statute authorized, namely, to be the mere custodian of the articles after they were purchased. That was the position taken according to the report. The result was that the accounts have been certified since in another manner and not by the sergeant-at-arms. This item of $60,000 includes three *distinct branches. The items referred to by Mr. SPROULE.
the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) relate only to one branch, the furnishing of the Speaker's apartments; and if -the hon,: gentleman will take the trouble to look into the accounts, he will find that these items relate solely to articles purchased for those apartments.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is absolutely impossible.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman may say it is impossible, but nevertheless it is the case.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is not. Among the supplies purchased for the House of Commons are towels, soap, sponges, brushes and other things which are distributed around the House. They are charged to the sergeant-at-arms' branch and not to the Speaker's.


Samuel Barker: There are three different departments kept by the sergeant-at-arms.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is not so. I know something about it.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking of my owTn knowledge and I am just as positive as Mr. Speaker is. There was a distinct account kept of that, as appears in the Auditor General's Report.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Only certain items.


Samuel Barker: There is a separate account for the Speaker's apartments ; the items referred to by the hon. member for Peel. I have looked at the accounts, and the items are put this way in the Auditor General's Report for 1901 and 1902.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the hon. gentleman give me the page where this appears ?


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman will refer to the Auditor General's Report for the year ending 30 of June, 1901, volume 1, pages O-23 and 24, he will find charged there the expenses of furnishing Mr. Speaker's apartments, $1,928.51. He will find for the other branches distinct items. This is entered in the Auditor General's Report distinctly. He will find in the next year ending 30th of June, 1902, volume 1 of the Auditor General's Report, pages 0-21 and 22, charged to Mr. Speaker's apartments, $3,292.02, making for the two years, $5,220.53, charged separately by the Auditor General to the Speaker's apartments. But this $5,220.53 was not the whole cost of furnishing the Speaker's apartments in 1901 and 1902. This was discovered owing to an expression that appears in one of the letters of the Auditor General addressed to the clerk of the House, in 1903, in which he refers to the fact that the accounts are not being brought .in regularly as usual, that accounts were carried over and not brought in within the year to which they belong. It therefore became necessary to

see what accounts the Auditor General was referring to, and it appeared that in 1902 there were some accounts not paid in that year but carried over to 1903. There was the account of A. Brillon, for goods furnished the Speaker's apartments in February and March, 1902, $294.85. Those are expressly charged as furnished to the Speaker's apartments. In April of the same year, there is a small account of $27, and on the 15th clay of May, 1902, an account of H. & N. Hamilton, $933.57, making for those three items, $1,255, incurred in the spring of 1902, which were not charged up in that year as they should have been.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where does my bon. friend take that information ?


Samuel Barker: In the Auditor General's Report.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think so. He cannot find in the report what he says is there. He must have got the information from some one else.


Samuel Barker: Will the minister say that the account of A, Brillon for February and March, 1902, $294.85, was not for articles furnished in February and March of that year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is nothing of that kind in the Auditor General's Report-absolutely nothing.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman must recollect that there are certain accounts in the Public Accounts Committee, which I have had an opportunity of looking at. I assert now that the account of A. Brillon, $294.85, was for goods furnished the Speaker's apartments in February and March, 1902. The $27 for goods supplied by Brillon in April, and there is an account from H. & N. Hamilton, $933.50, rendered on the 15th of May, 1902, all for the Speaker's apartments. That makes the $1,255.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend says that the Auditor General has refused to pay those on account of the accounts being rendered in April of this year. I do not see anything of the kind in his report.


Samuel Barker: I tell the hon. gentleman that the accounts were produced upon the order of the Public Accounts Committee, and they are there in room 32 and may be examined. I have seen the accounts myself.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr Barker) made the statement, if I understood him aright, that the Auditor General lad refused to pay these accounts because they were rendered the previous year and carried over to the following year, and that we should find such statements in the Auditor General's correspondence. I do not see anything of the kind in the correspondence.


Samuel Barker: I did not say that the Auditor General refused to pay the accounts, but that, in a letter, the Auditor General had called attention to the fact that the accounts were not brought in as promptly as they might have been.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is nothing of that kind.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman will refer to page O-36 of the Auditor General's Report, 1903, he will find this :
I observe that some of the accounts have not been paid as promptly as they usually are.
The accounts of Brillon and Hamilton bear the dates I give here. They were accounts that were brought into the year 1903 from the previous year-had not been settled, but were tided over. That is what I assert. I have already read the comment of the Auditor General upon the fact that the accounts are not being brought in regularly. Bril-lon's (bears the dates of February, March and April, 1902, and Hamilton's May, 1902. The total of the three accounts is $1,255.42, This amount belonged to the previous year.
Then there is a further acccount of the C. Ross Company, which is dated from 13th February to 30th April, 1902, and amounts to $2,300. The item includes carpets and other ordinary items of furnishing intended for the Speaker's room. I do not need to go into details ; Mr. Speaker will not deny the account.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where is that ?


Samuel Barker: That account is upstairs. It has never ibeen charged to the Speaker's account, but has been charged to the House of Commons. I would like to know why the House of Commons should be buying the class of articles that are in that account. They are simply articles for the Speaker's apartments, his purchases for 1902, and have never been charged to Mr. Speaker at all. Now, I might as well say, the reason why this has been looked into is that the Question was asked by hon. gentlemen on this side how the Auditor General came to pass that account without charging it to Mr. Speaker. It is a very natural question -how it happened that this account of $2,300 for furnishings for Mr. Speaker's apartments was charged to the Public Works. The amount appeared in the Auditor General's Report for 1903, volume 2, page V-105, charged to the Public Works, certified, not by the sergeant-at-arms, but by the Department of Public Works. The goods were received at the Speaker's apartments, of course-I am not saying there was anything wrong in that respect. But the $1,255 for the three accounts held over, and the $2,300 of the C. Ross Company account, passed through the Public Works, added to the $5,220.53; make a total of $8,776 in the two years, 1901 and 1902, or, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) said, an aver-

age of over $4,380 a year. This includes, of course, some $300 or $400 each year, for servants' wages. This is nearly three times the average amount per annum expended previously, and I say it is perfectly fair for the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to call attention to this matter. As he says, it is an evidence, not of the growing times, but of the growing extravagance of the government. The predecessor of the hon. Speaker who occupied the chair when these goods were bought-not his immediate predecessor (Mr. Blain) but Sir James Edgar-had been for two or three session* Speaker. Nobody donbts that Sir James Edgar would have the Speaker's apartments properly furnished. There could hardly have been need of a great many new articles. And yet, in two years, we find charges exceeeding $8,000 for furnishings for Mr. Speaker's apartments. As to Mr. Speaker's statement that the large expenditure by the Public Works is accounted for by desks supplied to members of the House of Commons, I can tell Mr. Speaker that that has nothing to do with it. In this account of $3,200 he will not find a charge for a single desk. The whole account is for house furnishing supplied to the Speaker. There can be no question of the nature of the goods or as to the apartments for which they were furnished. I venture to say that Mr. Speaker cannot take the accounts of Brillon or Hamilton and find a single item of goods furnished to any place except the Speaker's apartments. The only question is as to the necessity for the expenditure. And when we find that what was sufficient for Sir James Edgar is so greatly exceeded, we can only conclude that it is a case of growing extravagance of the government, an expenditure wholly unnecessary and uncalled for.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With reference to the purchase of those goods, I stated that the purchasing of the supplies was taken out of the hands of the sergeant-at-arms. The resolution under which that was done is the following, passed on the 30th of May, 1902 :
The question of the purchase of supplies for the sergeant-at-arms' branch having come up for consideration, the commissioners record their opinion that in future all such expenditures shall be made under the direction of the Speaker and of the Internal Economy Committee.	.


Samuel Barker: That is what I said.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, the hon. gentleman stated that the purchasing of the supplies was taken wholly out of the hands of the sergeant-at-arms.


Samuel Barker: So far as the Speaker's apartments are concerned.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is where my hon. friend is wrong. The meaning of the resolution is that the expenditure Shall be' Mr. BARKER.
made, as stated, under the direction of Mr. Speaker and of the Internal Economy Committee

not that the sergeant-at-arms is no longer to make purchases, but that he is to submit to the Speaker any purchases which he intends to make, and that he is to submit the accounts for the same for the approval of the committee ; and that is what takes place.


James Clancy: Does the sergeant-at-arms make these purchases 1


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, all of them. I have not given an order for five cents or ten cents except through the sergeant-at-arms, either for the Speaker's apartments or for any other portion of the House of Commons.


Samuel Barker: I assert that no person can read this letter on page O-37 and suppose for a moment that the Clerk of the House was intimating to the sergeant-at-arms that he was to continue to buy the things, and that somebody else was to pay for. them.
The question of the purchase of supplies for the -sergeant-at-arms branch having come up for consideration, the commissioners record their opinion that in future' all such expenditures

What is that but purchases ?
-shall be made under the direction of Mr. Speaker and the Internal Economy Committee.
Now it happens that from that time forward there was a change.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, there has been no change, the hon. gentleman is absolutely mistaken. The sergeant-at-arms branch meant the furniture of the House of Commons and the apartments of the Speaker as well as of the clerk.


Samuel Barker: Does the Minister of Inland Revenue mean to tell me that the account of C. Ross & Co., ever passed the Sergeant-at-arms at all ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is in the Public Works Department.. I have never seen the furniture which was bought for the room of my hon. friend himself, and I suppose the sergeant-at-arms has not seen it either, because it was bought by the Public Works Department.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman want me to read the articles that came from the C. Ross Co. ? They are articles for house furnishing, bedrooms and everything of that kind. The hon. gentleman knows that the Ross Company's account was for articles supplied for the Speaker's chambers, and for no others.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. frjend is mistaken. Most of the articles I think were bought for the Speaker's apartments, and if he will go there he will find in the drawing

room furniture absolutely complete -which was bought in 1902 and 1903. The old furniture was somewhat dilapidated.


Samuel Hughes: What became of the old furniture ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know, it was given to the housekeeper. I found the other day in one of the rooms, a desk which was formerly in the Speaker's apartments. 1 think there is a desk in the room of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule).


Samuel Barker: I have here a copy of the account that is upstairs in the Public Accounts Committee, rendered by the C. Ross Company in 1902, beginning on the 13th of February and ending on the 12th of April. Now I would like the minister to point out one item in that account which went elsewhere than to the Speaker's rooms ; I defy him to do it.


Samuel Hughes: Is that charged to the Public Works Department ?


Samuel Barker: This account was certified by the Public Works and not by the sergeant-at-arms. Yes, I think there are the initials of Mr. Dube, the housekeeper, and I think the initials of the Minister of Inland Revenue.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On that account ?


Samuel Barker: I think so, I won't say positively. But here is the account itself, for $2,300.24. It is certified by Mr. Ewart, chief architect of the Public Works Department, and the materials are certified as delivered, and the prices fair and just by a Mr. Ogilvie.- Here is the account for anybody that wants to look at it, and if anyone will say that any of these articles were furnished to any rooms in the House of Commons, I would like him to point it out.


Haughton Lennox: Are these the articles that are charged on page B-105 of the Auditor General's Report, 1903 ?


Samuel Barker: Yes. That is the account for $2,300.24.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Public Works Department usually supply the House of Commons. I mentioned a few minutes ago that the room of the hon. member for Hamilton was furnished by the Public Works Department. The room of the members for Toronto was furnished by the Public Works Department, and I find among the furniture a brussels carpet, wardrobe, brackets, rings, brass tubing, bedspreads.


Samuel Barker: I assert positively that you won't find one article in that account which went into the House of Commons or elsewhere than to the Speaker's apartments.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have listened with some attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker),
and he seems to complain that some accounts for one year were not charged to that year, but were charged to another year, that the goods purchased in 1902 were charged to 1903. The other complaint is that some accounts for furnishing the Speaker's rooms were charged to the Public Works Department and not to the Speaker's account. I also heard the hon. gentleman say that these accounts had been asked for and delivered to the Public Accounts Committee. It seems to me that that was the proper place to ventilate these questions, if there was anything wrong. It may be there has been something wrong in the book-keeping, there may be something wrong in the fact that an account is charged to one department instead of another. But all these questions, it seems to me, come within the purview of the Public Accounts Committee and should have been examined there rather than here. Here we are, as we hope, in the dying hours of the session. We are asked to vote the amounts required for the Speaker. There is no charge against the present Speaker as far as I understand. Not a word has been said against him, but some charges have been made in regard to the accounts of a former speaker. Would not my hon. friejjd agree with me that these accounts should have been taken before the Public Accounts Committee or should go before that committee next year ? As far as the estimates of this year are concerned it appears to me that the facts which have been brought up by my hon. friend had no relevancy to the appropriation asked for this year.


