1904-03-25

Mr. R. L. BORDEN moved :: at
That the name of Mr. Birkett be struck the Committee on Public Accounts and 1 the name of Mr. Roche (Marquette) be s stituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr- R- L. BORDEN moved :
struct name °f Mr. Roche (Marquette) be fnd tu , ,tke Committee on Standing Orders for *lat ot Mr'	be substituted there-
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
b Ri*l (No. 19) resj
Mo, and Western -Malouin.
especting the Atlantic, Que-Railway Company-Mr. 20) incorporating the Cascapedia JlaiouhjCtUring and Trading Company.-Mr. THE EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
HinNfH0n- Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime T^ieldin* * 1 beg to move' see0JHl<

d by Mr. [DOT]ftext if xv,^en House adjourns on Wednesday of An^-i aacl adjo'Jrned to Tuesday, the 5th day ^-hru next.
recess H tde usual motion for the Easter ity IN 1 take advantage of this opportunity say ,to my hon. friend the leader ot Place ^Position that on Monday next I will resn dPon tlle table of the House the cor-Com^ dence with the Grand Trunk Pacific efcy in referer intiie.d mix) last se
tGrgily. in reference to the contract intent,- lnto last session, and it is my day ofon' when we meet again on the 5th ratify y PHI, to take up the resolution to
that ci
supplementary agreement with
day ..^''.'Tnny, and to go on from day to ' til that order is exhausted.
Motion agreed to.
undesirable immigrants.
°r(u,^UUUID LAURIER. Before the to uiy t,1 tde Day are called, I would say s°h), with' friend Horn Lennox (Mr. Wil .t>d in the ^gard to tlle statement publish-attentio„ Citizen,' to which he called my ?eut bacir 7- at fifty Russian Jews had been (w°r®atw,10m F,arg0 to Winnipeg, that the t ed Sn,iH Sousllt fm' is as follows. Mr. JY Hr. w Y°Yr agent at Winnipeg, wires Migration „ ; Y Scott, superintendent of im-0tll 1 at Ottawa :
Of10"' of TsYn d®P°r(ed from Fargo that we li„ i*ther	Itnssian Jew family consisting
S* °cl in Wi„,,iler an'i four children who had hroYs a I"' peg tour years and went to the Yy*e for hi,,a?l0' ..The father is unable to
for , . °su. me father is unable to iL^innippo. s. family and has been returned " * Rave m,ing they are Winnipeg cit-erased to interfere in matter.
* Ilj militia act-:

[Stage Direction]
tv:!?'v'in!r"n,Y Iut:o committee to consider the a, R* the R-,Y)osed resolutions, in connection a :	m respecting the militia of Can-
1.	Resolved, that the general officer commending the militia shall he paid at the rate of $6,000 per annum ; the adjutant-general, at the rate of $3,200 per annum , and the quartermaster general, at the rate of $3,200 per annum.
2.	Resolved, that the permanent force shall be entitled to daily pay and allowances at the rates prescribed by the Governor in Council , and that the pay of privates shall not exceed 75'cents a day, and of buglers under 18 years of age 40 cents a day.
3.	Resolved, that officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers of the active militia, other than the permanent force, shall be entitled to pay at rates prescribed by the Governor in Council ; and that the jiay of privates therein shall be at the rate o'f 60 cents a day on appointment, which may be increased to a maximum of $1 a day during the third year of service.
4.	Resolved, that an allowance of one dollar per diem, or such other rate as may be prescribed, will be paid to each officer and man for every horse actually and necessarily used by him, when on active service, during a period of annual drill and training, or when otherwise on duty as aforesaid.
Hon.  W. S.@: As these are the resolutions on which the Bill now before the House is based, I thought it would be convenient to have them put through the committee before we again take up the consideration of the Bill. In the first resolution, as a result of the discussion which took place the other night, I want to make a slight change. I want to add the following words : ' and the director general of ordnance, at the rate of $3,200 per annum.' At the time the present law was passed the stores were in the hands of the civil side of the Militia Department. The ordnance branch is now on the military side of the department, and is one of the important divisions, and the rate of pay is the same as that officer is receiving now. I hope the committee will allow this change to be made.


Robert Laird Borden: Tbe change will require the assent of His Excellency, I presume ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I have His Excellency's assent.


Mr.   I@: Tbe announcement should be made with tbe Speaker in tbe chair. It is not a matter of very much moment, but we should proceed regularly.


Mr. GLARKE.: What is the pay now received by non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent force 7


Frederick William Borden: Forty cents a day is the pay of the men. The pay of the non-commissioned officers differs ; but that is not affected by this resolution. It is left to be fixed by the Governor in Council.
Mr. CfvARKE. Does the pay commence when tbe men enter tbe service at forty

cents, and does it increase until tlie maximum of seventy-five cents is reached ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long will it take a man to reach the maximum ?


Frederick William Borden: I explained, on introducing the Bill, that we intended to adopt, by regulation, the system of the Northwest Mounted Police, which is this : On enlistment he will receive fifty cents a day and five cents per day additional each year until it reaches seventy-five cents per day.
Air! CLARKE. The private will have a minimum pay of fifty cents p.er day when he enlists in the permanent corps ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, instead of forty cents.


Air. TISDALE.: If they remain on after their pay reaches 75 cents per day, they keep to that rate ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


David Tisdale: Does that apply to the ordinary active militia when they get up to one dollar a day ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


David Tisdale: Is the Act so worded as to carry that interpretation ?


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend will make a suggestion when we get into committee again, we will fix it that way.


Air. SAAI. HUGHES.: I have no objection to the amendment, but would ask the hon. minister Avhat the pay of the general officer commanding in Australia may be..


Frederick William Borden: I have not the figures, but it is very much higher than this.


Samuel Hughes: Is it not about $12,000 and allowances ?


Frederick William Borden: I think it is.


Samuel Hughes: What is the pay of the general officer commanding in South Africa ?


Frederick William Borden: I gave all these figures to the House two or three years ago, and they will be found in ' Hansard,'' but I did not expect to be asked them to-day. I can give them at a later stage of the Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the amendment r-That the following words be added to the first resolution : ' And the director general of ordnance, at the rate of $3,200 per annum.


Samuel Hughes: I do not rise to object to the amendment for the pro-


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister will be good enough to remember that-I was fair enough to give him absolute credit for increasing the salary up to the present standard. But now the matter has ueen brought up, he will be fair enough to admit that I drew his attention to the matter long ago. When I was in Australia I found that the little colony of New South Wales ]>aid its general officer commanding more than we pay for the whole Dominion. The minister will also note that every officer in the departments, when he travels on the business of the country, lias his expenses paid. We have only to turn up the Auditor General's Report to find that thousands of dollars are paid out for the travelling expenses of ministers, ministers' secretaries and other officers. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a concession to the general officer commanding that, when he travels from place to place in the execution of the duties of his office, his expenses are paid. In that respect he receives only what every other officer receives. 1 Now, the officer in command in Scotland, who has only 9,000 troops under him-as against some 40,000 or 50,000 in Canada-receives $13,000 a year. All these figures that I have given can be found in the Statesman's Year-book.


Frederick William Borden: Would not that be 9,000 regulars? In addition there are the militia.


Samuel Hughes: About five regiments of militia and volunteers. I have had the privilege of seeing every one of them on parade. We do not ask that the general officer commanding here should be paid any such salary as the officer in command in Scotland. But, let us hope that when the minister brings his measure down we shall find that that clause Is eliminated which intimates that this increased salary is' in lieu of other allowances, so that the general officer commanding may find that expenses that are forced upon him by reason of his position will be borne by the nation. I think that is fair.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the minister if this sum of $6,000 per annum and expenses to which lie has made reference covers the total obligation to be imposed on the country by the appointment of such an officer? For instance, when his term expires does he receive any pension or allowance, such as half pay?


Frederick William Borden: Not from Canada. If lie is an imperial officer he returns to his service in the imperial army. If it should turn out that a Canadian is appointed, as will be possible under tlie Bill if it becomes law, then, of course, lie would he provided for by Canada. He will, no doubt, be a member of the permanent



force of the militia for which a Pension Law was provided by parliament three or four years ago, and will be pensioned under the provisions of that law. Or, possibly-wliat I think is much more likely to happen, it he were a young man and a good man-by a system of exchange which is now under consideration as between the War Office and the government of this country, he might be given a position on the staff, or some other important position in the British service, if he wished it.


Mr TISDALE.: Does not the general officer commanding draw his pay as an officer of the imperial army while he holds this position ?


Frederick William Borden: No, I think not.


David Tisdale: I think he does.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, there is some scheme in contemplation whereby Canadian officers occupying superior positions in the active militia shall be transferred, under certain terms to the imperial service?


Frederick William Borden: That might be done ; I do not say it will be done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood the minister to suggest that if it should happen that a Canadian were appointed as general officer commanding, if he were a young active man, he might be sent to obtain further military knowledge in connection with the imperial forces.


Frederick William Borden: I will explain further. At present, we give to imperial officers a number of positions in this country. The commandant of the Royal Military College and, I think, at least four professors of that college are officers drawn from the imperial army. We at present draw our general officer commanding from that army. It has been the custom frequently to appoint to the position of quartermaster general an imperial officer. And, at this moment the position of chief intelligence officer of this country is held by an imperial officer. It has been pointed out to the imperial authorities that it would be a fair thing to them to give to Canadians who are qualified the same number of positions, or a certain number of positions temporarily in the British army. That question is being considered, and I think it very likely that some arrangement will be reached.


