1905-02-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 72) to incorporate the Canadian Canals Corporation.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 73) to incorporate La Compagnie du chemin de fer a Montreal, Quebec et du sud.-Mr. Gervais.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. URIAH WILSON asked ;
1.	How many immigrants were deported from this country during the fiscal year 1904, and up to the 1st of February, 1905 ?
2.	What were their nationalities, and what was the cause of their being deported ?
3.	How many were deported for diseases, and for what diseases ? How many because they were liable to become paupers ?
Rt.   H@: I am sorry to say that this answer will not be ready for some time yet and I would therefore ask that the question stand.


ACETYLENE GAS LIGHTS.
Mr. AMES asked :: 
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Thirty-two.
2.	$910.
3.	Five.
4.	Thomas Fraser, Windmill Point light, $180; John Hamilton, Hamilton's island light, $130 ; Barnaby Malette, lightship No. 1, $250 ; Vital Crdpin, lightship No. 2, $300; Michel Allard, lightship No. 3, $300.


HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.
Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Has the government decided to distribute among the provinces interested, the amount of the award received by Canada, generally known as the Halifax Fishery Award ?
2.	If so, on what basis is the distribution proposed to be made ?
3.	If not, is the question to be submitted for decision to the Privy Council of England or the Supreme Court of Canada ?
4.	Will the government take action in regard to the settlement of this question during the present session of parliament, if not, already settled ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4, answered by No. 1.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Is the third section of the question answered ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: Yes, it is answered by the first.


Alexander Martin: It is not answered by the first. I must say that these questions are not answered. The third section of the question reads :
If not, is the question to be submitted for decision to the Privy Council of England or the Supreme Court of Canada ?
Is that answered ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, that is answered, * no the same as the first part of the question.


DREDGING AT RUSTICO HARBOUR.
Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	What has been done by the government during 1904 to dredge the harbour at Rustico, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Has the sandbank in the harbour been removed ?
3.	If not, what steps are to be taken to remove it ?
4.	How much has been spent on this work last season ; what were the means used in performing the work, and who had charge of it ?
5. How many vessels were lost or stranded on this bar during the season of 1904 ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: No dredging was done during 1904.
5. According to information supplied by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, only one vessel was reported wrecked at Rustico, during the year 1904.


RESOLUTIONS RE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AUTONOMY.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to give notice of resolutions in connection with the Autonomy Bill and when we may expect these resolutions.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is not expected that the second reading of this Bill will be taken for some time to come. I cannot say when the resolutions will be introduced, but they will be introduced in ample time for consideration on the second reading of the Bill.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.: I would like to call the attention of the ministers to the delay in bringing down returns. The delay seems a little inordinate ; may be it is not, but I would like to draw the attention of the Premier to the following : There are the returns from the Minister of Railways with reference to the hay transport question. We think that by this time they should be ready and we would like to get them as soon as possible. Then there is one with reference to the Royal Mint and another, of which I cannot complain, because it has not been passed so long, with reference to public buildings in towns of 5,000 population, or less. That is a return which should take a very short time to prepare and I would be glad to have it as soon as possible.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I might explain with reference to the motion for a return for papers connected with the transportation of hay that the mails and trains have been so impeded in Cape Breton that we have not been able to gather up the certificates. They have to be brought in from the different stations to Moncton and then forwarded on here. We have been waiting for a complete return and I can assure my hon. friend that the information will be brought down (at the earliest possible moment.


George Eulas Foster: That is a fair excuse unless we throw it back on the minister and say he is there to see that the trains are kept running.


COMMON'S STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Alexander Martin: Before the Orders of the Day are called >1 would like to ask the Minister of Marine if the steamers have succeeded in renewing communication with Prince Edward Island ? What was the last trip the steamers made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not informed that the ferry has been resumed. I understand the last trip was made a fortnight or three weeks ago.


Alexander Martin: That is very indefinite. Is it not four weeks V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not the exact date.


Alexander Martin: Has communication been renewed or is it still at a standstill ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Communication has not been renewed.



QUESTIONS RE TRANSCONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F,. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government if questions concerning the doings of the Transcontinental Railway Construction Commission can be answered and information can be obtained in regard to those questions, when they are asked in the usual form. I am tempted to seek this information because, on the 20th February instant, I put the following question :
1.	Did the government, during the months of October and November, 1004, employ civil engineers to make a -survey for a line of railway in the county of Joliette, Quebec ?
2.	For what object was this work and survey undertaken by said engineers, and was this work and survey undertaken in connection with the proposed Transcontinental Railway ?
3.	What was the total cost of this work and survey already accomplished by said engineers and their assistants ?
4.	Have said engineers made their report concerning this work and survey ? If so, what was the date of said report ?
5.	Who was the overseer charged with the direction of this work, and what salary did he receive ?
This question was answered in the following form :
['I must rule the point of order well taken according to rule 24, which says :\nAll items standing on the orders of the day shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order book ;-\nBut there is a reservation made for government measures.\nThe right being reserved to the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list in the rotation in which they are to be taken on the days on which government Bills have precedence.\nI\tfind this amendment is identical word for word with Bill No. 4 which stands on the order paper as a public Bill.\nBill reported.']
Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON ^Minister of Railways and Canals). The government did not during the months of October and November employ civil engineers to make a survey for a line of railway in the county of Joliette, but I have reason to assume that the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners made a survey through that county, not under the direction of the government.
The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the government 5s that it seems to me that the Transcontinental Mr. FOSTER.
Construction Commission, is so to speak, a department of the government. I believe that under tbe rules, questions can be put in tbis House to the government, to the ministers and to individual members. This last form is seldom adopted. Most of these questions in fact can only be answered by information sought in the different departments, sometimes far from Ottawa. That information is obtained from officials of the government at some remote places. It seems to me that a question put in tbis form is pertinent and should have been answered on the principle that tbis commission is really a servant of the government. Tbe practical object of my question is to know in what form, according to the rules, questions must be put. If they are put in the form suggested to me by the government, will questions be answered or is tbe Transcontinental Railway Commission a body independent of tbis House ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is to be found in a motion of which my hon. friend has himself given notice, asking all information with regard to these surveys. When the motion is reached, I have no doubt it will be carried, but it will have to be amended, because tbe information has to be obtained from the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and not from the government.


Mr. MONK.: Perhaps my right hon. friend will allow me to say that that is not the information which I sought by my question. Tbe information sought by the question I put was simply in relation to the fact. In the motion I asked for a copy of the report, detailed accounts of expenses and the names of the parties employed. The question I put had reference to a department of the government, and I think should have been answered in tbe form in which it was put.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend wants the information, he will have to make a motion. We have not the information in our hands, hut shall have to obtain it from the commission itself.



Mr. J. H. LAMONT (Saskatchewan).: Mr. Speaker, before tbe Orders of tbe Day are called, I wish to ask tbe Prime Minister if tbe Bill providing for tbe creation of the province of Saskatchewan fixes the permanent capital at Regina, as stated in one of the evening papers yesterday ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. It is provisional only, and subject to the will and the determination of the legislature.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 36) to amend the Railway Act, 1903.-Mr. FitzPatrick.	|)

On section 1-tenure of office of chief commissioner if ex-judge.
William Findlay Maclean: -Apparently it is the intention of the government to go on with this proposition and to recognize the principle of the promotion of judges. In a former discussion in this House I tried to show that it was bad policy to introduce this principle in this country, and I still hold the samd opinion. The ends of justice will be better served if those who are appointed judges remain where they are, if hopes of translation to other boards or courts are not held out to them, if once they have taken office they concentrate their efforts entirely upon the interpretation of the law and the doing of justice, instead of trying to earn promotion to some other sphere where the emolument is greater. Bearing on that, I wish to read the opinion of a newspaper which is supposed to reflect the sentiments of the farmers of this country. Last week the ' Weekly Sun ' said :
Is it desirable that judges should he open to promotion by the government of the day ? To ask the question, it seems to us, is to answer it. The courts must be free from any suspicion of subjection to political pressure, and how can such freedom exist if judges can be promoted at the will of the government ? Give to an administration power to advance a judge who strains the laiy to favour the party in power in an election trial, and we shall at once have all the evils of an elective judiciary with none of the advantages of that system.
Once a man is appointed to a seat on ihe bench it should be clearly understood by all concerned that he has nothing further to hope for or fear at the hands of the government of the day.
This utterance, which is supposed to reflect the opinion of the every-day farmer and the ordinary citizen of this country, expresses good policy. It is on the line of the precedent established in the old country. It is in the public interest that our judges should not have the chance of being promoted to offices with higher salaries, but that they should concentrate their whole lives to the doing of justice in the sphere in which they are placed. Hon. gentlemen opposite have asked, should a judge not aspire to promotion ? I say he should not ; I say that the door ought to be shut on such aspirations. True, this may be somewhat detrimental to the judge ; but it is not the hopes or prospects of the judge that ought to govern us, but the doing of justice and the maintaining of the integrity of the bench, which is of much higher concern to the people of this country. I leave that point -simply with that statement, and I go on to the next point, that is, that the government propose to make the chairman of the Railway Commission removable only upon an address of the Senate and House of Commons. This is a direct reversal of the policy that was laid down here by the government when they passed the Railway Act through this House. When they introduced the Bill
to establish a railway commission consisting of the chairman and two assistant commissioners, they said : we do not intend to have these men placed as judges, but as lieutenant governors. The Hon. Mr. Blair, when introducing the Bill-said this :
The opinion of council, in going over the Bill,
was that it would be desirable to place the members of the commission very much in the same position as lieutenant governors under the British North America Act. It is a very cumbrous proceeding to invite the action of the Senate and House of Commons by an address. Cases might arise in which it would be very important and desirable that prompt action should he taken without waiting for a session of parliament.
Yet the proposal now is to absolutely reverse the policy that was then laid down as being in the public interest. I will Quote from what Mr. Blair said in that respect:
The Bill which we submitted last year contained, and the present Bill, when printed, will be found to contain a clause providing that the members of the commission are only removable on an address of both Houses of parliament to the Governor General. This, on full consideration, we concluded to change, and although the Bill when it is distributed will contain such a clause, it is an oversight which will he remedied iu the committee. We propose that the members of the commission shall be removable in the same manner as the lieutenant governors of the provinces, namely, by the Governor General in Council for cause.
Now, I think the government are bound to give a reason for this reversal of policy. They said they wanted to have the members of this Railway Commission occupy the same status as lieutenant governors and they took power to the Governor in Council to remove them for cause. Now they are introducing a Bill to provide that the chief commissioner, if he happens to be a judge, can be removed only on an address of both Houses of parliament. A very interesting incident came up in the Railway Committee room this morning. We were discussing how the public might be relieved from certain conditions that exist in connection with railways, and it was argued w ith great vehemence by railway representatives that this Railway Commission was not only judicial but legislative.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: In what respect is it legislative ?


William Findlay Maclean: Read the Act in any of its sections almost, and you will find evidence of my statement. Take clause 25 :
The board may make orders and regulations limiting the rate of speed at which railway trains and locomotives may run in any city, town or village or any class of cities, towns or villages described in any regulation ; and if the board thinks fit the rate of speed within certain described portions of any city, town or village, and allowing another rate of speed in other portions thereof.
Section 25 (f). The board may make orders and regulations with respect to the rolling stock

apparatus, cattle guards, appliances, signals, methods, devices, structures and works, to he used upon the railway so as to provide means tor the due protection of property, the employees of the company and the public.
All through that Act, this railway company is given practically legislative powers. The Minister of Railways argued all morning in the Railway Committee that great power in matters of legislation were practically vested in this Railway Commission. Then I come to this point, which I commend to the right hon. gentleman who says he has always been an apostle of responsible government. Where you have legislative powers conferred on anybody, ought not that body to be responsible ? If this Railway Commission is vested with legislative powers and functions, it should be responsible to parliament, and it was with that intention that the law was made as it passed two years ago. Mr. Blair's argument was that the only way in which you could keep a check on this Railway Commission and compel it to discharge its duties was to make it responsible to parliament, that was why the commissioners were made removable by Order of the Governor General in Council, and in thus limiting their tenure of office, their conduct could he discussed in this House and relief obtained where required. If the conduct of these commissioners is subject to discussion in this House, then the responsibility will rest on the government either to remove them, if the House has censured their administration or change the law. It seems to me that the public interest demands that this commission should be kept' as it is * and the chairman, as well as every other member of that commission, be removable by Order of the Governor General in Council. I make the charge boldly that the government, by tliis amendment to the Railway Act which they are asking us to pass, are reversing their policy. Now that the elections are over, they are taking a step backwards in the interests of the railway companies ; and because I brought Judge Killam's name into the debate, not in any spirit of criticism as regards that gentleman, who justly holds a high place in the judiciary, but because I thought that the government were not justified in placing the chairman of the commission, whether he might be judge Klllam or anybody else, in a different position from that provided under the present law, the right hon. gentleman said I was casting a slur on a distinguished member of the bench. I was not doing anything of the kind, but the right hon. gentleman and his government are casting a slur on the policy they adopted two years ago. and which they led the public to believe Would be maintained.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will of course understand that when I say I cannot do better than refer him to the debate Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
that has already occurred for an answer no discourtesy is intended. Almost everything my hon. friend lias just said was then argued with equal force* and emphasis, and I then endeavoured to reply as well as I could. My hon. friend knows the views I hold in common with himself respecting the promotion of judges meets with my entire approval, but the views he and I hold in common do not appear to have got beyond the apostolic stage. We are both apostles of a new idea, and new ideas do not advance as rapidly as we would like. In this country the principle of no promotion for a judge lias never been accepted or acted upon, nor has it been acted upon in England to any great extent. It has been stated in England in the abstract, but has not been lived up to. In the present instance however, we are not dealing with the question of promotion, but with the question of the translation of judges from one sphere to another.
We transfer the judge from the position of judge of the Supreme Court to the position of chairman of the Railway Commission. That brings me to the other question my hon. friend brought up-the question of tenure of office. I understand him to put his argument in this way: It was intended, when this Railway Act was introduced, to make these Railway Commissioners practically controllable by parliament; the intention was that their conduct might be discussed in parliament with greater freedom than would be possible if they were judges. But I would point out that there is nothing here that departs from the principle laid down in the Railway Act. We do not depart from the principle of removal of members of the commission by the Governor in Council. We maintain that principle. But with respect to one particular class of persons, the judges of this land, we provide that if one of them is taken from his court and made chairman of the Railway Commission, his tenure of office should continue as it was before. It is not a question whether the chairman of the Railway Commission shall or shall not be removable by vote of parliament, but it is a question whether or not we shall take to ourselves the right to extend the sphere within which we may select our chairman of the commission, and whether we shall or shall not so arrange our legislation as to put us in a position to go to our judges and say to them: We can requisition your services for this position without in any way interfering with your tenure of office. We do not go beyond that. We do not say that if a layman is made chairman of the commission he shall not be removable by the Governor in Council, or that the two other commissioners shall not be so removable. The general rule with regard to the tenure of office remains the same; all we say is that if we hapen to take a judge as chairman of the commission then, with regard to that particular individual, his tenure of office as

1605T
judge shall not be altered. I hope my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) understands that. These are the facts. If he misapprehends the Bill, it may be because he has studied newspaper reports about the Bill, rather than the Bill itself.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. minster permit me to answer him in one word?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister says that this is an exception, and an individual case. I venture the prediction that every appointment hereafter will be of a judge from the bench, so that from this time forward-and that is the intention of the Bill-this principle shall always apply to the chairman of the commission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, my hon. friend will realize that my obligation is to deal with the Bill and not with his predictions. His predictions vary so that it would be, perhaps, embarrassing to follow them. I would like him to do as I am doing-to deal with the Bill and leave the predictions aside. And let me ask him if my statement is not correct as to the actual provision of this Bill. Does not the tenure of office remain the same as it is now for members of the commission except in one particular case?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister is begging the whole question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I put the question if not to my hon. friend, to the House for his benefit. Does the general principle of appointment and tenure of office remain the same as before?


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him a question?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Does not it follow that under this exception the general principle can be ignored for ever in the future?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend has not answered my question, but I will answer his. The general principle remains the same as before. If, in the future, instead of asking a judge to become chairman of the commission, we choose a chairman from the bar, or from outside the legal profession, he will be removable by the Governor in Council. There is no use in dealing with predictions about it. We have to take the responsibilities' for the legislation we have introduced, But we want the legislation to be understood, and we want the House to pass upon the measure and not upon some misapprehension of the measure.


Mr. SPROULE.: This is class legislation with a vengeance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may be so in the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) but, of course, I cannot be expected to take that view. But, I would like to state my case in the meantime


Mr. HAGGART.: Will the minister answer this question: Suppose that two other commissioners are appointed under the same tenure of office as this chairman, what would become of the general principle of appointment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
John Graham Haggart: It is confined them, to the chief commissioner ? I thought it applied to all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is confined absolutely to the chief commissioner. And there is a reason for that. The chairman, so far as questions of law are concerned, is the supreme arbiter. His ruling upon a question of law is binding upon the commission. Therefore, it is desirable that we should have a man in that position-that honourable and important position-who has not only the necessary legal attainments, but, in addition, has had judicial experience. AVe think that, under certain conditions, this may prove most desirable. The chairman practically plays the part of a judge. From his judgment on points of iaw there are few appeals, and these under most restricted conditions. Now, we say, that, in order to enable us to secure the services of such a man, it is desirable to amend the law in this particular. I do not think I can add anything to this, I fear I have wearied the House by repeating what I have said before. But let the legislation be understood. I do not want the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). -I say it without any discourtesy-to misrepresent the Bill, or hon. members generally to decide upon anything except the Bill itself.