Samuel Barker: The relevancy of the discussion arises out of the argument that was used about the increase in the expenditure in these items. I do not mean to say that the articles were not supplied ; I do not charge it for a moment. We could not dispute that in the Public Accounts Committee because we have no doubt that they were supplied. What I am saying here is that for the years 1901 and 1902 the purchases of furnishings for the Speaker's apartments amounted to $8,776. I say that you will not find that in any one item in the books, but you will find'$1,928 put down for the year 1901, you will find $3,292 in 1902, and our attention having been drawn to further accounts by the remark of the Auditor General in his report, upon looking up those accounts we found there were accounts for 1902 which were not paid in that year amounting to $l|255 and another account for $2,300 paid through the Department of Public Works. The total of these makes $S,776. We cannot dispute the accounts ; there is no doubt that the goods were ordered and supplied but what wre complain of is that we have such expenditures for these two years.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman says that the accounts for two

years amount to over $8,000. The hon. gentleman Includes in that total money paid for goods ordered by the Speaker and accounts charged to the Department of Public Works. He thinks it ought not to have been and that there ought to be some good reason given to the committee why these accounts have been charged to the Department of Public Works. Well, it so happens that the Minister of Public Works who was then in office is not here to-day. He Cannot be here because of an unfortunate reason. He is not here to give an explanation but it seems to me that if my hon. friend thinks there is something wrong which requires explanation that explanation cannot be given at this late stage of the session, but the explanation could have been sought in the Public Accounts Committee which could have followed this transaction and could have elicited the information which my hon. friend desires. But how can he expect at this moment that we can give him this information when the then Minister of Public Works is absent and the Department of Public Works is charged with a certain part of these accounts't Under such circumstances it seems to me that my hon. friend cannot make anything of this matter at the present time. It may have been that there may have been extravagance-; 	[DOT]
Mr. BARpER. We are saying that there has been extravagance.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly there has been ; possibly there was not. Possibly there was a good explanation for these expenditures and the only place to give that explanation would be before the Public Accounts Committee.


Samuel Barker: No, we could not get it there.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, that was the case. The Public Accounts Committee sought for these accounts and they were brought down. That was the place to ascertain whether or not the accounts have been properly charged or whether or not there has been an error. That was the place to have ascertained whether or no these accounts should have been charged to the Speaker's apartments or to the Public Works. My hon. friend says that there was extravagance. Tossibly there was ; I do not say that there was not, but possibly there was none. It is not sufficient to make a charge and to say that there was extravagance. That does not constitute an offence. The accounts are open to the committee and there may be a good explanation, as I have no doubt there will eventually be found a good explanation for it.


Samuel Barker: According to the rule of this House adopted on a previous occasion we cannot deal with two or three year's accounts in the Public Accounts Committee Sir WILFRID LAURIER.


Wilfrid Laurier: They have not been brought up.


Samuel Barker: Two or three years ago I endeavoured to do that very thing, when Mr. Fraser was chairman of the committee.
I endeavoured to trace the accounts for two or three years. The chairman ruled that 1 could not do it, that I could inquire only into the accounts for the one year. The committee upheld the chairman, we appealed to the House, and what did the right hon. leader of the government say when we came here ? He said that for his part he made it a rule to support the decision of the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Barker: When we endeavoured to get the direction of the House we were voted down. We do not care to go through that farce again. We had no satisfaction. AVe were simply told by the right hon. gentleman that he was in the habit of standing by the committee, he did stand by the committee and his friends behind him stood by the committee. On this occasion we do not question the accuracy of the accounts. I assert here in my place in this House that these articles, the accounts for which I have here, were purchased for the Speaker's apartment, and I have not heard a word denying it. I would like to know if any hon. gentleman will stand up in his place and deny that for two years, 1901 and 1902, the purchases amount to $8,770, or deny that that is extravagant.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. member for Peel in his comparison not only included a few items which were charged to the Speaker's apartments in the ordinary way, but in the' year 1901 and in 1902 in which the larger amounts appear he has gone into the accounts of the Public Works and I would like to know from the hon. gentleman if lie pursued his researches into these accounts in other years ?


Samuel Barker: I made inquiry and I was informed that these were the first years in which it occurred and that it occurred in consequence of the dispute which arose between the Speaker and the sergeant-at-arms by reason of which the keeping of the accounts was taken out of the hands of the sergeant-at-arms, as far as the Speaker's apartments were concerned and referred to the Internal Economy Board. That was done as stated by the clerk of the House in his letter of the 13th May, 1902. I am not going to read a long draper's account of furnishings for the Speaker's apartments. I do not want to do it. If any hoh. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House want to read it they can read it for themselves. It is in the Public Accounts Committee room. There cannot be any question about it. To say that the desks in the rooms

upstairs had anything to do with it is absurd. They had nothing to do with it.


William Stevens Fielding: As far as the resolution of the Board of Internal Economy is concerned, I think that if my hon. friend will look at that carefully he will come to the conclusion that it is a proper resolution. It was not intended to make any change of the nature described by my hon. friend. In the various departments the minister is the responsible officer and in the House of Commons the Speaker is practically the minister for that purpose. Though I have few supplies to purchase, the commonest purchases of the department outside of the ordinary routine are bought before me by requisition from my deputy which I sign, but I would not purchase the articles. It was proposed in the resolution of the Internal Economy Committee that this principle should apply to the House of Commons, and that the Speaker, standing in the place of a minister, should have the responsibility and control, which, of course, would be exercised, in the same manner as the control of the minister, by his officials. The resolution of the Board of Internal Economy was consistent with a sound administration of the public service.


Samuel Barker: I do not dispute the position taken by the minister, but I do not wish to have a red herring drawn across the track. I do not dispute that the Internal Economy Committee had the right to change the system.


William Stevens Fielding: And that it was proper.


Samuel Barker: It had been the rule for years to leave the purchasing and the certifying of the accounts in the hands of the sergeant-at-arms, and when the Auditor General referred to that the clerk of the House wrote :
House of Commons,
Ottawa, October 7, 1903.
Sir,-In reply to your favour of the 5th instant, asking for the accounts referred to in your letters of July 3 and 21, I beg to say that I return the said accounts herewith.
These accounts have all been approved and certified by the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. As secretary of the board I beg to certify to that fact.
I observe that they are Initialled by His Honour the Speaker and further certified by myself as clerk of the House, and by the superintendent of messenger service and housekeeper.
I communicated to you some time since a resolution of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, adopted on May 13, 1902, to the effect that in the future the purchase of supplies for the sergeant-at-arms' branch of the House of Commons should be made under the direction of Mr. Speaker and the Internal Economy Committee.
I do not dispute that that was strictly according to law, but the fact is that in
1901-2, there was an expenditure of $8,77(5, and it is the question of extravagance and increased expenditure that we are discussing. I repeat that the expenditure in these: two years was extravagant.


Haughton Lennox: With all due deference-to the Prime Minister he is drawing a red herring across the track, when he says "that this matter should be investigated by the-Public Accounts Committee. 'If we disputed, the accounts that would be so, but for the purposes of the argument we have accepted; the accounts and on these accounts as they stand the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) charges the government with extravagance, and the accounts prove the charge.


James Clancy: It is extraordinary that the government should offer no explanation of this extravagance. It is the right of the public to know why this service costs such a largely increased amount over former years and we would fail in our duty if we did not insist upon an explanation. The increase in this expenditure is nothing less than startling.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Two or three years age the drawing room of the Speaker's quarters was renovated and new furniture and new carpets installed. I understand that these accounts were before the Public Accounts Committee, where it would have been very easy for my hon. friend to have got the details. It appears to me that most of these furnishings must have been for the drawing room.


James Clancy: Nobody disputes that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say to my hon. friend when I became Speaker, I found that the drawing room was not in a proper condition. If he compares its condition today with what it was before that time, he will find that there has been a great improvement in it. I was told that it had not been renovated for many years. It is very unfortunate to have these matters brought before the House ; I do not know for what reason they are. I have always endeavoured to treat every member in the most polite way, and I had these improvements made, not for myself, but for the members of this House. I thought every member of this House would take a pride in having the drawing room of the Speaker put in a proper and suitable condition.


James Clancy: I want to say just a word. The hon. member for Hamiyton treated this case with that delicacy becoming an hon. gentleman tof his standing in this House. He refrained from going into any of the items. No member wants to go into the details of the accounts. Nobody doubts that the goods were furnished or that they are there. The hon. gentleman says he has treated the members of this House with courtesy. That is perfectly true. He owed

that to them as they owe it to him. There is nothing about that to relieve the hon. gentleman from fair criticism. I say the hon. gentleman has treated the members of this House with great courtesy. I hope that has been mutual. But I want to repeat what I said a moment ago, that the country has a right, through the members of this House, to make proper inquiry. There is no disposition to go into the items, and I do not think the hon. gentleman challenges an investigation. I went through these accounts and know something of them, this is the proper time and place to discuss them, and it is for the hon. gentleman and the government to answer. The case has been treated, not on low grounds, but on fair and decent grounds, and there has been no unfair criticism.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have tried to show how the account has been made up. My hon. friend was here in 1900, and he must have observed in how much better condition the drawing room is now than it was then.


James Clancy: I do not belong to that class that take any account of what is in Mr. Speaker's rooms.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the Speaker's room ; it is the room of every member. I am blamed for having undertaken to renovate that room. Perhaps I made a mistake in doing so. Perhaps it would have been better to have left it in the shabby condition in which it was. But I thought it was due to the dignity of the position of Speaker and the dignity of the members of this House that the work should be done, and that is the reason it was done.
To provide for the making of a general index to the Journals and sessional papers of the House for the period 1891 to 1904, inclusive, as per recommendation of the Joint Committee on Printing, approved by the House on the 16th June, 1904, $1,400.


George William Fowler: Who is performing this work ?	.
of Commons, in which the culture and intellect of the Dominion are supposed to be congregated, a man cannot leave anything down without running great risk of never seeing it again. I lost an overcoat and hat and half a dozen other things some years ago and am now pretty careful, but I have heard many members complain that if they leave anything behind at the adjournment, when they come back they find it gone. I would suggest that a couple of detectives should be employed to find out who does the stealing.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There are two night watchmen.


Samuel Hughes: The things are stolen mostly in the day time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The lockers are in very bad condition. You can open them with almost any sort of a key.
Salaries, Library of Parliament, $18,240.


Haughton Lennox: There are three messengers in .the library, one of whom is called Dunlop. I do not know the names of the others. They have been in the service a number of years and they thought that last session, owing to its length, they were -entitled to an increase of $50. They are the employees of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Their hours are very long at times. It seems to me that the" right hon. gentleman should take their case into consideration as regards last session and perhaps this. I believe some of these messengers have been longer in the service than almost any messengers about the House.
ISir WILFRID LAURIER. Dunlop, I know, is an old and faithful messenger. Some of these men are very deserving servants indeed ; hut while the management of the library is under my control, I must say that I have to take my advice from others and generally carry out the recommendations of the librarian. I will speak to the librarian.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The work is being done by Mr. McGillicuddy under a resolution of the Joint Committee on Printing. It is the indexing of the sessional papers from 1890 down to the present. This is on the report of the Committee on Printing, and does not come under my jurisdiction.


Samuel Hughes: Before we pass to another item there is a matter which I regret to have to bring up. It has been noticed by members a good many years that if you leave an umbrella or anything else around the House of Commons, it is likely to disappear and never he heard of again. A man will leave a valise in a railway station in New York city, through which 50,000 people pass every couple of hours, and if there is any way of identifying it, it will be returned to him, but in this House Mr. CLANCY.


Haughton Lennox: I understood that it was rather that the matter was overlooked last session and that their not getting the increase. was due to forgetfulness rather than anything else.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps so.
Legislation-general-contingent expenses in connection with the voters' list, $20,000.


George William Fowler: A little while ago we had an item of $10,000 in connection with the Franchise Act, and we were told that it was for the printing of the voters'list. Now we have an item in connection with the voters' lists direct.


William Stevens Fielding: They were in different years I think.


George William Fowler: But why have it for the
voters' list in one case and Franchise Act

in another ease. What I fear is that there has been some mistake in the explanation of the Franchise Act item.


William Stevens Fielding: I spoke from recollection. But if there is any mistake I -will call attention to it at another sitting.


George William Fowler: It was rumoured -we were to have an amendment to the Franchise Act. that there was a division of the cabinet with the regard to the advisability of bringing it forward and that a majority decided that it was so iniquitous that they had better back down. Perhaps this $10,000 -was for preparing that.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) may be perfectly sure that if it was not all right the cabinet -would not approve of it.


Richard Blain: Is- it the intention to print all the voters' lists in the Printing Bureau ?


Wilfrid Laurier: None have been printed elsewhere up to the present time.


Richard Blain: I was asking more particularly with regard to the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has been the practice sometimes in the past to have some of the voters' lists printed outside. That is not the intention now, unless there is some special and unexpected reason for it. The intention is to print them all in the bureau where the work is always better done.
To promote Mr. John Sharp, porter, Toronto post office, to a senior third-class clerkship at a salary of $800 from 1st July, 1904, notwithstanding anything in the Civil iService Act, $200.


George William Fowler: What is the meaning of this the exception ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' in this cgse ?


Sir WILLIAM MU LOCK.: Mr. John
Sharp entered the service on the 22nd September, 1891, as a porter. But he is a man of unusual ability and gives promise of being a good clerk. The promotion is entirely upon merit and because of Mr. Sharp's special efficiency. He is altogether too good a man to be kept in the rank of a porter.


George William Fowler: No doubt the promotion is all right, but I do not like the exception of the Civil Service Act. If we have an Act we ought to stand by it.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler). But Mr. Sharp came into the service not expecting to become a clerk and did not qualify in the usual way. He is not a political friend of ours and the promotion is made on merit.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I received a letter from the Commercial Travellers' Association of Quebec, which I would like to call to the attention of the Postmaster General. It is written in French but it will be understood in this House :
Quebec, July 2nd, 1904.
J. B. Morin, Esq., M.P.,
Sainte-Henedme, county Dorchester.
Sir,-I beg to inform you that, at the last sitting of the Board of Directors of the ' Quebec Commercial Travellers Club,' a resolution was passed to the effect that I should write to all the senators and members of parliament, representing the counties through which the Quebec Central Railway runs, in order to secure from the Postmaster General a service of two daily mall trains, between Ldvis and Sherbrooke, and vice versa.
By taking the lead of this movement, the commercial travellers accomplish two different purposes : in the first place, they believe they are serving the interests of the people of your constituency who find that the present mail service is inadequate ; in the second place, the commercial travellers, after having secured this favour from the Postmaster General, want to force the Quebec Central Railway Company to continue during the winter season, the service of this additional mail train. Now, sir, you know iust as well as we do, how the people will benefit by the accommodation furnished by these mail trains, and so, we hope you will be kind enough to second our application. Permit us to assure you, sir, that when the proper opportunity offers, any assistance you may lend us in the matter will be remembered by us.
Believe me, sir,
Tours most devotedly.



