1905-06-13

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia whether or not any orders were sent to the men who were mentioned yesterday ?


Right Hon.   S@: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Which would permit them to arrive at London in time to vote to day ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I shall read what took place. I sent for the Adjutant General as promised, and immediately after the conclusion of the debate yesterday this telegram was sent:
General Otter.
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.
It you can spare the services of non-commissioned officers sent from London, and any of them wish to vote, you will return such to London at once with orders to report again at Niagara on Wednesday.
(Sgd.) ADJUTANT GENERAL
This morning the Adjutant General received the following reply :
Niagara-on-the-Lalte, 13th June, 1905. Adjutant General, Ottawa.
Non-commissioned officers from London have been given opportunity to return to London for purpose of voting, but do not desire to avail themselves of such.
(Sgd.) BRIGADIER GENERAL OTTER.


Robert Laird Borden: The telegram I received on the subject was that the men received permission, but too late to make London in time to vote.


Frederick William Borden: They bad plenty of time ; I can assure my bon. friend there were two trains available after the telegram was received.



INSTRUCTIONS TO RETURNING OFFICERS IN BY-ELECTIONS.

Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: 
Mr. BRODEUR.: take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take.
Ihat is part of clause 65. Then when we come to the form of the oath that has been sent out to the deputy returning officers by the returning officer at Woodstock, we find that it does not include the clauses in the Ontario Elections Act or the Dominion Elections Act with reference to bribery. Clauses S and 9 of form IS in the schedule to the Elections Act of the province of Ontario are not included ; all the other clauses with reference to the bribery of voters are included. These clauses read as follows :
8. That you ha-ve not received anything, nor has anything been promised you either directly or indirectly, either to induce you to vote at this election or for loss of time, travelling expenses, hire of team, or any other service connected therewith, and (9) that you have not directly or indirectly paid or promised anything to any person either to induce him to vote or to refrain from voting at this elecion.
These clauses have not been placed in the form which has been sent out by this Dominion government. We received notice of this yesterday at Woodstock, and at 2 o'clock we interviewed the returning officer Sheriff Brady, of -Woodstock. I called his attention to the form that he was sending out a copy of which I received from him and have m my hand, and called his attention to these clauses not being placed in that lorm. He at once telephoned to Ottawa to the Secretary of State, and after holding considerable consultation with the Secretary of State, he came to the conclusion that the answer was not satisfactory. He then sent a telegram to the office of the Secretary of State, and in the afternoon received a reply stating that the government would do nothing in the matter. I believe that this is a very serious position for any government to be placed m, to send out forms such as I have in my band, from which the bribery clauses have been entirely omitted.
And I might say further that I urged the returning officer to insist on having these clauses in the form sent to the deputy returning officers throughout the country. He refused to do it, stating that the form the government sent him was the one that would be used and that he had already sent them out to the deputy returning officers And I certainly believe that this is a matter of vital importance not only to the people in the ridings in which elections are being held to-day, but to the whole country I understand that in the last Dominion eiee-timi these were the forms used in many different parts of the country. I certainly believe that if this is the manner in which the people of the province are to be treated, il only part of the oath is to be placed in the form to be used, I cannot help but see that it is a scheme, on the part of the government, might I say, to take advantage of

the lionest electors ami the honest people of this country ?
I move, Mr. Speaker, that this House do now adjourn.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I must inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) and the House that this is the first information I have received of anything of the kind suggested by him in his remarks. The Secretary of State has not communicated with me on the subject. Had the hon. gentleman given me notice of his intention to bring the matter forward, I would have informed myself with regard to it. He says- or rather, he insinuates-that there has been a conspiracy on the part of the government to deprive the electors of their rights. I must tell the hon. gentleman that this language is absolutely uncalled for and unwarranted-there has been no conspiracy of the kind. I never heard of the matter until this moment. I can hardly be expected, under the circumstances, to give the hon. gentleman information as to the papers sent by the Secretary of State to the returning officers. But I am sure that nothing unusual has been done, but that the regular course has been followed. Had I been informed by the hon. gentleman that he intended to'make such a statement as he has made, I would have made It my duty to call upon the Secretary of State to ascertain what had actually been done. But I am sure that nothing has been done by the Secretary of State that is not according to the law, and I hasten to repel the insinuation of the hon. gentleman that In the election there has been any difference in the form sent out in one county from that sent out in others. All the forms were the same; cither all were right or all were wrong. It is not fair to the government, it would not be fair to anybody, that such grave insinuations should be made when the hon. gentleman who makes them had the opportunity at once to call the attention of the government to the matter and receive an explanation. It is not possible now for me to give any answer to the hon. gentleman except to say that my old colleague, my venerable colleague, the Secretary of State is incapable of doing such a thing as has been insinuated against him. Hon. Mr. Scott is an old man, a respectable man if there is one in the country, a man now approaching fourscore years. It is not fair to him to insinuate against him that in his old age he would be guilty of such an act as has been suggested. It is probably like the telegram of Mr. Cousins of Medicine Hat;- when we have the full information before us, it will probably be found another roorback.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) does not seem to feel indignation that the plain provisions of the statute have been
violated, not only in the elections now going on, but in the general elections of November last. But, that a matter of this kind should be mentioned even in what seemed to me, the moderate terms used by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) seemed to excite the right hon. gentleman to grave and indignant rebuke.
I should have thought that there might be some room for indignation in the mind of my right hon. friend that the statute had been violated, that an act had been committed, which, if committed wilfully, I suppose would render some one liable to indictment under the common laws of England for malfeasance in office. I am not saying that it was done wilfully. But I have heard from a number of my friends on this side that exactly the same thing was perpetrated in the last general election, and with somewhat extraordinarv results. I am told that in one riding the oath was taken in the mutilated form for a time, but after the deputy returning officer had been informed that he was to modify the oath sent out by the administration o'f which the right hon. gentleman is the head, the result was that it was not taken in that form by certain electors. I have before me, handed to me by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), the form of oath which was sent out by this government. I do not care whether the Secretary of State sent it out or what member of the government did so. My right hon. friend is responsible for sending it out, for he is the head of the administration ; and every gentleman who sits on those treasury benches is responsible for this violation of the statute, which I am assuming is not wilful, but which certainly merits investigation and discussion in this parliament and in this country.
Now, what are the circumstances 1 By section 65 of the Dominion Elections Act, the oath which is used in the province must be used in Dominion elections. These provisions of the statute are quite distinct, and I will not trouble the House by reading it, for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) drafted these provisions, and no doubt, has them in mind as well as the debate that took place when this statute was enacted by this parliament. We are referred, therefore, to the oath in use in Ontario, in order to ascertain the proper form of oath to be submitted to electors in these by-elections, for the form of oath in use in the province must be used in Dominion elections with certain modifications which are not material for this purpose.
In Ontario we find this ' Form 16 ' which I exhibit to the House and which bears this title :	' Ontario Form 16. Form of Oath
in ordinary cases to be administered at an election to a voter by virtue of manhood suffrage, made applicable to Dominion elections.' Now we come down to the Ontario statute, and we ascertain whether or

not this form corresponds with that known as ' Form 16 ' in that statute. Perhaps in order to make the matter perfectly plain I had better read the whole document:
Ontario form 16. Form of oath in ordinary cases to he administered at an election to a voter by virtue of manhood suffrage made applicable to Dominion elections.
Ontario Act, section 98. Dominion Elections Act, 1900, sections 21 and 65 :
1.	You swear (1) that you are the person named or intended to be named by the name of
in the list of voters now shown to you in the poll book.
2.	That you are a British subject by birth or naturalization.
3.	That you have resided within this province
for nine months before the (2)	day of
, being the day fixed by the statute or by by-law authorized by statute for beginning to make the assessment roll in -which you were entitled to be entered as a person qualified to vote.
4.	That you were at the date aforesaid in gool faith a resident of and domiciled in the municipality in the list of which you were entered ; that you have resided in this electoral district continuously from the said date (3), and that you are now actually residing and domiciled therein.
Then follow the alternative forms :
(3)	That you have resided within this province for twelve months before the (2)
day of	, being the day up to which complaint could be made to the county judge under the Ontario Voters' Lists Act to insert the name of any person in the list.
(4)	That you were at the time aforesaid in good faith a resident of and domiciled in the municipality in the list of which you were entered ; that you have resided in this electoral district continuously from the said date (3), and that you are actually residing and domiciled therein.
(5)	That you are entitled to vote at this election and in this municipality.
(6)	That you are of the full age of 21 years.
(7)	That you have not voted before at this election, either at this or any other polling place.
So help you God.
Now, that is the end of the form and up to the words 'so help me God' it corresponds exactly with the form in the Ontario statute, hut the Ontario statute which is made applicable by the enactment of this parliament contains two further clauses which l will now read and which are absolutely absent from the form which was sent out not only during the general elections, as I said, but during these two elections that are nowproceeding. These clauses are as follows :
(8)	That you have not received anything, nor has anything been promised you, either directly or indirectly, either to induce you to vote at this election, or for loss of time, travelling expenses, hire of team, or any other service connected therewith.
(9)	And that you have not directly or indirectly, paid or promised anything to any person, either to induce him to vote or to refrain from voting at this election.
So help you God.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this is a subject which has been before the House one way or another during the present session, because my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) moved for all these forms, and if I am not mistaken some reference was made to this circumstance either by him or by some other hon. gentleman. At all events my hon. friend from Hamilton brought it to the attention of the House by moving for the forms. I think that when two of the most important clauses of the oath are omitted from a document sent out to the returning officers throughout this country only a few days ago, when these two clauses are omitted from a document prepared by this government and for which document my right hon. friend the leader of the government is as much responsible as any one of his colleagues, we require something more than a mere airy rebuke to my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) for mentioning this matter. Does not my right hon. friend think that when a returning officer, at the instance of my hon. friend from Lambton, brings the matter, both by telephone and telegraph, to the attention of this government on the day before the election, some other answer should be given to that returning officer than that this is a matter in which the government cannot interfere and in which nothing will be done. Conservatives not only in these elections, but during the general elections in November last were compelled to go to the trouble themselves, as far as possible, of bringing the provisions of the law to the attention of the deputy returning officers. I am bound to suppose, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this is a mere oversight, but it is a most remarkable oversight, as I think my right hon. friend himself will admit. For what possible reason, under what possible misapprehension could a department of this government, having a trained and competent staff, venture to prepare a document of that kind leaving out two clauses, the omission of which may he made to answer a certain purpose which would not be a very creditable purpose, I am sure. Under what circumstances could this have arisen ? Have the government been in ignorance during the last four or five months of the character of the document which they sent out during the last general election, a document which was used, as I understand it, not only in the province of Ontario, but in the province of Quebec as my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) informs me ? It seems to me a most remarkable thing, if the circumstance is as stated by my hon. friend from Beauharnois, that the bribery clauses of the Ontario oath should not only have been omitted, but that the bribery clauses of the oath according to the provincial laws of Quebec should also have been omitted from the form sent into that province. You might understand how one