Mr. LENNOX.: I rise with some diffidence to speak upon this question, for certainly it is a question of difficulty. I do



not think it is free from doubt whichever way you look at it. Having given it consideration both when it was put before the House and to-day, and having listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I am obliged to say that, in my opinion, the departure now being made is attended with danger. It is quite true that this Bill applies only to the chief commissioner. But, that being the case it applies to one who, as the Minster of Justice has said is in the position of a supreme arbitrator. A good deal of discussion has taken place throughout the country as to the peculiar and special powers that are given to the chief commissioner. But I apprehend that is absolutely necessary that these powers should be intrusted to the one who occupies that position. In this commission we have virtually two courts sitting, a court of three for the trial of questions of facts, and a court of one for the trial of questions of law. We must confine the decision of these cases of law, in the first instance, to some one who has a knowledge of law and is able to decide them. [DOT] But all the same, we are giving this chief commissioner a great deal of power, very much more than we are giving to any' of the others, and in proportion as we are giving him more power it is essential that we should be in a position, whatever his feelings might be, to control those powers in the interest of the country, in case it should happen-and that is possible, though not probable-that he does not appear to be acting in the interest of the country. There can be a great deal said in favour of the legislation that is now proposed. It is the same class of legislation that we are applying, as I understand, to the Auditor General. Is that correct ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: In the case of the Auditor General, we have on many occasions pointed out the great benefit of the system we there adopted. I am convinced yet that it is a benefit. The difficulty that I see is this, that it removes to some extent the control that we have over the chief commissioner, and introduces what I regard as a great danger, the danger of political influence. In the case of the Anditor General there is no great power that can be rallied by him in his support so that he can virtually defy parliament. There is no great power that can be rallied against him so as to do him an injustice, or do the people an injustice by dismissing him when he is there in the interest of the people. But in the case of a chief commissioner who is controlling to a large extent the great railways and corporate interests of the country, there can be a lobby of such stupendous influence invoked as has never been presented probably upon any occasion in this House of Commons. When a question arises in this House we are confronted with great corporate interests, but usually by a corpo-Mr. LENNOX.
rate interest of one great railway alone, and fortunately for the balance of power, we have another great corporate interest, another great railway company, probably minimizing to some extent the influence of the other. But when we come to deal with these we have the possibility of that kind, the corporate influence of all the great railways of this country, and they are growing greater every year. We may have the influence of all the great railways on the one side and the people demanding a dismissal upon the other ; and I venture to say, without any reflection upon parliament or upon any member thereof now sitting here or who may sit here, that it is not in the interest of this country, at least it is very questionable whether it is in the interest of this country, that we should have an official as commissioner in that position, as regards our right of removal. It is a very serious question, one of the most serious which parliament has been confronted with. It is a very radical departure from the principle upon which this matter was introduced in the first instance. It is a departure as to the appointment and control of at least a third of the commission, yes, more than a third, because it is the chief commissioner that has most control, the one who interprets the law. He has three-fourths as much power as the power of the ether two combined. Therefore, though I do not want to be extreme, because I recognize the importance of looking at this matter calmly, still I desire to call attention to the1 fact that a great question is at issue here, and it behooves us to be careful In what we do. We may be confronted in the near future with the position of having a commissioner whom we virtually have not power to remove in the way that is proposed. Now, let me point out one other thing that probably several lion, gentlemen have thought of, though I do not think it has been mentioned. We might have this position of things, we might have a judge, or there might be in the eye of some administration a person for this position who is not a judge, but there is nothing to prevent them making him a judge, and so translating him from a judgeship to a commis-sionersliip in order to make him come within this provision. The Minister of Justice has said, and no doubt sincerely, that it only applies to a case where we remove a gentleman from the position of a judge and put him In this position, but we can put a gentleman in the position of a judge and within a week, or a month, or a year, remove him to the position of chief commissioner, and then this law applies to him. So you see what vast power, what vast political influence can be invoked under this provision. I do not mean for a moment * that the administration have that object in view, that is not my view of the matter.
I say that I wish to approach this statute exactly in the way the Minister of Justice says we should, and to deal with it after

looking at all possible eventualities. I am surely within the judgment of this committee when I say that this is a difficulty that may arise.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) supposes a case where the government, in order to bring a commissioner within the provision of this Act, might appoint a person as judge for the purpose of raising him to the office of commissioner. Not to say anything of the gross indecency of such a proceeding, I would like to point out that it would fail of its purpose. The commissioner is appointed for ten years, a judge at the expiration of ten years has not acquired a right to anything, he has no title to compensation. Now, with respect to the first question the hon. gentleman has put, when he says there may be danger resulting from the appointment of a man who is practically irresponsible. Of course, I do not admit that if a man is responsible to parliament he may be correctly described as irresponsible, but where he is practically irresponsible because of any inconveniences that would result from the proceeding such as adopted in the case of a judge. Does my hon. friend not remember that, assuming all the corporate influence brought to bear upon the commissioner, assuming his present position, and assuming him to remain in his present position, he would be just as liable to be subject to that corporate influence if l$f were a commissioner and held his position subject to the control of the Governor in Council, as at present.


Haughton Lennox: What I mean is this, that we may find that this chief commissioner is not acting in the interests of the people, but that, in our judgment as representatives of the people, he is acting in the interests of railway corporations. We attempt to remove him and then that corporate influence is marshalled and brought into this House into the lobbies, and we are unable to remove him.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand my hon. friend to say that if improper influences were exercised over the commissioner, as he holds his office subject to the control of the Governor in Council, there would be in the Governor in Council power to control that commissioner to the extent of obliging him to do what is right. That is what my hon. friend says.


Haughton Lennox: No

if my hon. friend
will pardon me for interrupting him. I do not mean necessarily an improper influence. I mean that the commissioner may not appear to be acting in the interest of the country-may be with the very best intentions and according to his judgment; but it is a case where we find it is not in the interests of Canada that that gentleman should occupy the position.
51*


Charles Fitzpatrick: In effect our positions are the same. My hon. friend sees that the interests of the country are better protected by the fact that the commissioner holds his office subject to the control of the Governor in Council. .That is so, is it not ? Now, my hon. friend is not forgetting the fact that the best control you have over any ruling or any decision given by the board is the fact that the same Governor in Council can, on appeal, set any one of these rulings aside. That is the best control you can exercise. It is not necessary that they should cancel the commissioner's appointment. If an improper ruling is made by the commissioners, all that a person who has suffered has to do is to take up the Railway Act, look at section 44 and he will find that the Governor in Council has power to amend or rescind that ruling on appeal. What more effective control could you have than that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to say that I think this Bill has many objections and presents a great danger. It seems to me that we are consecrating by legislation the principle of the promotion of judges, and thereby incurring the danger that has been mentioned by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). It is sufficient to look at a paragraph in the clause under consideration to see that it involves the consecration of the principle of the promotion of judges, a principle which has never been admitted in England.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, it has been admitted,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It has bipen departed from on rare occasions and departed from here.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not' on rare occasions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: On rather rare occasions. I would go the full length of what my, hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said ; I would not be prepared to admit the principle that a judge can be promoted, even in his own court, to the presidency of the court. The hon. Minister of Justice knows better than I do that this question has given rise to a great deal of discussion. I do not think you can find a single statute where the principle is as clearly enunciated as it is in this Bill we now have under consideration. Besides that, the hon. Minister of Justice has himself intimated that we probably will follow that practice. It was not a prediction that my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) made. He was arguing from the inconvenience that would be caused in the future by this Bill if carried, and the hon. Minister of Justice himself says that we require as the president of this tribunal a man who not only knows the law, but who is accustomed to the judicial interpretation of the law. That is an intimation, a very natural one, but a very clear intimation, that not only will we con-

secrate the principle of the promotion of those who are called upon to discharge these functions, but it is probable that in future we will not only choose men who have a knowledge of the law, but men who are accustomed to the exeycise of judicial functions. Of course, I quite recognize that the possibility of anything such as was suggested by the hon. gentleman who spoke before me is a very remote one. I do not think, as the hon. Minister of Justice has said, that we will at any time-although we see very extraordinary things nowadays -place a lawyer upon the bench to transfer him immediately to this important position, but I think it presents a danger of a different kind, and it is more than probable that if this policy is consecrated by the House, and if what was intimated by the hon. Minister' of Justice is carried out, this position may become a shelving position, a place where we will shelve judges who have had some experience on the bench, and I think the principle that we are now called upon to consecrate is a dangerous one. But I would like further to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to this anomaly : We are establishing by this Bill a varying tenure of office. If we take a judge and place him in that position, making him independent of the executive, we are establishing a peculiar and special tenure of office. I am very far from disapproving of that principle ; I think it is an excellent one. I would argue that the members who compose this commission ought to be in that position. Upon that point I differ from my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I revert to the old principle establed by the Settlement Act in 1701. Judges occupying high positions, occupying seats in the superior courts, ought all to be placed in the position that they cannot be removed except upon the joint address of both Houses. My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) says that they are not open to criticism if we give them that tenure of office. They are. Judges can be criticised in this House freely. Their decisions are open to criticism by the representatives of the people, but their removal from office can only be subject to this important condition that the executive can only act upon the address of both Houses. Is that a too protected position to give men occupying seats upon what I would call a most important tribunal in the country I do not think so ; in fact, I would almost argue- although this view is one which I have not carefully considered-that according to the spirit of our Constitutional Act of 1867. if not according to the letter, they have the right to that protection, because, if I remember the section well, all judges or superior tribunals are named by the federal authorities, and can only be removed on a joint address of both Houses. I would go to the length of saying that if the federal authority creates the tribunals that are called the superior courts, the judges are en-Mr. MONK.
titled to that protection. But my hon. friend the Minister of Justice sees what my objection is. It makes the tenure of office a varying one. If the office has been occupied by a judge for several years, it may afterwards be occupied by a man who has not had a seat on the bench, and who will be removable at will. I think that is objectionable. We ought to fix the tenure of office in an irrevocable way, and I am quite prepared to accept the tenure of office which I think would be the most suitable for a man occupying a position of that kind. There is another point of some importance worth the consideration of the committee, and it is this : Not only is the tenure of office of the chief commissioner a varying one, but it differs from that of the two other judges, if I may call them judges. I think they are. In the case of a judge being promoted to this position, he is in that position of independence which has always been considered, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, a matter of the supremest importance. He is independent of the executive, but his two colleagues who sit with him, whose jurisdiction is the same, except in one particular pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and who ought to be, I submit to this committee, in the same position of independence as the president of the tribunal, are in a very different position indeed. They are subservient to the executive and can be removed by the government. At any rate, they do not occupy that position of independence, which, under the special circumstances contemplated by this Bill, is assigned to the chief commissioner. I think that is very objectionable. I think the three members of the tribunal, although their attributes may differ in the particular pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, ought to be placed on the same basis of independence. I do not know whether I expressed that opinion last year when the Bill was up for consideration, but my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will remember that the discussion upon that Bill was very long, and I, for one, would be of the opinion that they all ought to be placed under the same tenure of office. These men are called upon to decide most important questions. Their jurisdiction covers matters involving thousands and millions of dollars and, from a material point of view, they are occupied with things of far greater monetary value, as a rule, than are any of the other tribunals of the country. I think, under these circumstances, they are subject, as all judges are. to dangerous influences, and to render them perfectly independent I do not think we could do better than to apply to them that very important principle which was adopted in England at the time it was first consecrated in the Settlement Act.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to find that the principle I advocated when

tlie resolutions were first introduced to the House seems to be very unanimously supported by both sides of the House. The principle may be departed from in some instances in Great Britain and perhaps in this country, but it is the principle which underlies the appointment of all judges in any part or portion of the empire, particularly in the Dominion, that when a man gets the appointment of judge he must expect to remain in that position for the full tenure of his office and must expect no promotion. If you depart from that principle once then you' offer to the judge an opportunity of becoming a political partisan, because the support of a political partisan may give him promotion from one court to another. However, I am glad to find out that that principle of mine is supported by the Minister of Justice and is very generally adopted throughout the House. Now as to the other point, the tenure of office of judges when this Bill-I may call it an extraordinary BUI-gave to some gentlemen in this country greater powers than are given to any other gentlemen that I know of in any other part or portion of the world, it was intended to give them greater powers. When the exMinister of Railways introduced the Bill he intended to make this a court, and if I remember rightly, the commissioners were not to be removed without cause and only by address of both Houses of parliament. I protested, and if I remember rightly the right hon. gentleman who leads the government agreed with me. that the appointment should be during good behaviour or subject to removal by the Governor in Council. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) says that we have ministerial responsibility for this now, in the matter of appointment. What we wanted when the Bill was passed was to have legislative control over every action of that commission, and to have them directly responsible to this House through ministerial responsibility. You appoint a man who is only removable by addresses- of both Houses of parliament and to that extent the right hon. gentleman who leads the government at the present day is relieved from any ministerial responsibility in the case. The Minister of Justice.says 'no,' we retained that under the Bill ; we have the power of revising any judgment that is given by this commission from time to time and of altering and amending it. They have on their own motion, if I understand the Bill, power to revise any judgment of the commission. The Minister of Justice would argue that that ministerial responsibility continues. How does it continue ? Suppose they alter, amend or find fault with the judgment of the chief commissioner. How are they to punish him ? He is not removable by the Governor in Council : he will go on giving the same opinions from time to time, forever. The anomaly of it is this: there are two parties on this commission who are directly responsible to this House and to the country for all their judgments ; there is one whose tenure of office is entirely different, who is placed in the position of a judge, and whose opinions this House has no way of correcting, judging, altering or doing anything to unless there is some cijuse and an address is made by both Houses of parliament finding fault with him and asking for his removal. That is exactly the position in reference to the chief commissioner who is placed in the position of a judge. I differ from my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) altogether, in reference to the contention that these parties ought to be given the powers of judges. For exceptional reasons extraordinary powers were given to the judgeg of this country ; for the interpretation of the laws, for the decision between the government of the country and the individual and for a great many other reasons the judges of the country have to be entirely independent of political pressure, of the pressure of the government or of legislative pressure of any kind. This is an entirely different court. This is a court which primarily was in the hands of the legislature altogether, through its representatives, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. For anything that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council did they were as directly responsible to parliament as it was possible to be. Is a chief commissioner appointed under this Act, with the tenure of office which is given him under this Bill, in that position ? I contend that he is in an entirely different one and that there is no reason under this Bill to change or alter the tenure of office of the party who is chief commissioner. It may have been difficult for the government to get a chief commissioner who will have their confidence who is well known to be an excellent judge and fitted in every respect for the office. If you have such a man, give him the position, make provision if necessary for his retiring allowance, but do not alter the tenure of office, do not deprive this government nor this legislature of the power of control exercised by the Railway Commission as appointed by this Act. Do not take away part of the powers of the legislature because this is nothing else than taking away part of the powers of this House, exercised in giving them a different tenure of office.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Hnggart) argues for ministerial responsibility with respect to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. My hon. friend will realize at a glance that the whole principle of the Railway Act under which the board was created, is a departure from that principle. The old Railway Committee of the Privy Council carried otft the idea which my hon. friend had in mind. It was in operation for a great many years, but in 1003 it was decided that we' should depart

from that principle and adopt the principle of a Board of Railway Commissioners, independent of parliament altogether, except in so far as parliament might exercise control over the commissioners in two respects, through the Governor in Council- mark you there is no direct control but control through the Governor in Council in two respects, first, in respect to the control in so far as appointment and tenure of office went, and then only in case they misbehave because their tenure of office was subject to their good behaviour. In addition to that parliament desired that that parliamentary control which my hon. friend speaks of should be exercised by the Governor in Council in the most absolute manner under section 44, I think it is, of the Railway Act, which provided that the Governor in Council not only should sit as a Court of Appeal, but that the Governor in Council should of his own motion have the right to interfere and to alter, vary or change any order made by the board. Now you have, in so far as control is concerned, the same supreme control over the action of the commissioners through the Governor in Council as you had before this Bill was introduced. There is no departure from that. What is the use of beating the air or fighting with windmills over this ?


George Eulas Foster: Who is the wind-mill ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK/ Let us realize what we are doing. We are now, Mr. Speaker, dealing with a concrete case, and my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) if I have understood, his argument correctly, agreed so far as the principle is concerned with respect to the particular appointment, but said: ' Make provision with respect to the particular appointment in the way you have provided, but do not make the principle general. Now we have departed from his view in this respect, that we have applied the principle to a class of persons and he wants to have It applied only to the individual. There is where I differ from my hon. friend from South Lanark.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice argues that when we passed the Railway Act we made a departure altogether from our usual method of trying these cases. I differ from him entirely, and if he will follow his own argument afterwards he will see tlie fallacy of it. It was only for the convenience of the Privy Council that we delegated to the commission the right of inquiry into these cases. The Minister of Justice says the residue of power is in the Privy Council, and, therefore, there is a responsibility to parliament. Then the argument of the Minister of Justice fails altogether. Here is a court appointed for the convenience of the Privy Council, and there is no giving away of any power which the Privy Council had in the past, only a delegation of power. The Privy Council retains Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the power all the time, and, as the Minister of Justice says, is responsible for the judgment of the commission. Parliament intended that this commission should be controlled by this legislature, but if you appoint to the commission parties who are in no way responsible to the government for their conduct, then you vary the power and control which this House had hitherto over the commission.