R. N. GODIN,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Now, I would like to say to the Postmaster General that these commercial travellers complain that the mail service on the Quebec Central is not sufficient, especially in the county of Dorchester and in the county of Beauce. Not only do they complain about the bad service we have, but they complain that we can get nothing from the Quebec Central Railway. If the Postmaster 'General -would help us, I think we might obtain something from the Quebec Central Railway in that direction. The Postmaster General does not know the location of that country, and I will try and explain it to him. The county of Beauce lies west of the county of Dorchester, and the county of I a' vis lies north of it. The Postmaster General will remember that some complaints were made to him by the people in those counties about insufficient mail service. I complain, on the contrary, that there is too much mail service. From the way the mail service is carried on now, one would say that the department is merely making a football out of the mail bag. The railway carries the mail bag up and down the road and plays with it until they get tired. The mail that comes from the west goes to the east in the forenoon, because the people of the county of Beauce get their mail in the morning. Then in the evening there is a mail train that goes about three miles forward and two miles backwards. This train
[Stage Direction]
900$
passes through the county of Beauce shortly after 12 o'clock at noon, hut it carries the mail past all the stations, and carries it down, I do not know how far, probably as far as L6vis. The next day they bring it back. So they carry the mail 26, 35 and 45 miles, to my knowledge, past the stations away down to Levis and bring it back next day. Therefore, you see they make a football of the mail service. I know what I am speaking of when I say so. The post office is about as far from the railway station as from here to Wellington street, but there is no one to carry the mail from the post office to the station. Of course, the mail clerk on the train cannot deliver it to any one, because there is no one there to receive it. If the Postmaster General would pay the boy who carries the mail at our place and elsewhere $5 a year, then the mail would stop at our place instead of being carried down to L6vis. Probably it would cost him just as much to carry the mail past the post office as it would to pay a messenger to take the mail from the station to the post office. Very often when we raise a question of this kind in the House, the minister says : Oh, well, we get money from the people, and we give it back to them. This is a case where you can give some of it back to the people. The boy who carries the mail at our place gets $52 a year for carrying three mails a day, and probably for $10 more he would carry the mail in the evening. The train service at present is sufficient; We have no fault to find about that. Bear in mind that the Quebec Central Railway Company puts on an extra train in the month of .Tune and takes it off in October ; then we have no trains. The company's officers have often told me that if there was a mail to carry they would keep the train on in winter as well as in summer. Now, the reason they have no mail to carry is that they discontinue the train in the winter. I would like the Postmaster General to give his attention to this matter. He remembers that about five months ago I went to him with a petition from some people in the county of Dorchester, asking for a post office at a place called Detroit. I have written to the Postmaster General and spoken to him about it until I am tired of going to the department. I take this opportunity of speaking to him now face to face, and I want an answer. Will the Postmaster General be kind enough to tell me what he proposes to do, whether he will grant us an office at Detroit, in the county of Dorchester ?
'Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The lion, gentleman has alluded to a number of post office matters ; I cannot discuss the details of all of them, because I am not familiar with them all. As to the additional service on the Quebec Central, I am advised by the officers of the department who controls the railway mail service that when this application came before him for consideration Mr. MORIN.
he looked into the matter and advised the department that the district in question was being sufficiently served, and therefore he could not recommend the additional service at present. But the question, he informs me, is being raised, not in the interest of the mail service so much as from a desire to obtain an additional train for the travelling public, and that the railway company conceived the idea that a good way for the travelling public to get a train service would be to have the company go through the form of using it for a mail service. But the controller says that an additional train is not necessary for mail purposes in that district. Whenever the controller advises that the service of the post office demands an additional mail train, it will be my duty to endeavour to provide one. As to the other complaint of my hon. friend that we are giving the district too much in the way of mail service, if he will name to me a service which he thinks should be discontinued, and my officers advise me to that effect, it will be done. With reference to his request for a post office at a place called Detroit, I have not yet been satisfied that the establishment of such an office is required. The point in 'question is comparatively close to another post office. Some people have been consulted about it who are supposed to know the needs of the locality, and they do not say that an additional post office there is needed in the public interest.
Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not see why the Postmaster General has so little confidence in his own staff. It appears that some time ago he said in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr, Blain) that post offices were granted or refused according to the demand of the inspector.


William Mulock: I never made such a broad statement as that.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: You did say in reply to my hon. friend from Peel that a post office was refused or granted upon the report of the inspector. I asked you what the inspector had said regarding a post office at Detroit and you told me that you would let me know in a day or two, but you never did-Why is it that the hon. Postmaster General writes all over the country to find one man who will condemn that post office ? He has written to a man who ran against me in 1900 and I knew very well that this man would not reply. He wrote to two others and probably hoped to get an answer. The hon. minister says that this is too near other post offices. Well it is two miles distant. I think the people of the country are just as good as city folk. Here in the city of Ottawa you have a mail carrier to go to the box, take the mails to the post office and then you have mail-carriers to take the mail from the post office and carry it right to the houses, while in

the country we have to go four and five iniles to the post office. If the hon. minister grants this post office it will not cost him one cent. The public pay for it and the people of Dorchester are just as worthy of having a post office there as people in any part of the country. The residents of this district have been suffering for proba- * bly eighty years.


William Mulock: For how many years ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: For about eighty years.


William Mulock: You must not blame me for that.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I blame you, along with the rest. You should try to do better. You may say that the Conservative party never opened a post office there. But you have told us that your government is an example that it is a government of reform. How will you show an example if you do as badly as they did, because if you do you will be knocked out of power the same as they were.


Mr. TALBOT.: My hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) seems to have a grievance about the post office accommodation and railway service in the county of Dorchester. I have not the honour of representing Dorchester, but I live very close to it and I would ask my hon. friend if he will, say that it is not a fact that since 189(5 the post office accommodation and service in the county of Dorchester have been more than doubled ?


Mn MORIN.: I will reply by saying ' no.' The post offices have been increased in the upper end of the county where population is going in to settle, but in the old part of the county, post offices that were established by the Conservative party have been done away with. How does that suit you ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how many post offices existing in the county of Dorchester have been abolished, how many new post offices have been established or iti how many townships or villages where they formerly had a bi-weekly or a tri-weekly service, they have now a daily service ? And will the hon. gentleman tell me if post office service in Dorchester county has not been greatly improved ?	[DOT]


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will not tell you, but I will tell the committee, and I will say as I said before that new post offices have been established in new parts of the county but they have been closed in the older parts of the county.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How many have been closed and how many have been erected


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Ask the Postmaster General, and he will tell you.


William Mulock: Has any post
office in Dorchester been closed against the judgment of the hon. gentleman '!


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The post office right in the village of St. Anselme was closed by the present Postmaster General. If I had known of it I would have objected to it. But it was closed before I knew anything of it.


William Mulock: Is there not a post office in the village ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There is. There were two but there is only one now.


William Mulock: How far apart were these two ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Very nearly one mile.


William Mulock: They were both in the same village ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Both in the same village- the same as in Ottawa ; there is more than one post office in Ottawa.


Richard Blain: I put a question on the order paper the other day as follows :
When was the parcel post increased .in Canada ?
And the answer was :
This last question is not understood.
I would like the hon. the Postmaster General to give an explanation of the postal parcel system in Canada and to state when any changes were made in the rates on parcels going through the post office.


William Mulock: I suppose there will be several meanings to that question. Does the hon. gentleman mean : When was the volume of business increased or the size of the parcels or the cost of transmission ?


Richard Blain: I mean the rate of postage on parcels going through the post office.


William Mulock: The rate of postage on parcels going through the post office has undergone increases and decreases for a very long time and it would Involve going through the various items and classifying them to answer that question. There was merely a classification and simplification of the parcel rates and they practically had no effect upon the revenue of the depart. ment. While the classification might increase the rates in some cases it reduced them in othei'S.


Richard Blain: Could you send a parcel of . dry goods through the mails as cheaply now ; as ten years ago ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK, There has been no change in the rate of postage on merchandise since the present government took office.
* Two superintendents in city post offices, $3,600.
son


William Mulock: In Toronto and Montreal where the postal revenue has Increased enormously we require a superior officer In each place who will be under the postmaster and deputy postmaster. These two positions will not be filled from appointments outside tout will be the result of promotion.
Additional railway mail clerks, including mileage, $16,000.


William Mulock: This is largely to meet the case of the additional train established by the Canadian Pacific Railway across the continent. If the train continues during the whole year we will have to use this amount, blit if not we will have to dispense with the services of these men.


George William Fowler: Do they all pass the civil service examinations ?


William Mulock: No. You cannot always get men who have passed the *civil service examination. We are obliged to take on men temporarily and put them under tuition.


George William Fowler: Is there not a large waiting list of persons who have passed the examination ?


William Mulock: I dare say a great many people have passed the civil service examination but they very often go into different other occupations.


Haughton Lennox: Last year I pressed upon the Postmaster General that he should experiment in the establishment of rural mail delivery in Canada. In my section of the country a great many of the people are strongly in favour of this rural mail service and I ventured to suggest to the hon. gentleman the advisability of selecting a fairly representative section of the country and making an experiment. There is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman. I would suggest to the Postmaster General that he should allow members of parliament not only to send parliamentary documents printed by order *of parliament free of postage from their homes, but that any document containing the exact language of ' Hansard ' without comment or change should also be allowed to be sent free of charge through the mails so that our constituents may be made acquainted with the proceedings of parliament which all will admit is a very desirable thing. If members address these documents from their homes their attention would not be distracted during the session from the duties in the chamber and their other parliamentary duties. No harm would result to the postal service and I think benefit would be conferred upon the community.
I would recommend this to the consideration of the minister and unless his mind is already made up on the question I would


William Mulock: not expect him to express his opinion on it to-night.


William Mulock: The last suggestion of my hon. friend means an extension of the franking privilege. As the franking privilege is governed by statute, to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion would necessitate an amendment to the Post Office Act. It is therefore not a matter to be dealt with departmentally, but by parliament. With regard to rural delivery, at this late hour I am sure the committee would not wish to have a treatise on that subject forced upon them. I have given a great deal of consideration to it, and it would give me great satisfaction if I could see my way to inaugurate such a system. I went into the study of it sanguine that it could be inaugurated in Canada, but the study of it disclosed the unwisdom and impossibility of it. I venture to say that no government in Canada for many years to come will commit itself to the proposition of rural mail delivery.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the Postmaster General what rule guides him in the closing up of post offices.


William Mulock: We hardly ever close a post office except perhaps where the postmaster refuses to act or where a community moves away. In a mining district, for example, where a post office is opened up to serve the convenience of persons engaged in the local industry, and the mine turns out to be a failure and the community leaves, the inspector will report that fact, and the post office will be closed. I do not think we ever close a post office unless the inspector recommends it to be closed as being no longer of any public use. The last thing we do is to close a post office. It is not done at the instance of the department, but as the outcome of some 'report that it is useless.


George William Fowler: I may say that a number of post offices have been closed in my county, and it is not a mining community, but a rural community. Post offices have been closed which were very useful an<j important to the people. I had occasion, in the first session that 1 was in parliament, to complain that several post offices in my county had been closed, and I was given to understand that they were closed at the instance of the gentleman who opposed me in the election.


William Mulock: That is a mistake.


George William Fowler: He got the credit of it.


William Mulock: That was unfair to him.


George William Fowler: I cannot understand why they should have been closed. It is important to people in farming districts that they should have their mail, and in the busy

season it is very difficult for them to get time to drive or walk six or eight miles to a post office. Life for people of that class is hard enough at best, and if any exceptions are made, they should be made in their favour. I think the revenue of the Post Office Department is large enough to justify an expenditure along that line, and I hope the Postmaster General will increase the post offices rather than diminish them.


William Mulock: I agree with what the hon. gentleman says. In no instance have I consented to the closing of a post office except where it was shown that it was not in the public interest. That has been the only consideration. It is not the rule for me to know anything of the closing of post offices. Any that are closed are iclosed departmentally for that and for no other reason.


George William Fowler: I may say that after the session I will take occasion to communicate with the Post Office Department and state a number of instances in which post offices have been closed, and perhaps the hon. Postmaster General will see that they are reopened in the interest of the public.
Trade and commerce-bounty on crude petroleum-to cover expenditure in connection with the administration of the Act, $3,000.


David Henderson: I assume that this is to pay the expense of distributing the money ?


William Stevens Fielding: There will have to be an officer to make some inquiry into the accounts, and it may be necessary to have an inspector in the oil regions.


David Henderson: Do you think $3,000 will cover the expense ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think so. It is a very economical government.


David Henderson: I think we shall have something in the supplementary estimates next year.
Printing and stationery, including printing of ' Labour Gazette,' allowances to correspondents, administration of Conciliation Act and Railway Labour Disputes Act, travelling expenses, &c., and $500 each for an accountant and a French translator, which sum may be paid to any one in the civil service, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $32,350.


George William Fowler: What salary do these correspondents get ?


William Mulock: $100 a year.


George William Fowler: What do they do ?


William Mulock: Some are compositors, some are newspaper men, others are compositors or engaged in literary work on newspapers, others are the best class of mechanics who are familiar with trade matters in their locality.