Samuel Hughes: 
Frederick William Borden: If the g0^ feeling and the unity to which my j. friend refers, and which I hope will c0nOij-u) is to depend upon a provision in a Cana<* fl statute by which an imputation is tw ^ upon the character and ability of the n*1 ^ of this country, I do not think that unity be preserved.


Samuel Hughes: 
David Tisdale: British army, receiving a salary less than his emoluments at home and devoting his time and ability to the improvement or our forces, it is a most inopportune time to say that the present system mvoljes a reflec tion upon o.ur Canadian officers. I am $ui prised at ttie persistence of the hon. ister in trying to make the people of this country believe that this is an infringement upon our independence. Until a man who is capable to fill this high place is presented to our consideration and until It is put beyond question that the position may be free from the influences of politics I believe it is for the best of the militia and of the empire that this thing should not for the present be done. I am not satisfied with the explanation of the bon. gentleman. I have even spoken twice when 1 only intended to speak once because the hon. minister reiterates that we are standing up tor something that involves the lessening and dignity of the position of our officers.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) has become unnecessarily warm over this question. I am very sorry indeed that I am forced to repeat so often the argument which I have ventured to address to the committee on this subject two or three times. I am rather inclined to suspect however, that these arguments . ffiust be of considerable cogency, otherwise my hon. friend would scarcely get so excited.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It was not the argument that excited him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was the lack of argument that excited him.	.


Frederick William Borden: 
David Tisdale: Hear, hear.
Ue


Frederick William Borden: man rise, and without a moment's delay, that he should announce with the Speaker in the chair that his Excellency's assent has been obtained to this amendment.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The point taken by the leader of the opposition is well taken. The rule is clear and it would be better to proceed according to the rule.


Frederick William Borden: The suggestion was made the other night by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes), and upon thinking it over, I concluded that it was desirable to do so.


Samuel Hughes: I am quite as anxious as the hon. leader of the opposition that we should proceed regularly, and I should be very glad to take advantage of his suggestion.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The point of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is well taken, but it does not affect the present resolutions. We can pass these, and my hon. friend the Minister of Militia will bring down another resolution.


Samuel Hughes: The minister stated that officers of the active militia, besides those of the permanent corps, had been sent at the expense of the country to England. I have not heard of any.


Frederick William Borden: There have been one or two medical officers, and one or two others of the active militia, whose names I forget.


Samuel Hughes: There is nothing here to prevent any of the officers of the staff receiving allowances.


Frederick William Borden: Nothing.
Amendment of Sir Frederick Borden withdrawn.
Resolution 1 agreed to.
On resolution 2-pay of permanent force.


Frederick William Borden: I wish to insert, in the third line, before the word 1 pay,' the word ' ordinary.' I explained the other night, when the Bill was in committee, that the stores branch has been transferred from the civil side of the department to the military side, and has been made a part of the permanent force. The stores men are in receipt of from $1 to $1.50 a day. They have no barracks and get no allowances, as the men of the permanent force do. The transfer might have the effect of reducing their pay to seventy-five cents, and if the word ' ordinary ' is inserted, this rate will be limited to the regular service of the permanent force.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: This may be the proper place to say a word in reference to the pay of the officers of the permanent force. The minister knows that the pay of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
these officers, when compared with the l>a>
of other officers in any department of tn^ government, is entirely inadequate. An inspector of artillery or a lieutenant-colone in command of a district is not paid as wei as the high school masters throughout th province of Ontario. Besides, these men n1 subjected to extraordinary expenses. rih House and the country will back the minister in increasing their rate of pay, and trust he will give no attention to any htti criticism that may arise on either side o the House in reference to the matter. TW are men who deserve well of the country and it is all they can do to keep body an
. .	,,	11. _ __.11	4-l-*att nafipivm


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: The minister kn0* that when a graduate of the Royal Mum j. College is asked to take a commission in force, he looks at the pay and refuses, f is not a chainman or rodman engaged on ^ of the surveys of the Dominion governm , who does not get twice as much pay ' j,e allowances as the highest lieutenant m permanent force of Canada. I am not g ing fault with the minister, who has * ? his best in the circumstances surroun ^ him. But I trust that he will see tliai j(J young fellows, and the old fellows (""y the permanent force are properly 1 after.	_ 0f


Frederick William Borden: The rates pay are fixed by the present law, as my j,o friend knows, and the government hav j power in the matter. I may add m think the pay of our lieutenants m t0f permanent force is quite as high as w lieutenants in the British army.


Samuel Hughes: Lieutenants i* ^ British army are members of wealthy j- ge lies, and their pay is kept dowii cm P g of to keep out of the army young the middle class who might otherwise 0t soldiering a profession and a men sustaining themselves.	fl.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Robert Laird Borden: I do not so regard it. Tbe statute reads as follows : ' There shall be appointed an officer holding the rank of colonel or rank superior thereto in Her Majesty's regular army.' That does not discriminate against any Canadian. It simply requires that any man appointed, be he Australian, Canadian or British, shall have a certain experience, It would be a perfectly good argument if my hon. friend would argue, as he has not yet done, that Canadian officers have now the experience which is equivalent to that gained by er officer in the regular army of Great Britain. That is an argument I have not yet heard, and to which I shall give due consideration when it is made, but in the meantime there is no more discrimination in this case than there is against a lawyer who has not served ten years at the bar, and who, however able he may be, he cannot be appointed a judge on account of his not having the requisite experience. Does not the provision my hon. friend proposes discriminate against the officers of the Northwest Mounted Police ? Are there not in that corps able and efficient officers ? My hon. friend says the law now discriminates against the militia of Canada. It is no more a discrimination against the militia of Canada than against the nili-tia of Great Britain or Australia or any other country. The case'he brings up about the appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada is not an analogous one, because a man who has served ten or fifteen years at the bar of this country has necessarily all the experience required to make him competent to fill the position of chief justice. But is there not a distinction between service in the militia and service in the regular army ? If you can show that the service of an officer in the Canadian militia gives him substantially as good an experience as service in the regular army of Great Britain, then it goes without saying that the measure which the hon. gentleman is introducing ought to be carried. There should not be any discrimination against Canadians, and I do not regard the present law as discrimination of that kind, but as providing that a certain experience on the part of any man, be he a Canadian, British or Australian officer, shall be necessary before he can fill the position of general officer commanding in this country.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: I think that my hon. friend the leader bf the opposition, in advancing the argument that the militia of England and Canada are in the same category, is labouring under a mistake. We have in Canada in reality a regular army, small though it may be. But we still call them the militia. We do not distinguish, between our permanent and non-permanent force by calling one the regular army and the other the militia. In England the direct contrary is the case. To permit an officer of the militia in England to assume

a high command would be to open the door to the appointment of men of inexperience,
I admit. And it may be that here in Canada the door is open to the appointment of inexperience. But, at the same time we have available in the militia-in the permanent part thereof-men whose experience is probably as good, and in the future, it will be as good, as that of the officers of any regiment in the regular army at home. That being the case, I really fail to see why we should not give the highest appointment in the gift of the government in military matters to a Canadian, if he he fit for it. And, if he be not fit for it, let us hold the government responsible. What is the meaning of responsible government if that be not it ? Why this government could accept as comAafider of our forces some gentleman from the English regular army utterly incompetent for the post

for there are some incompetents there ; without wishing to cast slurs upon the service we can say that that is undoubtedly the case. Where, then, is the danger in opening this office when wre can hold the government responsible ? It has been urged by some gentlemen on the opposition side that this is severing another link with the mother country. I fail to see that. I recall the lessons of history and I remember that, about a hundred and twenty-five years ago, the thirteen colonies broke away from the motherland, and some historians of undoubted authority say that it was more the way British gentlemen treated colonial gentlemen that caused that severance than any question of the duty on tea. If we are to continue our close connection with the motherland, it must be on terms of equality. That is the only thing you can ask worthy sons of worthy sires to stand for, and it' is the only thing that Canadians are ready to admit. It is not a reflection on British officers that this change should be made, but it is undoubtedly an acknowledgment of ability and fitness on the part of Canadians.


Robert Laird Borden: The argument of my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) if carried to its legitimate conclusion would lead to this-you could appoint any one to this office whether connected with the militia or not, because the government is responsible. Will the bon. gentleman say that that is not the legitimate conclusion of his argument ? The reason why you provide in the law that a man may be appointed from the militia, and not from among the ordinary body of citizens, is that you require for this office a man of a certain experience.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I have conceded-I do not know whether I made myself clear-that it is a perfectly good argument, which has not been put forward in the House, unless my hon. friend from


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Haldimand put it forward, to say that th experience an officer gets in the Canadian militia is substantially equivalent to th experience he would get if in the regular army.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: In the regular part of our militia,


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: Then, I suppose 1^ might conclude that such men would as much experience and be as fit fdi g{ position as a man in the active mihu jjy Canada outside of the permanent force-hon. friend's argument proves too mucm icn says : We have a permanent force can supply very capable officers who _ 0f have all the qualifications by reas ^ experience which could be supposed rjal possessed by an officer in the 'uM.0ul'l army. That being so, my hon. friend s tlJjs ask the Minister of Militia to lhnltn,eU-Bill to appointment from among these


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Not at all-


Robert Laird Borden: That is his ment. He says that you are to appoin the active militia in Canada.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I think the ^0 gentleman mistakes my argument. ^
' may appoint ' not ' are to appoint.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. A. T. Thompson) does not quite see the point I make, and I have no doubt that this is absolutely due to my inability to express myself as clearly as I should. He says there are many officers in Canada who have had experience that would qualify them for this position. I am not objecting for one moment to so amending the law that yon shall select your commanding officer from such men, but I want you to show me that when you authorize a certain selection here, you are confining that selection to those who have had that necessary experience.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But there is no similar restriction in the choice of a man from the old country.