William Findlay Maclean: It has been contended in this House that the members of this commission are judges. They may be judges; I would not altogether dispute that, but they are more than judges. To them parliament has delegated the power to legislate in regard to railways, and I hold that when parliament has delegated powers it ought to have control. Parliament has retained control over all the commissioners except the chairman. The hon. Minister of Justice says that this case is an exception, and I wish to describe exactly what it is. This legislation is a reversal of the general principle by an exception that can be made continuous, that is, a complete reversal of policy. I have no doubt that it will be made continuous, and that for all time we shall have the chairman of the commission holding his office under a different tenure from that of his colleagues. Again, if we delegate parliamentary powers to these commissioners, making them more than commissioners, we ought to hold them in our hands as we did under the original law. But that is now changed in reference to the chairman of the commission, who happens to be a judge. I do not want to say anything personal, but I wish to ask if Mr. Justice ICillam asked for this change ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know whether he asked for the change or not. I know that we offered him the office and he has accepted. More than that, he is a most desirable appointment.


William Findlay Maclean: He is a most desirable appointment, and I would like to see Mr. Justice Killam accept the office under the original conditions, and under them give the country the benefit of his valuable services. I agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that it wouid be better to increase the salary in this case than to consecrate, as we are doing, the principle that judges may be promoted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to prolong the discussion in regard to the character of this commission, on which a great deal might be said. I do not agree that the commission was instituted in order to relieve the administration of administrative work. A his question has been studied a great deal in the United States and England, and I think that a perusal of what has been written on the subject will show that, on the contrary, the object of the institution of a Railway Commission is to remove the decision of cases

from the executive and to bring them under judicial consideration by making the Railway Commission a kind of tribunal. That being the view I take, I still think we ought to go the whole length and apply this tenure of office not only to the president of the commission, but to all its members, on account of the immense importance of the questions submitted to them and of the nature of their functions. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is perhaps able to say what was the tenure of office of the British Railway Commissioners. My recollection of what happened in England is that a railway commission was resorted to, but did not operate satisfactorily and has since been abandoned. Has my hon. friend the Minister of Justice had occasion to learn what was the tenure of office of the Railway Commissioners in England.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There were three appointed commissioners and two ex-officio -one each for England, Ireland and Scotland, and they Lad always to be superior court judges. In England the chief commissioner was the Lord Chancellor, in Ireland the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and in Scotland the Lord President of the Court of Session; that is, they took as chief commissioner the highest judical officer in the country. The term of office is for life.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thank the Minister of Justice for That information. My hon. friend from South York must see that in England they consider the functions of these men as essentially judicial functions, and they are all protected-they cannot be removed without the intervention of parliament.


Mr. COCKSHLTT.: The debate, as far as it has gone, seems to establish a few very plain facts. One is that we had a chairman of the Railway Commission and that we are now without him.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend has the habit of being exceedingly accurate, but he knows that the statement is not correct. We have a chairman now.


William Foster Cockshutt: We are making a further appointment under this Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have made it.


William Foster Cockshutt: Another point that is apparent is that the business of the country suffered by reason of the way the office was vacated. The chairman of the Railway Commission was a man of undoubted ability. He has dealt with very many important matters, and many other's were under consideration. These matters were in an unfinished state at the time he left the office. Without any apparent reason the office was vacated.
The business of the country, so far as this commission is concerned, has been at a standstill for upwards of three mouths, and what the country wants to know is who is going to pay the immense damage caused by this delay. This Bill takes no
cognizance of the main point which has been brought out by the experience of the past. That experience has shown that a man appointed to a high ftffice can lay it down at a moment's notice without paying to the country any damage for the losses caused by his conduct. Because the chairman of the Railway Commission gave up his high office at a moment's notice, the business of the country has had to suffer, yet we are now proposing to make a new appointment without taking any means to prevent the recurrence of similar conduct. The new appointment we are hedging about with every safeguard, so far as the incumbent is concerned. We are promoting a man from a judgeship to be the head of that commission. I know nothing of the ability of the gentleman appointed. He may be everything he is declared to be, and I take it for granted he is, but I would like to point out that the business of the country is no more safeguarded in this proposed legislation than it is in the present law. I read over the Bill carefully and I cannot find in it 3ny attempt to guard against a repetition of what has just occurred. Would the directors of any railway system appoint a man to manage that system and leave him perfectly free to resign without a moment's notice, either because he did not like the job or because he wanted to avoid some unpleasant or difficult business, or for any other reason, and leave him free to do so without giving any explanation and without their having any recourse against him. Under this Bill, it will be very difficult, almost impossible, to remove the chairman of that commission, but there will be n'o difficulty whatever on his part in laying it down. It seems to me that a safeguard should be provided so that he could not resign office without the consent of parliament. Parliament makes the appointment, and the consent of parliament should be required before he can he relieved of the office. I draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to that fact. We have had a long debate on the appointment of judges, but I have yet to hear any satisfactory explanation why the chairman should be at liberty to lay down the office without giving due notice, notwithstanding that important matters may have come before him and be awaiting his decision. A great deal of expense and loss and inconvenience has been caused by the resignation of the late chairman. That gentleman was a man of high standing, who commanded the confidence of the public, while he presided in that court. So fay as I am concerned, I always looked upon him as a higher authority than any hon. gentlemen opposite on railway questions, and particularly on the question of the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I looked upon him as an authority and the country did also.


An hon. MEMBER.: Up to what date ?


William Foster Cockshutt: Up to November, 1904. He certainly was an able man, but he held bis position onlj^ a brief time. During that time he had travelled a good deal about the country and heard many cases and in .many 0f these cases had not given judgment. But apparently without any reason, he lay down this office, and we are now proceeding to make an appointment in his place. But in making this appointment we are not benefiting by the experience of the past. That experience should teach us to require of the new incumbent due notice of his intention to leave the office and due responsibility for any damage which his sudden resignation might cause parties interested. I trust that the Minister of Justice will consider the point I have raised and consider it in the same spirit as that in which I submit it. The gentleman who has received the appointment may be as eminent and learned as we are told he is. but what guarantee have we that lie will not vacate his office without first obtaining our consent. We cannot remove him, but he may remove us. We cannot hold him, but he can hold us in the hollow of his hand, and he can step down and out at any moment without any regard to the business of the country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: , My hon. friend, no doubt, has considered this matter, as he does all matters, with a great deal of care. But he must not lose sight of the fact that if the chairman of the Railway Commission lays down his office before the expiring of the time fixed, he will loose his retiring allowance. If in addition, my hon. friend will give us the benefit of his business experience and suggest anything else we can do, I shall be very glad to consider his suggestion.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would suggest that he should give due notice of his resignation, so that the government may have some opportunity of putting some one in his place before he leaves the office. He could very well give due notice. He should be required to give decisions also in the cases he has had in hand. It seems to me that we ought to be able to make some provision which will prevent the holder of that office from giving it up without a moment's notice, leaving the business before the court unsettled, and saddling the parties interested with the delay and expense of going all over the proceedings again, and yet not be liable in the slightest degree to any penalty or damage.


William Findlay Maclean: The point to which my hon. friend has called attention is most important. No doubt the resignation of Mr. Blair is the only instance we have had of a man holding high office, throwing it up without giving any notice and without any regard to the cases that were pending before him. That is no doubt the only instance of the kind in our history, Mr. COCKSHUTT.
but it has had the worst possible effect on the morale of the whole service of the country. We have had the chairman of this Railway Commission resigning that office without warning, leaving a lot of unfinished business behind which he, as a judge sworn to do his duty, should have had completed, and doing this without any explanation. If the contention made by the Minister of Justice to-day is correct, the Minister of Justice and his colleagues are responsible for that Railway Commission.
I say, an explanation is due the country why that officer resigned. And there ought to be provision, whether in this law or in the general law against a recurrence of such a thing. It is a most deplorable thing, and some notice ought to be taken of it, some reprobation passed upon it. It is worthy of a resolution of this House, and perhaps such a resolution may be introduced this session. The case is that of a man holding the greatest office in this country abandoning that office, refusing to give judgment in cases he had heard, yet giving no reason for his conduct. And those who are responsible for his appointment and for the execution of the duties of that office have given no explanation. This is an injury to the public morals. The thing will not down. Those who are responsible must discharge their responsibility and explain the conduct of this man ; or if they are not in a position to explain it, they ought td free themselves from responsibility by letting censure rest upon him. And, having censured, they ought to make the law of the land such that so deplorable a thing cannot occur again.


George Eulas Foster: Did I understand the minister to say that there was a penalty upon the chief commissioner if he resigned in a pet, or, whether in a pet or not, suddenly, after large questions have been brought before him and leaving those questions undecided ? If he does this, he should lose part of his emoluments.
Mx\ FITZPATRICK. Taking the particular ease of the new chairman of the commission, the fact is that he must sit for ten years more in order to get the benefit of his whole retiring allowance. Up to this time, Mr. Killam has sat on the bench for twenty years, and, therefore, has acquired the right to a retiring, allowance of two-thirds of his present salary. His age, I believe, is fifty-five or something like that, and after he has held office for ten years longer, he will be able to retire with the full allowance that will be given him under this Act ?


Haughton Lennox: Under section two he can retire at the end of fifteen years with an allowance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: An allowance of two-thirds-that is what I said.


George Eulas Foster: This would be only ft partial disability then ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It means that he would not get the benefit of anything that would otherwise accrue' to him under this Act.


George Eulas Foster: The Bill makes provision for a chairman who ' has become afflicted with a permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office.' In such a case, does he forfeit any of his emoluments ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. His position is that of a judge. If a judge is appointed to-day and to-morrow becomes afflicted with a permanent infirmity he is entitled to retire on an allowance of two-thirds' of his salary. Or if a judge occupies his position for fifteen years and then retires, he gets two-thirds of his salary. Or, if he keeps a place on the bench for thirty years, regardless of his age he is entitled to retire on his full salary. If he has attained the age of 75 years and has been twenty years on the bench or if he is 70 years of age and has been 25 years on the bench he may retire on full salary. So far as Sir. Killam is concerned he has acquired the right to retire with a pension of two-thirds of his salary-that right accrued to him when he had been fifteen years on the bench. But he must sit ten years more-because then he will only be sixty-five years of age, but will have had thirty years on the bench-in order to get his full retiring allowance. If he retires in the Interval, no matter what the cause-permanent disability or anything else-he does not receive his full retiring allowance.


George Eulas Foster: Would bad temper be considered a permanent disability ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Some of us are infirm in that respect, 1 admit. But I hope that what happened before will never happen again. I think the penalty has been paid for what has occurred.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the minister think there is some way of meeting the point ? Is it not fair that a judge put in this important position, having matters involving great interests to decide, should be precluded-unless he is disabled by the act of providence or something of that kind- from resigning until business before him has been disposed of, under penalty of forfeiting something Tie has already earned ? I have not learned what the practical situation is in this other case-whether there has been serious delay of important matters, or whether cases have to be gone over again at heavy expense. But, if that were the case we should provide against it occurring again, if we can. For, the minister will observe, there are two evils. In the first place there is the long delay of unfinished business-now nearly three
months-because of the sudden termination of the career of one of the commissioners. Then, on account of that sudden resignation, if the evidence has to be gone over again, there is a duplication of expense and a very serious loss. Is it not reasonable that there should be some provision in the Bill to prevent a man from leaving undecided the cases he has heard ? That it is reasonable is shown by what right my hon. friend (Sir Wilfred I.aurier) said- concerning .Tudge Killam himself. He told us that Judge Killam would not accept this office at once, not because he was not willing to take the office and receive the emoluments, but because he said considerations of duty prevented. Judge Killam said: Litigants have come before me and I have heard their evidence and must give decision in these cases. I cannot accept the invitation of the Prime Minister until I have finished that business. That was honourable. That is the basis upon which these things should be done. But if a man is not controlled by such considerations, then he should be controlled by compulsion or under penalty. The minister could add such a provision with perfect propriety and I think the country would approve it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under ordinary circumstances I should hate-that is I should much regret-being asked to make provision of that sort in connection with an office so important as this, an office to which we should appoint men of the highest possible honour-and that ought to be the best safeguard in cases of this sort. Still, I realize, in view of the experience we have had, that something of that kind should be considered. The difficulty was suggested by ,my hon. friend when the Bill was introduced. I have considered it and, have not abandoned the idea of meeting the difficulty. I have considered an amendment of the General Railway Act to meet some of the difficulties caused by the resignation of Mr. Blair. For instance, two members of the board travelled far and wide over the country and took evidence in important cases. These cases were not disposed of at the time of Mr. Blair's resignation, and it was my painful duty to advise the remaining commissioners that, quite clearly, they could not decide these cases, for the reason J:hat one of them had not heard the evidence. We are endeavouring to meet that difficulty with the co-operation of Justice KJilam by communicating with the parties and asking 'if they will give their consent to the disposition of the cases by the board as now constituted. My intention, I may say, is to move an amendment to the Act which will enable us to deal with such cases in the future. That is going as far as I have seen it right to go up to the present time. But I must confess that some amendment is needed, though I do not commit myself before having con-

suited my colleagues by promising to make a provision in the direction indicated by my Uon. friend ; but X will be glad of any assistance 1 can get in the direction of making it impossible that what has occurred may be repeated ; and before the Bill is read a third time I will ask for an adjournment in order to consider any suggestions I may receive from any quarter.


George Eulas Foster: While my hon. friend is considering that, he must consider it doubly. There is the ordinary and general peccability and perverseness of human nature in the individual, an instance of which has been given in this case; but he must also remember that governments are liable to error; and the fact that such a state of things has arisen at all has been, in the first instance, because of lack of judgment in the appointing power, which is the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend does not expect I am going to introduce an amendment to correct that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. gentleman thought of applying the remedy that I think used to exist in France, under a very ancient law, providing that the judges could not get their breakfast until they had rendered judgment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am afraid that would be too harsh.
On section 3,


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is there an age limit with respect to the commissioners ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, the Railway Act, section 8, provides the age limit for
commissioners at seventy-five years.
On section 4,


Haughton Lennox: I have given notice to the Minister of Justice that upon the third reading of this Bill I propose to move that this clause be struck out. When the Bill was introduced I referred to this section, and gave some reasons why I thought it should not be left in the Bill. I do not propose to discuss the matter now, but merely to recall It to the attention of the minister, particularly in view of a good deal that has been said this afternoon.
On the preamble,


William Findlay Maclean: Before you proceed any further, I propose to add one or two clauses while we are in committee on this Bill. I move in amendment:
That section 3 of the Railway Act, 1903, is hereby amended by inserting after the word ' persons ' in the first line, the words ' and express companies.'
Section 3 reads :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways (other than government railways) within the legislative authority of the parlia-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
ment of Canada, and shall be incorporated and construed as one Act, with the Special Act, subject as herein provided.
In substance, I propose an amendment that has already been before the House in previous sessions, namely, that express companies shall come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. I am not going to take up the time of the House. I have often pointed out before that express companies are now doing more and more freight busirfess in this country, and their rates are not at present under the jurisdiction of this commission. I think they ought to be. Every one admits it. They are carrying more and more the freight of the country, they are carrying more and 'more a class of freight that needs to be handled quickly, and they are entitled to better terms for that. But as a matter of fact, all these express companies are the railway companies. They are owned and controlled by railway companies, the railway companies consider them as assets; and, as I pointed out, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in its annual report, calls the Dominion Express Company the property of its shareholders. These companies are doing more and more business, they charge now what they like. They are doing a freight business, they are owned by railways, and if the railways are to be regulated in their passenger rates and freight rates, they ought also to be regulated in their express charges. This same matter has come up at Washington the other day. A man of very large capital and engaged in some large industries in Michigan, went so far the other day as to petition Congress to take action which was in substance an impeachment of one of the members of the Senate. The charge which he made in substance was that the senator had acted in such a way as to entrench express companies so firmly that they could not be regulated in their charges and that all the railway interests were against any attempt at regulation. In fact, the entire business community of the United States is up in arms against the express charges in that country but so strong is the railway lobby in Washington that up to the present time they have not been regulated, they have not been brought under control and so strong is the express lobby backed up by the railway interests that the American government and the Postmaster General of that government are not in a position to establish a parcel post system like that which we have In this country and which they have in England and Germany. The Postmaster General of the United States himself is my authority for the statement that the express companies are so strong that they have prevented the adoption of a parcel post system. If we wish to regulate the express companies now is the time to regulate them. As an endorsement of what I have said to-day I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that boards of trade everywhere have asked

parliament to bring express companies within the jurisdiction of this Act.