Richard Blain: How many from Ontario ?


William Mulock: One for each city.	.


George William Fowler: Have the capitalists no representation on the ' Labour Gazette ? '


William Mulock: I do not think that these correspondents are representatives strictly of any one class. They are men in the community competent to deal with the labour matters. They simply gather information and transmit it.


George William Fowler: Are they all union men ?


William Mulock: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. FOWLER, Is there any distinction made on that account ?


William Mulock: I do not think so.


Richard Blain: Who are the correspondents at Hamilton and Toronto '?


William Mulock: Mr. Landers in Hamilton and Mr. Phillips Thompson in Toronto.


George William Fowler: How many in New Brunswick ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK W.   H.@: Coates in St. John ; F. W. Smith in Halifax, N.S.; John Moffatt in Sydney, N.S.; F. G. Nash, in Charlottetown, P.E.I.


George William Fowler: Is this ' Labour Gazette ' published free or sold ?


William Mulock: The subscription is 20 cents a year. We have 7,000 or
8.000	subscribers and some 4,000 on the free list. We send it free to libraries, mechanics' institutes, boards of trade and members of parliament.


George William Fowler: Why not send the members of parliament bound copies ?


William Mulock: We send them monthly. The suggestion might be worth considering.
Department of Labour-amount required for expenses of Alien Labour Commissions to cover expenses of the commissions from the time of appointment, May 23 (including allowance of five dollars per diem to ,G. G. V. Ar-douin, stenographer, for reporting and extending the evidence, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act), $5,000.


George William Fowler: What do you pay the commissioners ?


William Mulock: $10 a day and expenses.
Civil government-Department of Indian Affairs-to provide, for transfer of F. H. Paget from the outside to the inside service as a chief clerk, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,900.


George William Fowler: Why this ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ? '


Mr. SIFTON.: Mr. Paget has been In the service for many years. He was formerly in the Commissioner's office in Winnipeg. He spent some time in Ottawa in the Accountant's branch and it is found more satisfactory to have him here permanently. This was to transfer him from the office at Winnipeg to the office here.


George William Fowler: But why the exception of the Civil Service Act ?


Clifford Sifton: Because when an officer is brought from the outside service he does not comply with the Civil Service Act with regard to examination.
Pensions-to provide for an annual allowance to John Dyke, formerly agent for the Dominion government at Liverpool, Eng., at which rate it shall be hereafter paid monthly, $1,000.


Clifford Sifton: Old members of the House will remember that Mr. Dyke was for many years agent of the government at Liverpool. Air. Dyke's services were at one time dispensed with and he was afterwards reengaged at a lower salary. He was for twenty or twenty-five years connected with the two services of immigration and trade. His health failed and he became unable to prosecute his duties regularly. We appointed him in another capacity, but it was found not satisfactory to keep him. Before this government came into office Sir Charles Tupper, when High Commissioner, made strenuous efforts to have Mr. Dyke superannuated by the late government. But it was found impossible, because the provisions of the Act did not cover Mr. Dyke's case, and the government did not see their way clear to do anything for him. I have received strong representations from persons who are familiar with the work Mr. Dyke did for many years stating, what -was generally recognized, that Mr. Dyke's services to the Dominion were exceedingly -valuable. His health has failed so that he cannot carry on his work regularly. It has been decided to ask the House to vote a special annuity for him. I wish to make the statement so that the House will understand :	We would have put Mr. Dyke on
the superannuation list if we could have done so ; but we desire the voting of this sum to be regarded as an acknowledgment to Mr. Dyke that the allowance shall be paid regularly hereafter. *
Geological Survey-to purchase Mr. D. H. Price's collection of Canadian archaeological .specimens, about 9,000 specimens, $5,949.


Clifford Sifton: This is a valuable collection for the purchase of which negotiations have been going on for a number of years. Nine or ten years ago it was examined by the late Dr. Dawson, director of the Survey, who recommended it for purchase. Nothing was done at that time. After I became minster, Dr. Dawson recommended me to purchase the collection. I did not do so then, Mr. FOWLER.
because there was no proper place to keep or display the specimens. But, as the new museum is about being placed under contract and is expected to be finished soon, it was thought desirable to make the purchase. Mr. Price sent the specimens to Ottawa and they were valued by Dr. Bell and other officers of the Geological Survey, who put upon them the value given here. The valuation is low. If the collection were allowed to go out of Canada it could not be replaced. Had Mr. Price desired to sell outside of Canada he could probably have got a larger figure than he got from us. But he desired that his collection should remain in the Geological museum here and refrained from trying to sell, confident that, sooner or later, the government would purchase.


George William Fowler: Where is the new museum to be ?


Clifford Sifton: At the south end of Metcalfe street on the Stewart property, known as Appin Place.
Indians, Ontario and Quebec-to provide an amount for annuity, gratuity and expenses of negotiating treaty No. 9, $32,925.


Clifford Sifton: There is a large portion of the territory which has never been ceded and for which the Indian title has not been acquired, and it will be necessary to make a treaty to acquire the title from the Indians. We estimate in this vote that the annuity and gratuity will be $4 each for
3,000	Indians ; expenses of negotations, $2,925 ; pay of commissioners, transport and maintenance, $3,200. The expenses of the treaty are calculated to be $0,000, and the payment to our provisions for the Indians, $26,925. This is absolutley new territory, where nothing is being done now. A great difficulty is that we shall have to make arrangement with the provincial governments with regard to the reserves, because the Crown lands belong to them.


George William Fowler: I see that in some of the provinces of Canada, notably in British Columbia, this question of the Indian reserves has become what you might call a burning question. I think some steps should be taken to take the reserves from the Indians and pay them for them. For instance, near the town of Kamloops there is a large amount of land occupied by Indians, from which practically no revenue is derived by the Indians. It is no particular advantage to them, but it is a very great disadvantage to the people who go into that country to settle. Some of the best lands in the province of British Columbia are occupied' as Indian reserves. I think it is the duty of the department to look into that matter, and see if the title of the Indians cannot be extinguished and the land thrown open for settlement. These reserves are situated near towns, and it is a bad thing for the Indians
[DOT]9017

to be so close to temptation and to tbe means of becoming intoxicated. It makes them less self-supporting than they would *otherwise be.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I may say that I have drawn the attention of the minister to that subject, both last session and the session before, instancing the reserves in the neighbourhood of Kamloops, Agassiz, Salmon Arm and in the Siamilkameen. I wish to again draw the attention of the minister to the view held by the people in the neighbourhood of these reserves in British Columbia.


Clifford Sifton: From one end of Canada to the other a difficulty arises from the facl that the Indians exercise a greater degree of providence in the selection of land than in anything else ; they select lands which are fitted for settlement by white people and which white people would like to acquire. But the Dominion of Canada is pledged under the treaties to keep these lands inviolate for the Indians; no lands can be alienated from them without their consent obtained in a lawful manner. From time to time efforts have been made to obtain the consent of the Indians to part with their reservations, but it most always happens that whenever the Indians observe a *strong desire on our part to obtain their land and place them somewhere else, they resist strenuously any attempt whatever on the part of the department to secure their consent. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Earle) has frequently called my attention to the case near the city of Victoria, in the province of British Columbia, where there is -a considerable portion of land in the heart of the city belonging to the Indians, and which they insist on holding to the detriment of the growth of the city and the conduct of municipal affairs. We have made for years an effort to secure their consent to accept some other lands in exchange, but 'without success. I have not given special attention to New Brunswick, and could not say whether there is any probability that the Indians there could be brought to make an exchange, but our experience in other places has not been such as to encourage us. In the province of Manitoba, some four or five years ago, we made a determined effort to improve the condition of the Indians by getting them to surrender a number of small reserves and giving them a larger one, where they could carry on fishing operations and agriculture at the same time, and we offered to give them, in addition, a large amount of money to enafole them to begin their agricultural operations, but all our efforts resulted in total failure. There is absolutely nothing the Indians are so sensitive about as the title of their land. The only thing that has enabled the government to maintain peace and harmony with the Indian tribes is the fact that we have never yet interfered with their occupation of the
reserves, except by their free consent, in accordance with the terms of the treaty. I think my hon. friend will recognize the fact that whatever may be done with them by moral suasion and compensation, it cannot be done without their consent and under the terms of the treaty. So far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, the difficulty is greater there than anywhere else, because the title to the Indian reserves is in a different position legally. The government of British Columbia holds the reversionary right to the Indian reserves without any doubt whatever, and the Dominion government is not in a position to deal with these lands except with the concurrence of the provincial government. This complicates the question, because the British Columbia government would not agree to any terms that we could get the Indians to agree to.
Indians-to recoup the Mississaguas of Alnwick, for islands taken for park purposes, River St. Lawrence, $9,150.


George William Fowler: Explain that.


Clifford Sifton: These are islands in the St. Lawrence which were reserved for public parks and we are just placing to the credit of the Indian Fund the schedule value of the islands. They did not belong to us but to the Indians.
Indians-to recoup the Mississaguas of Aln-ther amount required for salaries of the outside service, $10,000.


George William Fowler: Explain that.


Clifford Sifton: The amount of $10,000 which we are now asking for is caused by an increase in the staff in connection with the administration of Dominion lands, a small amount being required in Manitoba but the larger amount in the Northwest Territories. When I was presenting my supplementary estimates for last year I gave details of the items and of the increases which have been made. The main estimates for 1904-5 were prepared before these changes were made, so that that addition had to be made to correspond to the addition that I explained when I was passing my supplementary estimates for last year. The administration of Dominion lands in the Northwest Territories has required the addition of a considerable number of clerks and it is for the purpose of paying these that this amount is added.
Miscellaneous-to complete improvements on islands in River St. Lawrenec-revote, $3,500.


William Stevens Fielding: Strike out the word ' revote ' ; that is a mistake.


George William Fowler: What is it for ?


Clifford Sifton: These are the islands I spoke of a little while ago, and this amount is to make improvements upon them. $12,000 was voted last year. We find that we require about $1,000 more. The wharfs cost

a little more than we anticipated and there will he some clearing to be done on some of the islands around the wharfs. This is estimated to cost $2,500.


George William Fowler: What is the total area of these islands ?


Clifford Sifton: I could not give the hon. gentleman the total area of these islands. They vary from half an acre to five acres. They extend from Brockville near1 which is the largest island, called Picnic Island, all the way to Gananoque.


George William Fowler: Would it be a hundred acres altogether ?


Clifford Sifton: 
William Stevens Fielding: The Bank of Commerce manages the business of the government in the Yukon and the first year we paid as high as one and a half or two per cent, but we have reduced it each year until the present rate is three-eighths per cent. At an early date we expect that our business in the Yukon will be conducted in the same way as in other parts of Canada.
St. John drill hall (revote), $10,000.


George William Fowler: What is the intention of the department with respect to this vote- just to put it in the estimates, or have you arranged to erect a bunding ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that any arrangements have been made to erect a building. It is the intention, of course, to proceed with the work, though I do not know that the department would be justified in entering into a very large contract with only $10,000.


George William Fowler: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that in the county of Albert, there is a large and important town called Hillsborough with from 2,000 to 2,500 population. It is the central market town for a considerable district, and it requires a public building for a custom-house and post office. Buildings of this class have been erected in many places with very much smaller revenues. This is the most important town in the county of Albert. I do not ask for an expensive building. One costing from $8,000 to $10,000 would accommodate the service.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have asked the officers of the department to make a memorandum of the matter, and if I am in the department next session, I will endeavour to give it due consideration.
Barrie public building-rearrangement of post office fittings and other improvements, also repairs, $4,800.


Haughton Lennox: Has there been a contract let for this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, nothing has been done. Mr. SIFTON.


Haughton Lennox: This is for the'interior ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, fittings, letter-boxes, tiled flooring, improving the woodwork, painting, &e.
Chatham, Ont., armoury, $20,000.


Richard Blain: Who furnished the site in Chatham ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It belongs to the government.
St. Catharines, Ont., drill hall, $60,000.


Richard Blain: When will this be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is under contract. The foundation will be laid this year. The building is to be completed in twelve months.
Vancouver public building-additional amount, $40,000.


Richard Blain: What will this building cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimated cost is between $250,000 and $300,000.


Samuel Hughes: What is the building for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: For all government purposes.
Public buildings generally-construction of armouries, $70,000.


Mr. LENNOX  .@: What is the explanation of this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: An item for this purpose appeared in the main estimates, and when it was under consideration an explanation was given. This is for the construction of small armouries in places where large armouries are not necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Is there one in Victoria county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) wants one in Victoria county,
I will give the suggestion a very sympathetic hearing.


Richard Blain: Where are these armouries to be constructed ? I brought to the attention of the government a long time ago the complaint of the county of Peel in this matter. This general vote is rather dangerous.


Charles Smith Hyman: There can hardly be danger in constructing two or three small armouries. This vote is placed in the estimates at the request of the Militia Department.


Richard Blain: Did the Minister of Militia furnish a statement showing where the armouries will be constructed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. That will depend upon the military necessities.


Richard Blain: That is rather a broad statement. I repeat this general vote Is dangerous.


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been a similar vote in the estimates for two or three years past, and I do not think any abuse has grown out of it.
Mr. BLA1N. Except the abuse that these armouries are not put in the right places, and putting it in the form of a general vote gives the minister free choice where these armouries are to be located. When elections are coming on, it is dangerous to put the item in that form. It would be better if we were told where these armouries were to be constructed.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, &c.-Yukon public buildings-repairs, improvements, fuel and other supplies ; lighting, water service and caretaker's salary, additional amount required, $76,200.


Samuel Hughes: What sums have[ been expended on the public buildings in the Yukon 7 Has the minister a statement there ? And what is the population of the Yukon ? I think this vote would make several dollars a head.