Robert Laird Borden: There is, because he must have attained a certain rank in ilie regular army.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: And this Act requires the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: No it does not.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: That he shall have attained a certain rank.


Robert Laird Borden: That he shall have attained a certain rank in the active militia of Canada, and I have said over and over again that if you once point out to me or if you show me by any reasonable argument that that experience in the active militia of Canada is put to the standard required by the statute, I will hold up both hands for tin's measure. All I have been suggesting is that the argument shall proceed along that line and not on the line that there is any reflection on Canadian officers. We quite agree on the line the discussion should take, but it has not proceeded on that line, and T rose in the first place to protest against it going on any otffer line than that which the hon. gentleman now suggests.


David Tisdale: I wish to call attention to a matter which I have already discussed

with the minister. When the House passed the measure providing for increased pay for this officer, it was on the assurance of the government that within a very short period, in accordance with the correspondence between the Canadian government and the imperial government, we were to have a commanding officer of the rank of general, if the hon. minister had brought in a motion to strike out from the Act the word ' colonel ' and to put in ' general of the British army,' I would have been with him, because I am of the opinion that the rank of colonel in the British army is not sufficient. However, wTe had the assurance on the good faith of the * government that we would have a general in command and since then they have acted upon that, but now my hon. friend the minister has changed the whole law, and has made the position open to Canadians, but there is not a general iii Canada at the present time and there will not be until he makes one. He will have to make him with the fitness and qualifications necessary to be a general in the British army. As to the remarks of mv hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. A. T.' Thompson) I would point out that -while we have competent men in command of our permanent force, that force is not in any sense a regular army. I wish to call attention to the wording of the resolution about the pay. My hon. friend will notice in the third resolution that there is to be 50 cents a day on appointment which may be increased to $1 a day during the third year of service. I will call his attention to the fact that that might be taken to debar from the increased rate of pay the men who re-enlist for a longer term.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Tisdale) will find in the Bill that that is covered.


David Tisdale: I understand that if the resolutions do not cover it the Bill cannot.


Samuel Hughes: There is a wrong conception in the minds of the House that Canadian officers are not to receive their uniforms and equipment free of duty, and the inference has been drawn that English officers do. I understand that this refers only to supplies for the officers on the two coasts.


Frederick William Borden: Only that.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to refer to the drill of the English militia. Those who have seen English militia drill will readily admit that they are a very finely drilled body of men and that it will be hard to find in the regular service any better drilled soldiers. The English militia man drills for thirty days every year; that is as much as a Canadian would train in three years. They have all the command and duties of a regular army corps. In our permanent force, with all due respect, the Mr. TISDALE.
officers have no training in the command of large bodies of men. I am told that the artillery at Kingston can hardly muster more than two or three guns, and the force at Toronto is mostly required for servants. How do these officers get any experience in handling vast bodies of troops or in doing what is generally necessary in large military operations ? Many of our country captains have nearly as much experience in drilling as have officers of the permanent corps, and certainly officers commanding rural battalions have as much experience as any of the permanent corps officers, and more than some of them.
On resolution No. 3, pay of active militia.


Frederick William Borden: 
David Tisdale: The Bill is undoubtedly right but the resolution is doubtful.


Samuel Hughes: The point which1* very well taken by my hon. friend for e Norfolk is that there is no provision for 1 gradation in pay that the hon. minister tends.


Sifi FREDERICK BORDEN.: Would
hon. friend (Mr. Tisdale) suggest any to be added.


David Tisdale: I think It is all right-


Samuel Hughes: There is no vision in the resolution to enable the ister to give a man 75 cents or 85 cents second year.	.g


Frederick William Borden: That provided for in the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: 
David Tisdale: 

MAKCH 25- 1904

[Stage Direction]
tion11'® REPERICK BORDEN. This resolu-Houqq as drafte<i by the law clerk of the Use and he had the Bill before him.
have\ TI®DALE. If you are satisfied I ave no objection.
add the ^LDERICK BORDEN. We may ue words 1 and continued thereafter.'
heed* of' I^^'BID LAURIER. There is no
incline?', p BORDEN. I would be rather The nui0 tblnk that it would be necessary, p U1U reads as follows :
SO ceat<fivates'. on enlistment, at the rate o!
don
oiency ,,1!!1-<;reasecl Ior §00(1 conduct and effl-^hich'a	third year of service, during
dl€tti ma„,imum rate not exceeding *1 per
Tfi y be Da'd'
of the rRmlution is Practically in the words Bill Cnn7. 1 up t0 that point, but then, the Vno "nues as follows : during Payment continued on re-enlistment and e®eienceontiuuance of such good conduct
^ordl0ol<t be inclined
Per diem, which rate may, by regur°rds
Sir
to think that these
ought to be in the resolution as welt.
^oV «.IiID LAURIER. The only -eai wij.,r this resolution is to enable u; there t,	money part of tbe matter. If
. _ _ _______________________ _
en°llSh in tbe resolution to carry
have	hy tbe Bill, we will have
_ c another resolution
tie-
Mr
i Jhian i'<s BORDEN. The right bon. gen-hut i ' ab®olutely right in regard to that, Whether dlscussing the question as to r°hncl ti,„ rl'ot there would be sufficient to me Bill upon.
- "RV/U,
thl^FRtD LAURIER. to i„.,eie would be.
It semis to If there is not enough
Warrant «	[DOT] 11 tuere is not enough
Solution ttP BUI we must have another *-	'	"6 cannot amend it here.
Mr. lnS any'P BORDEN. If you are impns-fi°-u must hr burden upon the country h ls resol,1«^Ve a Ilew resolution, or have i?.e amen., 011 amended, and you must hav
ainon,r" amended, and Exce,, ®ent made with the assent of «?solutinriUCP. ^0U cannot found a Bill on W'lim, "hh-'h does not go as far as the
Bt],:
?hd
th
tits a iriero io, ~~	''"'[DOT]*J	X±\J1X. UICIUD-:! LU Otrt*
th Bie B;i, a resolution which goes as far ,, *e t'eSo]nt;., then, when you go to look at j,*8 tar a y°u 'Will find that it does not +k hose « 1... the Bill because the Bill would 6	oater burden on the revenues of
defence tIle bon' MinIster of Militia U Q '
the^jShee comes to pass his Bill it will Qflt thero'iJ„ evel'y hon. member to see
ue en„ «mater SoIhtion'ltly thau
is provided for by the rethL'hht11yoit*!L Pou speak of a aollar a
hie
ut Vm, | \	" spcaii. UL a uouar u
ld Tear r, ,umt the dollar a day to the Sir Wt Uly'	'	*
that t!;!'UID LAURIER. It
that thQ .	

*
P°iut taken by my hon. friend
seems to
from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) is altogether too minute. Certainly there is no intention to limit it to one year only. It must be for the third year and the years after. I cannot conceive that it is to be limited to the third year or the fourth year, because, otherwise, you would have to commence again.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What would be paid during the sixth year to a soldier who re-en-lists ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The soldier would receive the pay which he is entitled to at the third year.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot construe the language of this resolution in the way the right hou. the leader of the government does. There is a distinct statement that the pay shall be increased to the maximum of a dollar a day after three years service. There is no provision for the payment of that amount in the resolution while the Bill does make provision. The Bill distinctly states that:
Such payment shall he continued on re-enlistment during the continuance of such good conduct and efficiency.
If these words are necessary in the Bill, they are necessary in the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so, but I will not quarrel with my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest
that we pass the resolution as it is, and the amendment if necessary can be made when the bon. minister's further amendment is brought down.


Frederick William Borden: I have given notice of one amendment and I can give notice of another.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be a very simple matter to have the chairman go out of tbe chair and have the whole question settled at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I think we will have to give notice.


Samuel Hughes: I will draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that the interpretation clause of the Bill does not define what is meant by a ' private.' It uses the word ' man.'


Sill FREDERICK BORDEN.: The word ' man,' I think, includes ' private soldier.'


Samuel Hughes: It does not say so in the interpretation clause.


Frederick William Borden: That can be amended.


Samuel Hughes: ' Man ' includes non-commissioned officer, but when using tbe word it should be determined what a private is. If you define the word 'officer'

in your interpretation clause, it seems to me that you should also define the word ' private.'


Wilfrid Laurier: Any one who is not an officer is a private.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not explain to my right hon. friend that in raising the point I did, I referred to a man being enlisted in the first place for only three years, if he were enlisted for six years I think the hon. gentleman is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to an amendment to make doubly sure. .
Resolution No. 3 was amended by adding to the end thereof, after the word ' service ' the words ' such payment to be continued on re-enlistment.' '
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
On resolution 4, allowance for officers' horses.