mistake might be made in regard to a particular province, in regard to the province of Ontario, but will my right hon. friend or any member of his government inform me how it should happen that the bribery clauses of the oath in other provinces have been omitted ? X must confess I cannot understand it for the present and I venture to hope that my right hon. friend will, if he is not able to do so to-day, on some future occasion, give to the House some further explanation than that which he has vouchsafed this afternoon. ,


Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, in order to discuss this question intelligently and in such a way as to be of use to the House it seeins to me that it would have been proper to have placed those who are standing in defence of the government in possession of the facts. I must confess that I had not heard of this matter until it was mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). Accidentally I happened to see my hon. friend the Secretary of State in the'lobby. I put a question to him as to the forms used in the elections in the county of Oxford and he told me that they are the forms which have been used during the last two general elections.


Mr. BARKER.: They are not.


Robert Laird Borden: I have the form here which was sent out in the general elections of 1900 and it includes this clause -in the province of Ontario, at least.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I make the statement on the authority of the Secretary of State, with whom I was speaking within the last two minutes. Of course, I am not in a position to verify the accuracy of the statement made by my hon. friend' opposite at this moment, because I have not the forms before me. It seems to me that there is only one way to dispose of a matter of this sort. This is a most serious charge ; it is a most important matter and it should be investigated. Now, we have a Committee on Privileges and Elections which has been formed especially for the purpose of looking into matters of this sort and if we had this matter referred to that committee we could thoroughly investigate it, get at the facts, speak from the book and be in a position to make statements and not insinuations. I would welcome a reference of this matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and I think the sooner we have it the better. I am speaking with the consent of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister when I say that we would welcome an investigation at any time the matter is brought before that committee.


Mr. FOSTER.: This is not a matter of insinuation. Why does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice say that it is ? Here are the two documents.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not seen them.


George Eulas Foster: I will let my hon. friend see them in a moment. But had he not better keep his assertion that they are insinuations only when they appear in print over the government's own signature until he has seen them ? Why should he make that assertion before he has the papers before him ? The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) nearly went into hysterics at the wrong that had been done to his venerable and gray haired colleague. If that colleague had the facts of this matter first brought to his attention by telephone, if he were not careful enough or intelligent enough to give an answer, and if given he was appealed to by telegram he gave the decision that it was all right and that the government would not interfere, can the right hon. leader of the government or any member of the government say that they are entirely without blame in this regard and that it was not brought to their attention ? To whose attention should the matter be brought if not to that of the Secretary of State ? What is the Secretary of State there for if he is not there to make wrong things right ? If he does not know enough to do it he should consult with his colleagues and with the Prime Minister and see that it is done right. But, he neither did it himself nor consulted with his colleagues, it seems. With an obstinacy that is characteristic of him he said that nothing would be done, that it was all right. Did he consult the right hon. leader of the government in the matter ? If he did not then he took a great deal of responsibility upon himself and he took a responsibility which the right hon. gentleman cannot disengage himself from but must share equally with him.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: What is the matter with hon. gentlemen opposite? Something seems to have struck the risible nerve of my hon. friend there and he cannot contain himself. In 1900, the government of which my right hon. friend is head, and of which the present Minister of Justice was the Minister of Justice then, made this up and in that form which purported to be form 16 of the Ontario Act they gave an exact rescript of that form in which appeared these two sections which were omitted from the next form :
(8)	That you have not received anything, nor has anything been promised you, either directly or indirectly in order to induce you to vote at this election or for loss of time, travelling expenses, hire of teams or any other service connected therewith.
(9)	And that you have not directly or indirectly paid or promised anything to any person in order to induce him to vote or refraim from voting at the election.



That was the form issued by the government in the year 1900, and under the Secretary of State who is in office to-day. Why the change? Now, when we come to the by-election for 1905-I am not speaking of the general elections now for I have not the form before me-what do you find? There is the same assertion at the top that this is No. 10 of the Ontario Act oath to be administered, and a lie at the bottom of it. Who was it that authorized the lie ? Who was it that deceived the people of this country and every deputy returning .officer and every voter, by saying to him as he came to vote: this is the oath that the Ontario statute provides for; this is all you need take so far as, the Ontario law is concerned; and then excise two principal clauses from that oath in so far as bribery and corruption are concerned. Who did it? It was not my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden); it was not even my bold and audacious friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) so lacking in courtesy as to dare to bring up at this hour in parliament a thing of such a shameless and glaring kind as this. A conspiracy, said my right hon. friend. Who charges a conspiracy ? He may talk conspiracy if lie likes, but he has got to acknowledge utter and crass neglect or something worse on the part of the department which once knew what was right and *did it, and which next election knew what was right and did wrong. That is just as bad as conspiracy. I say that whether there was design or not, there is the plain fact: there are the two instructions, one of 1900 and one of 1905; there is the statute of Ontario which has the oath out of which the principal parts have been excised by the Secretary of State of the government of which my" right hon. friend is the head and of which the Minister of Justice is now and was then the Minister of Justice. In the general elections last fall, when hon. gentlemen opposite were using evex-y kind of influence they could; when they exercised their immense influence to draw sums of money from contributors right and left -and used it with the most lavish hand that was ever known in this Dominion of Canada, there was a reason why the bribery [DOT]oath should be left out. To-day there may be the same reason why the bribery oath should be left out. It is left out. It is not our fault it is left out. It was this government that left it out knowing what they should have put in, and doing what they should have done in 1900, but neglecting to do it to-day.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: For a number of years I have taken a very great interest in the election law. On a former occasion I introduced a Bill with the object of amending the Election Act, and as I thought improving that law. and I am happy to say that the suggestions I made then have since been embodied in the sta-Mr. FOSTER.
tute. This matter which at present is engaging the attention of the House was discussed by many of the newspapers in the province of Ontario on account of what they called the mutilated oath that was used in the Dominion elections. In order to have the subject brought before parliament the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) moved on the 15th of February that all the forms.used in the last Dominion election be laid on the table. They were laid on the table of the House, and* I took pains to verify the mutilated oath in these papers. The form of oath used in 1900 contained the anti-bribery clauses but at the last general election I was surprised to learn that clauses 8 and .9 were omitted from that oath. I thought it proper to prepare a form of oath and placed it in the hands of the scrutineers in my constituency so that if an elector should be sworn the proper oath should be administered. In some cases the deputy returning officer refused to administer any other oath than that forwarded to him by the government. In one instance, the returning officer persisted in having the oath administered in part, but at the expiration of an hour he concluded to administer the oath the scrutineer handed to him, and he did so for the balance of the day. The Minister of Justice is very careful that we should speak by the book and I shall do so. On the loth of February, the hon. member for Hamilton moved, for these papers and during the discussion on the Autouomv Bill I informed the Minister of Justice that I intended to bring up a matter in connection with his department. This very matter is the matter I then referred to. I did not expect it would be brought up to-day, but it would have been brought up before this were it not for the discussion on the Autonomy Bill. In order that I may do no injustice to the government, I shall state the absolute facts of the case as they are and I am prepared to stand by these facts as a member of this House. I have committed them to writing and I now give this statement to the House: For the past thirty years or more, in fact ever since the enactment of anti-bribery legislation, the ordinai-y form of election oath has always included what may be described as the standard anti-bribery clauses. The substance of these clauses is the sworn statement that the voter has not been bribed and that he has not bribed any one else. Every ordinai-y oath of qualification used in Ontario, not only in Dominion elections but in provincial and municipal elections as well, during all these years contained these clauses, till the last election when the form of oath printed and distributed for use by the Dominion officials for the first time, and without any change of law or circumstances whatever to justify it, unexpectedly and unaccountably left them out. It is well known that voters are often stopped from voting