Charles Smith Hyman: This item appeared in the main estimates under the Department of the Interior. It was struck out of the main estimates and is inserted here under the Department of Public Works.
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Apple River-wharf, $3,000.


Richard Blain: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to an article which appeared in the Toronto ' Mail.' It says :
,	Good for Logan.
This year's Supply Bill amounts to $76,000,000, or thereabouts. It is $36,000,000 more than the Tories expended in the days of extravagance. What these huge outlays mean is made apparent by the following despatch to the Amherst ' News,' in Cumberland county, N.S.:-
Ottawa, July 26.-The supplementary estimates were submitted to parliament last night. Your representative, Mr. Logan, has secured the following votes for Cumberland county :- $16,000 for railway improvements at Amherst station.
$5,000 for railway siding from Fort Lawrence to Amherst pier.
$3,000) for subsidy for steamer ' Kilkeil ' to run to said pier.
$1,000 for Frederick Baton, who was severely injured in the explosion in the Springhill post office.
$3,000 for wharf at Amherst Point.
$3,000 for Apple river wharf.
$3,000 for improvements at the Joggins wharf. $3,000 for Malagash wharf.
$1,000 for addition to Parrsboro' pier.
$4,000 for improvements for Wallace harbour. $4,000 for Advocate harbour and extensions to wharf.
$3,500 for further improvements upon the Springhill public buildings.
$12,000 for breakwater at Port Greville. Provisions have also been made for Maccan station for providing additional railway facilities at that point.'
2SG
The above amounts are in addition to the amounts voted in the May estimates, which were as follows .
$10,000 for Amherst pier.
$15,000 for improvements at Amherst station. $1,000 improvements at Wentworth.
$2,000 Oxford Junction for additional railway sidings.
$4,500 for railway improvements at Salt Springs.
$5,000 for improvements to railway accommodation at Springhill Junction, and many other smaller items along the line.
This is evidently Mr. Logan's own report to the county. He is telling the people that he has made a big haul out of the public chest for his county. The Ottawa doctrine now is that the public treasury is fair game, and that the man who can get the largest sums from It is the best member.
I suppose it would take the minister some little time to explain all this. May I ask if all these items are for one county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: These are not all public works items. Those items that are for the public works in many instances were asked for by the inhabitants themselves.


Richard Blain: Then the hon. minister makes no objection to all these items being voted for Cumberland county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I said before that a number of the items the hon. gentleman read are not in the Public Works estimates. There are other estimates besides those of Public Works.


Richard Blain: Cumberland county seems to be pretty well taken care of. When does the minister expect that this money will be expended 7


Charles Smith Hyman: The government will make a strong endeavour to proceed with any work voted by parliament.


Richard Blain: Are there any other counties equally well looked after ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is not altogether a question of counties. The Department of Public Works have officers in different parts of Canada who report upon the public necessities of various localities ; besides, representations are made to the department from the people themselves.


Samuel Hughes: There are 92 harbours in Nova Scotia alone getting grants this session, besides those granted last session. Is there any bay on the shore of Nova Scotia that has not got a wharf 7


William Stevens Fielding: Come down and see.


Samuel Hughes: I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance, this year as well as I did last year, to the fact that there are works necessary to be carried on in the province of Ontario, and we cannot get a dollar for them.


William Stevens Fielding: What are they 7


Samuel Hughes: In the county of Victoria and Haliburton alone there are 100 miles of lake navigation that could be made available. There are upwards of
40,000	people living along those waters that would benefit by a public expenditure. The plans are all in the Railway Department and have been there for 10 or 12 years, but nothing is done.
Harbours and rivers, N.S.-Port Hawkes-bury-Additional amount for wharf, $2,600.


Richard Blain: What is the total expenditure here ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Richard Blain: What is the revenue ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Department of Public Works builds the wharf, and when it is built they turn it over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which collects the revenue. I have no estimate of the revenue. I do not think that these works are always considered from the standpoint of revenue.


Richard Blain: What county is this in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Inverness.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister give us the returns of shipping from some of these harbours ? I am told that a number of these harbours have never seen a ship.
Mi-. HYMAN. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows whereof he is speaking, but I think that statement is absurd.


Samuel Hughes: Take the 92 harbours-are there any more than 92 ships coming into them, outside of Halifax ?


Mr. LOGAN.: In the harbour of Parrs-boro' last year over 1,800 vessels entered and cleared. _


Samuel Hughes: That is for coal.


Hance James Logan: No, for general shipping, lumber, of course there is some coal. They carry general produce. Between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 feet of deals were shipped from that port last year. Let the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) come down to Cumberland county and he will wonder that we do not get more public money for improvements. Cumberland county is the best on earth.


Richard Blain: Did my hon. friend read the list of public works in the newspapers ?


Hance James Logan: I heard the list read, but I did not think it necessary to pay any attention to anything that was being read from a newspaper. A large number of those items are railway estimates. There are over 110 miles of government railway in that county, and there must necessarily be a large expenditure, particularly when you remember that the county has three sides on water and is over 100 miles in length and is 60 miles in breadth. It is a very large *constituency, and necessarily a considerable Mr. FIELDING.
amount of public money must be spent there to improve the public services.


Richard Blain: What we complain of is that when we let these items go through the House the local newspaper will take them up as it did in this case, heading the article ' Good for Logan.' Naturally members of the House wonder how it is that the hon. gentleman has such a tremendous pull with the government, when he is able to cover a whole column of a newspaper with grants given to his county, at the same time that there are counties in the province of Ontario can't get a dollar of public expenditure. I may say that there has not been a dollar of money expended in the county of Peel, with the exception of the construction of a post office, and a small expenditure at Port Credit for the last 40 years. There are other counties like Victoria, Nova Scotia that have received so many grants that the representative is able to hold up his hands in his native town and say :	See what I
have done since I have represented this county, see what I have got from the Liberal government at Ottawa. That is what my hon. friend from Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) will be able to do. It would be only prudent, when these hon. gentlemen get so much out of the government for then-counties, that they should notify the Reform newspapers not to head their articles in this manner, and so publish it to the world.


Hance James Logan: I am not responsible for what the newspapers publish. A newspaper man goes to work and picks these items out of the estimates and sends it to his paper. I cannot help that.


George William Fowler: You don't want to help it


Hance James Logan: Of course I did not. Let us all be honest about these things. If I have been of any assistance in securing any of these items I am glad that I have been able to do this as the representative of the county.
Harbours and rivers, N.S.-Port Lome, reconstruction and repairs of breakwater, $1,000.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the hon.' Minister of Finance if he is trying any more experiments down there?


William Stevens Fielding: It would be exceedingly fortunate if ail the experiments that were tried were as successful as that.


George William Fowler: That was not.


William Stevens Fielding: That was perfectly successful and any statements which were made to the contrary were entirely unfounded.


George William Fowler: A friend of the hon. gentleman, Mr. Nickerson, wrote that beautiful piece of poetry on Fielding's Folly.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has got mixed. The work to which he refers was many miles away from the work of which we are now speaking.


George William Fowler: Then there are two cases, and this is not the one that was referred to as Fielding's Folly ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have been informed that the person who was commonly believed to have furnished the information to hon. gentlemen opposite of which they have made so much fun saying that this was a useless work, was one of the first to use this harbour.


Samuel Hughes: Is the harbour inland ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is inland. It is a harbour made by cutting a passage through a beach whereby an inland sea of water was made a harbour.


Samuel Hughes: * That was higher up than the sea level ?


William Stevens Fielding: A good deal depends upon the condition of the tide.


Richard Blain: How much revenue is derived from that wharf ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no revenue but there is quite as much as we get from the Ontario canals.


Richard Blain: If it is a question" of revenue from the canals the government, I suppose, are responsible for that because last year they took the tolls off canals.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear ; quite so.
Harbours and rivers, N.S., Tenecape-to complete breakwater, $1,700.


George William Fowler: What settlement is there at Tenecape ? The mines are not being operated there now.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a settlement.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a small item to complete the work. There has been $7,500 expended.


George William Fowler: I understand that Tenecape is a place where there was a mine, but that mine has been closed up for years and that section of the country is deserted.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it is right to say the country is deserted.


George William Fowler: There is a very sparse population. The mining population has gone away, of course.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that there is a considerable lumber interest at that place.


George William Fowler: How much lumber was shipped last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no special information, * but one of the reasons given by those who asked for this wharf was that there was a considerable amount of lumber shipped.
286*


George William Fowler: There does not seem to be a Nova Scotia member who knows anything about this work.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my hon. friend knows as much about it as he thought he did.


George William Fowler: Why ?


William Stevens Fielding: Because he says there is no population there.


George William Fowler: No.
Mr. FIELDING, Yes, my hon. friend stated that the population had deserted the place.


George William Fowler: The mining population' has gone but there is a sparse population. I venture to say that the hon. Minister of Finance does not know the first thing about it.


William Stevens Fielding: I confess that I have not been at Tenecape for a number of years.


George William Fowler: I think I know quite as much about it as the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that the hon. gentleman did not know as much about it as I did. I said that he did not know as much about it as he thought he did.


George William Fowler: That is why I am entitled to get some information.
Harbours and rivers, N.S., Yarmouth harbour-retaining walls, $10,000.


George William Fowler: Explain that Yarmouth retaining wall.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is put in here as retaining walls but the intention is to build a wharf. The intention is to build retaining walls and then fill them up and use the work as a wharf. There is a large amount of shipping done at that port and it will be practically an extension of the retaining wall of the harbour.
Harbours and rivers, N.B., Campbellton- wharf extension and repairs-to complete, $32,000.


George William Fowler: Is this to pay for the wharf you have expropriated ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: What is the total required to complete this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I explained this very fully the other day. The question is in regard to the purchase of a wharf. The matter is now in the court and as yet the price of the wharf has not been settled. Until the wharf is acquired there will be no expenditure.
MfyiLEiNiNOX. What is the total cost '!


Charles Smith Hyman: There is 300 feet extension* to the present wharf and the excavation is estimated at 7* cents a yard.


Samuel Hughes: None of these are private wharfs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, the department is very careful about that.


George William Fowler: What about the Little Salmon river in St. John county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I moved that this vote should be struck out of the main estimates because there was a question as to ownership. I have a telegram from the parties stating that they were willing it should be made an open harbour for. everybody.


George William Fowler: Along that coast it should be. What about this contribution of iff),000 to that local government in New Brunswick ? What wharfs will it cover ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The local government do the work and it is inspected by our engineer.


George William Fowler: Are there any wharfs in contemplation now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: >?ot that I know of that comes out of this vote.
*Shippegan harbour-wharf at terminus of Caraquet Railway, $5,000.


Mr.   SAM@: HtwiES. Is this a Dominion government wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister aware 'tjhat the Caraquet Railway is supposed to have been recently purchased by one of the outfit in this business, and I presume next session it will be unloaded upon the country the same as the Gibson Railway.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not aware of anything of the kind, but if the hon. gentleman says it I will accept his statement.


Samuel Hughes: The newspapers say that certain Toronto gentlemen have bought the road and it will be unloaded upon the people of Canada. I presume this wharf is part of the scheme.


Charles Smith Hyman: So far as I am concerned I know nothing about it.


George William Fowler: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) means by unloading, but I have this to say that from my standpoint, it is a very proper thing for the Intercolonial Railway and for the government to acquire these branch lines provided they acquire them at a proper price. I am a strong advocate in the interests of the Intercolonial Railway and in the interests of the people that are serving these branch lines, of the policy of the government acquiring them. It will give the people of that country an opportunity to be served by a proper railway system as well as the people of any other part of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: I don't want to run foul on this question.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Thomas Earle: Foul of Fowler.


Samuel Hughes: No. The peoplp of Ontario who pay a large share of this, object to being taxed for the benefit of Mr. Peter Ryan or any gentleman who makes it his business to go around getting these roads and unloading them on the government. The Conmees and Ryans and men of that stripe are all right for themselves, but we should not be parties to their little games. This is part and parcel of the scheme.


Charles Smith Hyman: I object to that statement; it is not so.


Samuel Hughes: What does the minister know about it '! I don't think he knows where Ciu^iquet is.. I assume that some members from the maritime provinces told him about it and he put it in the vote.


Onésiphore Turgeon: This very work has been asked for by the people of Gloucester county for the last ten years, and long before there was any talk of a change in ownership of the Caraquet Railway. It is the proper place for a wharf and will serve the people of Shippigan and Miscou islands. I have been trying to get this vote for several years, and it is only this year we succeeded in getting it.


Samuel Hughes: Was there no wharf at the terminus of this railway before ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: No.


Samuel Hughes: How do they get their freight on to the railway ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: They have to bring it in small boats and transfer it to large boats at great expense and trouble.
Barrie, Ont., landing pier and dredging, $2,500.


Mr. LENNOX  .@: Is this at Barrie ?


Charles Smith Hyman: At Allandale.	[DOT]


Haughton Lennox: When will this be done ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I will take it up with the engineer to-morrow. He says it can be done immediately.


Haughton Lennox: The wharf there is in pretty bad shape. Is this to be built of wood ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Would it not be better to build it of cement 1


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. gentleman desires, it might be built of cement, but of course that would increase the cost.


Haughton Lennox: It is a point to be considered whether cement would not be the best and cheapest in the long run.
Hamilton harbour improvements, $30,000.