Samuel Hughes: Every one knows that there is almost as much diffierence between a trained and an untrained horse as there is between a trained man and an untrained man. The minister has adopted a splendid idea in regard to the men, and I think he should adopt it also in regard to the horses.


Frederick William Borden: It is left open to give any rate you like.


Samuel Hughes: That is all right.
Resolution 4, agreed to.



SUPPLY-PROVINCIAL SUBSIDIES.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I desire to say a word, because I think we should have a better understanding with respect to the rights and duties of both sides. When a proposal is made to parliament for the expenditure of a sum of money, the opposition naturally ask what it will cost the country. And when we are told that it will cost so much,\nI\trespectfully submit, we are justified in', '\n\nbelieving that that is the expenditure that the country is committed to. We ask for the purpose of ascertaining this fact, so that we may judge whether, considering the size of the place and its requirements, we are justified in voting such an expenditure for such a work. But we are constantly told, when we find the expenditures greater than we expected, that the amount stated by the minister referred only to the building. But I think that in future the government ought to understand that what we want is to understand what the country is being committed to for any public work that may be under discussion. I say the government ought to understand this and not fall back upon what I cannot but regard as the very flimsy excuse that when the statement is made that the cost will be so and so this means only the cost of the bare building, not including the land or fittings. Both land and fittings have to be paid for, and they have to be paid for out of the consolidated revenue of the country, and our object in asking the question is to know what the charge against that revenue is to be.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Robert Laird Borden: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went int0 Committee of Supply.
Public buildings, N.S.-Halifax immigrajU building-additional story over the one stoi? portion, &c., $11,000.
[u"Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the government a clause in the speech delivered at the opening of the Quebec legislature on the 22nd day of March, by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, in which reference is made to the subject of the application of the provinces for the readjustment of the provincial subsidies. The clause I refer to is as follows :\nMy government has every reason to believe that the importance of the readjustment of the provincial subsidies, the conditions whereof were approved by you last session, is being seriously considered by the government of Canada.\nI gather from what has already been said by my right hon. friend, that the matter has not come under the consideration of the government at all thus far. I conclude therefore that the person who drafted this speech for the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, must have been under some misapprehension. Has the right hon. gentleman any Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).\nfurther statement to make to the House in regard to it ?\nSir WILFRID) ^LAURIER. No, (Mr-Speaker, I stated the other day, the whole matter as it stands at the present time-The premiers of all the provinces have approached the government on two or three occasions, but especially last fall, with the object of having a readjustment of the subsidies as defined by the Act of Confederation The subject has not yet been taken up by the government, but I stated personally t\xae one or two of the premiers, and among\xae1 others to Mr. Parent, that in my judgmem it would at an early date be the subject o-serious consideration on the part of the g\xb0v' ernment. Nothing more has been done."]
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Mr. JAS. SUTHERLAND.: The work originally done by contract and any provements that are being made are bei made by day labour.	_


Robert Laird Borden: 
James Sutherland: I misuud?1' stood my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke).	^e
additional story has not been built yet. v plans have been prepared and they are * standing for consideration before the d v artment of Immigration. When the w is let it will be let by contract. We ta some small improvements some	ayc
by day labour, and that is what I 1 reference to.
What material is the bu
lild'
Mr. DANIEL, ing built of ?


James Sutherland: Wood. ^ building originally cost $37,110,47.	4
pairs cost $2,916.	i


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr.   JAS@: prepared and submitted to the depa* ,ro pf immigration. We were asked not j.e<3 peed at the present time, but it is eX*' soa that the work will go on early this s tbe and that with the revote of $5,000 a ^ete<5 new vote of $0,000, it would be couu [luring the coming year.	$


Robert Laird Borden: No part of the of last year has yet been used ?


James Sutherland: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this work being done by contract ?
Mi*. JAS. SUTHERLAND. Yes. The contract was let to the lowest tenderer, Rhodes, Curry & Co., of Amherst, N S on the 27th of February last. It is intended to be completed by 1905. The addition consists of two stories, attic and basement, 41 feet by 30 feet. It is required especially for additional accommodation for tbe post office.
Sydney Mines, public building, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: ' Is this work being done by contract ? When will it be completed ?


James Sutherland: A site has been secured, the plans have been prepared, and we are now advertising for tenders for the work.


Robert Laird Borden: What, will be the total cost ?


James Sutherland: About $20,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that include the site ?


James Sutherland: No, the site cost $4,500. Total cost about $25,000.
Aetonvale, public building, $12,000.


James Sutherland: A site lias been procured, plans are now being ore-pared, and tenders will be called for at an early date.


Mr. BENNETT.: What is the population of that place ?


James Sutherland: About ,1,175.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to taking up the Ontario items, as many of the Quebec members are absent ? They usually go away Friday afternoon.


James Sutherland: I shall be pleased to accede to my hon. friend's request, and would renew the proposition I made when he was absent. I was asked to allow certain items to stand, and I proposed that we might go on with the items on the understanding that, when members interested are absent, they could ask the information on other items. I wish to consult the convenience of hon. members in that wav and at the same time expedite the public business.
Alexandria, Ont., public building, $10,000.


James Sutherland: The total estimated cost is $15,998, including the site, which cost $3,500.


Mr. BLAIN.: When this matter was up for discussion last year, the member representing that county said that two sites

were available, one of which could be procured for $2,000 and the other for $2,500. How is it we are paying $3,500 ?


James Sutherland: After full consideration, I came to the conclusion that the site we purchased was better than either of the other two. It is a corner lot and more central.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom was it purchased ?


James Sutherland: From a man named Macdonald.


Mr HAGGART.: That is a very vague description to give of a man in Glengarry.


Richard Blain: What is the size of the lot ?


James Sutherland: Sixty-five feet frontage. My hon. friend from Lanark says I gave a very vague description of a resident of Alexandria, but it is the best description I could give. Mr. Macdonald is a well known prominent citizen of that town.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were there any buildings on the lot.


Mr. .TAS. SUTHERLAND.: Yes, and they had to be removed by the owner.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the depth ?


James Sutherland: Forty-two feet,
I think, on the other street.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And that lot cost $3,500. That is a pretty stiff price.


James Sutherland: I do not know that it is an extraordinary high price for a corner lot in the best situation in the town. That was the valuation made by the officers of the department, and it was on their report that a decision was come to.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How far is this site from the others ?


James Sutherland: One of the others is across the river in a different section of the town, and the other is in the same block, but not a corner lot.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the chief architect visit Alexandria and make a report ?


James Sutherland: Yes, personally.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is not the lot a small one for a public building ? It is a mistake to put a public building on a small lot, because later on it may be found necessary to enlarge the building and acquire other property, and you will have to pay whatever price the people may ask. I cannot imagine a suitable building-it is true this is not to be a very expensive building-on a lot with a total measurement of Co feet by 42 feet. The lot would be nearly, and perhaps wholly, covered by the building. It is true this is a corner lot, and, of course, there would be ready access to the building. Still, I hope


Richard Blain: the hon. gentleman will be able to say that it is not the rule of the department to buy lots of that size for the purpose- of erecting public buildings.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a lane at the rear of the premises ?


James Sutherland: No ; but it is a corner lot.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been in this town or village of Alexandria, and I must say tha this seems a very high price to pay-abou $50 a foot. I would like to be sure tna-we have the figure correct as to the dept of the lot-42 feet. The surveys in tn ordinary town or village make lots of on fifth or one-quarter acre, a depth of -m feet or 175 feet. It seems fair to infer tna the owner has simply moved back the bun ings from the main street to a rear of the lot. May I ask the minister if tna is the case ?	_


James Sutherland: The chief architect tells me that he does not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: What style of building was it that was on this lot-stone, brick frame ?	J


James Sutherland: An old wood' en building.


Mr BENNETT.: That tends to confirmjm, suspicion. If this was the principal cox* in the town or village of Alexandria, owner would hardly think so little ot property as to leave it occupied by a m* able old building-


James Sutherland: I did not ^ it was a miserable building, but a woo building.


William Humphrey Bennett: An old building, I und stood the minister to say.	'


James Sutherland: It must l'aV been old.	_,


William Humphrey Bennett: 
William Humphrey Bennett: Was this close to w {e. is known as the principal hotel ? . U 0p-member the locality well, it is direcw posite a newspaper office.	.gf


James Sutherland: 
William Humphrey Bennett: It is some time ^ it, I was in Alexandria,; but, as I t'e*301 toreS; near the principal hotel there were * ^ 1 If this building was used as a resm ^ i\ think it fair to infer that the site wa*>
desirable one for a store.	eJJ jp


James Sutherland: 
James Sutherland: The site across the river, the chief architect informs me, was a corner lot but it was too far out from, the centre of the town to satisfy any person there or to satisfy the department. That is the reason the change was made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the depth of the other lot in this same block ?


James Sutherland: I have not tile size of the other lot but it was much larger, however, we consider a corner lot where you can have light on three sides of much more value than a deeper lot when you cannot use the rear portion. I think the depth of this lot was 90 feet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was the rear end of this 90 feet lot owned by the same gentleman who sold the department the 42 feet ?


James Sutherland: I could not answer that question.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the size of the building ?


James Sutherland: Speaking without the plans it will be built flush with the front street, and I think the main part of the building will be 28 x 30 feet frontage.


William Humphrey Bennett: What kind of a roof will there be on it. Will it be a flat roof, sloping to the back as most buildings of that kind now have ?