by being confronted with the anti-bribery clauses, and scrutineers during all those years had only to ask for the administration of the oath and every one understood that that oath included anti-bribery clauses.
Why then were these clauses that had always heretofore been included, and which Conservative scrutineers and workers expected would still be included, quietly left out in 1901 ? Such a change, even if proper, should not have been made without special attention being called to it. But no notice whatever was given of it. Not even in the instructions to the returning officers or their deputies was there the slightest reference to it.
Any one familiar with the practical workings of matters at an election booth will understand how this omission of the bribery clauses would operate. It must be remembered that the election oath is not something that every voter has to take. No ordinary voter has to take the oath unless one of the scrutineers demands that he shall take it. The ordinary arrangements at a polling place are that the scrutineers are given a list of voters with certain names marked to be sworn. The scrutineer may or may not know the circumstances or reason why it is thought proper to swear a particular voter. His list is marked by the chairman or committee in charge of the division, usually on private and confidential information. The scrutineer depends on his marked list, and his duties are to watch the proceedings at the poll and swear the persons marked to be sworn. The instructions to the scrutineer always are to insist on the whole oath being put in each case so as to cover all grounds of objection, including bribery. The instructions to Conservative scrutineers last time were the same as usual, no one for a moment suspecting that the bribery clauses would not be included as they had always been in the ordinary form of oath. The government officials and deputy returning officers who had received the forms were the only persons that had a chance to know that these clauses were left out. Whether they discovered the fact before the election or not is a question. Some of them no doubt did but at any rate they kept it a secret from their political opponents. Unfortunately things have reached such a pass in our part of the country at least that the returning officers, deputies and clerks are, with a few exceptions, as much or almost as much partisans as the Liberal scrutineers. In the majority of cases, as things go now-a-days, the person appointed as deputy returning officer in a polling division is one of the most active Liberal workers of the division, often the chairman and nearly always a member of the Liberal committee of workers.
This was the state of affairs oh the morning of last 3rd of November when the poll opened. What would happen ? A voter would come in whom the Conservative scrutineer had instructions to swear. The scrutineer would ask to have him sworn, supposing as he and all the Conservative workers did that the ordinary oath contained the bribery clauses. The oath would be administered without the bribery clauses. In some cases perhaps no one would notice the omission, every one taking it for granted^ that the official oath was all right and in the usual form. If the Liberal deputy'did notice it there would be slim chances indeed that he would tell the Conservative scrutineer of it. If the Conservative scrutineer noticed it he might perhaps ask to look at the official form to see that it was read correctly, and when he was shown that it had been, unless he was an expert in election law, there was small chance of his having anything more to say. The device of administering two oaths in order to catch the anti-bribery clauses was something he had never before heard of. There is often too a repugnance on the part of scrutineers especially in country places to asking directly or specifically to have the bribery clauses administered to one of his neighbours. If he did speak of the bribery clauses he would be told by the deputy, as I am informed was actually done in a number of cases in Elgin, that that was the oath and all the oath that was supplied. In short the effect of the conduct of the government officials would be that no voter would have to swear either that he had not been bribed or that he had not bribed any one else unless the surreptitious omission of the bribery clauses was discovered and unless the means of remedying it were known to and insisted on by the scrutineer. As a matter of fact there were but very few cases in the province where the bribery clauses were administered.
And let me say in passing that I have inquired from other members from the province of Ontario oil this side of the House, and I find that the same thing existed in their parts of the province ; and I have no doubt since I examined the official documents laid on the table of the House, that the same form was used all over the province.
As I have said, even if the omission of these clauses from the oath was justified it should not have been done without attention being called to the change. Notice should have been given not only to the officials and deputies but also to the public or at any rate to the candidates on both sides. But, as I have before stated, not a word was said about it. Not even the deputies were notified of it. A perusal of the instructions to the returning officers will show that they were word for word the same in 1904 when the clauses were left out as they were in 1900 when they were in. I have them both here.
But there was no just cause whatever for leaving these anti-bribery clauses out. They were left in in 1900 and the sections of the Act prescnibing the oaths (sections 21 and 65) were precisely the same in 1900 as in 1904. Section 65 says ' that an elector if
7343

required shall take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held.' We have then to go to the Ontario Election Act (I have it here) and we find that the form [DOT]there prescribed (see section 98) in Form 16 in schedule ' A ' to that Act. This is the oath of qualification required by the provincial law. It contains the anti-bribery clauses (numbers 8 and 9) as all such oaths for more than a quarter of a century back have always contained them. This form 16 then is the oath of qualification which the Dominion Election Act prescribes. Yes, it will be said, but some changes in it are authorized by the above quoted provision of section 65. That is right, but note carefully what changes. Such changes and such only as ' are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held.' What then are these changes 1 Just what were made in 1900 and not one iota more-the omission from the end of the first clause of the oath the words * in the poll book,' because in the Dominion election the official list is not in the poll book, as it is in the provincial, but is a separate printed list. Not for one single instant can it be contended with the slightest show of reason that it was necessary to omit the anti-bribery clauses in order to make the provincial oath applicable to the Dominion election. These clauses are as strictly and as emphatically applicable as any other clause in the oath. The bribery aimed at by these clauses is forbidden by section 108 of the Dominion Act in the same terms as it is forbidden in the provincial Act. These omitted clauses word for word are in fact contained in Form ' R ' of the Dominion Act, showing if further proof were needed that they are not repugnant but are absolutely applicable to the Dominion elections. Moreover the oath of qualification Form S in the old Dominion Act. which the present provincial oath takes the place of contained these clauses in the same exact words. Neither in precedent nor in theory was there the slightest ground for leaving these anti-bribery clauses out. Why was it done ?
But there is still another and perhaps a more serious aspect of the case yet to be pointed out, and that is that this altered form which was printed and sent forth by the government officials purports to be what it is not. I have here one of the emasculated forms that was actually sent forth and used by the officials. While it omits the anti-bribery clauses it is so headed as to lead one to believe that it contained them. It is headed Form 16. Form 16 is a well known form and well known to contain these anti-bribery clauses. What is sent forth as Form 16 is not the genuine Form 16 at all, but a false, mutilated and misleading form. Just look at it and compare it with the genuine form in Mr. INGRAM.
the Ontario Election Act or with the form actually used by the government in 1900 (I have them both here) and see what a deception and a fi'aud it is. Its heading also states that it is the form of oath for use in ordinary cases and this leads to the supposition that it is the only and all the oath applicable to such cases. If it was intended merely to be supplemental to another oath, or another oath to it, why did it not state so on the face of it either in the heading or in a foot note ?
From whatever point of view we regard it, this oath matter is utterly indefensible.
The foregoing is the position of the case in brief. It is an absolutely correct and unassailable presentation of the facts and circumstances of the matter. But some excuses are attempted.
It is said that Form 16 is not an oath of qualification, that only part of it, namely the part without the bribery clauses is what is meant in section 65 by ' oath of qualification.' There is nothing in such a contention. For thirty years and more all ordinary oaths of qualification used at elections contained these anti-bribery clauses. Form S and Form X in the old Act (which I have here) which are headed and called oaths of qualification contain these identical clauses. This very Form 16 of the Ontario Election Act, and the whole of it, is described and referred to in the Ontario Election Act itself as ' the oath of qualification.' (See section 94, subsection 5 of Ontario Election Act). It is mere twaddle to pretend that the whole of Form 16 is not what is referred to and intended in section 65 as the oath of qualification. And section 65 justifies no omissions from it whatever. Any changes necessary to make it applicable to Dominion Elections are authorized. That might mean that if the anti-bribery clauses were not properly or appropriately worded for Dominion Elections the wording might be changed, but in no wise could it mean that these clauses were to be wholly left out.
Again it is said that because anti-bribery clauses are contained in Form 'U,' and Form ' U ' might be administered, therefore it was right to leave the bribery clauses out of Form 16-in other words that Form 'TJ' and Form 1C were merely supplemental to each other and that one was not intended to contain anything that the other contained.
Such a contention is altogether wrong, even apart from the fact that the mutilation of Form 16 would, even on such a ground, be a direct violation of the provisions of section 65. Form ' U ' has a primary and direct purpose of its own namely to head off persons who are disfranchised by reason of having been found guilty of bribery or corrupt practices at some former election. Peruse section 7 of the Dominion Election Act, and the Act and sections referred to in section 7 and this will be abundantly clear.
Moreover the official who prepared the