Samuel Barker: Where is this work to be done, and what is the nature of it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is for the purpose of the construction of a pile protection, which is to be made into a wharf. It is to extend about 1,600 feet along the harbour front between St. Catharines street and Wellington street.	1


Samuel Barker: Is there to be a deepening of the harbour at that point or is the work to be on the land ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is on the land. There will be some dredging during the time the wharf is being built.
Sault Ste. Marie harbour improvements- compensation to W. H. Plummer in full and final settlement of all claims in connection with the transfer of his wharf property to the Crown, $7,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought you had bought that wharf.


Charles Smith Hyman: The wharf was bought by the government some years ago for $1. The arrangement was made by the Public Works Department. After the purchase the wharf was transferred to the Marine and Fisheries Department. The bargain was never carried out. There is considerable correspondence in the department on the subject. This is an estimate by the officers of the department of the value of the wharf at the time it was taken over.


Haughton Lennox: Has the government formed any scheme for extensive improvements at Sault Ste. Marie ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We are extending that wharf now under contract.


Haughton Lennox: I mean in the way of making a complete harbour along the front.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is nothing of that kind immediately before the department.
Severn river-removal of obstructions at Macdonald's chute, $3,400.


Samuel Hughes: The minister, 1 suppose, will be careful that in removing these obstructions he is not running foul of the Railways and Canals Department by lowering the water.


Haughton Lennox: Representations were made by the government in regard to that matter a year or so ago, when it was supposed that the government was about to lower the water of Lake Simcoe by the removal of obstructions in the Severn river. The people around Lake Simcoe have different opinions on the subject.


Charles Smith Hyman: If anything of that kind should happen, it is the intention of the department to build controlling works.
Whitby harbour-dredging, $10,000.


Samuel Hughes: This is not a public harbour.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is not for the improvement of a dock or anything like that. This is dredging.


Samuel Hughes: But a charge is made for the use of these harbours. And I make the same objection now that I made when the Conservatives were in power. I claim that there should be some system in the voting of these moneys. A private party may own the wharf and the Dominion government spends this money in improving the harbour, thus adding to the value of the property. In many cases these people are trying to unload their property and, this may give it a value which may enable them to do so.


Charles Smith Hyman: But it also does good by facilitating the use of the harbour. '


Richard Blain: Who owns this wharf ?


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: The Port Whitby HaiVsur Company.


Richard Blain: Was there anything in the
main estimates for this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Richard Blain: Will this vote complete the work?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the intention.


Richard Blain: What dredge is expected to do this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Our own dredge.


Richard Blain: Is it expected that the work will be finished this year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That depends on whether a dredge is available. Very often the department is, I will not say misled, but mistaken in its basis of calculation in these matters. Sometimes storms delay the work, sometimes dredges get out of order. But, if everything goes well we ought to finish the work this fall.


Hance James Logan: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, and that of my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) and my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) to this Ontario vote. They are so much exercised over the fact that Nova Scotia gets a paltry $200,000 for these works, although it is practically surrounded by the sea. Yet Ontario, which has no salt.water, gets $403,435. I would ask, applying the language of the hon. member for North Victoria, if there is any other place in Ontario where a wharf or a breakwater can be put ?


Samuel Hughes: I would tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) that you could take the whole of Nova Scotia and drop it into one county in Ontario and then leave plenty of room. And I can tell him that one county of Ontario, the county of York, i has a greater population than the province of Nova Scotia.


Charles Smith Hyman: So far as I have had anything to do with these matters I can say that these works, whether in Ontario or Nova Scotia, are decided upon simply in the public interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We could take the province of Nova Scotia and drop it into the St. Lawrence and never know it was there but for the smell of the bad whiskey.


Hance James Logan: But I notice that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) needs a leader, he comes to the province of Nova Scotia to find him.
Harbours and rivers, British Columbia, $34,500.


Haughton Lennox: This is the item on which I might discuss a matter I desire to bring forward, but I will leave it until we are on concurrence at the next sitting of the House.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is only fair to say that I made arrangements with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) that he should have an opportunity of discussing a certain matter on an appropriate item.
Dredging-new dredging plant, maritime provinces-additional revote, $50,000.


George William Fowler: Where is this to be built ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a new hydraulic dredge which is now building under contract by the Poison Iron Works in Toronto.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec-additional amount, $55,000.


Samuel Hughes: Why is this item put in this form ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There are many dredges and they are sent backwards and forwards between the provinces.


Samuel Hughes: Is it for the construction of dredges ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is for dredging.


Samuel Hughes: Then, why not charge it to dredging and not make it appear as if it were for dredges.


Charles Smith Hyman: The item has always appeared in this form.


Samuel Hughes: And I have always objected to it. We do not know whether we in Ontario are getting the benefit of this or whether it is going to Quebec.


Richard Blain: This is an additional vote. What was the original amount ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total is $150,000.
Roads and bridges-Bryson bridge, additional amount to reconstruct piers and approaches, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This bridge is at the village of Bryson, on the Ottawa river, and extends from an island to the shore.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. This is not a federal work. The island is in the province of Que-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
bee and the bridge is in the province of Quebec.


Mr. McCOOL.: This is an iron bridge originally built by the Dominion government on wooden piers, which have rotted away and have to be reconstructed. It connects Calumet island with the Quebec shore ; it is all in the province of Quebec.


William Mulock: It is a Dominion government work.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. In any event, it is a bridge in the province of Quebec.
Roads and bridges-to pay for work done by Indians and Halfbreeds on winter road between Lesser Slave and Sturgeon lake, Athabasca territory, under supervision of Rev. A. Desmarais, $800.


Clifford Sifton: This work was done under the direction of the missionary at Little Slave Lake, who claimed that the Indians had done the work. It appears there was some misunderstanding as to who should pay it, and the claim was made on the federal government. No direct authority was given by this government for the work, but inasmuch as the work has been done and the Indians had been led to expect they would be paid for it, I have recommended that parliament should be asked to pay for it.


Samuel Hughes: To whom is the money to be paid ?


Clifford Sifton: To the Indians who did the work.


George William Fowler: Is this a permanent road?


Clifford Sifton: Yes ; I cannot remember the exact distance.


George William Fowler: It seems a strange thing that this man, without any authority from any person whatever, should go to work and employ these Indians to build a road and tell them the Dominion government would pay them.
Telegraph lines-Quebec-to provide for the settlement of F. C. Bickerdike's claim in connection with his contract for the transportation of telegraph poles from Saguenay river to points on the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, $3,500.


George William Fowler: Who is this Bickerdike ? Is he any relation to the member ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Tbis is to pay for work actually done under contract by Mr. Bicker-dike.


George William Fowler: Wbo is Bickerdike ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand Mr. Bickerdike is the son of the member.
Telegraph lines, British Columbia-Vancouver Island-Salt Spring Island-Telephone Island- further extension on Salt Spring Island, $350.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One of our members wants to speak on one of these items for British Columbia or th.e Yukon, and I suppose it may be done on concurrence.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Survey ol head waters of the Ottawa river and tributaries with a view of devising a scheme for the regulation of the water levels of the upper reaches of these streams, so as to afford increased facilities for navigation purposes, the descent of timber, &c.. Additional revote, $5,000. -$15,000.


Samuel Hughes: What is the object of this survey ? Is that for storage purposes ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, for storage purposes. iMr.' SAM. HUGHES. For navigation or for timber ?


Charles Smith Hyman: For both.


Samuel Hughes: I would point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works that he will find in the Railway Department a plan made long years ago for the storage of water along the Trent canal and in Hali-burton county, and I would like to direct his attention to that plan in the Railway Department with the view of having some storage work done there too.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will take a memorandum of it.
Public buildings, Nova Scotia-Glace Bay- public building, additional $5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In most of these items for public buildings we ask for $5,000 as a beginning, but in this case we will require more. Glace Bay has increased very much in population and $5,000 would be insufficient to even purchase the land. Therefore, the vote has been increased to $10,000. Glace Bay is a large place and the site in a place like that costs more than in some other places.
Harbours and Rivers-New Brunswick, Great Salmon river-groyne and breakwater combined, $4,300.


Mr. TUCKER.: Do I understand that the money is only granted if it is a public harbour ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have stated that already in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. howler).


George William Fowler: That was the' Little Salmon river.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the one I referred to ; the other is already a public harbour. No money will be expended unless it is a public harbour.


George William Fowler: Will you have to pay for it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


George William Fowler: What is this work V Mr. HYMAN. Extension to the present breakwater.
Militia


George William Fowler: What monument is this you are erecting in the Annapolis Garrison grounds ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: To perpetuate the date of the first settlement o Annapolis.


Samuel Hughes: What is this Erie monument 1


Frederick William Borden: It is similar to the others throughout the country.


George William Fowler: What does the tablet on the Citadel rock in Quebec commemorate!


Frederick William Borden: The victory of the British and Canadian forces under General Guy Carleton.
Militia-miscellaneous and unforeseen contingencies, $5,500.


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: Will the minister explain an item that has appeared m tab papers to the effect that the officer in command of the School of Musketry has sent home a number of gentlemen belonging to respectable families ?


Frederick William Borden: I saw the item, but I have not yet had an opportunity of making inquiries about it. I intend to do so in the morning. I do not think the state ment in the papers is correct.


George William Fowler: Would the commanding officer have that power ?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly not without good reason.


Mr SAM. HUGHES.: I trust the minister will give the matter very careful attention, because there is altogether too much disposition to dragoon men on the pait of^ officers who think they are doing their duty. There are other ways of getting on with men than dragooning them in this way.
O.flce of Auditor General-further amount required for contingencies, $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What have yon done to the Auditor General ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not done anything with him.


Mr SPROULE.: Is his resignation going to be accepted, or are you giving bun additional power to do bis duty ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Auditor General tendered his resignation ; it has not been accepted, and there the matter stands.


Mr SPROULE.: We had that information weeks ago. We want to know what the government are going to do with him. Are they going to dismiss him 1 Mr. FIELDING. We are not going to dismiss him. We could not do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you going to accept his resignation ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know. It has been stated that we are anxious to get rid of the Auditor General, hut that is a mistake. He has tendered his resignation, but

I am not able to state at present what action Is going to be taken.


Samuel Hughes: The government should accept his resignation before the elections, because they gave us a very good precedent by refusing to recognize appointments made after the election of 1S96.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understand the minister correctly, he says the government do not desire to accept the Auditor General's [DOT]resignation.^ I understood that he was willing to remain in office if the law was amended to give him the authority he required to do his duty, and to give him additional accommodation and additional assistance Have they decided to give him this ?
Mr. 1< IELDING. I have not had any question before me with regard to additional accommodation. We have given the Auditor General all the assistance he has asked for.


George William Fowler: What clerks have you recommended for promotion ?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. H. Gross promoted from second class to first class. He was getting $1,300 and will get $1,500. Miss O'Connell, Messrs. Brown. Folkins, Steeves promoted from junior second to second class. Miss O'Connell was getting $900 and wjlt get $1,200. Mr. Brown was increased from $875 to $1,200. Mr. Folkins, $850 to $1,200. Mr. iSteeves, $800 to $1,200.


George William Fowler: Is there no amount for Mr. Sherwood ?


William Stevens Fielding: He was first included in the promotions but a memorandum from the Auditor General says he failed to pass the promotion examination.
humiliation for Mr. Sherwood to havie himself named for promotion and then be treated in this way. I merely want to enter my protest against the action of the Auditor General.


William Stevens Fielding: The Auditor General appears to have contemplated an increase in Mr. Sherwood's salary, because in making up the figures there is a provision for $175 increase to that gentleman, but judg->
Ing by the memorandum he does not intend giving it him. Officials in his department have complained to me in one or two instances of what they consider his injustice and I have replied that he must with regard to promotions have his own way.


Samuel Hughes: In this case the failure was a very slight one. I do not know whether the minister is on terms of consultation with the Auditor General now, but if he would consult that gentleman he might give the increase. I believe that the Auditor General would be justified in giving this increase.


William Stevens Fielding: The Auditor General is well aware that the matter is entirely in hie hands. I have told him to make promotions according to his judgment. I have no personal knowledge of his officials and no means of measuring the value of their work.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Sherwood ma,y
have incurred the Auditor General's displeasure by not holding up the Minister of Finance in his department.


William Stevens Fielding: The officials in the Auditor General's department have done their duty and I do not think that any of them have incurred his displeasure on that score.


George William Fowler: It was rather a hardship in his case, because it was not necessary for him to pass an examination in order to be promoted. It is not necessary to pass examinations in the Auditor General's Department. There was an amount placed in the estimates for Mr. Sherwood last year Then this was struck out and he was compelled to undergo an examination. The examination was on the work in the Auditor General's own department and was conducted by the Auditor General himself.


William Stevens Fielding: These matters are left entirely with the Auditor General, and these are his decisions.


George William Fowler: In some cases they are arbitrary. Mr. Sherwood has been in the office some twenty years, and the Auditor General was first going to promote him without an examination. One can understand how difficult an examination may be for a person who has been out of the habit of studying for a number of years. I do not know what sort of a freak would please the Auditor General, but it was a great


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the salary of the Auditor General ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is $4,000. It is fixed by statute.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do not propose to give an increase ?


William Stevens Fielding: We do not propose to alter the statute at present.


George William Fowler: Has not the minister power to overrule his decisions '!


William Stevens Fielding: Not as regards promotions. My impression is that the right of promoting lies with the Auditor General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is Mr. Sherwood at the maximum of his class ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not give him the increase under his class ?


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt he will receive a statutory increase


George William Fowler: He will not get it this year unless we vote it.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: The amount appropriated will be quite sufficient to pay his statutory increase.


George William Fowler: I trust the Minister of Finance will see that Mr. Sherwood gets it. You would have the right to do that without consulting the Auditor General.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think so. unless the Auditor General recommends it. At any rate I would not do it. We have to differ with the Auditor General on some things, and the least we can do is to give him full control of his office, even the right>
to make some mistakes.