James Sutherland: It is not a flat roof.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister have a man standing on the roof to shovel off the snow ?


James Sutherland: No, we shall not appoint a man.


William Humphrey Bennett: With a roof of the kind that is evidently intended, the government may be liable for damages for injuries to passers-by. I am really surprised the chief architect should recommend a building of that class.


James Sutherland: I presume the building as designed by the chief architect is satisfactory. He is a man of great experience and has built most of the public buildings in Canada. We have had no complaints.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the chief architect is not a free agent. You give him a lot of a certain size and say :	Put a building
on it.


James Sutherland: The chief architect knew the requirements ol the building before he purchased the lot.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the 12 feet at the back to be used as an entrance ?


James Sutherland: It will probably be used for that purpose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister will understand that we have great difficulty in criticising this item because _ we have not been able to get the information.


Mr JAS. SUTHERLAND.: That is not fair [DOT] if mv hon. friend will put any question 'he thinks relevant, then if I have the information I will give it to him and if I have not the information I will be only too
glad to bring it down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about the buildings on the back part of the lot ?


James Sutherland: They were removed from the lot.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were they pushed back from the rear of this lot.


James Sutherland: I am sorry to say I have not the information.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the hon. minister under his hand any report from the chief architect advising the purchase of this particular site ?


James Sutherland: The lot was bought by Order in Council on the recommendation of the chief architect in writing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman kindly bring down any reports which he may have recommending the purchase of this site or adverse to it ?


James Sutherland: There are no adverse reports, but I will bring down the report recommending this site.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Sutherland: When the committee rose at six o'clock my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked me for the report on which the site for this building was purchased I have it here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably if the hon. gentleman would pass it over to me it would gave him the trouble of reading it.


Mr. SPROULE.: I understood the hon. minister to say that this building when completed would cost $18,000 ?


James Sutherland: Including the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the building to be used for a post office solely or for the customs-house and inland revenue also ?


William Humphrey Bennett: 


James Sutherland: The post office customs-house and anything else needed there. I am not sure whether there i an inland revenue office there or not. Tim contract price is $10,750. The contract is let and the work is under way.


Mr. HENDERSON.: 
David Henderson: I am surprised to hear the minister say that the construction of a vault would cost $1,000. I should think that there is no difficulty in constructing a good vault for $200. but this is just on a par with the construction of all these buildings ; if there is a possibility of adopting any extravagant system it is sure to be adopted instead of the economic one. I am also surprised that the post office boxes should cost so much. Apparently, no attempt is made to keep down the expenditure on those public buildings. It is quite true, as the minister says, that the cost of building is greater than it was a few years ago owing to the increased price of labour and materials, but I should think that forty per cent is an, exaggerated estimate of the increase. I am glad to know that the minister is aiming at providing here some of the accommodation I have suggested, but as the member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says, he is still aiming too high.
I regret very much that In this case, he has not made provision for a residence for the postmaster who might be the caretaker as well, and thus the annual expenditure for a caretaker would be saved.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the principal street in this town Main street or St. Catherine street.


James Sutherland: Main street.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then this lot has only a frontage of 42 feet on Main street while it has 65 feet on St. Catherine street. I notice that the architect says that price is reasonable, but a casual observer can notice that the price is a very stiff one for pro-



perty in sueli a town. The architect reports that he examined this lot in 1902 ; did he make any report in writing to the department when he made that examination ?


James Sutherland: I discussed verbally with the officer the diffeient sites he had seen. I suppose the only way a person could obtain a proper knowledge of the value of property in a town or city is by looking at the sales made, and taking the opinion of leading citizens.


Mr CLARKE.: I notice that there was a good deal of expedition in putting through this proposition. Mr. McDonald made the offer on June 12, 1903, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Glengarry as is stated here, and on the 24th June the report is made by the chief architect and the whole business closed up. That was (expeditious.	t i


James Sutherland: 
Mr. INGRAM.: You can buy lots for less than that in cities of 12,000 inhabitants.


James Sutherland: I am negotiating now for a site in one of the cities, and they want $1,000 a foot. I should think *that the price we paid in Alexandria is the siverage price in flourishing small towns throughout Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: Before dinner we understood that the principal frontage of this lot was on Main street, but it now turns out that there are only 42 feet on the Main street. You are paying $80 a foot for a *shallow lot of 65 feet in a little place like Alexandria. I should like to know what that property was assessed for. I will be bound to say that the whole lot was not assessed for $2,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: And. I notice that the arrangement is that the building on this lot is to be removed, fidiich would go to -show that it is of an inferior character. If that lot were worth $3,500, there is no doubt there would be a building of some value on it, and the fact that the building is to be removed shows that the lot is not as valuable .as the government try to make out. I venture to say that half the price the government paid would be ample for a lot of that character in a place like Alexandria.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister know of a single industrial firm in Alexandria : the population is under 2,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


James Sutherland: I am not faffl; iliar with Alexandria, but I think there considerable business done there.


Robert Laird Borden: On what evidence does the architect base his opinion that tn price is reasonable.


James Sutherland: The evidence that the architect gets wrhen he visits. ' place is to obtain information of expel in real estate and the principal citizens, an to look at the sales which have taken pl*t ' I have no doubt that was done.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Is there any written valuation from any person who is an expe in real estate values in the town ? I do t() suppose that the architect would profess be an expert in land values in all the t*	g
throughout Ontario, and one would supV that the proper course would be to ouu t a written estimate from those who nus be considered experts. Has this precauu been taken in this case ?


James Sutherland: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the architect *aof any inquiries as to the assessed value the property ?	i)0


James Sutherland: There was -inquiry made as to the assessment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Richard Blain: 
Robert Laird Borden: It is very kind of of my hon. friend to put it on the ' Hansard ' reporter ; but is he sure that he did not read it that way last year ? I believe it is in the revised 1 Hansard.'


James Sutherland: Whatever I miglit be guilty of, I would not be guilty of making a mis-quotation.


Robert Laird Borden: The policy of the government in regard to the erection of these buildings seems to be a little peculiar. In a small town or village in the country, where it would be cheaper to provide for the public service by renting, the project is to build and increase the public expenditure as much as possible in that way. In large cities, Where it would be much cheaper to have a building instead of paying enormous and sometimes excessive rents, the government propose to pay rents in order again, I suppose, to increase the public expenditure. I cannot conceive any other reason for it. Perhaps the hon. minister could state what the policy reallv is. I am stating what it seems to be.


James Sutherland: If my hon. friend was in the House last evening when we were discusing the appropriations for the city of Ottawa, he would know that the policy of the government as announced then was that we should purchase the ground and erect these buildings as soon as possible. I am inclined to think that we should make a very special effort to procure ground in the city, where we may from time to time erect the buildings we require.


Edward Cochrane: I have been in Alexandria myself, and was very much surprised to hear it called a town. It is a very ordinary village, and has not a single manufacturing establishment. I do not know what land is worth there, but iii the village of Brighton, on the Grand Trunk Railway, which is one of the most prosperous in the county I have the honour to represent, and in* which there is one of the largest canning factories in the Dominion, and where there is storage capacity for fruit greater than in any town or city in the Dominion, land is worth much less than the price paid for this lot. I was at a sale there not long since, where there was offered for sale nearly an acre of land, with house, comprising one-half acre of orchard, well cultivated, and the price obtained at auction was $1,650. I would advise the hon. minister, when one of those villages which nobody knows anything about except the residents, wants a public building, he should impose the condition that the municipality should furnish the site. If he would do this, he would get rid of a good many of the applications of friends who want to dispose of lots to the government. In Oampbellford, East Northumberland, we lu\ve several manufacturing Industries and a population considerably larger than that of this village, and if the hon. minister will

put a vote in the estimates to build a public building there, X will venture the assertion that the town will furnish him with the site, and he won't require to put anything like $18,000 in the estimates.


Mr BLAIN.: Coming back to this question in connection with the city of London, I find that the size of the lot that was 'purchased is 252 by 120. Did the hon. minister say that the figures in - Hansard ' were a mistake .and that the total cost of the site was $25,000 ?


Mr JAS SUTHERLAND.: The site was purchased before I took office, and I have mv information from my deputy minister. The total cost of the site was $25,700.


Mr BLAIN.: If that be correct, we are to understand that the total cost of the site in London on one of the chief streets-a corner site-is'about $80 a foot, and that a site in the town of Alexandria, where the population is less than 2,000, cost more than $80 a foot. I have here the figures of the purchase of the site in London : B. Caravella, $3 000; H. E. Crouch, $5,000; H. J. Durkin, $1,462 ; D. Fraser, $3,000 ; J. Howe, $1,838 ; total, $14,300.


Mr. HYMAN.: That is only a part of the site. There was some ground purchased afterwards.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. minister state how much the site did cost ?


James Sutherland: Yes. If my hon. friend wants a lot of figures. I can give him nothing better than the figures furnished by the accountant of the department, showing what was actually paid out. That will be more reliable than taking what is paid out in one year and another or in taking quotations from ' Hansard.' I shall be glad to furnish the hon. gentleman with the exact figures.