mutilated oath did not proceed on the ground that nothing must be duplicated In the two oaths. I want the right bon. gentleman to mark this. If he had he would have left out not only the bribery clauses (8 and 9) but also clause 7 (as to not having voted before) which, unlike the bribery clauses, is retained in the mutilated form though it is also in Form ' U.'
Excuse is also attempted for departure from the course that was followed in 1900 of leaving the bribery clauses in, by pointing out that there had been in 1900 a clerical error in the heading of Form 'U' which was corrected in 1901. That could in no view be any justification for the change, and if the state of the heading furnished any reason at all one way or the other, the condition it was left in in 1904 made it more necessary to have Form 16 complete in itself then than in 1900. For the erroneous heading was corrected before the elections of 1900, by official instructions from the Department of the Secretary of State, dated 12tli October, 1900, directing the deputy returning officers to ' absolutely ignore ' that erroneous heading as it was inserted by mistake. I have here this official instruction ; it is pasted right to this Form * XJ.' The heading as it now stands and as it stood in 1904 indicates that the oath Form 'U' is intended for a special class of persons and not for general or ordinary cases, while as it was in 1900 with the official instructions to ignore the heading altogether it might be inferred that it was for general and ordinary use. The fact also that a special instruction was issued in 1900 regarding it would specially draw attention to the fact that there was such an oath and that it was expected it would be used.
Never before was it necessary to administer any additional oath besides the ordinary one in order to catch a voter on bribery.
If the oath Form ' D ' had even been printed and distributed like Form 16 it would have made things a little less objectionable.
If the law does not require the antibribery clauses to be inserted or rather left in Form 16, and if it was proper to send that mutilated oatli forth without them, then there was a time (from 1898 to I960) when no anti-bribery clauses could be administered to a voter at all. The preseut section 65 upon which the matter under discussion hangs is, so far as it relates to the oath in question, taken word for word from section 45, subsection 2 of the 1898 Act ; and this was the only oath which could under the 1898 Act be administered to a voter. Can it be supposed that it ever was the intention that no voter should be sworn as to bribery?
Wholly unjustified, false, mutilated and misleading is the fitting characterization of the thing that was sent forth and used as the official form of oath at the last Dominion election.
I make this statement to the House, and it is a statement of the facts in connection
with this mutilated form of oath. Why that was done, I cannot understand. There was no justification for it. There is no amendment to the Act which necessitated it; and whoever did it, did it with a purpose. Will my right hon. friend pretend to say that all the deputy returning officers throughout Canada, who were furnished the election documents which were laid on the table of this House, were sufficiently well posted in the Election Act of Canada to choose, when a scrutineer asked one of them to swear a voter, from the three separate oaths which one they should administer ? Would any hon. gentleman pretend to say that ?


Mr. GALLIHER.: Pretend to say what.


Andrew B. Ingram: That if, an elector going into his polling booth, the scrutineer of either party asking the returning officer to swear him, any deputy returning officer would be sufficiently well posted in the election law to take out of three different oaths make a complete oath to administer to the elector ?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not know that our deputy returning officers in British Columbia are any more intelligent than those in other parts of Canada ; but I remember being in a polling booth, when the deputy returning officer asked the scrutineer : Which oath do you want administered-the qualification oath or the bribery oath ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Your election law in British Columbia is different from ours ; but speaking for the province of Ontario, I have stated exactly what occurred, and I say there was no justification for amending the oath and making it any different from what it was in 1900. Then it was a correct oath, and any deputy returning officer administering it, would be administering the oath in full. I want to point out in addition that the first oath was a correct and a convenient form, why therefore should it have been mutilated and the bribery clauses struck out ? There was no justification for that, nor was there any change in the election Act which required a change in the oath at all. That is where the government made a mistake, or an. official of the government mutilated the oath which was required to be administered.


Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON.: Like my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I do not wish to imply that this was done in that particular case with design, but the circumstances are rather extraordinary and so is the coincidence ; because, as my hon. friend has said, the very same thing was done during the last election in the province of Quebec. I had not examined the papers which were in the polling booth, when my attention was called to the matter in Valleylield, where there Is a very large vote. Let me read to

the House the oath that was there given to the elector. This is the English form of the oath prescribed by section 143 of the Quebec Election Act, 1903, made applicable to Dominion elections pursuant to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, in that behalf. This is the oath :
5Tou swear (or affirm, as the case may be), ta answer the truth and nothing but the truth to the questions which will be put to you ; so help you God.
1.	Are you the person meant or Intended to be meant by the name entered as follows (name of the elector entered on the list) on the list of electors for this polling division ?
2.	Are you a subject of His Majesty ?
3.	Have you been naturalized in any other country or taken thereto the oath of allegiance?
4.	Are you of the full age of twenty-one years ?
5.	Have you voted before to-day at this election, for this electoral district, at this or any other polling station ?
8. Not being a proprietor and residing out of Canada for over a year, have you returned to this country with your family, at least one month before the election with the intention of remaining therein ?
That is the oath that was administered to the voters in the county of Beauharuois at the last general election.


Wilfrid Laurier: The matter is absolutely new to me and I desire information. The hon. member says that this is the form of oath administered in the Beauliar-nois election. Was there not another oath against bribery ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Not at all. When my attention was called to it-we know what is done during elections, we know how fidgety our friends are. and when they came to me and said : ' This is an extraordinary oath ; there is nothing at all in that, and we want to get-the oath which should be given to the electors, ' I went to the poll and saw the deputy and asked him if he had not any other form of oath. He said : No. I said : That is nothing. He said : This is the oath I found among my papers, and it is the one I am going to administer. I asked for the Act, and 'although I had not the local Act in my pocket, I took the Dominion Elections Act and showed him clause 05. I have found that in my province the officials on election day are generally our most bitter opponents. X do not say they are dishonest, but they will not listen to anything, they pretend to stand by their duty, and when a man says :1 This is what I found in the box and I will not use anything else but that,' I cannot tell that man he is dishonest, although I know he is a bitter opponent of mine and has been working against me. I read clause 65 of the Act, which is as follows :
_ An elector, if required by the deputy returning officer, the poll clerk, one of the candidates, or an agent of a candidate or by any elector present shall, before receiving his ballot paper, Mr. BERGERON.
take such oath of qualification as by the Jaw of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having^ been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held, and shall also, if so required, take 'the oath in the form ' U.'
Now, what is the form of oath used ? It is very much a repetition of this for the first paragraphs, but this is what is essential, and I imagine that is why it was drawn in this form. This is the form :
That you have not received anything, that you do not expect anything, nor has anything been promised you directly or indircetly, to induce you to vote at this election, either for loss of time, travelling .expenses, hire of team, or for any other service, connected therewith.
That you have not, directly or indirectly, paid or promised anything to any person either to induce him to vote or to refrain from voting at this election.
That you are not otherwise disqualified from voting at this election.
So help you God.
I asked the deputy returning officer In the poll at which I was to add these words to the oath he was taking from the elector. There is not a man in this House who will say it was not the Intention of the legislature that the two oaths should he given. The deputy returning officer refused to do so. although I showed him the law. He said: " Mr. Bergeron, I have nothing to do with that ; X have received instructions to put this oath." And he did not do it.


Mr. O. E. TADBOT.: Was not the returning officer supplied with a copy of the Election Act in the box ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I took the Dominion Electoral Act in the poll and showed it to him, but how could I force him to administer the oath ? The consequence was that in every poll in Valleyfield I could not get any other oath administered but this. I do not say it was done intentionally. I do not want to imply that the government have done that intentionally, but it is a most estraordinary thing that it should be done first in our province and now in the province of Ontario. Would it not be better, and avoid mistakes, if, since we are obliged by law to take the oath of the local Act and apply the federal Act to it, we should have a printed form of the local Act, the whole Act as it is in the local and in the Dominion Acts, and then there would be no mistake ? I only mention this matter, because we have been talking about it in connection with the other case. In my county I found in every poll that I could not obtain from the deputy returning officer what the law required. He had no instructions to that effect, and he would not comply with the law as passed by this parliament.