Haughton Lennox: It was stated last year that possibly this amendment would conflict with some other parts of the Act. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who introduced the amendment has considered that question, and it would probably be important to the committee to know whether it is a fact that it does not require a change in any other part of the Act to give it full effect. I have not myself looked into the question, but the objection was raised last year when this amendment was introduced. While I am on my feet I would say, in regard to what my hon. friend has said about the Postmaster General of the United States, that we have a very high authority in this House on that subject. Towards the close of last session, the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) called the attention of the House to the fact that we could not establish a free rural mail delivery in Canada, because in the United States the government had to yield to the demand of the mail carriers for increased wages, thus throwing the whole system out of working order. This wgs because the letter-carriers resorted to the carrying of parcels, thereby interfering with the express companies, and the express companies were enabled by their influence to bring such pressure to bear on the American government that the American government had to yield. This is in line with what my hon. friend has moved and it shows the enormous powers of these companies.


Wilfrid Laurier: The government has no opinion to express at this moment upon the merits of the amendment introduced by my hon. friend for South York (Mr. Maclean), but I have to observe to him that his amendment is premature and that he is out or order.


William Findlay Maclean: In what way ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because it is already before the House upon a Bill introduced by my hon. friend. My hon. friend's amendment is couched exactly in the same language as the Bill which he has introduced, which is Bill No. 4 on the order paper, and which is set down for its second reading to-day or whenever it is reached. Section 1 of the Bill reads as follows
Section 3 of the Railway Act, 1903, is hereby amended by inserting after the word ' persons ' in the first line the words ' and express companies.'
That is the first section of the Bill introduced by my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And therefore it is out of order to move this section as an amendment to this Bill


William Findlay Maclean: In answer to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I beg to say that the procedure which I am following to-day is the procedure which we followed last session.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. I moved these amendments in exactly the same way and no objection was taken then, I consented to my right hon. friend taking four days in the week for government business relying on my being able to discuss these amendments. The right hon. gentleman is in this matter departing from the practice of parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Again I say that these amendments were brought up in this way last session and with the understanding that I would have an opportunity of moving them, I consented to the government taking four days in the week. Now, my right hon. friend may be able to close me | out, but I will ask the opinion not only of the chairman but of the House on this question. It is not going to facilitate the transaction of public business this session. I know what my right hon. friend wishes to do. He wishes to send me to the Railway Commission with my Bill. He brings in a new Bill of his own, we assist him all we can in getting his Bill through, but because I am a private member and he is the Prime Minster he has a law for himself, but he has not the same law for me. He may take refuge under a rule of order. I am going to sit down and let the chairman decide. I think I am quite in order and I hope the point will be discussed here before the ruling is given. Notwithstanding anything that is on the order paper, I say that when a public Bill is in committee it is the right and privilege of every hon. member, even if he is a private member, to make any amendment he sees fit to the Bill under consideration.


John Graham Haggart: Before the point of order is decided I -would like to discuss the question. A private member introduces a Bill in which there are certain clauses, the government introduces another Bill, and although it may be necessary to make the latter Bill workable that it should be amended, because the Bill introduced by the private member includes a clause similar in terms to a proposed amendment, you preclude a private member from amending the government Bill. I am aware of the rule of the House which declares that where a member gives notice of motion and it is on the order paper he cannot move that motion or what is set forth in that motion as an amendment to a Bill. The proper thing to do under those circumstances is to j drop the motion, but I do not think that rule applies at all or that it can be held that

when a private member introduces a Bill he is precluded afterwards from moving any clause of that Bill as an amendment to a public Bill.


Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that if, when he gave notice to amend Bill No. 30, he had looked at section 3, he would have found that the language he was using in the resolution would not apply to the section because he proposes to amend it by adding these words ' and express companies.' It was not necessary for the hon. gentleman to do that. All that he was required to give notice of was the word ' express.' Therefore, he would have got over the difficulty if he had paid attention to the wording and the objection raised by the right hon. leader of the government, would not apply to this case as I am afraid it does apply on account of my hon. friend having introduced his Bill first, as the right hon. leader of the government has said, and then having moved a resolution covering exactly the same thing afterwards.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hold that we have followed this practice for many years. It is a common thing in this House to have two or three Bills standing as amendments to the election law, when the government move to bring in a Bill and ask that the Bills introduced by private members be allowed to stand as they will incorporate the clauses contained in these Bills in the government measure. Although there is a rule which says that you shall not' anticipate what is on the order paper we do anticipate it by incorporating some of the clauses contained in these Bills, and when we have reached these Bills afterwards they have been allowed to drop. We have done that several times. All that my hon. friend would require to do, when he reaches his own Bill, is to say: I have incorporated the provisions that I intend to enact in this Bill, in an amendment to the Railway Act which you propose as a government measure, you have allowed me to do the same thing with Bills before and I am endeavouring to do it today.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would in the
first place answer m.v hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that the resolutions which he has addressed to the House have no bearing upon this occasion. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) gave notice of his amendment, but he required no notice of an amendment to a public Bill. Notice of amendments is required only in the case of private Bills and he could at the table offer an amendment to a public Billl if it affected ihe Bill. Therefore, the question is not affected one way or the other by the notice. The amendment which he offers to the House is simply that we shall take the first section of bis Bill and introduce it as an amendment in the present Bill. My hon. friend has been very candid as to why he acts in this man-Mr. HAGGART.
ner. He has a Bill before the House and he can move it; he has let the opportunity of moving it pass three or four times, to my knowledge, and why would he not move it ? Because the policy of my hon. friend is different from the policy of the government. I told him-it is on the record-when the Bill was first brought to the attention of the House that we had no opinion to offer upon it; we were not prepared to say yes or no. There is a good deal in the proposition he makes that express companies should be committed to the jurisdiction of the commission, but we informed my hon. friend that it was not our intention to take up this matter in the House; we wanted to refer it to the Railway Commission, there to be dealt with and discussed in the light of full information obtained from all parties interested in it. But this policy does not suit the convenience of my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: He will not have it this way and, therefore, because our views do not accord with his views, he will not accept the very reasonable offer which we made to him of referring this matter to the Railway Commission; he wants to get his Bill passed by a side wind, and he wants to bring it to the attention of the House in spite of the rules of the House. My hon. friend has no need of taking refuge and of crying misericordia because he is a private member; He has as much right as a minister to introduce legislation; he has availed himself of this right, but because the Bill we introduce does not suit him he wants to violate the rules of the House in order to offer his amendment to the House at this moment.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman quote the rule ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is much
latitude for amending. Any amendment may be brought in that has reference to the matter under discussion, but the rule is that if an amendment, which it is sought to introduce to the Bill before the House is already a notice for consideration on another proceeding, that amendment is therefore out of order. There is no doubt about that; every one knows it ; but my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has offered a most subtle distinction and it is this : That the rule will apply to a motion but not to a Bill.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where do you get that?


John Graham Haggart: I would say


Wilfrid Laurier: Allow me. It
has no bearing, it is all technicality and no substance. There is no proceeding before the House which can be initiated, whether it be a Bill or anything else, except upon a motion. The Bill of my hon. friend, Bill

No. 4, stands upon the order paper in this way :
Second reading of Bill (No. 4), an Act to amend the Railway Act.
When the Speaker comes to call this order he will put the question to the House and my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will move for the second reading of this Bill. Therefore, it is not necessary at all to say that this rule applies to a motion and not to a Bill. Every Bill must be introduced by a motion and it would be, I think, the most extraordinary proceeding that a rule of that kind should apply when there is a motion and should not apply when it is a Bill under discussion. What is the essence and the object of this rule? It is simply to ensure that a matter which is before the House cannot be taken from its order as a substitute for another order. That is the ruling given by previous speakers. Bourinot, at page 442, note (i) says :
It is not regular to move as an amendment to a question a motion of which notice has been given-and when it appears on the notice paper in a particular place.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Speaker Oui-met decided in 1889 (Journals, page 214):
It is not in .accordance with the rules or parliamentary usage to take a motion out of its proper place, and move it as an amendment to another question.
Is it more in accordance with the usage of parliament to take a Bill out of its proper place ? To say that you cannot take a motion out of its place, but you can a Bill, is not sense, or I might use even stronger language. My hon. friend will have to exercise a good deal of reasoning in order to satisfy the House of the extraordinary proposition that a motion cannot be taken out of its order and a Bill can.
Then, May, which is a standard work on the principles of procedure, says :
Nor can an amendment he moved which anticipates a motion or amendment of which notice has been given on matters contained ia the order of the day.
So, therefore, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that according to the principles of parliamentary usage this amendment is out of order.


John Graham Haggart: In this case there has been no notice of motion given. My hon. friend proposes to amend a public Bill. The argument of the right hon. the Prime Minister is that this is virtually a Bill moved as an amendment to a public Bill. The rule of the House is clear, that no Bill can be moved out of its proper order. Is this the moving of a Bill out of its proper order ? The other rule which applies to motions something similar to this is that no motion of which notice has been given shall be moved in amendment to a public Bill, nor shall the substance of any motion. Does this come under either
category? Not at all. Look at the absurdity of the position. A private member or half a dozen private members may give notice of Bills proposed, say on election matters or on a dozen other questions, and they may intend to move them. Then, according to the argument that has been advanced, because one of them has a clause in it referring to a particular election matter, it would not be competent for another member to move a similar motion in amendment to a government Bill, because some member or perhaps half a dozen members in the House had introduced Bills along the same lines.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why certainly.


John Graham Haggart: The object of the rule is to prevent a motion or a Bill being by any means or in any form moved out of its proper order in order that the House should discuss it. The other reason is that when a party gives a notice of motion that the motion should be on the order paper of the House, and that he should have an opportunity of discussing that measure, and that no other member of the House, by a side wind or an amendment to a public Bill, should take the credit of the motion whicn some hon. gentleman has moved. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that this does not come within either of these categories; this is a clause in a Bill which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has introduced. He is moving it in amendment to a public Rill but that does not necessarily mean that it is the introduction of a Bill out of its ordinary course on the order paper.


Andrew B. Ingram: There may be a difference of opinion as to the rule of parliament in connection with this matter. I think the first minister was not present when this Bill was introduced on the 9th day of this month. At that time a certain understanding was come to between the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. the Minister of Justice in reference to the discussion of this Bill. The discussion is thus reported in 'Hansard.'
Bill (No. 36) to amend the Railway Act, 1903-* Mr. Fitzpatrick-read the second time.


Mr. SPEAKER.: When shall the House go into committee ?


William Findlay Maclean: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: What my hon. friend really wishes, I presume, is to move, by way of amendment, the different clauses of the Bill now in his name on the order paper.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it would be advisable to thresh them out in committee. There are some features in one of the clauses of his Bill which I think ought to be discussed.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not quite ready to go on now, but will be on Tuesday.
That seems to me to be a sort of understanding between the Minister of Justice

and the hon. member for South York. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman is fairly entitled to discuss his Bill now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is very kind indeed to champion the cause of my hon. friend from South York. If the hon. member for South York has had any understanding with me, I am quite sure he can state it himself, and I am willing to abide by it.


William Findlay Maclean: If the hon. Minister of Justice asks me to explain, I will say that I understood that I might bring up the substance of my Bill in connection with his Bill to amend the Railway Act. I think we had that understanding, and I leave the Minister of Justice to say whether or not that is the case. Of course, that is quite outside of the question of order. I do not care how it is settled. I wish to see the rules of parliament observed ; but last session we proceeded in this way, and no objection was taken, and for that reason I consented, as I might not otherwise have done, to the proposal to take four days of the week for government measures.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What my hon. friend from South York has said with respect to the understanding is absolutely correct, and I certainly was under the impression at the time he made the suggestion that he might move in committee. I was ignorant of the rule referred to by the Prime Minister. I do not want to break the rule of parliament, but I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me, that if the rule is such that the hon. member for South York cannot move now, a day ought to be fixed on which he could bring up his Bill for discussion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I certainly did not confer with the Minister of Justice before I raised this point. I did not know of the understanding between the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for South York, or I would not have raised it. I will not press the point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I recollect aright, there have been many Bills in the same position, and no objection has been raised before. We followed the course proposed with regard to the Franchise law, the Election law and the Alien Labour law.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend forgets that there is a difference between this occasion and the occasions to which he refers. On those occasions the government accepted the amendments, and the moment that was done, there was no question of order. But when a Bill of this kind is proposed, which the government does not accept, we have a right to invoke the rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is a strange argument-that one rule is to apply to the | government and another to private mem- | bers. I thought parliamentary rules were Mr. INGRAM.
to apply to the government and to private members alike ; but the Prime Minister has given an entirely different turn to them.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all. If, when a government Bill is under consideration, amendments are moved and the government accepts them, no point is raised on either side ; but if the government or any one else objects, the rule applies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was not the case. Those Bills were on the order paper, and it was suggested that they could be better included in government Bills than passed as separate Bills. When the Railway Act was under discussion some of those Bills were incorporated in it. That was done because it was the usual practice that had applied, not only to railway Bills, but to many others. Several times we held Bills over so that a portion of them might be incorporated in some government Bill.


Mr. WHITE.: I approach this question with a good deal of diffidence, I confess, because I have become somewhat rusty in my parliamentary law ; but I think the right hon. leader of the government is correct in his interpretation of the rule. A Bill starring on the order paper is really notice of a motion, and it seems to me that the rule that applies to motions would apply with equal force to public Bills. But there have been instances, and many instances, both under the present administration and under their predecessors, in which a public Bill introduced by a private member, or some of its provisions, have so commended themselves to the government that the government has been quite ready to accept them. The member who has introduced the Bill is advised by the government that they will accept either the whole Bill or certain portions of it; and when the Bill is reached on the order paper, it is either dropped or the member who has introduced it moves that the order be discharged, and the Bill is taken up as an amendment to a Bill of a similar character introduced by the government. My own opinion is that the right hon. leader of the government is correct in his interpretation of the rule ; but as there seems to have been an understanding between the hon. Minister of Justice and my hon. friend from South York, I am sure that the government will carry out that understanding and allow my hon. friend from South York to proceed with his amendments when this Bill comes up at a future stage, if not at the present sitting.


John Graham Haggart: Notwithstanding the statement of my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. 'White), I must say that I entirely differ from him. A Bill is not a motion. Motions have often been dropped,
* because their being on the order paper prevented members moving them as amendments to Bills. My hon. friend suggests

that because of an agreement made between the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member for South York, we can set aside all the rules of the House. That is an anomalous position. It is only by the unanimous consent of the House that a rule can be set aside. I have been in the House a long while, and I have never before heard the rule in question applied to a Bill. I have heard it applied to motions hundreds of times, and I have seen the motions dropped in order that the members making such motions might be in a position to move amendments to Bills. But while we live we learn, and I learn now for the first time that this principle applies, not only to motions, but to Bills.


Peter White: I feel that I ought to defer to the superior knowledge of my hon. friend from South Lanark ; but I frankly confess that when I had the honour of occupying the position of the Speaker of the House of Commons my hon. friend from South Lanark CMr. Haggart) and myself differed upon points of order very frequently. Not only he but the other members of the government, of which he was so distinguished an ornament at that time, also differed from me with regard to points of order and procedure. I had up to that time given considerable study to those subjects, and I do not think it is quite within the province of my hon. friend from South Lanark to say that I ever assumed that because there happened to be an agreement similar to that in the present instance between the Minister of Justice and the hon. minister for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), namely, that this question should be taken up when the Railway Bill was being considered, such an agreement can set aside the rules of this parliament. I do not believe it can. I do not think the rules of parliament can be set aside by any such agreement, but If the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for South York did come to the agreement in question, it seems to me that the government ought, in all fairness to the hon. gentleman, to agree to the proposition he makes, and have the matter he has brought up discussed when this Railway Bill is before the House either at this or some future stage.


William Findlay Maclean: While I agree in the opinions expressed by my grave and reverend co-members, I wish to say-and I would ask the Prime Minister to make a note of it-that when we are revising the rules of the House-and it is high time that we did-we should make provision that the same procedure ought to apply to public Bills as to government Bills. If a private member's Bill has to go to the Railway Committee so also should a government Bill. It is because there is a different procedure applied to public Bills than is applied to government Bills that I have to resort to parliamentary strategy and try to get my proposals discussed in connection with those of the government. The rule ought to be that exactly the same kind of treatment should be accorded to all amendments to the Railway Act. If that is not to be the case, and if I were introducing a Bill again to amend the Railway Act, I would simply put in one clause, a non-important clause, and keep my other ammunition in my pocket until the government Bill to amend the Act came up.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As far as I can judge, the point of order raised by the right hon. the first minister is well taken. From my reading of the rule, I think there can be no two opinions about it. I think we had better not depart from the good healthy practice of sticking closely to the rules of this House. We do not know where a matter of this kind may end. I do not see how this House can be called upon to recognize any agreement made between two individual members which is not known to every member. My position is this, I intend to vote for this amendment, whether it comes up as an amendment to the Railway Act or a portion of the Bill of the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). It makes no difference, so far as my position is concerned, whether I vote to-day on this proposition as an amendment to the government Bill, or on some other day, when it comes before the House in the form of a Bill; but I do think we had better stand by the rules of the House and not have it said that one hon. member must have one rule applied to him and another hon. member have the benefit of a different rule. Possibly in a very short time I may be ruled out of order on the very point now raised. Why should I not have the same privilege as my hon. friend from York ? I feel strongly that we should adhere to the rules of the House, and I desire to make it plain that, so far as my position is concerned, I intend to vote for this amendment regarding express companies, whether it comes in the form of an amendment to this Bill or of the Bill placed on the notice paper by the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) I understand the right l-.on. first minister has withdrawn his point of order, and now it is open to any other member to raise the same point, and I desire to do so. I submit to you, Sir, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York is out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: After the declaration of the hon. member for Halton, (Mr. Henderson) I withdraw any claim to any privilege arising out of any understanding and I leave the hon. gentleman to shoulder tlie responsibility. You can report the Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the government have taken two more of the days belonging to private members, it may be utterly impossible for this Bill to come before the House unless brought up in connection with some government Bill, and my hon. friend will be de-

prived of the right to have his Bill dealt with.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has had many opportunities of moving his Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that he could not go on for want of certain information which he desired to have when discussing it.