David Henderson: If property purchased by the government is to cost the price paid m Alexandria, then the government had better not erect any more public buildings in any part of the country. I do not see why we should compare a site in Alexandria with one in London. We can find other places which will furnish a much fairer comparison. In the village where I live, there lias not been any sale of property similar to that in Alexandria for some years, but some five years ago a property was sold in the very centre of the village for $1,000. It is possible, that property has increased there in value since, but it has not increased to the extent of 50 per cent, and that particular site to which I have referred would not sell to-day for $1,500. I do not see, therefore, how property in Alexandria, which cannot compare, ns an enterprising village, with the village of Acton. in which I live-in which we have one industry alone in which there is fully three-quarters of a million dollars invested-can


Mr. COCHRANS.: 
Robert Laird Borden: Of course my hon. friend (Mr. Jas. Sutherland) will remember that a government has always a check by reason of its power to expropriate so that it is not driven in the same way as a private individual is driven, to buy a lot at the price at which it might be offered. If my hon. friend will consider for a moment what this price really amounts to, when compared with the price paid in Loudon, he will see that this lot, which is 42 x 65 feet, has an area of 2,730 square feet, while the lot in London which is 252 x 120 feet contains 30,240 square feet. The area of the London lot is more than eleven times greater than that of the Alexandria lot, whereas the price paid for the London lot is only a little more than seven times greater than the price paid for the Alexandria lot. In other words you paid for your lot in Alexandria, a comparatively small village, $1.27 per square foot and in London, a city of, I suppose, 50,000 people, you paid 85 cents a square foot. That is to say you are paying in the village of Alexandria 50 per cent more than you are paying in the city of London. That seems to be a very extraordinary position of affairs and I cannot understand it. I am not suggesting any political pull, but 1 do suggest that the prices do not compare with one another in the way they should. Yon would suppose you could get a lot in Alexandria for one half what yon can in London, but you are

paying 50 per cent more. X am sure that will strike the Minister of Public Works as a very curious thing.


Mr.   JAS@: SUTHERLAND'. If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will inquire into the price of land per foot in the business part of the city of London he-will find that land as- centrally situated in London as this is in Alexandria is very much more expensive.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jas. Sutherland) mean that the price in London is very low ?


James Sutherland: No, but the site for the armoury in London is not as central, comparatively, as this site- in Alexandria. I have not had any experience lately in the frontage prices of some of the best corners in London, but I am sure if my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will take the trouble to ascertain the prices at which land is now changing hands there he will find that a lot similarly situated will cost seven times more per square foot than this lot in Alexandria.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Nevertheless, I understand that this site in London is not very far from the centre of the city. You would suppose that land even in that part of the city of London would be much more expensive than in this village or town of Alexandria.


Andrew B. Ingram: What principle guides the hon. minister (Mr. Jas. Sutherland) in selecting a village, town or city where a post office or public building is to be erected ? Is it population or revenue or what.


James Sutherland: That is a pretty hard question to answer.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not be honest and say there is no principle.


James Sutherland: I might be more honest and, say we are following too closely the principle that was practised in the past. We endeavour to have regard to the importance of the town.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am afraid the principle governing the hon. gentleman is rather elastic and depends chiefly on the political complexion of the district for which the building is asked. If it is a matter of revenue I see that in Alexandria the receipts are very limited. I see the salary of the postmaster comes to $780, allowances $80 and rent, fuel and light, $120. What( the hon. minister proposes to expend there is, first, $8,500 on a lot and then $13,000 on a building.!


James Sutherland: No, no. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is very critical when he thinks that $3,500 is outrageous, and yet he makes a mistake in that one quotation of nearly $3,000. I have said some Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).	*
ten or twelve times that the contract price of the building is $10,700.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not hear the figure9 before. Now there is $3,500 for the if1' and $10,700 for the building. Does that include the fixtures in the building ? I ture to say I am well within the mark when I speak of $13,000 for the building and fixtures. I think that my figures will be found more correct than those of the minister.


James Sutherland: I have said that the estimated cost was $18,000 and tfi cost of the building is $10,700.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
David Henderson: What is this [DOT] ^ ^


James Sutherland: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has given no information in regard to what I desire to find out.


James Sutherland: I said these buildings, were under the Department of Militia and Defence. My bon. friend can get a list of these that are being renewed.
Mr.* SPROULE. You put one class of buildings under the Militia Department and tlie other under tlie Department of Public Works. Why do you separate them ?


James Sutherland: At the time of confederation some of these buildings existed under the provinces, they were then placed under the control of different departments, and there has been no particular effort to consolidate these works under the Department of Public Works, with the result that some of them have been retained under the care of the Department of Militia and Defence. I will mention this matter to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and he will no doubt be able io make a statement in regard to the class of buildings to which my hon. friend refers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is only $15,000 to be voted to repair these buildings all over the province, tlie sum is quite inadequate. For instance, in my own district there are Meaford, Thornbury, Flesherton, *Durham and various other places where there are drill sheds and very respectable companies, and I think their arms should be stored at these places. These *buildings have all been allowed to go into decay and no effort has been made to repair them. I understood the hon. minister to say last session that it was the settled policy of tlie government to repair these buildings, but they have done nothing in regard to them, because I notice that all these large votes are being taken for the armouries and there is nothing said about the drill sheds throughout tlie country. The companies that belong to tlie country villages, to my mind, are always starved for the benefit of the cities. The great eclat of military life is found in tlie cities, larger expenditures are

made oil armouries, equipment and everything else there, and the sterling rank and file of the militia which is always drawn from the country has very small pay, has very little money spent upon it and has very poor accommodation.


James Sutherland: As far as my memory serves me there is not a new vote in these estimates at all. The votes we are considering now are renewals of amounts voted last session or such portion of them as, within the opinion of the architect or engineer of the department, we would not be able to expend before the 30th June.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it makes the slightest difference whether they are new votes or revotes. I am talking about the policy.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I did not intend that as an answer to the hon. gentleman but I wished to make the statement because some hon. members have spoken to me in regard to some applications for the consideration of estimates. I make this statement so that hon. members of this committee may understand that none of the new applications are being considered in the present estimates. I will get the hon. gentleman a statement from the Department of Militia and Defence.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what policy the government has in regard to the distribution of this expenditure that we are dealing with in this vote. For instance, I see that all the important places in the province have been favoured with either a drill hall or an armoury. Is that in accordance with the policy of the government or is it merely the result of party pressure ? I would like to ask a question .referring to what my hon. friend who sits beside me (Mr. Ingram) said in regard to a political pull. The town of Sarnia would be very glad to share in the distribution of this patronage. It has now the pull. We have an able and amiable gentleman representing the riding now and I hope he will be able to enlist the sympathies of the hon. Minister of Public Works. Perhaps he will tell me what the policy of the government is in regard to such expenditures.


James Sutherland: The policy of the government is set forth very well in the estimates. My hon. friend will find that the majority of these votes for armouries provide for expenditures to be made in constituencies not represented in this House by supporters of the government so that these votps cannot be said to be based upon political influence. As far as these votes are concerned they have been put in at the instance of the Department of Militia and Defence and the policy of the government is to grant them where they are most required, irrespective of politics.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


James Clancy: Take the city of Chatham, the town of Cobourg, the city of Guelph and the city of London, and they are represented by supporters of the government.


James Sutherland: I am sure my bon. friend would not object to armouries being built in the places he mentioned. In the vote now under discussion we have Belleville. Stratford, St. Catharines, all represented by gentlemen who do not support the government. It is hardly fair to mention the other places, because they have been under consideration for several years-The votes passed this session and last are at all events sufficiently divided to shov that the policy I have spoken of has beer carried out. If the hon. gentleman (Mr-Clancy) has any place to point out to in Department of Militia where buildings ar required, and if the Militia Department recommends them, I will be most glad carry out that recommendation irrespectiv of any political consideration.


James Clancy: If I can have any assurance that the fact that I indicate tbes places will not endanger a vote for them, a will take an early opportunity of informing the minister as to some places which a quite deserving. I do not complain of t \ votes which are now being passed, and -will take the minister at his word a trust that I will not be disappointed alt having received such a kind invitation.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
James Sutherland: I never kef* of the proposition before. Do you refei the erection of buildings ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


James Sutherland: If that the report, it escaped my notice. It lS the policy of the government to make change in that direction at present.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Has any aPP^j, cation been made to the minister to nx gt the grounds around the armoury at ^ Thomas ? These grounds are in a very o)1 state and unfit for the soldiers to dr1* 0r Has that been brought to the attentim^ the minister, and will he have the done ?	re.


James Sutherland: 
Jabel Robinson: Very wel1, will make the request now.
Berlin, public	building, $6,500.	(jS-


Mr. CLARE.: 
James Sutherland: This is a revote of $10,000. Some years ago the city o1 Brantford granted $10,000 and the government $10,000, and an armoury was built in that city. There is a splendid corps in Brantford, and that armoury is found not to be large enough. It is now proposed to increase it.	*
Bridgeburg, public building, $8,000.


James Sutherland: This is a vote that was authorized last session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was the site presented to the government ?


James Sutherland: No, but I do not think my hon. friend will criticise me in this case, because we succeeded in securing a. site 76 feet by 134 feet for $700.


James Clancy: What is the population cf that place ?


James Sutherland: I have not the [DOT] population : but this building is not being erected on account of the population of the place, but on account of its being a border place where a large customs business is being done.


James Clancy: I should imagine that village property is very high there. I am told that the population is 1,350, and the hon. gentleman seems to be prepared to congratulate himself on having got a lot there for $700. Perhaps by comparison with Alexandria it is a capital bargain, but I should imagine that you could buy half a dozen lots in most of these small places for that amount of money. Why do you require a public building in so small a place as that ?