Samuel Barker: The Minister of Justice has complained that this question is. 'sprung upon him without reasonable notice. I wish to confirm what lias been
said already from this side, that there was no intention to spring this subject at ail.
It would not have been brought up for some da vs to come had It not been for the extraordinary conduct of the government in respect to the pending election in Oxford. I understand that a complaint was made in Woodstock about the form being used, and a telegram was sent to the government asking instructions, and I am told-the right hon. gentleman can tell me whether I am right or wrong-that the government s answer was to stand by the forms sent and no others. Under these circumstances, we on this side thought it our duty immediately to bring these questions up. I personally would have preferred to have the discussion later, because I have not papers here which I intended to use when this subject would come up ; but as it is now, we may as well discuss the whole matter. It has been said b' hon. gentlemen opposite that this is a mistake of the Clerk of the Crown in Qhan- , eerv. I contend that it is nothing of the kind. These instructions are the instructions of the government issued by the Clerk 0f the Crown, but subject to the approval ot tlie Governor in Council, and the government is directly responsible for the instructions issued. Section 21 of the Dominion Elections Act provides this :
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall transmit to the returning officer a sufficient number of copies of voters lists, if there are any, one copy of this Act, and of such instructions approved by the Governor in Council as are required to carry out the election according to the provisions of this Act.
Therefore, Sir, the instructions which we are discussing are not, strictly speaking, instructions of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, but instructions approved ana adopted by the government. Same clause goes on :
The instructions referred to in subsection 1 of this section contain forms of the oaths referred to in sections 65, 66 and 68.
The instructions shall contain the forms of the oaths in sections 65, GG and G8. Let us see what section 65 says ?
The elector, if required by the deputy returning officer, the polling clerk, one of the candidates, or any agent of the candidates, or by any elector present shall, before receiving the ballot paper, take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take.
That form shall be part of the instructions. In November, 1904, or in the present by-elections, what form was given in connection with the provincial law ? The statute does not say part of the provincial form, but the whole of the form.
Take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in a like case at a provincial election he required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath
as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held.
Of course some of the words have to be changed ; the provincial election had to be made the Dominion election, and so on.
And shall also, if so required, take the o'atlx in the form * U.'
If so required. If not required to take the form 1 U,' is he only to take part of the provincial oath. Surely, if the candidate or an elector did not call upon the form ' U ' to be sworn to, the oath called for in section 65 was the whole provincial oath ? To say that the provincial oath was to be supplemented by form ' U ' is it seems to me, an absurd reading of that section. But if we take the Quebec form read by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) we *will see the utter absurdity of that contention. Take the form issued in November last by the Dominion government for the elections in Quebec together with form U and administer both of them to an elector,, and you will not comply with the law. There is more in the province of Quebec affidavit than you will find in the form issued by the government and form ' U ' put together. The Quebec Election Act, 1903, chapter 9, section 143, has what may be called the bribery clauses in the form of questions. It is in this form :
Has any promise been made to you or to your wife or to any of your relations, friends or other persons, to induce you to vote or not to vote at this election ?
Neither in the form issued by the government or in form 1 U ' are the words or not to vote.' And who will say that thisi is not a very material part of the oath ? Why, it is a very common practice among certain people who run what is called the machine in the various provinces, to pay a man not to vote. A man does that by perhaps spoil ing his ballot or putting in a blank ballot, and in the province of Quebec he can be sworn that he has not received anything not to vote.
Have you received anything, either personally or through your wife, or through any member of vour family, or in any other manner to induce you to vote or not to vote at this election, or in relation to your vote at this election .
There are no such words to be found itr the form issued by the government or in the form 'IJ.'
Have vou been guilty of or participated in any corrupt practice whatever which disqualifies, you from taking part in this election .
That goes further than form ' U.' Form 'IT' is an affidavit that he has not been convicted, and this not only reaches the man that has been convicted, but the man who has been guilty and not convicted. The Dominion government substituted for this Act in the province of Quebec, two clauses neither of which cover this clause. I take it that that knocks from under the feet or

the government the contention that section 5 allowed ' U ' to be substituted for part of the provincial oath and the ground that had covered it for both together cannot cover it in the province of Quebec. Take the form read by my hon. friend from Beauharnois and add to that the form ' U ' and you do not get the provincial law. In the law of JNova Scotia there are the same bribery clauses, but of course in different terms, and the same thing applies to the election law of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island which has special forms of bribery clauses. The form of the bribery clauses in each province differs. And vet with regard to the elections in each province the bribery clause is struck out, with one exception and it is rather a curious one. The only form of affidavit in the Dominion in the November elections that had the bribery oath was that used in the Northwest Territories. Why the government thought the Northwest Territories required it I do not know, but that is the fact. Now with regard to what occurred in Hamilton as in other places ; after some hours of polling some of my friends in Hamilton discovered that this mutilated form of affidavit was being used. The gen-[DOT] tleinan who was acting as returning officer, a lawyer and a very honourable man, the moment his attention was called to it, he issued instructions to all the deputy returning officers to correct the form. He had not the slightest shadow of a doubt what his duty was and he complied with it immediately, and I found by an examination of the polling returns afterwards something which convinced me that the change in the form of the oath had done good. In East Hamilton we had a system of checking by our agents which amounted to the agent keeping a duplicate of the poll clerks' book, so that every agent knew the order in which every man voted, and he had each marked '* sworn ' or ' refused ' and so on. After the election I took some trouble to go over many of the polling divisions and I found that up to a certain point man after man who had been marked in the canvassing books to be sworn by our side took the oath. But after a certain time we found refusal after refusal by men who' were tendered the oath.
I cannot say absolutely that the first men knew that they were not to be subjected to the bribery oath, but the result did seem to lead to that conclusion.
I know that throughout the city men who wore interested in these things pointed out that they could not control the elections without that bribery oath and they were convinced that it was known broadcast throughout the city that there was no bribery oath in the form. I have no doubt at all that in cities, at all events, where the news would go pretty quickly, it would have a most serious effect upon any man's election to let it go forth that the people could get their votes in without anv fear of having the bribery oath administered. There is no doubt about that. Every one Mr. BARKER.
knows that is the case in cities where news gets around quickly. Then, what is the case in a county? It is utterly hopeless when a thing of that kind occurs for any man to correct anything wrong in the form it lie does And it out. In a county it would be absolutely impossible to send out new forms to all the polling divisions and have the matter corrected. The mischief is done and it cannot be remedied. Fortunately in the city of Hamilton we were able to se-because, having a good honest returning officer, he was very prompt in correcting it. But, the extraordinary thing, as has been pointed out here, is this: Having the printed form used in 1900 following strictly the provincial Act to go by, these officers like all other officers, repeat their forms; they do not go through the form of redrawing them. They have printed forms and they [DOT] use them over again. How was it that clauses 8 and 9 were struck out of that affidavit? What object could there be in striking them out? Surely it must have been plain to any man that the striking of the bribery clauses mate th*t affidavit was a most serious m/"el' and 1 cannot believe that the clerk of the Crown in Chancery or any other official would have dared to have taken out these clauses without authority. I cannot believe that he would have taken these clauses out and then have submitted the torm to the Governor in Council without having called attention to the omission or that experienced politicians like those sitting around the Council Board would not have thought that there was something extraordinary in striking these clauses out of the affidavits in the forms which had been already used.
I want to say one word more on this subject, not quite relating to the forms of the affidavit, but bearing upon the manner in which the government issues its writs to the returning officers conducting these elections. I intended to bring this [DOT].subject up on a future occasion, but I shall do so now
the mattei' In	Hamilton,
. gentteman who was appointed returning officer and who, I repeat, is a most respectable man-I have not a word to say against him, I have no suspicion of his conduct, I believe he is a perfectly honourable and straightforward man and that lie did his duty-was a junior partner in the firm of Chisholm and Doggie, the senior partner iu which was the president of the Reform Association of the city of Hamilton one of the most active men at the headquarters of the Liberal Association up to the time of the election and during polling day Not only that, but the firm of Chisholm & Doggie, carrying on business as lawyers, have, as most lawyers have, a vault common to the firm and open to the clerks in the office The ballot boxes, after the poll, were re-tuined to that office and kept in the vault ot that firm for three or four days. The

keys of this vault were not carried around j by the returning officer in his pocket-some thirty keys-but they were in charge of the clerks of the office. For three or four days these ballot boxes were practically under the control of the president of the Reform Association of Hamilton after the election. I am not finding fault with the returning officer. I am quite satisfied that he would do nothing wrong or be a party to anything wrong, but I do say it is an outrage that the government should have appointed a returning officer to carry on an election of that kind knowing, as the government must have known, that the papers and the ballot boxes after the election were under the control of my opponent just as much as they were under the control of the returning officer.


Mr.  R. L.@: I'. DEMERS (St. .John and Iberville). Mr. Speaker, I think the argument presented by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) must have convinced the House that there was good reason for tne change in the form of the oath which was sent out. As most hon. members know the law is not the same in all the provinces and the laws of the provinces are not the same as the laws of the Dominion. We are by section 65 of the Dominion Act, permitted to use the forms of the provinces. Does that mean that we introduced into our law a provision admitting all the disabilities of the provinces? Not at all. All those which agree with our laws are admitted and that- is why, in section 65. we say that it shall be permitted to us to change the provincial form. For what reason do we change the provincial form? I will take the instance which has been given by the hon. member for Hamilton. In the province of Quebec it is settled by law that a man who has been proven guilty of bribery is disqualified from voting. Under our Dominion law it is a doubtful question, if I do not mistake. Then, was there not a good reason for a change in the form of that province? This disqualification, I maintain, which we have put into our provincial law could not be introduced into our Dominion law by a form of oath administered under the provincial law. It was not the intention of this parliament to disqualify electors who were disqualified by the provinces. I do not see anything to laugh at in my argument.
Mr. TISDALE, If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) thinks I was laughing he is mistaken.


Mr. DEMERS.: This is a serious argument. It was not the intention to disqualify7 electors who are not disqualified under our law. This being the fact it was a sufficient reason for changing the form of oath of the province which change is authorized by section 65. I go further. Hon. gentlemen opposite may make a great noise
about this question but if they have the practical side of the question they have not the common sense nor logical sense. According to their contention we should have sworn these people twice for the same thing. It would not have been enough that the oath should have been administered according to our federal law, but we should have been obliged to have come under the local laws and to have sworn them twice. Would it be practicable to have the people sworn twice?


Andrew B. Ingram: May I ask the hon. gentleman what oath ' U ' is intended to
cover ?