William Findlay Maclean: That is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the government took the private members day away. In other sessions, when that happens, it is usual to draw attention to the fact that certain important Bills are on the order paper and permission is given td the member to bring his Bill before the House and have it dealt with, if not as a separate Bill, in connection with some government measure. We have done that frequently in connection with railway charters and the labour question and various other questions without objection ; and if we abandon that privilege to-day, we are giving up a privilege of our own, and our privileges are quite as important to us as the rules that govern us.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A good deal of time has been wasted in discussing a matter which was settled some time ago. This Bill has been called several times. Sometimes it was postponed to suit the convenience of my hon. friend and other times to suit mine. It was understood between us that when the government Bill reached the committee stage, we would consider my hon. friend's amendments. But as regards the practice referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) he is entirely in error. I have had more to do with these Bills than he has-if he will pardon me for saying so- and my invariable practice is, when I am introducing general legislation, to adopt any principle that I find in a Bill that stands in the name of any private member on the order paper. I adopt the principle of such a Bill of my own motion, just as I would have a right to amend my own Bill. But I cannot do that in this instance. If I felt free to adopt the principle of my hon. friend's Bill and add it as an amendment to my own. I would do so. But I intend to oppose his amendment and give reasons why the House should not adopt it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps it would be possible to suggest a compromise that would satisfy both sides


Charles Fitzpatrick: To go on with our business would satisfy me perfectly.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is just the suggestion -that I was going to make. Suppose the hon. gentleman is allowed to proceed with his Bill ; and, then in view of the number of new 'members in the House who have not heard the matter discussed, we could Mr. SPROULE.
refer it to the Railway Committee, with a view to having all interests heard and the matter fully discussed.


William Findlay Maclean: I appreciate very much what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has said; and what he has said is exactly correct. But I do not wish to appear as taking advantage of any rule of the House. Nor do I wish to be heard in this discussion merely as a matter of courtesy. I thought I was within my right. But, of course, I defer to what has been said. Another opportunity will be afforded me to bring this measure up


Wilfrid Laurier: Next Monday.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, it will come up next Monday, and there will be an opportunity for discussion. All I had in mind was to facilitate the public business and help to make the session as short as possible. In view of the scrupulous consideration of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) for the rules of order, I must go about it in another way.


Peter White: There is no difficulty in getting over the point raised by the hon. member from Halton (Mr. Henderson). If my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) desires to have his Bill discharged from the order paper. When it comes up for discussion he can do that and then he will be at perfect liberty to proceed with his amendment. The fact is, he wants to have two strings to his bow-he wants to move in committee, and, if defeated in committee he wants to take up his Bill. I think that would be contrary to all the rules of parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what is called strategy.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must rule the point of order well taken according to rule 24, which says :
All items standing on the orders of the day shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order book ;-
But there is a reservation made for government measures.
The right being reserved to the administration of placing government orders at the head of the list in the rotation in which they are to be taken on the days on which government Bills have precedence.
I	find this amendment is identical word for word with Bill No. 4 which stands on the order paper as a public Bill.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-MANITOBA ELECTION RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['The Minister of Justice will move some Bills standing in his name, and then we shall go into supply. I understand the Minister of Inland Revenue will be prepared to proceed. If his estimates are completed, the Minister of Agriculture will take up some of his items, and, if these are finished, the Minister of Public Works will go on.']
George Eulas Foster: Will the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) permit me to call his attention to a statement made by him yesterday in reply to a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), who is not here to-day, on the subject of the elections in Manitoba :
I may inform my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that I received to-day two memoranda from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on this subject, hut I have not yet been able to look at them. I will be able to give him an answer io-n.orrow.
That ' to-morrow ' is to-day. Can the right hon. gentleman give us any information on the subject now ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that the matter will have to stand over until to-morrow, because I could not look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Public buildings-Manitoba-Brandon drill hall, $20,000.
['I am sorry to say that the matter will have to stand over until to-morrow, because I could not look into it.']
Charles Smith Hyman: No expenditure has been made on that yet. There is one squadron of mounted rifles there.


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the cost of building a drill hall such as is proposed to be erected in Brandon ? What would be about the difference in cost between erecting this building and a building of the same size in Ontario ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The architect thinks there might be a difference of 10 per cent greater in Manitoba.


George Eulas Foster: What is the material used ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will be a wooden building with brick veneer.


George Eulas Foster: I was surprised when I was out there in some of those far western towns to find out how cheaply brick are produced. At Edmonton they produce brick for 35 a thousand, at Moosejaw for about $8. I think we pay more than that in the city of Toronto, or quite as much. Of course, bricks can be made cheaper at Edmonton, because coal Is more easily procured. It seems to me that with brick so cheap in the west it would be cheaper in the long run to make the building of brick than of timber. or even of timber with brick veneering.


Richard Blain: The minister said it would cost 10 per cent more to build in Manitoba ; but if bricks are so cheap there, where does the extra 10 per cent come from ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a considerable difference In the price of labour and of other materials than brick.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister the urgent necessity that exists for a drill hall in the town of Minnedosa. I think Minnedosa has got the largest company of any of the small places in the province of Manitoba, and in the drill contest in Brandon last year they carried off the major portion of the honours. Virden is a smaller town than Minnedosa. They make bricks in Minnedosa, and I would urge the claims of that town on the minister in fulfilment of the promise that was made last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Militia.
Dominion buildings-Manitoba-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $8,000,


William James Roche: Wrho is the inspector for Dominion buildings now in Manitoba ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Chisholm.
t


Andrew B. Ingram: There is an increase of $2,000 over last year ; why is that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a larger number of buildings.
Selkirk public building, $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: No site has been purchased yet. The building will accommodate customs, post office, Indian affairs and fisheries. The population at the last census was 2,188. Customs and postal revenues amounted last year to between $5,000 and $6,000. In order to accommodate these four offices I do not think we can put up a building there at a less cost than $16,000.
Virden drill hall, $20,000.


William James Roche: What is the size of that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 60 feet 10 inches by 31 feet 8 inches.


William James Roche: What is it constructed of ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is brick veneer.


William James Roche: Had you to pay for the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The site was given free.


William James Roche: When is it to be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In October of this year.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the total cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimated total cost is $15,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then what are you asking $20,000 for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I see that I have a memorandum in connection with this vote
/



which I was not aware of. I move that the vote be reduced to $15,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['I see that I have a memorandum in connection with this vote\n/', '\n\nwhich I was not aware of. I move that the vote be reduced to $15,000.']
William James Roche: Who has the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. W. H. Ireland.
Winnipeg district military stores building,


Charles Smith Hyman: That was explained last night.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that the general system adopted all over the country ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, at the different headquarters.
Winnipeg-new immigration building, $62,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to provide for the completion of the building being erected at the request of the Department of the Interior. A contract has been let to the Manitoba Construction Company. The building is to be completed by the first of April, 1905. The total estimated cost is $177,000.
iMr. STAPLES. Where is this building to be located ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The building is located on a site transferred from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company situated between Maple and Fonseca streets, and has an area of 200 feet by 61 feet 4 inches. The contract for the building is $162,000 and the total cost will be about $177,000.


William James Roche: Has there been any change since last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the building has been made fire proof and increased in size.


William James Roche: It was estimated last year at $60,000.


Mr. STAPLES.: Who has the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Manitoba Construction Company.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that building in charge of the engineer located at Winnipeg or is there a superintendent for this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is under the supervision of the architect Mr. Joseph Chisholm.


Andrew B. Ingram: A permanent officer ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Winnipeg military buildings-quarters for non-commissioned officers, including guard room, &c., $6,000.


William James Roche: Nothing has been spent on that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there has been no money spent on that. This is supposed to be quarters for the married non-commis-Mr. HYMAN.
sioned officers of ' A' squadron, guard room, cells, quartermaster's stores, lecture room, &c.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this connected with the armoury ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, this is for the permanent force.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Has the hon. minister in his department a list of the military properties taken over from the imperial authorities by the colonial authorities ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That will be in the Militia Department.
Winnipeg new post office-land and building. $300,000.


William James Roche: What was the cost of the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The site cost $132,350.
IMr. W. J. ROCHE. What is the estimated total cost of the building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: About $600,000:


William James Roche: Including the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, outside of the site.


William James Roche: The estimate is increased a great deal from that of last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course, the estimate was given before the contract was made.


William James Roche: Who recommended the site 1


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know7, I am sure. This was very fully discussed last year in the House. It was a very profitable bargain. We could have sold the site any time for more money.


William James Roche: Is it a corner lot ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is not a corner lot. There will be space on both sides of the building.


William James Roche: What is going to be done with the old post office ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The idea is to use the old post office building for a customs house.


William James Roche: There was a question raised last year by the hon. gentleman who represented Provencher in regard to the title of the old Bannatyne property which contained the stipulation that the site was only to be used for the post office building. He stated that the site was given for a small consideration on the understanding that it was to be used for a post office building. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) stated that the matter had only been brought to his attention the previous day in regard to the title and that he w7ould inquire into it. I do not think he ever furnished the House with any information on the subject. Was

there not some distinct understanding that that site was to be used for all time to come as a post office site Y


Charles Smith Hyman: The deputy informs me that the matter was looked into both before and after it was mentioned iu the House and that there is no evidence in the department of any kind on which such a statement can be based.


William James Roche: X will just read what the hon. minister said last year.
The matter of the title to the site of the post office in Winnipeg was brought to my attention only yesterday. I am having it investigated. I believe there is some condition, but X do not think it is so narrow as that mentioned by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LariviSre), -that the site is to be occupied by the post office. I believe that the land was sold on the condition that it was to be used as a site for government offices.
IMr. HYMAN. Well, these are government officers.


William James Roche: So he must have had some evidence in his possession when he was able to make that statement.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will ask the deputy to look into the matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: What Is the size of the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The site is of an irregular shape, 166 feet front by 80 feet in one part and 134 feet in another part.


Mr.  W. .T. ROCHE@: From whom was it purchased ?


Mr. HYMAN W. F.@: Alloway and J. W. Good.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that not a very good price, $132,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the price. The information I received from the department is that the property could be sold to-day for more money. I know that the department has been looking for some more land there, and it is almost impossible to get any more land near the centre of the city for anything like what we would consider a moderate cost.


William James Roche: Who negotiated the sale 1


Charles Smith Hyman: Thos. B. Metcalfe.


William James Roche: Did he receive any commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been no expenditure other than the cost of the site.
Public buildings, Northwest Territories-barracks for permanent corps, Strathcona Horse, $40,000.


Mr. AMES.: Where is that barracks ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been no decision by the Militia Department yet as to the
headquarters of the Strathcona corps, and therefore the matter is in that shape. This is for the permanent corps.
Calgary public buildings-enlargement of post office and examining warehouses, changes, fittings, &c., $40,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This building is being enlarged for the use of these different departments. The building has become altogether too small and it is being enlarged. The area of the present post office is 1,360 feet. With this addition there will be nearly three times that amount of area.
Calgary land titles office, $15,000.


Mr.   W.@: ,T. ROCHE. Would the minister make an explanation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think I shall ask to have that item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Court House,-lock-up and police accommodation. $1,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to provide accommodation at different places.
Edmonton jail, $33,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is for the continuation of the work on the jail there. It has been in progress for some time.


William James Roche: What is the total cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract Is for ^50,150.
Medicine Hat, public building, $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to provide a public building at Medicine Hat. The postal revenue is $4,679 and the customs duties $20,113.
Moosejaw public building, $20,000.


William James Roche: What is that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is for the purpose of a public building at Moosejaw. It is under contract. The postal revenue in the year 1903-4 was $7,800 and the customs revenue $49,700.


George Eulas Foster: What are you building there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: A brick building with stone foundation.


George Eulas Foster: Can your officer tell you what he has to pay for brick there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course it is let by tender, but he thinks the price is between seven and eight dollars a thousand.
Prince Albert, public building, $40,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is under contract.


George Eulas Foster: How much is that to cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


George Eulas Foster: What is the population of Prince Albert ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The population is about 2,300 now, but this is for a court house, post office, customs house, land office and registry office.


George Eulas Foster: And what is the revenue there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue is $5,249 and the customs revenue $8,427.


Samuel Hughes: What public buildings have they now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Nothing but an old court house and jail. They use an old one-story building for a land office.


George Eulas Foster: How much was paid for this site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 



Samuel Hughes: Then the building is not to be on the site of the old court house ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Samuel Hughes: Why ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The old court house, I am informed, is quite out of the town.


Samuel Hughes: That might have been said when the town consisted of one street along the river ; then it was a couple of streets back, but there is a nice residental district growing up near the post office. A gentleman who is now in the Senate lives farther out than the court house.


Andrew B. Ingram: When will that be completed ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The contract was let on January 1, and the building will be completed in October, 1906.
Red Deer court house, land office and lock-up,


Charles Smith Hyman: That is under contract.


George Eulas Foster: What is that to cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total cost is estimated to be $20,000.
Mr. FOSTER, When is it to be finished?


Charles Smith Hyman: On November 20.


George Eulas Foster: Well, it is a nice little town, and that is not too expensive a building for it.
Regina post office, custom house, &c., $20,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue of Regina last year was $20,736 and the customs revenue, $241,000. I estimate that, Regina being the capital, the building will cost complete,. $55,000.


George Eulas Foster: Where is it to be placed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No site has yet been purchased.


George Eulas Foster: Have there been any negotiations?


George Eulas Foster: 


Charles Smith Hyman: There have been some negotiations, but no site has been selected.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I -would like to ask the hon. minister what the policy of the government is in regard to some of these estimates. We have voted this evening, and are no doubt going to be called on to vote again, sums of money which are destined to be expended for purely provincial works in the North-, west, such as jails and asylums. The Autonomy Bill, as it is called, will come into force on July 1 next, and what will then become of these votes? Some of them may not have been expended; some of the buildings are in course of construction, and some may not be commenced before July 1. What course does the government intend to take with regard to those works which are provincial in their nature? Because once parliament has voted an item, even for a work of a purely provincial nature, it cannot very well be varied. Parliament having voted a specific sum for a specific purpose, it must be spent for that purpose and for no other.


Charles Smith Hyman: In any ease, we have to carry out our contracts, and these votes are for contracts which were entered into by the Public Works Department some time ago. I do not know that the government have arrived at any conclusion, but after the Northwest Government Bill passes, there is no doubt that all the buildings intended for purely provincial purposes will be transferred to the provinces. The only difficulty will be as to joint buildings, which are used partly for provincial purposes and partly for Dominion purposes, such as the Prince Albert building, which is used as a post office and custom house and also as a court house. In such cases we shall either have to take over the building and make some financial allowance to the provincial government or they will take over the building and make some financial allowance to us. I do not see any other way in which we can do what is fair and right.


William James Roche: Has the government considered the question of a penitentiary for the Territories?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that the matter has been under consideration. I believe the Edmonton jail has been suggested for that purpose.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As some of these votes are for works of a purely provincial character,
1 think it would be advisable not to vote too large an amount for these purposes.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not going to ask for any new votes for works of that character. We are only providing for contracts \vhich have already been entered into.
Saskatoon public building, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue in the year 1902-3 was $2,000 and in the year 1903-4

,$4,195. Saskatoon is quite a growing town. The building is estimated to cost $9,500, and the total cost, including heating, contingencies, &c., at $14,500. The work is not yet commenced. The building will be of brick.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the population of the town?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the present population. In 1901 it was between 500 and 600.


Samuel Hughes: Saskatoon is a very nice place. It has derived its importance largely from the fact that during the last couple of years it has been the point where settlers coming in by the Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway leave the railway and start to tramp to their destination. In a short time both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern will have lines through Saskatoon, and it will then be an important town.
British Columbia-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., to Dominion buildings, $8,000.


Mr. HERRON.: I would like to ask the government if it has any intention to put up a public building in the town of Pinclier Creek ? We have never had a public building in that town, not even one in which to hold the court, and I think it has g population which fairly entitles it to a building such as those which have been erected in many other towns not so large and not increasing in importance so rapidly.