George William Fowler: If his mistakes result in
great injustice to a worthy servant, I do not think he should be sustained. I do not think he should have the right to pick out favourites and prevent other men getting fair treatment.


William Mulock: Who is to sit in judgment on him ?


George William Fowler: The minister.


William Mulock: He is an officer *of the House and not of the government.


George William Fowler: You are not sitting in judgment on him or condemning him, but only overruling his decision. I can quite understand that a man without a fine sense of honour might allow personal feelings to influence him to give unfair treatment, and I think that in this case that is what has happened.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot say that I approve of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Fowler's) view. It would be impossible for the Auditor General to carry on the affairs of his department if he were overruled in a matter of this kind.


George William Fowler: Why ?


Haughton Lennox: Because he has the staff and if his prestige were not kept up, his work would be far more difficult.


George William Fowler: He can appeal to Caesar.


Haughton Lennox: But the hon. Minister of Finance does not want to play the part of Caesar. The salary of the Auditor General is 84.000. It has stood at that figure for some years. Formerly it was lower than that, but it was raised to $4,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) said then that it should be at least $4,200. It was fixed at $4,000 by the late government, when the expense of living was very different from what it is now. 1 think that the government should take into serious consideration the question of increasing the salary of the Auditor General.
I am glad to be told that the Minister of Finance expressed the desire that the Auditor General should not vacate his position. I may point out to the government
that if the present Auditor General were retiring and a new man had to be appointed to the office they could hardly expect the new man to commence at less* than $4,000. The present Auditor General has been in office for twenty-six years and should receive some recognition. Considering the salaries given to less important positions I think the salary of the Auditor General ought to be materially increased.
Board of Civil Service Examiners-further amount required to meet cost of examination, $450.


Richard Blain: I notice as we go through the estimates, that the government are employing a good many who have not passed the civil service examination. What is the good of having a Board of Civil Service Examiners if you give employment to those who have not been examined ?


William Stevens Fielding: The case's that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has noticed are exceptional. I think I am right in saying that five out of six-perhaps nine out of ten- of those appointed to the civil service have passed the examination. Of course there are special circumstances requiring a special vote of parliament.


Richard Blain: I understood the Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) to say that it was almost impossible to comply with the requirements of the law in the Post Office Department.


William Mulock: I said there were exceptional cases. One such case that came up was that of a man appointed years ago but who had proven himself worthy of a higher status than that he occupied.


Richard Blain: Did he not say that he took men in first and then gave them an opportunity to pass the civil service examination ?


William Mulock: I was speaking of the railway mail clerks. I spoke of a new transcontinental train put on by the Canadian Pacific Railway this summer which might or might not be permanent-nobody could tell. We took twenty-two men, many of whom have passed examination, but some of whom have not. The employment may be merely temporary and these men have been engaged with the idea that they may leave about October 1st.
Legislation-Senate-further amount required for contingencies, $11,000.


George William Fowler: Is there no limit to what these venerable gentlemen are allowed to spend ? Does the minister give them what they ask for ? I must say that they seem to me to be a very useless body. When they have nothing else to do they increase the pay of the officials there. They have them at rates now about one-third higher than the officials of the House of Commons. I

notice that there is also $2,000 for expenses of a special commission. Is that in connection with the Mutual Reserve business ?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall be lucky if we get off with that. This is for last year.


Richard Blain: There are votes here to the representatives of the late Hon. James Dever, and the representatives of the late Hon. James Reid. How about the representatives of the late Senator Ails.ns ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know whether the late Senator Aikins was present this session or not, his death occurred since these estimates were made up, and we could not include a vote to his representatives. Of course whatever consideration was extended to the representatives of the other gentlemen will be extended to the representatives of tl*e late Senator Aikins. I am afraid it cannot be done this session as it would necessitate the bringing down of other estimates. But it can be done later on.


Richard Blain: Mr. Aikins was here this session.
Supreme Court of Canada-to provide for the salary of E. R. A. Taschereau, $1,250.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government ever got any statement from Judge Taschereau regarding the alleged interview given bv him in England ? It is true that when ho came home he disclaimed it in another interview which was about as bad as the original statement.


William Stevens Fielding: The government are not in a position to call upon a judge of the Supreme Court to answer for any statement he makes. He is not our officer at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would imagine that self-respect would have led him to put himself right. If he did not do that voluntarily 1 should think it was the duty of the government to ask an explanation from him.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid it would hardly be seemly for the government to call upon a judge to render an account to them. He is not our officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be better to do that than to move for his impeachment in the House ?-because, if what is attributed to him be correct, there is not the slightest doubt that he would be liable to impeachment here, and if the fact was established, there is no doubt whatever that he would be impeached.


George William Fowler: It is certainly very unseemly language for a judge to use, particularly when he is a judge of the highest court in this country. It is certainly an interference such as is very unjustifiable to say the least.


Samuel Hughes: Not only unjustifiable, but the language made use of by Mr. FOWLER.
Judge Taschereau in the old country and admitted by him


William Mulock: Not admitted. Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Certainly, admitted by him as having been used in a private conversation, because he said that he was speaking in private and not in public. It is simply scandalous, and shows the intrigues that are going on to get this sort of thing before the public. However, those who know him have long supposed the old gentleman to be in his dotage, and I don't think it matters much.


William Stevens Fielding: I don't think we ought to use our position here to attack a gentleman in his high position. The judge is not here to answer for himself. He is not our officer, and unless proceedings are taken in the way provided by statute, we have no right to call him to account before parliament.	'	.


Samuel Hughes: I have no hesitation in saying that if judges in the Dominion of Canada are going to act as a number of them have acted lately, they will hear of it very much to their sorrow throughout this country. We had an instance of it in the Stratton case in Toronto, simply scandalizing the bench.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman [DOT] Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The hon. gentleman
has no right to go beyond


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I am not going to
be dictated to. The Chairman


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I rise to a point of order.


Samuel Hughes: Let the hon. gentleman state his point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what I am trying to do. The hon. gentleman must know that it is absolutely against the rules of the House


Samuel Hughes: It is not the business of the hon. gentleman to read me a lecture. Let him state his point of order.


Mr BRODEUR.: I am stating the point of order, if the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to give me an opportunity.


Samuel Hughes: We are not dealing with furnished apartments now at $4,out) a year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The point is this : The hon. gentleman knows very well that it is absolutely against the rules of the House to say anything disrespectful to the judges. There is only one way of attacking a judge, and that is by petition and impeachment.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is not stating the point of order, he is making a speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Samuel Hughes: State your point of order, and 1 will sit down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am stating the point of order.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman is making a speech, I shall not make way for him.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman knows very well that when a point of order is raised he must take his seat.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order. It is not for the hon. gentleman to make a speech, it is for the Chairman to rule on the point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is absolutely against the rules of the House for a member to say anything against a judge.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue is stating his point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The only way of attacking a judge is by petition and impeachment, and until that is done, no member of the House has a right to say anything disrespectful of a judge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister seems to imagine that he is the chairman, and he tells us what is the rule and what is not. I respectfully submit that all that he requires to do is to ask the chairman if the hon.
[DOT] member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is in order in making the statement he makes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say he is not in order.


William Stevens Fielding: Let us confine ourselves to the point of order. I beg to call the hon. gentleman's attention to page 496 of Bour-inot, third edition, 1903:
The rules of the two houses are only intended to protect their own members, and consequently any reflection on the conduct of persons outside cannot he strictly considered as breaches of order. But the Speaker of the English Commons now always interferes to prevent as far as they can all personal attack on the judges and courts of justice. They have always felt themselves compelled to say that ' such expressions should be withdrawn,' and that ' when it is proposed to call in question the conduct of a judge, the member desiring to do so should pursue the constitutional course of moving an address to the Crown.'
I think my bon. friend will admit that is not only good law but good reason.


Samuel Hughes: Under ordinary circumstances I certainly endorse the language of Bourinot. But this is a most extraordinary condition. We have had the evidence of a gentleman making a statement in the old country, and we have the statement intensified by himself on landing in this country, stating not only his own personal views, but absolute- untruths.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I want it understood that these gentlemen are not going to
havs such views disseminated throughout this country without a protest.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not think the discussion of this- question arises on the item that is before the committee, which is colonization roads in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were dealing with an item for Judge Tascliereau's salary.


William Mulock: Another Tas-chereau altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the Minister of Finance says we liavd no right to say anything against a judge unless we are prepared to impeach him, I am endeavouring to get information as to whether certain allegations made with respect to a judge are correct or not, and I assume that the government might know whether they are correct. It is certainly within our rights to ask such a question. We do not desire to attack the judge, but it is our right, and our duty as well, to ascertain whether these allegations be correct, then if they are correct, I for one would take the responsibility of going a step further.


William Mulock: The item under discussion is a payment to a gentleman by the name of Taschereau-I assume that it is not Chief Justice Taschereau ; I would hardly be prepared to discuss the case of Chief Justice Taschereau on some item for a gentleman having a similar name.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The item is to provide for the salary of E. R. A. Taschereau.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The salary of Chief Justice Taschereau is voted by statute, so this -cannot be the Chief Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely some member of the government ought to know whether it is or not.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend only asked the question this moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was the first question I asked-whether this was for Judge Taschereau, and if so, whether he had condescended to give the government an explanation of the alleged interview which took place in the old country.
Sir WILLIAM MUL-OCK. This is not the same man.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why did you not answer that long ago ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend did not ask that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did ask it and kept on asking it.
Colonization roads in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, $25,000.


George William Fowler: Explain.


Clifford Sifton: This item was before the committee when I was absent. It was brought up by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) and he explained that the item is for the purpose of making roads between Athabasca Landing and Lesser Slave lake, $15,000 ; and for constructing a road from a point on the Canadian Northern Railway near Erwood to the north of the Carrott river, $5,000, making $20,000. Then, the remaining $5,000 is divided into two parts, $2,000 to be expended on a short piece of road between the north of the international boundary line and Spragut, and the balance of $3,000 to be expended between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba for colonization purposes. I understand that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have raised *siome objections and I would like to hear what their objections are.


Samuel Hughes: We would like to hear where these roads are to run, I have not heard the hon. gentleman explain where this larger item is to be expended.


Clifford Sifton: $15,000 is to be expended in making a more passable road between Athabasca Landing and Lesser Slave lake.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. minister pretend to say that there is a road between Athabasca Landing and Lesser Slave lake ?


Clifford Sifton: There is a trail ; it is not a very good road.


Samuel Hughes: There is the River Athabasca to Lesser 'Slave lake but there is no trail.


Clifford Sifton: There is a trail. The trail is not very good and that is the reason why we want this money.


Samuel Hughes: Is not the hon. minister thinking of the trail from Athabasca river from near Fort Assiniboia ?


Clifford Sifton: Did I say Athabasca Landing ?	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Clifford Sifton: I meant to say Athabasca river.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister understands the objection of the committee when the item was before the committee the other day. The objection was that the money should be expended by this government instead of by the Northwest Territorial government and the Manitoba government. Would the hon. minister say whether at any other period money voted for the Northwest roads by the Dominion parliament has been expended by the Dominion government and not by the territorial or provincial governments ?


Clifford Sifton: There has been money voted by this parliament for the purpose of Mr. FOWLER.
building colonization roads in the Northwest. A few years ugo we voted a sum of money for the purpose of making a trail near the location of the proposed road from Athabasca river. It was handed over to the Northwest Territories government for the purpose of spending the money, but they spent part of it in another place altogether and did not finish the work. Therefore we thought it preferable that we should spend this money ourselves. It is to be expended outside of the settled portions of the territories. The territorial government, being interested in the settled portions of the Territories, cannot be expected to take very much interest in this kind of work and there is no arrangement whereby we will have a guarantee that the money will be spent for the purpose for which the money is voted ; part of the money that we have voted for a particular work before has been spent in another part of the country. As to the trail it is desired to construct from the Canadian Northern it is through an almost uninhabited country at the present time and it is for the purpose of enabling us to provide a passable road by which settlers can get into that district. If we proposed (to construct a permanent road this sum would not go any distance. I fancy there can be no serious objection to the expenditure of this money in the Northwest Territories. As to the balance of the money I can quite understand that the point may be raised as to the expenditure of money in an organized province. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House object to it we will reduce the item by $5,000 and confine it to the Northwest Territories ; but they will have to take the responsibility of making the objection themselves.


Richard Blain: This is a very serious charge which the hon. minister has made against the Northwest Territorial government. If 1, understand the hon. gentleman's remarks, the chief reason why he is unwilling to place this money at the disposal of the Northwest government is that he has no confidence in that government.


Clifford Sifton: I have no guarantee that they will expend it for that purpose or that they will not take it to do other work. We are in an altogether different position in the Northwest Territories from that in which you are in the province of Ontario. If we undertake to settle an outlying portion of the province of Ontario, as we have done in some cases, we ask the local government to make the necessary improvements in the way of roads because they own the Crown lands, but in the Northwest Territories or Manitoba the territorial or provincial government say : ' We do not own these lands, this work is supposed to be done in an outlying part of the country, our people are not interested in that specially and we do not propose to spend the money.' While I quite

recognize that so far as the organized provinces are concerned there may be some point in the objection and the House may desire to take more time to consider it, so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned we are spending the money in practically uninhabited places to make passable trails and I do not see how there can be any objection in the world.


Samuel Hughes: At what point will this road touch Lessar Slave lake 1


Clifford Sifton: I neglected to get the exact details from the member for Alberta before he went away.