Louis Philippe Demers: It is because oath ' U ' is not useless, it is because the government had the right to make changes in the oath of the provinces that we have made the provision of section 65 that any voter, before being allowed to vote, shall be obliged to take the oath in Form ' U.' My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) says that one officer refused that. His duty was plain. If so that officer was acting in bad faith and the party aggrieved had a right of action against him, but I do not believe that all over his county all of the officers understood their duty in the same way.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) allow me one question ? Why have only half of the provincial oath in this form? Why not have the whole thing there so as to avoid any officer refusing to comply with the Dominion Election Act or refusing to administer the oath according to the Form ' U.' I am reading from the statutes of the province of Quebec, four paragraphs which have been omitted in this form which are nearly identical with the Btorm ' U ' of the Dominion Elections Act. Why was not the whole form put in of oath to be administered to the voters ?


Louis Philippe Demers: I say we have a law here which is our law. By section 65 we do not intend to bring up in our elections all the reasons of disqualifications of the provinces, but we only intend to cover those causes of disqualification' covered by our law. If you have disqualification for a certain Act under your Quebec law, it does not follow that the man is disqualified from voting under the Dominion law. Of course, he may incur a penalty, but if there is no disqualification under the federal law, do you think it is the intention of section 65 to disqualify him from voting, I say no. I say that section 65 is there for the purpose of permitting us to retain that part of the local laws which is necessary. And it is for this very reason that it has ben put in words so plain, under section. 65, that the Form ' U ' shall be used.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman means 64.


Louis Philippe Demers: No. 65. And section 68 says that no voter can receive a ballot if he refuses to take the oath in the Form ' U.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But if the returning officer will not offer it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He will have to do it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But he does not.
Mi-. L. P. DEMERS. I cannot accept the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron)-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am sorry the hon. gentleman (Mr. L. P. Demers) will not take my word for it, because this happened to myself.


Louis Philippe Demers: Then, why did not my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) prosecute the officer ? The case was a clear one. The law declares that no voter may have a ballot who refuses to take the oath according to the Form ' U.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But if the form of oatli is changed ?


Louis Philippe Demers: It must have been an exception. I cannot believe that that course was followed all over the riding.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes ; and if you will make an investigation I think you will find it in other counties as well.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is contended that the form of oath supplied to the returning officer is not sufficient, that it does not cover the ground. Well, I think there is a good deal of misapprehension of the facts and that there was nothing in the instructions sent to the returning officer to justify the indignation expressed by my hon. friend from Bast Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). These instructions are to be found in the book which I have in my hand. This book contains the Dominion Election Act. A copy of the book is sent to the returning officer in Oxford in the election that is now in progress. It is stated at page 2 :
The oaths prescribed under sections 64, 65 74 and 75, forms ' T,' ' U,' ' V,' ' W,' first schedule, are administered viva voce ; you will instruct your deputies that, when occasion demands it, they will swear the voter direct from the copy of the Dominion Elections Act which is supplied to them.
^ I think that is very clear. Section 65 of the Dominion Election Act declares that two oaths can be administered under that Act, first the qualification oath under the law of each province. There is an oath which can be administered under the law of the province of Quebec ; there is a different oath with regard to manhood suf-ferage which is administered in the province of Ontario. There is no form of qualification oath in the section itself other than the form ',*! (l'kh as supplied to the returning officer. Ihat is the form of oath which my hon. friend from East Lambton saw in the hands of the returning officer. .


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is one of the * forms. May I state that the part of the oath '


Louis Philippe Demers: with regard to bribery and corruption is omitted. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are there, but 8 and 9 are not there.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And they should not be there. And for this simple reason ; section G5 says :
Any elector, when required by the deputy rer turning officer, the poll clerk, one of the candidates or an agent of a candidate, or by any elector present shall, before receiving his ballot paper, take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of the oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held, and shall also, if so required, take the oath in the form ' U.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And if he refuses.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will come to that. I do not speak of whether the returning officer performs his duties faithfully or not but I am speaking of the law and of the way it is carried out in North Oxford.


Robert Laird Borden: Where are the words in section 65 on which the hon. minister (Mr. Brodeur) relies for striking out clauses 8 and 9 of the former oath ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say the words are to be found in the interpretation of the article itself. There are two forms of oath which are mentioned in this section 65. One is the form of oath which the voter is required to take under the provincial law. In the province of Ontario, by the provincial Act, a man can get a vote under the manhood suf-ferage provision. Well, he gives his oath as required by this form. This form is not in the statutes.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it is not. I think I did not make myself clear. You leave in seven clauses of the oath provided under the provincial law, and you omit two.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the words in section 65 on which you rely for including the seven clauses and leaving out the two I would invite the hon. gentleman's attention to the language, particularly to the words :
And shall also, if required, take the oath in the form ' U.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It strikes me this way : there are two forms of oath prescribed under section 65 ; one is with regard to the provincial law and the other as to what is called the bribery clauses and which are included in the Form ' U.' As there is not, under our law, any form as to the provincial law the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends to the returning officer a form which may be different in one province from the other according to the law of each province. Besides that, if the candidate or his agent at the poll wants the elector to be sworn as to bribery, he simply puts to him the different questions which are included in form U,

and -which, according to these instructions, he is to administer.


Frederick William Borden: I do not quite follow the hon. gentleman. The statute says that the instructions referred to in subsection 1 of this section shall contain the forms of oath referred to in sections 65, 66 and 68. Now, you have a bribery oath, under either the province or the Dominion, probably under both. What is the justification for omitting any form of bribery oath from the forms inserted in the instructions ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because I do not see the necessity of inserting it. The first oatli is with regard-to the qualification-whether the man whose name is on the list is entitled to vote.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to make my question plain to the hon. gentleman, because I want to appreciate his argument. The instructions contain the forms of oath, but these forms omit any reference to bribery, as set out in either the provincial or the Dominion statute. What is the justification for that ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am trying to explain the difference which I find in the two forms of oath described in section 65. The first one is with regard to the qualification of the voter, not with regard to bribery. The second one is whether the voter lias committed any acts of bribery ; and the instructions, which are sent to the returning officer, prescribe that lie shall instruct liis deputies, when the occasion requires it, to swear the voters from the Dominion Elections Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend regard the oath in Form 1 U ' as a qualification oath ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No ; I regard it as a different oath. The path referred to in section 65 is the qualification oath, apart from the question of bribery ; and section 65 says that the elector shall also, if so required, take the oath in Form * II.' That is the reason the Olerk of the Crown in Chancery, v. ho is not an officer of the government or of the House of Commons merely, but an officer of parliament, sent the form of oatii as required by the law in each province, and also gave instructions to the returning officers to administer tlie oath with regard to bribery. That is the situation, and I do not think there was any reason at all for file hon. member for Lambton raising this question. There was certainly no intention on the part of anybody to deprive any elector of bis vote or to permit anybody to vote who was not entitled to do so. The returning officers have their instructions ; and if to-day, in the London or Oxford election, somebody shall call upon a deputy returning officer to swear one of the electors because be is suspected of receiving a bride, the deputy returning officer has all the
necessary instructions for that purpose. I am sorry, for any part, that the time of this House has been wasted in the discussion of a question which seems to me to be absolutely clear.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman sits down, I would like to ask him one final question, because I have not fully appreciated his argument. The statute prescribes certain forms of oaths. Is his [DOT]contention that all forms shall be sent forward except the form as to bribery, and that is omitted '!


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No ; my hon. friend is mistaken. The form as to bribery is sent, like all the others ; but instead of it being sent on a detached form., the returning officer simply receives instructions that if somebody calls on a voter to take the oath, he is to administer it from the book.


Robert Laird Borden: Migiht I point out to my 'hon. friend that, not only must the instructions be approved by the Governor ill Council and be sent forward, but the forms of oath must also be sent forward with the instructions. All forms of oath have been sent forward except the form with respect to bribery, which has been omitted. The Election Act, the instructions mid the forms, these three things have to be sent forward.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My bon. friend is mistaken. The forms which have been sent to the returning officer in North Oxford are of two kinds. One kind are forms regarding the qualifications under tlie Ontario Act. The reason they have been sent in detached form is that they are not in our law. But tlie returning officer also got the form which could be administered under the latter part of section 65.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not say the latter part; it says under the whole section.
Mr. BRODEUR, Under the whole section. The first part of section 65 was sent to him, and the second part is in this book ; and it is declared on page 2 of the instructions that if somebody calls upon the voter to take the oath under Form 'U' then the deputy returning officer shall administer it under this Act. So that the two forms were in the hands of the returning officer, the form with regard to qualification and the form with regard to bribes. Consequently, there cau be no reason or justification for asserting that there has been any intention on the part of anybody to deprive the electors of their right to vote.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the Dominion Elections Act says that that is the form of oath that shall be given when men are asked to take the oath. The minister refers to a form of oath with reference to the manho<#l franchise. I admit that that

is sent along ; but not only is that sent, but part of the oath with refernce to bribery and corruption. Of that oath there are only seven clauses included in this form, and I would like the minister to explain why the other two clauses, which are contained in the local Election Act, are omitted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They have no place there at all in law.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend regard the oath as an oath of qualification ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I fear I shall be violating somewhat on the rules of the House if I speak again, but I have managed to get hold of the statutes and understand the matter somewhat better than I did a while ago. I am quite prepared to express the opinion now deliberately that, after having considered the matter, the form of oaths supplied is the only one that can be supplied under the law.