Charles Smith Hyman: I would remind my hon. friend that if a public building is required there for the purposes of a court house, after the 1st of July it will be the duty of the new provincial government to take that matter in hand, and my hon. friend will have to make his representations to the provincial authorities. I am not aware of any representations having been made for the purpose of having this government erect a public building there, but am always glad to hear any my hon. friend has to make.
Ferule, B.C., public building, $10,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue is $5,500 ; the customs, $8,200. It is estimated the building will cost $21,500. The site has not been selected yet.


William James Roche: Is there any difficulty about the location of the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know of any.
New Westminster public building-enlargement for accommodation of Indian branch, $7,-
000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is asked for the purpose of putting up a building for the Interior Department ; but since this vote has been placed in the estimates, I have had my attention called frequently to the overcrowding in the New Westminster building at present. The fishery branch of the Marine and Fisheries service may be put into that new building, which will add to its cost. The $7,000 is only intended to cover a building for the Interior Department.
Vancouver public building, $100,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is not only to be a post office. It is intended for a post office, custom house and examining warehouse. The plans and specifications are being prepared. It is going to be very expensive. I do not see how that building can be put up at a less cost than $400,000 to $450,000.


Richard Blain: When will it be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: As the contract has not been made yet, I am unable to say, but it will be completed as soon as possible, because there is great need for it at present.
Salaries to resident clerks of works, assistants, &c., public buildings, generally, $14,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to pay the salaries of the clerks of works and their assistants in other places than Ottawa.


George Eulas Foster: How many are paid out of this $14,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Ten.


George Eulas Foster: They are distributed all over, are they not ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Can the hon. minister give the distribution ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There are two in Ottawa, one in Quebec, one in Winnipeg, two in Montreal, two in Victoria, one in Regina, one in Three Rivers.


George Eulas Foster: Are there any in New Brunswick ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Any in Nova Scotia ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Our work is done there by Mr. Doddrell, engineer of the department.


George Eulas Foster: These are all the clerks of works employed in superintending public buildings throughout the Dominion ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: That does not mean architects ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


George Eulas Foster: I did not notice that you read over any for Ontario.


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Curry, the architect in Toronto, does our work there.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose the hon. gentleman is continuing the system that has existed for years. Where there is a public work erected, you employ a superintendent of works at so much per day. That system has been continued for years, and every session it is objected to. These men simply

assist in prolonging the work by not insisting on more men being put on the building. You pay them from $2.50 to $7 per day, and the longer the building is under construction the better for them, consequently you will have a building take two years in construction which an ordinary contractor would build in four or five months.


Charles Smith Hyman: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has overstated the case. The contract for the construction of the building fixes a time within which it is to be finished. You must have a clerk of works, somebody who will represent the department in the work. We cannot employ architects all the time to do that work. In cities, for instance, in London or in Toronto, we employ an architect to overlook work of this kind. But, there are places where public buildings are under construction and where there are no architects. We must, in such cases, have a clerk of works, and I can hardly conceive of any way to pay him except by the day. You could hardly give him so much for the work


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not?


Charles Smith Hyman: Well it would practically come down to so much a day anyhow.


Andrew B. Ingram: You could pay such an officer percentage on the contract price. If that were done, he would have an interest in earning his money as quickly as possible, and he would insist on the proper number of men being on the job. On the other hand, if he is paid $5 or $7 a day, he' will be very glad to have the time of construction an extended one. We suffer loss year in and year out in this way.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have done a considerable amount of building and I never heard of the inspectors being paid on any such a plan as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) speaks of. I do not think that plan is followed by private individuals or companies. As I say, we employ an architect where wre can, but in the case of a building being put up in a small town, it is impossible to employ an architect.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not necessary that a man should be an architect to be able to insist that the contractor shall carry on his work according to the plans and specifications, and shall put on enough men to finish the work in a reasonable time. In my own city, a building was erected by the municipality costing $50,000 or $60,000. The architect in charge was paid on the percentage plan, and he insisted on a proper number of men being employed. But he was inspector also of the government armoury building. He inspected the armoury building in the morning and the municipal building for the balance of the day. He could stand it to have only two or three men on the armoury, but he insisted on the full number of men on the municipal building. The result was Mr. INGRAM.
that the municipal building was completed more quickly than the armoury was, which cost only about half as much. When you consider the number of buildings being constructed in the Dominion, you will see, that, in the aggregate this is a serious grievance. With private individuals it is by no means unusual to pay architects on the percentage plan. It is a common plan in all our cities.


John Herron: I would call the minister's attention to a case of this description. The building was under contract, and the inspector was appointed to overseethe work, I presume at a salary of about $J a day. The unfortunate part of it was that this inspector was not a mechanic of any description. The building was about a year and a half under construction, and the inspector received $1,200 or $1,300 for his services.


Charles Smith Hyman: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) tell me to which case he refers.


John Herron: Yes, the court house at Fort Macleod. I do not think the inspector in that case had enough mechanical knowledge to superintend the building of a pumphouse to say nothing of a court house. Yet he drew a salary during construction.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) is mistaken in his facts. In the case to which he refers the inspector was paid $4 a day not $7.


John Herron: Will the hon. minister tell us what the inspector received altogether? My information is that he drew about $1,300.


Andrew B. Ingram: What the minister says does not lessen the fact that inspectors are paid $7 a day in British Columbia.


George Eulas Foster: Take one of these clerks of works as an example-take the one at Quebec. He is paid by the year, his salary being $1,282. Just what does he do? What are his duties from January to December ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He practically has charge of all the government works in that vicinity.


George Eulas Foster: What does the hon. minister mean by saying that he ' has charge ' of these works?


Charles Smith Hyman: He looks after all the buildings, sees that the caretakers do their work. In this particular case, the inspector has charge of the public buildings at Grosse lie, and he has to go there very often. It is the duty of these inspectors to have charge of the public buildings in their districts.


George Eulas Foster: Is his district the whole province?
Mi-. HYMAN. No, we have an inspector in Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: This inspector is for ivhat is called the Quebec district. He has to go

to places where there are public buildings and make an inspection of those buildings.


Charles Smith Hyman: He goes where we send him. We use these officers largely in the purchase of sites. No site is purchased by the department without a report either from an officer sent from the department or from one of these so-called inspectors.


George Eulas Foster: When the government wants a site the inspector reports upon it? That is one thing he does. Does he oversee buildings under construction?


Charles Smith Hyman: He supervises all the work of repairs and renewals-not necessarily new buildings, because in that case he would have to be on the new building all the time.


George Eulas Foster: He has nothing to do with the new buildings?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is all arranged by the architect. If, in any particular instance we can use one of these officers, we do so. For instance, in the post office building in Ottawa, the work is overseen by Mr. Adams who is paid out of this vote.


George Eulas Foster: He is in Ottawa, and has nothing else to do, and so he is there. But in the case of this clerk of works in Quebec, if the government were spending $20,000 or $3,000 on a building at Grosse lie the work would not be overseen by this clerk of works? The department must put on a man who would be there every hour of every day, in the case of an important building like that. X want to find out what these men do.


Charles Smith Hyman: They visit the building during the course of construction, oversee the work.
Mr. FOSTER, Then he looks after making repairs on all public buildings in course of construction occasionally, and reports with reference to them. To whom does he report ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Directly to the chief arcli-tect of the department.
Mr. FOSTER, Is he kept pretty busy ?


Charles Smith Hyman: They have got plenty to do on the kind of work the hon. gentleman has just mentioned, where they represent the department.


George Eulas Foster: Now with reference to the plans of all these buildings, are they made in Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. There are instances v, here the department employs outside architects to make the plans and supervise. In all these cases the architects themselves do the whole work.


George Eulas Foster: Supposing you are building a $20,000 post office in Quebec ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In that case it would be
done here.


George Eulas Foster: The architects in the department here make the whole of the plans for that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Almost invariably. But there are instances in which we employ an outside architect to make the plans, but that is not the rule. AVe keep our staff here for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: Now after you have prepared the plans and let the contract, do you employ a local architect for that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Very often.


George Eulas Foster: Do you also employ a man to oversee the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Not where there is an architect.


George Eulas Foster: When you employ an architect who does not oversee the work, how do you pay him ?


Charles Smith Hyman: AVe pay him by commission, and from that commission he is supposed to employ a man on the work continually.


George Eulas Foster: That is to say, in some cases. In the cases of all these buildings the plans of which are drawn here and where you do not employ an architect and a clerk of works, so to speak, locally, then, there is no other architect there but the government architect ; none that have anything to do with that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No men who are paid by this vote.
Mr. FOST'E. I am speaking of men whom you employ to see that the architect's plans lire carried out in the construction of the building ; that is a clerk of works, so to speak, temporarily there while the building is being erected. In that case you do not employ an architect ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


George Eulas Foster: Then you appoint a man who is to see that the building is constructed according to the architect's plans. In that case you employ of course a mechanic ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We always do, a man, for instance, understanding masonry or carpentering.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where extensive repairs are undertaken in the public buildings of a province such as we have been voting many thousands of dollars for, or where a public building is to be modified or improved, are the plans made beforehand in the department here ?


Charles Smith Hyman: All made in the department here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who reports as to the necessity and approximate cost of those repairs ? This year we have voted about $200,000 for repairs and improvements on public buildings in the province of Quebec. These must have been preceded by a report to the minister showing a necessity for these repairs and an estimate of the cost. Who is that done by ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That comes from the department who are using the building. For instance, in post office improvements the reauest would come from the Post Office Department asking for certain repairs or additions to be made. Then tiie Public Works Department have a staff here who prepare the plans for those works, repairs or additions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the call for repairs or improvements comes from the department interested. But before the estimate is placed before us, who gives to the government a report of the probable cost, and the necessity and extent of those repairs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The chief architect of the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then he visits these places in order to prepare the estimate ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He cannot personally visit all the places, but some members of the staff are sent to each of these places.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then when the repairs are finally decided upon, who superintends the work of carrying them out ? For instance, we have voted $25,000 to make some changes in the front part of the post office in Montreal ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That would be overlooked by the agents of the department in the different cities. In the city of Montreal we have a local man who is paid out of this vote we are discussing; in that case he would overlook the repairs.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I heard the name of Mr. B61and mentioned for Quebec ; who is the man in Montreal 1


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. C. Desjardins is in charge in Montreal.


Mr. MAODONELL.: Who is the man who performs the same duty in Toronto ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Hamilton is in charge of all the buildings there, in so far as the employees are concerned. We generally employ Mr. -Currie, the architect there, to make the plans, or to consult with in case of any renewals or repairs.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am speaking more especially of repairs.


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Currie generally overlooks the repairs of the department there.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Angus Claude Macdonell: A lot of repairs took place last year in the Toronto post office, who was the person ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Currie, the architect.


Mr.   BDAIN@: In the case my hon. friend brought to the attention of the minister a few moments ago, the Macleod post oflice, Northwest Territories, I see the contract price is $13,973, and the clerk of works got $1,464 ; making for the architect and clerk of works $2,879. Is not that rather a high commission ? I want to ask the hon. minister this question : Has he not in his department officers who can prepare these plans without engaging an outside architect ? These are buildings that are being erected every day almost. New towns are springing up, appropriations are made and a_ court house that is suitable in one town is suitable in another town with very little alteration. Surely, when this Fort Macleod building was put up, the hon. gentleman had in his department plans and specifications suitable for that building without employing an outside architect at a cost of $1,415.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no architect.


Richard Blain: Yes, Martel & Dangelier, $1,415.


Charles Smith Hyman: Those are the heating contractors.


Richard Blain: Those were heating contractors ? On this point I would like an answer from the hon. minister as to what the policy of the government is. Are we to understand that when a building is to be constructed in Macleod, for example, the department have plans and specifications that would be suitable for a town of that size, or are we to understand that special plans are made for each town ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman will know that it depends altogether on the question of the site. It is almost impossible to have a plan that is equally suitable for two sites. Very little alteration makes it necessary practically to make a new plan. The policy of the department has been to do all that work in the department. But we cannot follow that policy at all times. There are occasions when we employ an outside architect, in which case he has the supervision of the building, and is paid a percentage for his work ; yet, in all those cases in which an outside architect is employed, his plans are sent to the department and examined by the chief engineer before anything is done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is Camille Desjardins, who does the work mentioned by my hon. friend a moment ago in the city of Montreal, and how long has he acted in that capacity ?


Charles Smith Hyman: About fifteen years. He is a brother-in-law of Mr. Justice Ouimet, and was appointed by him.

'Mr. MONK. What is his remuneration ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 

Construction of armouries, $50,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the first construction ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a vote that has been in the estimates for some years. It Is asked for by the Militia Department for the purpose of constructing small armouries in different places.


George Eulas Foster: What armouries are proposed to be constructed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no demand from the department as yet for these armouries to be constructed out of this particular vote.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. minister think it is quite proper to come down here and ask for a lump sum of $50,000 or $100,000 when he has not even decided that the armouries are required ? That is no proper voting of money. You should not ask for a vote unless you have outlined what uses you propose putting it to, and are able to give details to a certain extent. This bulk sum voting of $50,000 or $100,000 and placing it in a minister's hands, especially those of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), would never do at all.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman will understand that contracts have been made, for which a certain amount of this vote will have to be used.


George Eulas Foster: Give an explanation of that.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am speaking of the new ones. That does not take up the whole vote.


George Eulas Foster: What are those contracts, and what do they amount to ?


Charles Smith Hyman: They are for armouries at Kaslo, Fredericton and Broekville.


George Eulas Foster: What is proposed to be done at Kaslo ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I see that Kaslo was completed out of this year's expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: Well, drop that out.


Charles Smith Hyman: The places at which these armouries are to be erected are Burford and Fredericton, and there is some expenditure at Broekville.


George Eulas Foster: What is the expenditure for these three ?


Charles Smith Hyman: About $30,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is going on at Bur-ford ?


Charles Smith Hyman: An armoury is being erected.


George Eulas Foster: Why is not the construction of an armoury at Burford, where you
are spending $30,000, detailed here just the same as in those other cases in which you are making expenditures of from $10,000 to $30,000 ?
Mr., HYMAN. This is just a small expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: What-$30,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No ; the expenditure is not $30,000. That is the expenditure for Burford and Fredericton together.


George Eulas Foster: What is the expenditure at Burford ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


George Eulas Foster: And at Fredericton ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $12,000. And then there will be heating, electrical wiring and contingencies. The cost of the two buildings will be in the neighbourhood of $30,000.


George Eulas Foster: That is what I understand. The hon. minister wants a vote for the construction of armouries of $50,000. A question brings out the fact that you are spending $9,900 on an armoury at Burford and $12,000 on an armoury at Fredericton. These expenditures may be all right, but what answer is there to the question : Why, instead of having it blindly for the construction of armouries, the minister should not have a vote for each, and should not put down ' armoury at Burford, $9,900 ' and ' armoury at Fredericton, $12,000 ' ? That is the way, I think, my hon. friend will admit it ought to be put in, and I would move that it be amended in that direction. Let us have it by all means in the vote, because you might as well just simply say : Here is $500,000 for the construction of armouries ; but that is not the way that votes ought to go through the House of Commons. There ought to be a definite building for which each vote is taken. In the way of repairs it is difficult to do that, because there are small repairs running from $10 to $300 or $400, but this is for the construction of a building.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The policy of voting a lump sum for the purpose of constructing small armouries was adopted some years ago. I do not know whether it was adopted during the time of my hon. friend


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so.


Frederick William Borden: Well, three or four years at any rate and for this reason : Often times it is necessary to have accommodation which is not foreseen and cannot be foreseen perhaps, and it was thought desirable to vote a sum-I think we began with $35,000 or $40,000-to build armouries which would cost anywhere from $2,500 up to $10,000 each. It was considered to be good policy, the matter was discussed here and the House agreed to it and that is the reason, if it be a reasi

on, why this vote has been placed in the estimates. I think it is a good reason. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who I am sorry to observe just now seems to have some want of confidence in me- I thought he had the very greatest confidence in me-made some reference to the fact that I was not here last evening. I think the criticism he made was perfectly fair ; I think the minister interested in votes ought to be here, but it so happened that I was not able to be here last night. My bon! friend (Mr. Foster) would have had an opportunity, had he been here during the last four or five years, of learning that a policy with reference to expenditures of this kind had been laid down. My hon. friend wanted to know what the policy of the department was. That was a perfectly proper question. If he had been here he would have known, because he would have heard it stated. Perhaps it would not be inopportune for me to read one or two statements which I made to the House some two or three years ago upon this very subject, and if the committee will bear with me for a moment I shall do so. In October 1903, my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blaln) asked a question and in answer to him I made this statement, which will be found at page 13084 in the last volume for that year. I then said :
My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will understand that it is impossible to do this work all at once. It will involve between one and two million dollars, and perhaps more, to properly house the different militia corps throughout this country. We are going on as rapidly as possible throughout the country, and I assure my hon. friend that we are selecting the places in which these buildings are to be constructed on the advice of military men and from a non-partisan, a purely military point of view. With regard to the rural districts and the smaller towns, where there is only say, one unit, my idea is that we should construct a substantial building which can be headquarters, armoury and storehouse, and with a room sufficiently large for a lecture room, where the officers who take an interest in military matters can bring their men together in the evening, and, by means of blackboards and so on, illustrate military affairs and give necessary instruction. This is the idea I have, and that I hope to be able to hegin to carry out in the near future. My plan will include every village of any importance in the Dominion of Canada.
Later on I again discussed the matter and on the 8th day of October, I made this statement, which will be found at page 13403 of the same volume :
I have already referred to the importance of housing the militia. If we want to make the infantry force of this country what it ought to be, we must provide for every single unit, every company, sufficient accommodation for at least one hundred men where they may meet together and spend their evenings, using it as a sort of club room, and having blackboards and other means to educate themselves in the art of war. If you do that, you will excite renewed interest among the men, and you will Sir F. W. BORDEN.
get together and get the sympathy of the very best men in the community. You will not then have to worry over the question whether you are to pay them seventy-five cents or a dollar or fifty cents a day. It is not the money that brings that class of men out. It is the loyal spirit' in them and the desire to serve their country ; and all they will ask is the opportunity to acquire the necessary knowledge in order to do so.
I have read this simply to show that the matter lias been under consideration, and that the department has adopted a policy with reference to it. I may, however, say to the committee that I believe we should have at every company headquarters, the headquarters of every unit, as I have said before, a substantial building. I had hoped that such a building in the rural districts might be constructed for $2,500 for the smaller ones up to $5,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 and that for a total of between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 running over perhaps five, six or possibly ten years, which would not be felt very seriously in any one year, we might have the whole militia of the country on its present footing properly housed. I am bound to say-and the acting Minister of Public Works, I am sure, will not object to my saying so, that I have been disappointed in the cost of the buildings which have been constructed.