James Sutherland: My hon. friend authorized this as a member of the House last session, when a full explanation was given. It is a kind of station between Canada and the United States. The building is required for the .accommodation of the staff of customs officers kept at that point,'and we are utilizing the lower floor for a local post office.


James Clancy: How much is collected at that port ?


James Sutherland: The postal revenue is $8,598.39 and the customs revenue $285,349.75.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will there be any quarters for police fitted up in this building ?
I think it is at Bridgeburg that the prize fights under the patronage of the Ontario government are carried on.

Chatham, armoury, $10,300.


James Clancy: What progress has been made with this armoury ? This is a revote which has been taken on two occasions .


James Sutherland: I understand that the city has furnished a site. Plans are now being prepared.


William Humphrey Bennett: 1 saw it stated a little while ago in one of the newspapers of Orillia that an armoury is to be built there by the Dominion government. Is that coirect .


James Sutherland: I have no information as to that.
Clinton, post office, $1,500.


James Sutherland: This is to complete the contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the cost ?


Mr JAS. SUTHERLAND.: The total cost, including the site, is $17,245. The site, cost $2,500. It is 16S feet by 60 feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the post office gone in occupation of the building ?


James Sutherland: Yes, it is fully completed.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the salary of " the caretaker ?


James Sutherland: The postmaster is the caretaker. He resides in the building, and is allowed $50 for taking care of it.
Cobourg, armoury, $20,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is this to cost 7


James Sutherland: The total cost in round figures will be $50,000. Yhe amount of the contract is $35,550.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was the site given by the town 7


James Sutherland: No, it was purchased at a cost of $4,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are all the companies of the Northumberland and Durham battalion accommodated at this armoury, or will It furnish accommodation simply for two or three companies ?


James Sutherland: It will accommodate the field battery, the garrison artillery, and an infantry battalion, but 1 do not know how many companies.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Perhaps the Minister of Militia can tell us how many men are to be accommodated in this armoury ?


Frederick William Borden: I think the infantry regiment has eight companies, which would number 320 or 330 men. The artillery would probably number 100 men. I cannot give the number exactly from memory.	,


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year or the year before, in the report of the Minister of Militia,


William Humphrey Bennett: the suggestion was made that the care o all the armouries should be transferred lUJ... the Public Works Department to the Milan Department.


Frederick William Borden: The acting engineer of the Militia Department su_gge& ed that that would be desirable, but it Ua not been done.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
James Clancy: 
James Sutherland: 
James Clancy: 
James Sutherland: 
James Clancy: Was any demand Cobourg ? -
I do not tn


Mr.   JAS@: SUTHERLAND, so.	laCe<3


James Clancy: Then the burden is on the shoulders of those who are uCn to bear it. Either Chatham got too or Cobourg too little.	0g-


James Sutherland: rather give the site and have the n 0ii located; on that site than have anou* purchased, but there has been no n fast rule adopted by the department ^


Mr. McGOWAN.: I understand the town of Guelph where you are ofl an armoury, the department insisted
city furnishing the site.
b oP*


James Sutherland: If "S friend will bring that up when ,-sCuSs ticular item is submitted, we can ^ piif'


Edward Frederick Clarke: What property ^ve t>'e chased, and at what price and wn* dimensions ?	roPe,te


James Sutherland: 
James Sutherland: I do think that, when, we were authorized to go on with'a certain work, we were warranted in using our best judgment in the public interest, and I think that we took the best course in the interests of the public.


James Clancy: I am not criticising the relative advantages of the two plans, but the conduct of the hon. gentleman in entering upon new expenditures without previously submitting- it to the approval of the House.


Richard Blain: I understand that the government own an old armoury in Cobourg separate from the premises we are nowdiscussing. Has the government disposed of that armoury ?


James Sutherland: I do not recollect any such property, nor do the officials of my department.


Richard Blain: It was brought out in the discussion of the question last year and the minister said it had not been sold. As to the increased cost the reasons which the minister gave to-night are reasons that w-ere given last year for an increase from $15,000 to $20,000. This is what the minister said :
The original contract was $15,000, but since that time the headquarters of the Durham field battery were moved to Cobourg. This makes it necessary to provide for more accommodation in the armoury, but the amount voted, we expect, will complete the work.
Now', instead of $20,000 the minister asks for nearly $50,000, without any further explanation than he gave last year.


James Sutherland: As I understand it, the building we had under consideration would not suit at all and we have not taken it. This is a new site and a new- building.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand the explanation to be that the minister found that that site and building were not suitable, and so he proceeded to do something for which he had not Received the consent of parliament and which involves the expenditure of about $20,000 more. I do not know whether this is the practice or not, but it seems to me hardly reasonable to incur expenditure until explanations have been made to parliament and a specific sum voted.


James Sutherland: I agree with that.
Deseronto, public building, $500.


James Sutherland: This is to complete the contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is this work to
cost ?


James Sutherland: The total expenditure in connection with this is $40,808.04.

Dominion public buildings-rentals, improvements, repairs, &c., $12,000.


James Sutherland: This is the usual vote covering the whole province of Ontario for maintenance of public buildings.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has any report been made about St. Thomas post office and any proposed change there ?	.


James Sutherland: We have spent about $225 lately on repairs around the St. Thomas building.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the department were going to make some change in the entrance, because, as the building now is, a very few people crowd the building so that it is difficult to get at the delivery wicket.


James Sutherland: I will look into that matter.
Fort William, public building, $8,000.


James Sutherland: This is to complete the building.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the total cost ?


James Sutherland: The totai cost, including heating apparatus and furniture, will be $33,608.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What did the site cost ;


James Sutherland: The site was contributed by the municipality.


Richard Blain: What was the contract price of the building ?


James Sutherland: The contract price of the building was $20,400. Additional work had to be done on the foundation. Piles had to be driven, and the contract price for Ibis was $2,340. The heating apparatus was furnished by contract, the amount of which was $1,705. The tender for the fittings was $3,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister seems to have difficulty in making himself heard because of the hoarseness from which he is suffering. We have done a pretty good day's work, and I think we should stop, at this.


James Sutherland: I admit that I have a pretty severe cold and I apologize to the hon. gentlemen for the difficulty they have in hearing me. But I would appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), who is leading the opposition that, as the votes that have to come are not controversial, and practically all of them were discussed at great length last session, we might get through with them before we adjourn. I am ready to give full information as to these matters. I thought that, perhaps, having given away last night to oblige some of our friends opposite, and having postponed the consideration of items to accommodate our Quebec friends to-night, we might proceed with some more of these items.


James Sutherland: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not out of consideration for members on this side, but because of the state of the minister's throat that i suggested that we might stop now. Ther is a good deal to be said about some of the items we are approaching, it may be cessary for him to talk a good deal. I thin^ if we vote this item and the next one, tha for the Guelph armoury, we shall have don very well.


James Sutherland: If that is the desire of the hon. gentlemen opposite, I cl not wish to press the matter.
(Guelph armoury, $20,000.


John McGowan: How much is this build' ing to cost ?


James Sutherland: 
John McGowan: 
James Sutherland: Yes, I we shall require the whole of it. The cm ent branches of the militia at Guelph quire a good deal of room for tn _ accommodation. There are two field teries, I understand, besides the city corp [DOT]
How much is this bu
liable
Mr. McGOWAN, ing to cost ?


James Sutherland: I am to give the hon. gentleman a clear staten* ,e of cost, because of the exceedingly accommodation required for the guns- g{ though not a particularly expensive Par ro-the building, so much room must be i vided for the guns, that it increases
expense very much.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is only an oicm field battery there V	j


James Sutherland: Two, am not sure that it is not intended to the headquarters of another one there-


Andrew B. Ingram: I thought one co.inP8 g( was at a place called Morristown, 1 twelve miles from Guelph.


James Sutherland: 1 am told the guns are to be kept at Guelph. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir 11 Borden) may know.	pt


Andrew B. Ingram: Are there any S'uuS in Guelph ?	_ go-


Frederick William Borden: I * g0lne


Andrew B. Ingram: 
James Sutherland: When my attention was called to the fact that I had no estimate here I said that I was quite willing to allow the matter to stand until that was furnished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that, but tli* surprising part is that it has reached this stage without the cost being figured up. We are willing to allow it to stand until you get that information ; in fact, we desire to have it stand, but the surprising part of it is that it should get so far, and yet the government not know what they intend to build nor what the expense is that we ars committing ourselves to when we vote the item.


James Clancy: What is the size of the site that has-been deeded to the government for the armoury at Guelph, and what is the size of the sites at Cobourg and Chatham 1


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The dimensions of the site at Guelph are 178 feet on Huskisson street, 467 feet on Farquhar street and 380 feet on Freshfield street.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman give me the dimensions of the site at Cobourg ? My object in asking is to ascertain whether there is any uniform rule as to the quantity of land required.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No, there is a very great difference.
Guelph public building-addition to, $14,000.


John McGowan: What was the original contract for this building ?


James Sutherland: The total amount required for this work is $41,303.


John McGowan: Is that the amount of the original contract ?


James Sutherland: That includes the new post office, fittings, heating apparatus and all.


John McGowan: Would the hon. minister tell us the amount of the original contract ?