Samuel Hughes: The member for Alberta sat here the other night and gave no explanation. If it is intended to run this road from Old Fort Assiniboine to Lesser Slave lake you might as well throw the money away because the trail that was there is not cut in the proper place.


Clifford Sifton: This is to improve the old trail.


Samuel Hughes: Then you might as well throw the money away.


Nathaniel Boyd: The minister has recognized the objection which I took in the first place, to voting money to be spent by the federal government in organized provinces.


Clifford Sifton: If the hon. gentleman objects we will abandon the $5,000 for Manitoba.


Nathaniel Boyd: I object unless yon give it to the province of Manitoba to be spent by them for that purpose.


Clifford Sifton: If w'e gave it to the province they would not spend it for that purpose.


Nathaniel Boyd: If you gave it to the province they would spend It properly and probably add as much more.


Clifford Sifton: We can spend it as well as they can.


Nathaniel Boyd: It is a very dangerous precedent to establish.
v Mr. SAM. HUGHES. A short time ago we voted money to the province of New Brunswick to be spent by the province under the superintendence of our engineer. Why should not the same thing be done in this case ?	,	[DOT]


Clifford Sifton: We are constantly doing work in the territories and have our own engineer.


Samuel Hughes: Why is the minister running a road north from Erwood ? There can be no settlers north there unless you go a little west.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is very good land somewhat to the west which has to be opened up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Our experience in Ontario justifies the conclusion that this vote is for political jobbery at the elections. On the Indian reserve in the Manitoulin islands when an election is coming on the local government votes money for colonization purposes and employ hundreds of agents in every direction for that purpose. I have no doubt that the Minister of the Interior, who is well versed in these matters unless he is much belied, has put this money in for this very purpose. We have not the slightest objection to the money being spent to build roads if it is spent under the local government, but we will not consent to this vote which is clearly to be spent for political jobbery.


Thomas Osborne Davis: What political jobbery could there be at Athabasca Landing where there is no representation ?


Clifford Sifton: There is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) makes, nor for his suggestion that the province of Manitoba is to be debauched by a vote of $5,000 for a colonization road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not make any such suggestion. But you would work it in one constituency if you get amongst that element that is sometimes very prominent in elections.


Clifford Sifton: Aly hon. friend knows more about purchasing, votes than I do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not in the business.
Air. iSIFTON. Aly hon. friend speaks on that subject with a considerable degree of confidence. I cannot speak with the same degree of confidence. AVhat work of colonization is being carried on in Manitoba, I am glad to say, is being carried on successfully ; but if the hon. gentleman wishes to take the responsibility of objecting to the item for Manitoba, I will strike it out. As to the Northwest Territories, the money is to be spent by this government under the supervision of its own officers. Does anybody suppose that the electors are going to be debauched away beyond the Athabasca river ? It seems to me that if public works are to be disputed on the ground of political debauchery, the same objection could be raised to any public work. Aly hon. friend seems to know more about that sort of business than I do.
Mr. 'SAiM. HUGHES. Will this road go near the limits owned by the hon. member for North Renfrew, and possibly by other gentlemen on that side of the House ?
'Mr. ISIFTON. I do not think so: I never heard a suggestion of that kind. I do not know where those limits are. I was within a few miles of the place a few days ago, and, so far as I know, there are no lumbering operations carried on at that point.


Richard Blain: With regard to the $5,000 item for the province of Alanitoba, it is only

fair to assume that the hon. gentleman has good reasons for asking the committee to vote this money, and that it will be of advantage to the people of that section of the country. He now comes forward and says that, because we object to the item, he will strike it out. That in itself savours of politics, X think. There is no use of the hon. gentleman telling us that he knows nothing about politics.


Clifford Sifton: These two little works can wait until next year ; and then, if the vote comes down, there will not be a word said about them, because my hon. friends will not be so excited about the elections.
(Mr. BLAIN. I am a little surprised that my hon. friend should have a lack of confidence in the government of his own province, and that he casts a reflection on the government of the Northwest Territories. Wlmt we object to on this side of the House is that the hon. gentleman, on the eve of an election, takes a vote to be expended in a new way altogether-for the construction of roads in a province by the Dominion government.


Clifford Sifton: I move that the vote with reference to Manitoba (be struck out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says we have done this frequently before. Only last year, when the question was put across the floor of the House, what is the principle the hon. minister has adopted for the expenditure of money in the Northwest Territories, his answer was that the territorial government sends down an intimation that money is required for certain roads, and that we provide it, because, as he said, they know better than we do where the money is required, they are interested in the country, and they are responsible for the expenditure. We accepted that principle as correct, and voted every dollar that was asked. Now we are told that a different principle is to prevail. Having accepted the principle first laid down as the correct one, that principle should be adhered to.


Clifford Sifton: If this money were to be expended in the settled portions of the Northwest Territories I would recommend that the money be handed over to the territorial government, but there is a distinct difference between expending money in a settled portion of the territories, where the territorial government is responsible to their own constituents, and spending money in the wild and unorganized portions of the territories. I move that the item be reduced to $20,000, and that the words ' Manitoba and ' be struck out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the policy followed in the Yukon district ? Is the Yukon Council not spending the money at present in the unsettled as well as the settled districts of that country ?


Richard Blain: 


Clifford Sifton: Not all of it. We spent a great deal of money there directly. Besides the Yukon Council is only half elective.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the Yukon Council all the same, and has taken the responsibility of spending the money.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is no representation in the Northwest assembly for this portion of the Northwest Territories where this money is to be expended. If the Dominion government is sending mounted police to that country to open it up, surely they have the right to spend directly a certain sum of money on the making of roads to enable the police to go in and come out.


Samuel Hughes: I would take the liberty of suggesting to the minister that in issuing his instructions for that Peace River road running from Fort Assiniboine, lie' should run it further up to the west and .not down to Lesser Slave lake. The old -trail ran through a very bad part of the country not fit for settlement, but if you will keep away to the left you will go through a good farming country.


Clifford Sifton: I shall be happy to act on the suggestion, if the engineer approves of it.
Amendment (Mr. Sifton) agreed to.


Richard Blain: I wish to move an amend ment to that item. I move that the $5,000 be placed to the credit of the Manitoba government.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is out oif order. You cannot increase a vote.


Richard Blain: I am not asking to increase the vote.


Clifford Sifton: The amendment has been carried, and the only amendment you can move is to strike -the vote out or reduce it.


Richard Blain: There is no disposition on this side to strike the item out. I intend pointing out that when a certain amount is voted in the province of Ontario, say $500 for a bridge, they spend $350 for inspectors or thereabout, and the balance to construct the bridge.


Mahlon K. Cowan: If the hon. gentleman is going into Ontario politics, I shall ask somebody else to take the chair, so that I may take part in the discussion.


Richard Blain: No one will interfere with the hon. gentleman when he thinks it his duty to leave the chair. I wish to move, in amendment, that the $5,000 under discussion be placed to the credit of the Manitoba government -to be expended by it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That motion is out of order. These are resolutions brought down by the government, and you cannot change the destination of the item.


Clifford Sifton: If the hon. gentleman desires to move a resolution in the sense he

speaks of, the time to do it is on concurrence.


Richard Blain: How can I do it then, when the $5,000 is struck out ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: I rule the motion entirely out of order. .


Richard Blain: I would ask the chairman to give us the rule on which he bases his decision ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not want to have to appeal from the ruling of the chair, but no one knows better than the Minister of the Interior that we are quite in order in moving that this money be spent in another channel. We are not increasing the amount, and we are not aware that the amendment of the Minister of the Interior was carried before my hon. friend made his motion.


Clifford Sifton: I will look up my authority in a moment. I have a very strong impression that the only motion that dan be moved is one either to strike out the item or reduce it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: As I understand it there was a sum of $25,000 placed in the estimates, and this resolution has been passed to reduce it by $5,000. I do not see bow a motion can be put to increase it by $5,000 again.


Richard Blain: I did not understand the chairmlan to put the resolution to the committee.


Thomas Osborne Davis: He did.


Richard Blain: There was so much confusion that I did not understand it. I think the chairman will not take advantage of that-I am sure he will not. The minister moves to reduce the item by $5,000, and 1 wish to move an amendment. It may be that the chairman declared the motion carried, but I did not hear it, and I think he will not take advantage of my misunderstanding.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I have ruled that this is out of order, because you pie changing the destination of the money. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has an appeal to the Speaker if he desires.


Clifford Sifton: Here is the authority to which I refer. I quote from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 592 :
The Committee of Supply cannot increase a grant which has been recommended by a message from the G-overnor General. It is also irregular to increase any item in a resolution. But any motion to reduce a grant or to strike it out of the estimates altogether will always be in order. The advisability of increasing a grant may, as a matter of course, be discussed so as do inform the government as to the sense of the House on the qustion. The ministry alone can move in the matter, and another message will .be brought down to increase the grant.


Richard Blain: I accept the ruling.


George William Fowler: The minister has given us the reason why there should be no objection to this vote. He says there can be no politics in it because the money is to be expended in the unsettled portions of the Northwest Territories. But the persons who will perform the labour on this trail will be taken from the settled portions of the Territories and their employment will be made conditional on their voting for the government candidate.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is to be no poll held out there.


George William Fowler: But the voters will be taken out and the work done on the condition that when they come back they will vote for the government candidate.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That would void the election.


George William Fowler: Don't you be so innocent.


Clifford Sifton: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) allow me to ask him a question ? Would he prefer that only labourers should be employed on this work who are not voters ? My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) ought not to allow this government to spend any money, because we are hiring people who are voters in Canada and we might make a condition that they shall all vote for the government.


George William Fowler: I am replying to the argument that there can be no politics in this because the work is to be done in an unsettled portion of the country, and I am showing that that has nothing to do with it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman (Mr. F owler) must have a poor opinion of the voters in the Northwest Territories if he thinks they can be bought up like sheep.


George William Fowler: How can I help having a poor opinion of those voters when I see the representative they send here from Saskatchewan


Richard Blain: I am surprised to hear the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) speak in this way. He sits here and listens to the minister who represents his section of the country state that he himself would not trust the legislature of his province to spend this small amount of money. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) allows the minister to discredit his province and himself.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The minister made no such statement with reference to my province.


Richard Blain: I repeat that the minister said that he would not trust the legislature of the Northwest Territories to spend this money for the reason that in the past a certain amount of money had been placed at their disposal and they did not expend it for the work for which it was voted. And he made practically the same statement with regard to the province of Manitoba-

be would not trust the legislature of that province either. Will the minister tell us what money the territorial government received and expended tor the purpose for which it was not voted?


Clifford Sifton: It was two or three years ago. I cannot give the exact date.


Richard Blain: I accept that. But would he say on what work the money was intended to be spent ?


Clifford Sifton: I cannot say. I made the statement on the authority of my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) who made the statement to me in discussing this particular vote.


Richard Blain: I think it only fair that the committee should have some facts to go upon. The minister forced upon the committee the bald statement that a certain amount of money voted by this parliament and placed at the disposal of the territorial government was expended for a purpose for which it had not been voted. I asked him for some particulars as to the amount of money and the work for which it was intended. I think that was a fair question.


Clifford Sifton: I have already told the hon. gentleman that I do not know, and he can hardly expect to get the information by repeating his question. I stated that my authority was the hon. member for Alberta.
To cover unprovided items, 1902-3, as per Auditor General's Report, page C-4, $106,348.23.


William Stevens Fielding: This is to enable the Auditor General, at the close of the fiscal year, to balance his accounts. In some branches of the departmental vote, the expenditure will fa'll short of the sums appropriated, in some other branches the expenditure will be somewhat greater. At the close of the year, in cases where the expenditure has been somewhat greater in that particular branch, the Auditor General totals up these sums, and asks for a sum to balance his accounts. This is a formal vote taken at the close of every fiscal year. It is not a new appropriation, but it deals with sums already expended, and is merely intended to balance the account.


Samuel Hughes: Has the government made any settlement of the sums in connection with the Martineau defalcation ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think not, that still stands. As it stands now we claim that the bank should indemnify us, but the question has not yet been finally determined.
Some resolutions reported.


William Stevens Fielding: We had better keep the committee open in case we have omitted anything, but I think we have dealt with all the items.


Richard Blain: 



COMPANIES ACT, 1902-AMENDMENT.

William Stevens Fielding: I have drawn the attention of the committee to a Bill which stands upon the Order Paper as to which the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) has given some information. I am informed that an understanding has been come to by striking out one clause of the Bill, and that it is now unobjectionable. That being so, I move the second reading of this Bill, and ask that we go into committee and dispose of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to the Act to amend the Post Office Act, be read the second time, and concurred in. He said: There was one section of the old Post Office Act proposed to be struck out, section 12. That was a section dealing with the powers of the chief inspector. We were repealing that section because we have had no chief inspector, and do not propose to have one. That section gave the chief inspector power to examine under oath and hold investigations. Instead of having a chief post office inspector appointed, we have a city post office superintendent. The Senate called attention to the fact that the superintendent, under the Act, might not have power to examine witnesses under oath. Therefore, instead of repealing section 12 it is proposed to amend it by striking out the first nine lines which create the office of an inspector, and substitute therefor the city post office superintendent, leaving the remainder of the section which gives power to hold investigations and examine witnesses under oath. We then confer upon the superintendent power to examine witnesses under oath.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Samuel Hughes: When will prorogation take place '!


William Stevens Fielding: We shall proceed in the morning with the Railway Subsidy Bill, which is the only measure remaining on the Order Paper. Then we will take concurrtnce. Then if the indications are favourable, we may perhaps endeavour to carry out the arrangement for prorogation at twelve o'clock, but I do not think that is possible. I think an announcement will be made in

the morning, and prorogation may take place in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.50 a.m, Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 10, 1904.