George Eulas Foster: That is that they have cost more than you thought.


Frederick William Borden: They have cost more than we thought they would, and more than I think they should have cost.


George Eulas Foster: That is the trouble with public works; it always has been, it always has been.


Frederick William Borden: 
George Eulas Foster: I am glad to have the minister present. It is a great pity he was not present last night, but we will excuse his absence of last night because he has acknowledged handsomely that he should have been here. That is a business view which we will take. I am sorry, too, that I have to put him to the trouble of spending 15 minutes going over wliat he has gone over before. He has to do it because I was not in the House last parliament. It was not my fault that I was not in the House and if he has been caused any trouble let him fight it out with the Postmaster General, who is peacefully reposing just ahead of him, for I believe he is largely instrumental in having prevented my presence here. I believe it was mainly through the kindly offices of the Postmaster General that I was deprived of being here during the last three or four years, and that consequently I have been obliged to trouble the Minister of Militia for fifteen minutes repetition of what he stated a few months ago. It is just that kind of light, thrown upon the subject by the minister who has the initiation of the votes, that helps the committee to understand what these votes are for, I said there was chronic trouble in the Public Works Department. It was so in my time. There was a continuous struggle of this kind-and I dare say that those ministers who have large works to construct experience the same difficulty today-that whereas as a business man you want to put up for a corps of one hundred men a storehouse and shelter, which a business man would put up for $2,000 or $2,500, when you come to have it done by the Public Works Department it would run up to $6,000 or $8,000. That is true with reference to post offices and public buildings of every kind. As business men and citizens of a common country, which is growing rapidly and in which the expenditures are enlarging in different ways, we must come to the conclusion that we shall have pretty hard times ahead of us to meet all the services of the country if we do not bring these down to an economical basis. I have every sympathy with the idea of having the militia of this country well cared for and having every one of these units provided with a home of its own ; but if you are going to do that, you have to get rid mighty quickly of the idea of spending $50,000, $60,000. $70,000 or $80,000 on these places. You cannot furnish ail these units with proper accommodation under $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 if you go on in this way. That is what I meant last night when I asked where we would come out at if the minister proceeded on a fixed line of providing for all at that rate. We can give all these units decent housing if we make up our minds to put up businesslike buildings. I think that is an excellent idea of the Minister of Militia ; and if the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Public Works, with reference to their various constructions, were to have a sort of international conference at Ottawa in which they would get together with their officers and compare notes and bring matters down to a business level, they would economize more than they are doing now and would serve the country very much better. Mind you, I am not criticising in any carping spirit any expenditure for the necessary services of the country. We have to have them and more of them. But I remind the committee that we are at this moment setting up sister provinces and furnishing them, that this is going to cost this country a large amount of money, that our services are reaching out to distant places, and that these are becoming more costly. Therefore, we ought to set our houses in some sort of economical, businesslike order, and have the expenditures carried out in such a careful and reasonable way that the general distribution in the end shall not overburden the country to such an extent that we shall at some time get Heightened at it or find it impossible and have to stop the very thing that we might have carried on if we had carried it on in a reasonable and economical way. Probably all ministers and governments make mistakes in that way. but every year makes it a more vital question with us in our growing country, and I am glad to hear the minister say he is proposing something of the kind. I do not forget that the Minister of Militia is on pledge that in the selection of sites for militia purposes he will act on the principle, not that Thomas or John or somebody else who has given good service to the party asks for something, but because it is necessary for the service. If I have caused the Minister of Militia and Defence trouble in asking for an explanation, the onus rests upon the interesting gentleman who sits beside him, the hon. Postmaster General.


Frederick William Borden: I am very glad that my hon. friend gave me the opportunity to make the statement which I have made, and I assure him that it was no trouble, particularly, as I have found that the seed I have disseminated has fallen on such good ground. I am glad to find that, after all, my hon. friend has not such a want of confidence in me as I might have been led a few moments ago to suppose he had. With regard to the large expenditure in the great centres, there are in the city of Toronto, for instance, probably forty units.


Mr.   POSTER@: I am not quaiTelling with a large expenditure in large centres.


Frederick William Borden: The large expenditure there is perfectly justifiable. The same is true of Montreal, Hamilton and other large centres. I do not think any one will complain of that. But we have to construct in the country districts in order to house the militia properly six or seven hundred buildings, because we have at least one thousand units. I think it is quite as important, perhaps more important, that we should provide places where these units can meet and spend their evenings profitably, than it is even in the cities. As I pointed out in my remarks of two years ago, I think it is of the utmost importance to the welfare of the rural militia that this should be done as soon a possible, and, as my hon. friend has pointed out, it cannot and will not be done unless we are able to do it at a much lower rate of expenditure than we have been involving the country in up to the present time. I think that with from $2,500 to $7,500, possibly $10,000, we ought to be able to get all the accommodation required for one, two, and in some cases three, companies in a country district.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I would draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that in the village of Colborne complaint is made that the cavalry corps there, has no place in which to store its guns and other equipments, Although the town is not a large one, this corps should be furnished with some place in which to store its equipment.
T think at present it has to store them in Coburg. I heard one of the officers say last summer that they had not a cartridge in their possession. I thought it rather strange that we should have a cavalry corps there and yet not have a cartridge among them. That would be rather awkward if any trouble should arise. I would also draw attention to the fact that there is a militia corps in Brighton, and that in Brighton there is no place in which that corps can store its equipment. I have never had any ambition in the soldiering line, but as the representative of the people I am prepared to vote for any reasonable expenditure to house and equip these men properly and also to pay them for their services. I think they have been underpaid. and if they get enough now I am very glad of it. So long as economy and business like methods are practised, I think that our militia should be furnished with these things and above all with ammunition to use if necessary.


Frederick William Borden: The place to which my hon. friend refers is exactly one of these where a building of the kind I have described should be and will be constructed. With regard to the ammunition,
I have no doubt that there is ammunition not very far away from the headquarters.


Frederick William Borden: 


Mr. LALOR.: As a representative of a rural constituency, I was much pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Minister of Militia, I am glad to hear that he has outlined a policy by which he proposes to take care of the rural battalions. In the votes we have been giving to the militia for the building of armouries, it did strike me that all the money was going to the large towns and cities and that the rural battalions were being completely neglected. The county of Haldimand has one of the best battalions in the province. 1 am told that the 37tli battalion is probably the best of those that go to the Niagara camp. Yet, in the whole county there is not one drill shed for that battalion. I hope that the hon. minister will see his way clear to furnish us with some drill halls in that county. The town of Dunnville, where I reside, is a large, prosperous and growing town, and it has a splendid volunteer corps. I have received a number of letters already, since I have been in the House, from Dunnville, asking me to bring this matter before the House so that the hon. minister might know that the company in Dunnville have no place in which to drill or store their arms, but have to rent a place and pay for it out of their own pockets. The officers are very anxious that a drill hall should be built there. I can not refrain from complimenting the hon. minister on the policy he has outlined, and I hope he will not forget that good old county of Haldimand when he is distributing armouries and drill sheds.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I intended last evening, when the militia votes were being put through, to say a few words, but refrained from doing so as the hon. minster was absent. However, now that he is here I wish to draw his attention to some facts. I share in the pleasure of my hon. friend from Haldimand at the announcement of the minister that he intends to house all the militia in the rural districts, villages and towns. Gananoque is an important town. We have there a field battery, one of the oldest and best in the Dominion. We have also a rifle corps. A few years ago they had comfortable quarters containing a drill shed and an armoury, but my hon. friend tore that down and purchased another site. It was the intention of the government to provide housing for that corps but for some reason or other nothing was done, although ten years have elapsed.
Sir FREDERICK BORbEN. Not so long as that.


George Taylor: It was in 1896-nine years anyway. I have asked repeatedly to have our boys housed again. They have had to rent an old warehouse in the centre of a lumber yard where the guns are stored as well as the harness and other accoutrements, but they have only room to run the guns in and no place suitable for the men

at all. I beg to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact, and would urge on him the necessity of providing without delay an armoury in the town of Gananoque. I am sure my hon. friend has waited long enough now, and I hope that he will see that a sum is put in the supplementaries to provide for sUch a building. The site was purchased and paid for some eight or ten years ago, and nothing done yet. I referred to another matter last night when the hon. minister was not present nor was the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty). But I had a conversation with that hon. gentleman afterwards, and he said he would remind the. minister of the necessity of having the Martello towers at Kingston, which were injured a few winters ago by the wind storms, put in respectable repair. We have Americans coming to Kingston by the thousands every year, and it is certainly no credit to us that these towers should remain there with their tops blown off and in a dilapidated condition. I hope that the hon. minister will, the first thing this spring have these Martello towers repaired, otherwise they may tumble down altogether.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is a part of this vote to be expended for the purpose of erecting an armoury in Burford village ? Burford is a flourishing village which has a very good company of dragoons. This company has no armoury or drill hall, but there is a building in course of erection. Might I ask the hon. minister what has been expended and what further will be expended on the armoury at Burford ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract for the Burford armoury it $9,900. That will complete the building.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would like to take advantage of the presence of the Minister of Militia to draw his attention to the Toronto drill shed. This $40,000 for the extension of a drill hall is a revote. I asked the question when this contract would be commenced, also the nature of the work and in what direction the extension of the drill hall would be made. It was pointed out, that, a year ago when this appropriation was put in the estimates, the then minister of Public Works stated that the work would be proceeded with at once, in fact he said, the plans would be perfected in a few days from that date-March 2, 1904- and immediately the plans were completed and the frost sufficiently out of the ground the work would proceed. I think the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) knows better than any man in this country the immediate necessity for better drill hall accommodation in Toronto and the unpleasantness and difficulty among the regiments that has arisen because of the inadequacy of the present hall for all the troops there. The question is one of immediate importance to the militia men of Toronto.
They have waited long for this extension, and they are anxious to know when it will commence, what direction it will take, and generally what it will be.


Frederick William Borden: I am not able to answer all my hon. friend's questions, but I think my colleague the Minister of Public Works will be able to give any information I cannot give. I wish to say, in a general way, that I consider the giving of additional accommodation to the militia force of Toronto a matter of the most urgent necessity. And, so far as I am concerned, I will continue to impress upon the Public Works Department the importance of giving that accommodation at the earliest possible moment. While I am not charged with the preparation of the plans and have not really examined them. I am told that an agreement or understanding has been reached, between the gentleman at the head of the engineering branch of my department and the chief architect of the Public Works Department, on a plan which will give ail the accommodation that is required for the Toronto garrison. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will be able to tell the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) when the work will be commenced.


George Taylor: What about Gananoque ?


Frederick William Borden: I had intended to reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) when somebody intervened. I can only repeat the assurance I gave the committee a little while ago, that we will proceed with the construction of public buildings for the accommodation of the militia in accordance with the most urgent requirements of the service in different localities as decided upon by the officers of the Militia Council. With regard to Kingston, I am glad attention has been called to that matter. That pertains to my own department exclusively. We have a vote out of which can be taken the sum necessary to make these repairs, and I will see that it is done.


Mr. P. H. McKENZIE.: I wish to say a few words concerning the condition in this regard of the county' I have the honour to represent, the county of Bruce. We have what our people consider a very good regiment in that county, without any accommodation whatever except small rooms, provided at low rentals, at the company centres. The policy of the Minister of Militia, as lie has enunciated it to-night, has been laid before our people, and they very much approve of it. They are looking to the department now for more suitable accommodation for the regiment there, and I hope that when the minister is preparing his estimates he will not forget the great county of Bruce and will not give all the money to the cities and the portions of the country farther east. We in the west, look on ourselves as belonging to the fighting

races,-and we want consideration for our militia in that western part of Ontario.


Frederick William Borden: We in this House must know that we owe a very great debt to the county of Bruce for sending such a very able representive as it has to this House. I am glad to hear from him that the policy which was first outlined two or three years ago is approved by that county. I can only say what I have said before, that we will take this matter up and we will see to it that Bruce is not neglected-of course, in the order of merit.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I join with the others in expressing my pleasure at the presence of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) to-night. Last night, while the items for armouries throughout the province of Ontario were under consideration I brought up the subject of the armoury for the town of Cornwall. I pointed out to the Minister of Public Works the great importance of the eastern district, and the splendid battalion in the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and the fact that that regiment was without a building even to store their arms. I stated that we in that section were very moderate. We quite agree with the proposition laid down by the Minister of Militia. We do not wish to see any such extravagant expenditure as that made in the town of Brockville, and then have the battalion disband and have a monument there to the Militia Department or the Public Works Department in the form of a building which cost, I think, in the neighbourhood of eighty or a hundred thousand dollars and is used only for social entertainments. and bazaars. We have in Cornwall a live battalion, one that is a credit to the province of Ontario. The officers of that department have waited on the Minister of Militia from time to time. They have not received from him any definite promise that I know of. They waited on the ex-Minister of Public Works, and that gentleman gave them a positive assurance that that armoury would be erected. Not only that, but he visited the town of Cornwall and went over the sites pointed out to him by the gentlemen who were extending to him the courtesies of the town. He approved of one site. The citizens naturally expected that the contract would be let immediately afterwards and that by this time they would have had a building ample for the purpose. Yet nothing has been done. The battalion feel very much aggrieved that they have been neglected. As I pointed out last night, the officer who is in charge of the battalion is a most active supporter of this government. My opponent in the last election is also an officer of that battalion and as I understand, a very capable officer indeed. He also. I believe, feels disappointed that nothing has been done. We had from the Minister of Public Works last night an assurance that Mr. p. h. mckenzie.
it would come. If he had said not only that it would come, but that it would come within a certain period, I would have been satisfied with that and would not have had anything to say to-night.
Now that the Minister of Militia is here-[DOT] he knows that the case is urgent. He knows that the officers and prominent citizens of the town have waited upon him several times urging that this building should be constructed. Perhaps he would be able to supplement the assurance I have received from tlie Minister of Public Works, and state definitely whether some .portion of this $100,000 that we are now discussing is to be expended in Cornwall to erect a suitable building. As I have said, we are very modest. An expenditure of $8,000 or $10,000, I think, would be ample to provide accommodation for the 59tli Battalion. I hope the Minister of Militia will give me definite assurance to-night that the building will be put under way this year.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) is perhaps not aware- I do not know that he is a military man- that the regiment to which he refers is a rural battalion and not a city battalion. It is a battalion composed of eight companies, two of them and not more than two, have their headquarters in the town of Cornwall ; the remaining companies or units have their headquarters in probably six different places in that county, and perhaps the adjoining county. A few years ago it was recommended to the department that there should be a central armoury for country battalions, and that there should be one armoury alone for eight companies. That was found not to work, and that policy has been changed ; in fact we have reverted to the old system of keeping arms at company headquarters. I may say to my hon. friend that I agree with him absolutely that there should be a building procured or constructed in the town of Cornwall, but it will be of the kind that I have described, and which I am glad to observe he is reasonable enough to be satisfied with, a moderate building which would also give accommodation for regimental headquarters. I would suggest that Cornwall being a growing town, probably we might provide for two companies additional, having in view the future. Subject to what I said a moment ago, that these matters must all be decided by the Militia Council, by the expert advisers of the militia and of the government, I think I can give the assurance that it will not be very long at any rate before provision is made for the regiment to which my hon. friend refers.
Mr. LALOR, I notice that some hon. gentlemen who have spoken asking for drill halls for their counties have received assurances from the Minister of Militia that drill halls will be built for them. I have not been fortunate enough to draw that promise from the Minister of Militia as to

whether he will remember Haldimand county. I have already complimented him on the policy he has outlined, it is a wise policy and in the interests of the rural militia. I think the great difficulty with rural battalions in the past has been that they have not received the attention they deserved. In fact my predecessor in this House not long ago alluded to the rural battalions as being the shadow of a shadow of a skeleton. That was not very complimentary to the rural battalions, especially as coming from a military gentleman himself. Now I hope the Minister of Militia will improve that state of affairs, and rejoice the hearts of the battalion of Haldimand county that I have the honour to represent, by promising that he will build a drill hall in the town of Dunnville.