James Sutherland: $30,595. This vote completes the work. t


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much has been expended ?


James Sutherland: 


John McGowan: There were a lot of extras were there not ?


James Sutherland: They could not be said to be extras, because this additional

amount is made up by the additional work required upon the new inland revenue offices, the second story, the post office, fittings, letter boxes, additional heating apparatus, wiring, and fixture for electic light.


Mr McGOWAN.: When is this building likely to be completed ? It was under way last summer.


Mr.   JAS@: SUTHERLAND1. The contract j calls for completion on the 30th dune next.


John McGowan: The contractors plant is all around there.


James Sutherland: My hon. friend must know that you could not carry on a large improvement to a big public building without having some plant on the ground and taking some considerable time, but the contract is let to be completed on 30th June.


John McGowan: Why was the plant allowed to remain there all winter ?


James Sutherland: Have they not done work, been working during the winter?


John McGowan: They have been working, but not all winter.
Mr. JAS". SUTHERLAND. I thought they had been working all winter.


John McGowan: No, the stone work is not finished..


James Sutherland: I have not had any complaint from the people of Guelph.


David Henderson: 
James Sutherland: 
Andrew B. Ingram: The additional expe11^ ture is for putting another story on building ?


James Sutherland: And ing the size of the building about one '


Andrew B. Ingram: 
James Sutherland: The state's^. I have made is on the authority of the j0p, tect who made the plan and specifica^t. and I have no doubt it is strictly c ftrs, I have not been in Guelph for many but I should think that the size has increased just as the architect says- r


Andrew B. Ingram: I can tell the and the architect that I know the just as well as either of them, and * that you cannot enlarge the post o Guelph on the ground.	jtli


David Henderson: 
James Sutherland: The hon. gentleman's statement is strictly correct. The estimate made by the chief architect was that the cost would be $21,000, and when the plans were prepared and tenders advertised for, the lowest tender was $30,595. My hon. friend will admit that there was really no intention of misleading parliament into a large expenditure. It was a mistake in the estimated cost, and it is much more difficult to estimate the cost of improving or extending an old building than the cost of the new one.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman ought to be able to rely upon reports of his own officers. But he has to come before the House and make the rather humiliating acknowledgment that his own architect made an estimate and that the actual cost now turns out to be half as much more. Under these circumstances, the House might reasonably have expected the hon. gentleman to have come back and asked for a new vote under the new conditions that had arisen. I do not know a greater evil in a great spending department, where the temptation to over-expend is very great. I am not accusing the hon. gentleman of having entered into a corrupt bargain ; but there is a deplorable looseness about the whole business which is enough to destroy any great spending department. I think the hon. gentleman should be held strictly to the pledge he makes to the House when he obtains money for a public work, and if he is not able to carry out his pledge he should come back and ask the House for a new vote of money. I think the hon. gentleman should let the item stand until we get a report from the architect. If the officer made a mistake in regard to the cost of the work, is it not possible that he may have made a mistake about the size of the ground ? I think it would be well, before we proceed any further, for the hon. gentleman to give us fuller information.
Mr. ,TAS. SUTHERLAND. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. There was no intention to deceive the House at all.


James Clancy: I did not say that.
Mr. ,TAS. SUTHERLAND. Any business man will admit that when a contract for a

work comes to be let there may be a very considerable difference in the amount of it from the estimate made by the architect. I do not want to defend the officials of my department from the consequences of any wrong-doing ; but I am prepared to say, in the hearing of this country, that it is the experience of almost every corporation and business man that it is very difficult, especially in the improvement of old buildings, to keep the cost near to tlie'estimate. In this case there was no deception intended on the part of the officials of the department or myself ; but in view of the fact that the House was given full information as to what improvements were intended and as to the estimated cost, as near as it could be ascertained, there can be no reason for fault-finding at all. My hon. friend knows that in former years we had buildings estimated to cost $300,000, the cost of which ran up to over $1,000,000. Admitting that in this case the architect was mistaken, I am perfectly satisfied that he was honestly mistaken as to the cost of the work, and I do not think we have any reason to find fault.


James Clancy: I think it is just as well to make it clear that I have made no attack at all upon the hon. gentleman or upon the officers of his department, or suggested that they did not believe what he stated in the House on that occasion. But when the hon. gentleman discovered the mistake later on he did not feel called upon to take any notice of it, but acted on his own motion without warrant from this House for the new expenditure. The hon. gentleman cannot make the excuse that he was honest in this matter. This kind of honesty is being repeated too often. Does the hon. gentleman not think this House, in voting money for public works, should have something to say as to what would be in the public interest ? Surely he does not expect to get $2 and spend $3, and then excuse himself by saying that he acted in good faith. I do not think the reply given is a satisfactory one. We would rather have the hon. gentleman admit that he made a mistake, but instead he attempts to justify himself and pleads that he was honest in the estimate he gave. Such a i>lea would preclude criticism on everything.


James Sutherland: I was not speaking of my own honesty, but of the chief architect's.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The objection taken by my hon. friend from Bothwell is that when these mistakes are discovered, it does not seem to make any difference, and the department goes on with the expenditure. When parliament passes a vote on the ground that a certain amount would not be exceeded and it is found afterwards that the amount is far from being sufficient, no expenditure should be entered upon without having the consent of parliament to the change.


James Sutherland: 


James Sutherland: I quite agree that we should not deceive the House W entering into a heavy expenditure after o* taining a vote for a smaller expenditure, but where the mistake has been made w the architect in a comparatively small detai, the government will still be warranted. * serving the public interest by going on "rlt the undertaking.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the mistake was a trifling one. If I understand the figurcj the expenditure instead of being $21,000 w be $42,000.


James Sutherland: The _ $21,Openly covered the cost of the building, u , this includes the additional lighting heating caused by the addition of anoi story and the additional fixtures.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
James Sutherland: 
James Sutherland: I shah nish that.


Andrew B. Ingram: With regard to these mates, does the chief architect accep. oi reports of the local architects inste visiting the works himself ?


James Sutherland: That done in this instance. The ch ,,nge tect cannot plead that excuse, beca [DOT] made a personal visit.
Hawkesbury public building, $12,000.	^j


James Sutherland: Nothing p(e-been expended. The plans are ana ^ paration and the site is not yet PlU'c ' ' ^


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you going	^
municipality to give the site ? That ^ re course usually followed under the
very

the


Mr.   JAS@: 
James Sutherland: Mr. page
BLAIN. I find in ' Hansardft** 13119, that the estimate S'


David Henderson: Are we to understand that $15,000 is to be the total cost of site, building, fittings, heating and wiring, or is this the cost of the bare building ?


James Sutherland: That is the total cost.


David Henderson: Now we have that on record. May I ask the minister if he intends this post ofllce building to have rooms for the postmaster's residence and to have two doors, one for entrance and one for exit, to give ample accommodation to the people ? Is he going to carry out the improved plan he spoke of so highly in the case of Alexandria.


James Sutherland: I do not know about the two doors, but the plan provides
for every reasonable accommodation.


Edward Cochrane: I was on my feet when the minister desired to speak. I understood that the question was asked what it would cost to complete this building, and I wish to tell the hon. minister that, so far as I am concerned, when he tells me the amount required, I take it that that is all that the country will be called upon to provide for the service. It seems to me that he requires us to be a little too precise in our questions before he will give us the essential information we require, which is to know just what we are committing the country to by votes in this committee. And, while I do not wish to reflect on the hon. gentleman's chief architect or any of his officials, I want to say that if any mechanic with whom I desired to arrange for the building of a house were to make as great a mistake as that which the chief architect made in connection with this building, I should feel like kicking. I do not see how the chief architect could inspect a site, and, knowing that he was spending public money, make a mistake of one-third in the cost of the building. If the chief architect makes such mistakes it would be better to let him stay at home and send some other official. I speak earnestly because I realize that we here are voting the people's money and I am responsible to my constituents for. every dollar voted here. I would like to go back to my constituents and answer for my conduct if money were voted in this way and I did not enter an emphatic protest. I think that the minister is trying to carry out his promises, but he cannot do it if he is misled, as he tells the committee he ha? been by his officials.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I desire to say a word, because I think we should have a better understanding with respect to the rights and duties of both sides. When a proposal is made to parliament for the expenditure of a sum of money, the opposition naturally ask what it will cost the country. And when we are told that it will cost so much,
I	respectfully submit, we are justified in



believing that that is the expenditure that the country is committed to. We ask for the purpose of ascertaining this fact, so that we may judge whether, considering the size of the place and its requirements, we are justified in voting such an expenditure for such a work. But we are constantly told, when we find the expenditures greater than we expected, that the amount stated by the minister referred only to the building. But I think that in future the government ought to understand that what we want is to understand what the country is being committed to for any public work that may be under discussion. I say the government ought to understand this and not fall back upon what I cannot but regard as the very flimsy excuse that when the statement is made that the cost will be so and so this means only the cost of the bare building, not including the land or fittings. Both land and fittings have to be paid for, and they have to be paid for out of the consolidated revenue of the country, and our object in asking the question is to know what the charge against that revenue is to be.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gen-tlieman who is leading the House if, on Monday the government will take up any of its work after the business in charge of
the private members is finished, and if so, what ?


Mr. FIELDING.: If we dispose of private members business at an early stage we will take up the estimates at the point at which we leave them to-night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 28, 1904.