Robert Laird Borden: I am prepared to state my opinion exactly the reverse of that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then I shall proceed to give reasons in support of my opinion. Section 21 of the Dominion Elections Act provides :
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall transmit to the returning officer a sufficient number of copies of the voters' lists, if there are any, one -copy of this Act, and of such instructions approved by the Governor in Council as are required to carry out the election according to the provisions of this Act. (With a copious alphabetical index prefixed), for the returning officer himself, one .ropy for the election clerk and one for each of the deputy returning oflicers, and also for each deputy returning officer a blank poll book and all the blank forms necessary for the purposes of such election, except Forms ' E,' ' I ' and ' P,' which the returning officer shall himself cause to be printed.
2. The instructions referred to in section 1 of this section shall contain forms of the oaths referred to in sections 65, 66 and 68 of this Act, the same having been made applicable to the election being held, and in the case of returning officers in the province of Prince Edward Island they shall be accompanied by the sections of the provincial law relating to the qualifications of voters.
These are all the documents that are to be sent to the returning oflicers under the law ; and beyond complying with the requirements of the law, the government cannot be held responsible.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where is Form ' U ' V


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Andrew B. Ingram: What are they ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I shall point out what they are. In addition he shall take the oath required in respect of bribery. That is the additional oath he is required to take, and that is the oath given him in the Form ' U.' Now let us go back to the instructions. There you will find at page 2 :
Sections 50 to 79, inclusively indicate your duties and those of your deputies and other officers, from the granting of the poll to the close of the proceedings on polling day.
The oaths prescribe under sections 64, 65, 74 and 75, Forms ' I,' ' U,' ' V,' ' W,' first schedules, are administered viva voce ; you will instruct your deputies that when occasion demands it, they will swear the elector direct from a copy of the Dominion Elections Act which is supplied them.
That is to say if the returning officer is called upon to administer the oath in Form ' U ', he is instructed to administer it from the form contained in the Dominion Elections Act.
Then with respect to the forms of the other oaths the instructions provide :
Forms of the other oaths prescribed by the provincial law, adapted to the purposes of the present election, are furnished to you herewith.


Samuel Barker: What do you say they are ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I say they are here.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is speaking of a change in the Ontario oath.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are speaking of the Dominion Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the oath administered by the law of the Dominion, the only change is the words in the poll-book. If the instructions that both he and the hon. gentleman beside him quoted to-day govern, will the hon. gentleman point out what are the changes in the instructions given in 1900 as compared with those given in 1901 ? If in the first instructions, the government issued a certain form, what changes are there in the instructions in 1904 to compel the government to change the form ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because the form of oath sent out in 1900 was a form that was improper under the law. That is the reason. The form of oath sent out in 1900 contains provisions with respect to disqualification imported into it from the local law, which had no place in our Dominion law at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did not the government issue the order


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I rise to a point of order.	[DOT]


Andrew B. Ingram: Fair-play is a jewel, but evidently that is not the case here.


Mr. SPEAKER.: If the hon. gentleman desires to ask a question, it is within the right of the gentleman who has the floor to answer it or not.
, Mr. FITZPATRICK. I have not 'the slightest objection, and I do not think I have ever shown that I am animated by any such spirit as that imputed to me, but I do not think it is in the interest of proper decorum in debate that hon. gentlemen who have not the floor should interject speeches as wre go along.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order. If the Minister of Justice will not allow the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram to put a question, I raise the point that the hon. minister has spoken once already.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot be bullied into answering a question or doing anything else, and I want the hon. gentleman to understand it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not want to make a speech but am eager to get at the facts. The hon. minister has referred to a change made from 1900 to 1904.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: I rise to the same point of order that was raised by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) with regard to the Minister of Justice. If the point of order was good in his case, surely it ought to apply to the hon. minister who is now interrupting him.
Mr. INGRAM, (reading) :
Department of Secretary of State, Ottawa, 12th October, 1900. Official Instructions for Deputy Returning Officers.
The heading to Form ' TJ,' page 59 Dominion Elections Act, is misleading and should he absolutely ignored. It does not in any way represent the provisions contained in the form, and was inserted there by mistake.
So the statement the Minister of Justice makes that this change was made, was absolutely and fully covered in 1900 is incorrect. There has been no change since
1900.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Either my hon. friend argues that the instructions in 1904 differed from those in 1900 or they did not.


Andrew B. Ingram: No.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Well what Is he complaining of ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Why was the form changed ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The form is different ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The from is different.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then as the form is part of the instructions and is changed, I argue that the Instructions are changed.


Andrew B. Ingram: I woiild like to know the point of law that was changed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My point was that section 65 requires the two oaths, one the oath of qualifications as required by the law of the province, changes being made in the form of the oath such as are necessary under our Dominion law and in addition to that the oath in the Form ' U.' Now what is the qualification of a voter. The qualification of a voter is prescribed by section 6 of the Franchise Act. Section 6 provides that:
No person possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law to entitle him to vote at a provincial election, shall he disqualified from voting at a Dominion election merely by reason of any provision of the provincial law disqualifying from having his name on the list or from voting-
So that if a man is disqualified under the Provincial Act by reason of some act of bribery, he is not disqualified ns a result to vote under the Federal Act, and section 6 is the section which covers the point that a voter is entitled to vote and cannot be deprived of his right to vote because of some disqualification which is peculiar to the provincial Act, and as a result the oath of qualification required by the provincial law must be amended so as to cover the provisions of section 6 of the Franchise Act. But with respect to the bribery clauses this provision is contained in the form which is supplied to the returning officer, which form constitutes part of the Election. Act

and which hi's instructions say he must deliver in that form, assuming as the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) argued a moment ago, that the provisions of the Dominion Election Act were different with respect to disqualification from the provisions of the provincial Act which, should supersede the other, could a voter be called upon to take an oath which would require him to be placed in contradiction under the Dominion Act to what he would swear to under the provincial Act. Is it proper that with respect to disqualification for bribery, two oaths should be put different iu words and different in substance V My argument is that section 65 of the "federal Act, properly construed, requires simply that the oath of qualification, which is the oath to be adapted from the provincial Act, should be sent out in a special form and the oath with respect to bribery in the Form ' U ' be administered in the form given in the Act.


Mr. FOWLER.: I wish to ask the minister whether he considers section 7 of the form sent out in Ontario a qualification or not ? Is that a part of the qualification, paragraph 7 of form 16 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that is not the qualification.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that not give away the case ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly not, because the same thing is contained in this oath. They ought not to be in it. The same thing is done in this oath ; not in the Form ' U ' which is covered by our own Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the form of 1904 right ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
George William Fowler: It seems to me that the refutation of the arguments of the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Justice is contained in section 7 of form 16. Section 7 says :
That you have not voted before at this election, either at this or any other polling station.
The Minister of Justice contended that the old form sent out in 1900, the form which contained the full oath, was adopted in mistake on the part of the department, under that form when the bribery oath was required to be put to an elector it could be put and there was the form before the ic-turning officer, and there could be no such question as that which arose in Beauharnois. The minister says it was wrong to send that out, because it contained more than the qualification

because it contained all the disqualifications as well- but here we have this oath which is set forth by the Minister of Justice as being the only right and correct thing and ft contains the very same objection as that contained in the- old instructions of 1900. That is why I asked the Minister of Justice whether he looked upon section 7 as a qualification or a disqualification. If the acceptance of a bribe by an elector is a disqualification, certainly for him to have voted before at that election is a disqualification as well.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In one sense it is but in another it is not.


George William Fowler: I am surprised that the minister would say it is not a disqualification.


Charles Fitzpatrick: L did not say that, 1 said that in one sense it is a disqualification and not in another. I said to have voted before at an election is a disqualification so far as the elector's' right to vote is eond&rned, but not as to his right to be on the voters' list.


Robert Laird Borden: Bribery is not either.


George William Fowler: I would like to have the Minister of Justice prove that because a man accepted a bribe that is such a disqualification that he should not be on the list. I think the minister will find some difficulty in finding anything in the law to justify a statement like that. As I have said, that is a refutation of the whole argument. If you have a right to have a portion of the disqualification in an oath you have a right

to have the whole thing in that oath, and I cannqt quite agree with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken - from this side of the House who have, so far as I have heard, said that they disclaim the idea that the government have wilfully done this thing.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: I do not know that they have wilfully done this thing, but 1 say I am prepared to believe and the evidence shows conclusively that they have done this thing. It is done for a purpose I believe as firmly as I believe anything. I have listened to the arguments and I have' listened with considerable amusement to the Minister of Inland Revenue floundering in his argument Usually he is very clear, but he had such a bad case that he floundered badly in this instance. The Minister of Justice stated' bad law in order to try and bolster up a bad case, and from all these things I am perfectlv convinced that this is done wilfully, done for the purpose of making it difficult for justice to be done and for an honest vote to be cast, because the hon. gentlemen know perfectly that in these two elections to-day, if an honest vote of these two constituencies were cast, the government candidates would certainly be very badly defeated.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, riding for a fall.