Frederick William Borden: The appeal of my hon. friend is quite irresistible. If T did not refer especially to the county of Haldimand, it was not out of discourtesy, but because some one intervened before I had had an opportunity of speaking. I will only repeat what I have said, that I believe the county of Haldimand is one that is especially deserving as the regiment of that county is especially deserving. 1 have had the pleasure of seeing that regiment on many occasions, and it will give me a great deal of pleasure if the Militia Council should recommend my hon. friend's town as one of the early towns to receive a building of this kind.


Mr. MORIN.: Am I going to be left out ?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Would the minister tell us what he is going to do with the Toronto work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I explained last night that there are two works to be done in Toronto. Orie is the enlargement of the armoury, putting another story on the armoury to be used for storing the arms. The plans and specifications are now in the hands of the printers, and as soon as they are received tenders will be advertised for. As regards the other and larger work, the plans I understand are to be sent over to the Militia Department, whence they will be forwarded to Toronto to the officers there to pass upon ; then they will come back to the Department of Public Works. All that of course will take some time. As the building will be a large one costing some $250 000, it will tak<>
some time to prepare the plans and specifications.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is it the intention of the department to proceed with this work ? Last year we were told the same thing, we were told the plans would be finished in two days.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. gentleman must have been mistaken, and that the minister had reference to plans for an addition, that is, putting on an extra story where the
arms are to be stored. I cannot conceive that he referred to the larger work.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I understand it is the intention of the government to proceed with this building in due course ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Without question.


George Eulas Foster: What Is being done in Fredericton V $12,000 of that vote I think is devoted to the armoury in Fredericton.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is for restoring the building that was burnt.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the condition of the drill hall at Summerside. I have had several conversations with the hon. gentleman last year on this subject, and I had his assurance that the matter would be looked into and possibly something would be done. Up to the present there has been no move made. If it is the desire of the minister to have the efficiency of the different companies up to standard, and to keep up the interest of the rural and small town companies, he will have to provide better accommodation than we have in the town of Summerside. As I pointed out last night, we have an old building forty or fifty years old on our public square, with no floor and absolutely no accommodation.
' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. It is true that my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) called my attention to the matter last year, and I had one of my officers visit the place and make a report upon the building. The question is now before the department for action. I hope that in the near future some action will be taken. I would like to add in this connection that it is impossible that all these buildings should be erected at once. I may be permitted to remark that in my own county we have a regiment of infantry of eight companies and two squadrons of cavalry, yet we have only an old wooden drill hall in the town of Kentville, which was built many years ago. There has not been a thousand dollars expended on buildings to house the militia in my county during the nine years I have been a minister. I teil my people that they must be patient. The time will come, I hope, when they will all be housed and I will ask some of my hon. friends to emulate my example and be patient.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We would almost prefer in my town to wait a year or two, if we had the assurance that a suitable building would he put up, and one which would at the same time be an ornament to the town.


Charles Smith Hyman: Before we proceed further, there was one item left over in the Ontario list, on the understanding that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence would make a statement in regard to it. I refer to the Woodstock armoury. I suppose there is no objection to passing that item ?


George Eulas Foster: All right.
Ottawa public buildings, including repairs, ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $140,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is this ? There was a vote last night for this same thing.


Charles Smith Hyman: Oh, no ; but there was really a discussion upon this vote last night. This is the usual vote for the care of the buildings.
Rents-Dominion public buildings, $64,000.


Mr. PERLEY.: Are these all in Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No ; the Ottawa rents amount to $4,7,111. These are the rents which the department pays for rented buildings throughout Canada.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose these rents have to be paid as the leases are made ? I know the hon. gentleman had personally nothing to do with the renting of these buildings, but I hope he will be able to give us some assurance that he will stop this system. I think that probably, individually, we would all concede that the present system is a mistake. The government have rented buildings all over the city ; they have rented some good buildings and some poor buildings, and the rents are all high. Rumour says on the street that some of the rents are very high even for individuals to pay, but taking into consideration the rate of interest that the government have to pay for money, all of these rentals are high. I think that individually the hon. minister and all other members of the House will probably agree that if the government need all this accommodation they ought to provide it in some other way. They should erect a building. There is plenty of land in Ottawa, and the government could erect a fine building at no greater annual charge for interest than the rental which they are now paying. They are paying interest on about $2,000,000 in rentals for these buildings that they are now occupying, whereas they could buy land below the Supreme Court and erect a building there. I hope the minister will give us some assurance that he will not follow the system pursued by his predecessor in this regard.


Charles Smith Hyman: I promised the committee at a previous sitting to make a statement in regard to this question. I quite agree that the time has come when the government should have a definite policy in regard to making provision for the different departments of government. It requires a considerable amount of material to be got together, details of space and everything of that kind. The architect of the department is at present engaged upon the matter, and I hope before the session is over to lay before the House some plan so that we may get rid of the large payments of rent, and Mr. HYMAN.
house each department in a building belonging to the government.


George Halsey Perley: Is it the intention of the hon. jninister to try and arrange so that he will not have to lease any more buildings in Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot say that, because, in the meantime, if there are applications made by any department for more room, and it is found by the Department of Public Works that they must have room, of necessity we must rent a building. But I promise that there will be no long leases, and that there will be no leases that cannot be got rid of when we are ready to go into a new building.


George Halsey Perley: It is not only the question of money, but the question of extreme inconvenience that is experienced by the public when a department is divided up between two or three different buildings. The minister at the head of the department perhaps knows where the various branches are, but it is pretty hard for any other person to find the branch which he wants.


Richard Blain: How much is being paid for rent for the building occupied by the Railway Commission ?


George Eulas Foster: If the minister will just read the list of rentals for which this $64,000 is paid, that would give all the information.


Charles Smith Hyman: They are as follows :
Geological Museum, Sussex St	$	600
French translators office, Sussex St.. ..	600
Agriculture Department, Queen St .. .. 2,250 Central basin coal shed, Slater Estate.. 360 Thistle Estate, Wellington St., gas inspection and weights and measures.. 550 Inland Revenue, Sparks and O'Connor Sts 6,500 Methylated spirit warehouse and laboratory-Interior Department, cor. Queen
and Lyon Sts	 1,200
Marine store house, Sussex St	 360
The Ottawa Building Company, limited,
No. 98 and 100 Wellington St, for Custom Department	 1,500
Molson's Bank, Metcalfe St., two flats
for Labour Department	 1,200
New building for Surveyor General's staff, cor. Metcalfe and Slater Sts., Ottawa
Building Company	 3,000
Interior Department, including vault,
Slater and Sherwood	 366
Interior Department, Imperial building,
Queen St., for immigration branch.. ..	1,950
Mounted Police, 172 Wellington St., Slater and Sherwood	  1,140
Post Office Department, Sparks St. Chambers, Slater and Sherwood	 540
Post Office Department, railway mail service, 12 Albert St., Bate & Co	 600
Rooms occupied by Department of Public
Works, Slater Block, Sparks St	 480
Militia and Defence, Slater St	11,040
Railway Commission, Queen St	 5,300
Agriculture Department, Commissioner of Exhibitions branch, the Ottawa Investment Company, limited, cor. Metcalfe and Queen Sts., No. 94 and 96	 1,000

Corry Building, Rideau St'., two floors lor Georgian Bay and Montreal canal survey, &c., and portion ol basement.. .. $5,285 Slater Estate, 193 Sparks St., two rooms 540 Orme Building, 193 Wellington St., two
rooms	 250
The Great Northwestern Telegraph Company, cor. Sparks and Metcalfe Sts., lor the D. 0. C., military district No. 4, five rooms	 500


George Eulas Foster: The whole of that makes up $64,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No ; that is just for buildings in Ottawa, making a total of $47,111.


Andrew B. Ingram: Reverting to the preceding item, there is an increase of $15,000. The hon. minister has not explained the cause of that.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is on account of the larger number of buildings. The care of the buildings we rent as well as of the buildings we own is included in that vote, and there are more buildings now to take care of.


Mr. BE  A IN@: The hon. gentleman stated that the policy would be to make short leases in future until the question of the erection of a larger building is settled. May I ask the hon. minister if any of the leases he has read over are long leases ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Woods building is the only one that can be called a long lease ; that has some seven years to run.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the new short leases has the department done anything towards repairs or fixing up ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That will come out of the vote previous to this ; this vote is simply for the rent.


Andrew B. Ingram: Quite a large sum was spent by the government on the building at the corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets to put it in shape for the census department to use. In addition to that there is a large payment for rent. What I want to get at is whether the same policy has been carried out in this long list.


Charles Smith Hyman: The only newly arranged building in which a large amount has been spent is the Corry building. In that there is no expenditure that we could not remove. All the other buildings are outside of the city of Ottawa.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do the owners of buildings in Ottawa leased by the government have to pay any taxation to the city of Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the only lease I have made I have insisted on having in the lease a clause to the effect that the taxes must be paid. That policy will be followed while I am in the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: The taxes must be paid to the city of Ottawa by the owner of the building.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the fact that no taxes are paid to the city did the owner of the Census building make any substantial reduction in the rent to the government ? Did the government insist on such a low rate to which they were surely entitled ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The proposition the hon. gentleman makes is a perfect business one, and I presume that was taken into consideration. I did not personally conduct the negotiations for these leases. They were discussed very fully.


George Halsey Perley: I am glad to hear what the minister says about the payment of taxes and 1 hope he will make a change in regard to the renting of buildings. There is no doubt that some of these leases have been made at altogether too high a price and that the government is paying more than a private individual would pay in Ottawa for the same building. I do not know who is to blame for it, in the past, but I think the hon. gentleman is right in seeing that the city of Ottawa gets the taxes from any buildings which he rents in the future. I only hope that he will see that the government does not in the future pay exorbitant rentals such as have been paid for some of these buildings in the past.


Richard Blain: Some new legislation was passed by the Ontario legislature last session to the effect that all public buildings in future shall be assessed and liable to taxation. I am not quite sure of the details of the Bill but it might be worth while to look it up.
Yukon public building, $105,000.


George Eulas Foster: That is a large sum.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have all the details of the expenditure here. I shall refer to one item so that the committee will understand the reason of the large expenditure. It is on account of the salaries being very large. For instance the post office. We are obliged to pay the caretaker $160 a month, practically three times the amount we would pay here. A charwoman there gets $150 a month.


George Eulas Foster: And a living allowance ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. Then there is lighting $1,500, fuel which is very high $2,500, and repairs and maintenance, another large item. The Public Works Department have taken over all of this work. Heretofore a part of this vote was voted by the House to the Interior Department, but now the j Public Works Department have taken the I whole vote and are endeavouring to exercise



as careful a supervision over the expenditure as possible.
Ottawa ffublic buildings-heating, including salaries *to engineers, firemen, watchmen, $87,-
W>.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the usual vote for this purpose. A large amount of it of course is for fuel.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the minister give an idea of how many men there are employed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think in round numbers there are about 60.
Ottawa public buildings-elevator attendants,


George Eulas Foster: How many men have you ?	;


Charles Smith Hyman: That is increased because some new elevators have been installed. There are 20 men.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Where were the new elevators put in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: One in the western block and one in the militia building.


George Eulas Foster: What do you pay your elevator boys?


Charles Smith Hyman: About $45 a month.


George Taylor: How many elevators are there altogether?


Charles Smith Hyman: 11 or 12. In this vote is included the cost of an engineer for the hydraulic elevator and of a fireman.
Ottawa public buildings-gas and electric light, including roads and bridges, $24,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: You intend doing away with the gas in the front of the buildings ?	il !i *1.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have instructed the architect to look into that. I intend to have some plan made to improve the lighting.


George Eulas Foster: Do you generate the electric light?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. It is bought by contract, all from one company.


George Taylor: What became of the appliances that we put in ourselves a few years ago?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am told that they were put in at least twenty years ago.


George Taylor: It is not twenty years since the appliances were put in the basement of this building.


Charles Smith Hyman: There was no plant put in the basement of this building for the generating of electricity. Transformers were put in and they are still In use, and I am afraid that we shall have to put in another set. With only one set of transformers, If anything goes wrong with them the House Mr. HYMAN.
is liable to be in darkness, as happened once or twice last session.


George Eulas Foster: What is the cost of the electric light to the government?


Charles Smith Hyman: About $17,000. For the first three thousand lights we pay $2.25 per light per annum, and tor all over three thousand, $2 per light, each lamp being of 16-candle power.


George Eulas Foster: How did you come at that flat rate? You must have done it on some plan other than the rule of thumb. You must have ascertained pretty nearly the cost of generation, and fixed the rate accordingly, allowing the company its reasonable profit.


Charles Smith Hyman: The power of the lamps was tested.


George Eulas Foster: The department knows or ought to know what it costs to make each of these lights. Then, the question would come up, is it cheaper to buy the light or to generate it ? Having ascertained the cost of generation, how much profit do we pay over and above that?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not got the figures.
Mr. FOSTER, Will the minister look into that?


Charles Smith Hyman: I will. I think it is a very proper question.


George Taylor: You supply all the wiring and all the breakages and give $2 a light for the power?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Taylor: 
Andrew B. Ingram: During a certain number of months the lights are not used, a large number are very little used and many, 1
venture to say, are never used. Is the government paying $2 per light for those which are not used at all ?
Mi-. HYMAN. There is no doubt about
that, just as in your own house you would pay so much a light whether you used it or not


Andrew B. Ingram: There is a vast difference between the two.


George Eulas Foster: Would it not be possible to measure all the light used, and pay for it according to the amount consumed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Undoubtedly it would.


Andrew B. Ingram: This city used to have a flat rate system, and those who had lights burnt them all night without paying any extra cost, but the companies do not permit that kind of thing to be done now. They have adopted the meter system. I suppose that is more profitable to the companies.


George Eulas Foster: It may be, but the business system, both for the company and the consumer, is that the consumer should pay for what he actually uses. A flat rate saves a lot of trouble and may be better for the consumer in some cases, but the honest way is to measure everything and pay for just what you use, especially in an immense establishment like this, where you have so many lights that are not used all the time and so many used a very little part of the year. You are paying a flat rate, and may, on the whole, not be paying over much, but what I want to get at is the actual amount used, if it can be ascertained, and so come down to the basis of cost and profit.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall be very glad to have the matter looked into.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the contract let yearly?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a 10-year contract. It is some seven years ago the contract was made.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: Does the bon. minister get sixteen candle power ? I have a pretty strong suspicion that the lights are not up to that standard. I think the price Is not extravagant, having some little knowledge of the cost of electric lights, but I fear the lights are not up to the power claimed.


Charles Smith Hyman: The arc lights are tested by the electricians of the department.
Ottawa public buildings-telephone service,


Andrew B. Ingram: What number of telephones is used ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Two hundred aud forty-eight.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the increase over last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: About ten or twelve.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Is there a -special rate charged ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $35 per 'phone.


George Eulas Foster: What is paid in the city ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $45 for office telephones and $25 for house telephones.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is not that excessive? In our little town we only pay the Bell Telephone Company $15 a year.


Charles Smith Hyman: In the smaller towns telephone service is cheaper. Where you have connection with only 200 or 300 'phones, as in Petrolia, the cost is less than in a city, where you have connection with several thousands.


George Eulas Foster: Has the hon. minister ever considered the possibility of having a system of departmental telephones on the automatic plan ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have given it casual consideration, but am asked by one of the de-
53J
partments to take the matter up, and will do so when I have the opportunity.


George Eulas Foster: No doubt, if the hon. minister goes into it thoroughly, he will find the automatic system very much less expensive. I am not saying that because I have some connection with an automatic patent-I have not made anything out of it-but because I have had occasion to look into it, and believe it could be used to great advantage for the departmental service. You do not require anybody to look after the central office. It runs itself and is just as true, in fact truer, than the manual switch system, because that depends on human agencies. The other is a perfectly constructed machinery which will run any number of years, which is almost unwearable, and in which everything runs automatically. It has also this other great advantage, which will commend itself to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. He often wants to talk confidentially with one of his brother conspirators in some other department-the Postmaster General, for instance. He does not want any risk of being overheard. Well, the automatic system is absolutely secret. It is impossible for anybody to break in between the two who are talking. My hon. friend can see what great advantage that is.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall look into that matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: That system was here a year or two ago in Ottawa.


George Eulas Foster: There are half a dozen systems.
Heating Dominion public buildings-fuel, $75,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that for buildings all over the Dominion ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the contract system carried out ?


Charles Smith Hyman: All by contract.
Some resolutions reported.
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What business are we to take up to-morrow ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: The Minister of Justice will move some Bills standing in his name, and then we shall go into supply. I understand the Minister of Inland Revenue will be prepared to proceed. If his estimates are completed, the Minister of Agriculture will take up some of his items, and, if these are finished, the Minister of Public Works will go on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at
10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Friday, February 24, 1905.