George Taylor: When I spoke approvingly of the statement of my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Fowler) that these forms were sent out with malice aforethought, I heard from the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) a very loud Ha. Ha! as though my approving of that utterance afforded him amusement. Well, we have a right to take that view, considering the telegrams that have been read and that are now on * Hansard,' from the returning officer-not from the deputy returning officer-in North Oxford, and from ' the government in reply. The returning officer's telegram sounded much as if he were determined not to use any other forms than those supplied by the government. He telegraphed to the government for information, saying that the Conservatives were claiming that the form of oath should contain sections 8 and 9 of the provincial form and that he should get others printed to replace those that the government had sent him. Then, though he asked for instructions he as good as said these were the only forms he proposed to use. And the government telegraphed him back to engage a lawyer to interpret the instructions given to him. In the general elections of 1904, the same forms were supplied to the deputy returning officers in the province of Ontario. And in my own constituency I know of two cases where the deputy returning officer refused to put any other oafti than that furnished in form
10.	One was the case of a man working for myself. I found that he was going to drive away out in the country and vote and also that he had been paid by the secretary of the Reform Association ; that a horse had been furnished him and a man put in his place to work for him. I telegraphed Mr. John R. Dargavel. The hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Derbyshire) knows Mr. Dargavel and knows that he is as honest a man as there is in the country. Mr. Dargavel was acting as scrutineer at the poll at which this man proposed to vote. When the man filed an appearance Mr. Dargavel asked to have this man sworn, stating that he had been paid to go out. The deputy stated that there was nothing in the form of oath against bribery. Mr. Dargavel had a copy of the provincial Act and read the clause, and challenged and defied the deputy returning officer to put any other form of oath than the one contained in that statute. The would-be voter said that if there was going to be any row about it, he would not vote, and left the booth. But the fact is that the deputy returning officer refused point blank to submit any other oath than the one supplied by the government. The other ease is that of the postmaster who acted as deputy returning officer at Frankville, a case to which I referred the other day. This deputy returning officer refused to administer any other oath than the one supplied. And I am told that the same thing happened in many other cases. And that form of oath was supplied, I have no hesitation in saying, in order that a voter might take a bribe and then swear in his vote. And the same thing is done in Oxford and Loudon. As I have said, the telegram of the returning officer for North Oxford shows clearly that lie was of opinion that the forms of oath supplied by the government were the only ones to be used. It must be remembered that, while a .copy of the statute is sent to the returning officer, and the deputy returning officers do not look at the provincial Act or any other Act; they regard their instructions and their forms as sufficient. And I feel confident that these were prepared expressly to mislead these officers. It was the opinion throughout my riding, and, I believe, throughout the province, that the object was to omit everything that would prevent a man from being bribed and then swearing in his vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Although I have spoken once already, yet, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has spoken a couple of times I may be allowed to say a word in order to correct myself. At first I said that I did not believe that all this was done on purpose to affect the elections in London and North Oxford, and I gave some explanation of what had happened lately in my own county. But I must say, that aifter the defence made by the minister,

and after two or three lawyers on that side have exposed their own differences in trying to explain this law, I am beginning to* think that perhaps I was wrong. Think of these differences, and then imagine a poor candidate in the province of Quebec having to fight the government in spite of this and every other disability. He has :n his county twenty-five or thirty deputy returning officers who are most active partisans and who have been working against him until the very morning of voting day; men who have never gone through the Election Act. never been instructed as to its provisions, but who are there to carry that election by every possible means. With such a law as we now have in force, and in view of what we have heard one would think that the Minister of Justice and several of his colleagues would go around to every poll and tell the deputy returning officer : ' You had better pay attention and do your duty, or there may be an action of damages against you.'
M.	O. E. TALBOT. What about the eighteen years before 1896 ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am coming to that. What we have now is all the result of the change in the law. Every Liberal I have heard on the platform has boasted that of all the promises they made thev have carried out one-they have made a change in the Franchise Act. But, now that the local governments are becoming Conservative I should not wonder if they would want to change it again. If they did so it would only be another example to prove what we already know, that their principles are not principles at all but a mere matter of opportunities. The law is not carried out at all. Every candidate should he in possession of the names of the deputy returning officers two days before the election, and these deputies should be instructed in the duties of their position. But that is not done. We can hardly even speak to the returning officer-we have to approach him with a great deal of care. And as to the deputies we are not given the names of a single one. And the same is true of the poll clerks. I have known cases where deputy returning officers were changed three times in the night before polling day. This happened in St. James division. But the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. O. Demers) has great consolation for us. He tells us we have a good action for damages against the deputy. That is consolation indeed, particularly when we are in opposition. Why, I caught some of my opponents in St. James division redhanded, putting bogus votes into the ballot boxes. And I had these men put in jail, but the Minister of Justice let them out. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. O. E. Talbot) speaks about the eighteen years before 1896. Before 1896 we had a Franchise Act which, while it may not have Mr. BERGERON.
been perfect was at least the same for all the provinces. To-day, every farmer carries under his arm to the polling place the form of vote he wants to take. Every provincial law must be consulted before we can know who is entitled to vote for a member of the House of Commons. And this is the reason why I believe that all this was done with a purpose. Unless you have perfectly honest. men as deputy returning officers, men who are versed in the duties of their office, it is impossible to obtain justice. Tbe law is not carried out, notwithstanding all the explanation of the Minister of Justice. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends a box containing the forms, and those forms must vary according to the province.
We say :	Where are the forms ? The
deputy returning officer is an ordinary man. If he is a man of intelligence and even if he is a very honest man he is not versed in all the intricacies of what we are discussing here to-day. He says :	I have received the forms. That is the answer that my deputy returning officer gave me. He spoke to me in that way. He was an honest man. I do not believe that man wanted to do an injury to me. He said ; I have received these forms and it is my duty to administer the oaths which are incorporated in them. I read the law to him but he said : I am very sorry, but I have to follow ray instructions. I say that many of them will do the same thing even if they are honest men. Would it be any more costly or any more cumbersome to tbe government to have all of form 16 under the Ontario Act printed on the paper which is the cause of this discussion ? Why not include these two paragraphs which are the only ones making it necessary to administer the oath to the elector so as to ascertain whether he is worthy of voting, whether he is an honest man, whether he has been bribed, whether he has been bought or whether he has bought anybody ? These are the only two paragraphs of the oath that we look upon as serious. Why do anything that would suggest an error or something that is worse than an error ? Why not have the whole thing printed upon this form here or upon this for the province of Quebec ? Why not mark it or write it and say this form is part of the provincial Act and part of the Dominion Act, but it only makes one form of oath for the elector to take ? 1 wanted to give some explanation of what I said before. I have done it because I am commencing to be convinced that there is a design in this. It is done in a very clever way. Elections have been going on to-day in two constituencies. All of these deputy returning officers are politicians. They are strong friends of hon. gentlemen opposite and even if they are honest men, if there is any doubt it will be decided in favour of the government candidate. If there is one thing more than another that we are all interested in it is that elections should

be impartially and honestly carried on in this country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) who has just taken his seat has been referring to the difficulties the poor candidates who are now running in the Conservative interest in the province of Quebec have to face in order to get returned, and he says that the returning officers have been suspected of not being disposed to give them fair-play. I ask him how elections were carried out during the 18 years previous to 1896 ?	1 will not
make a speech about it, but I will just mention a certain instance and quote the law in order to show the difficulties we also had to meet under the law as it was then in existence. I remember that in 1893, in the parish of Ste. l'erpetue, in L'Islet county, 27 voters were disfranchised. Why ? They had a form of oath in the law then in existence. Form X, paragraph 2, which read as follows : ,
That my application to have my name so registered was refused ; that I have duly appealed from such decision of the said revising officer, pursuant to the provisions of the said Act.
It was then understood and agreed that if a man's name was not on the list, if that man took an oath that his name should have been on the list, provided he made his application in time, if his application were not accepted, he had the right to vote, but there was nothing to cover the case of the voter whose name had been placed on the list but which had been stricken oil by the paid heelers of the party, and I remember that at this particular poll, 27 good Liberals were disfranchised because there was not an oath which would apply to them. Yet, here is the hon. member for Beauharnois rising in his place as the representative of the party of purity of those days, but forgetting the difficulties against which we had to contend for 18 years. .Up to 1896 we had to follow the salaried officers of t he former government from parish to parish in order to endeavour to secure fair-play for the people and to see that not only the names of Liberals, but those of Conservatives who were entitled to vote were put on the list. I remember that for three weeks I followed a salaried officer of the government in the province of Quebec to see that the people got fair-play. I spent $350 of my own money to see that fair-play was given to the people, but when the lists were issued we found that the names of 375 voters had been stricken off the list although they had formerly been put on the list. These are the things we had to fight against up to 1896, and I think it is with very bad grace that these hon. gentlemen opposite now find fault with the condition of things prevailing at the present time.


Frederick William Borden: If I may be permitted to say one or two words in reply to what 234
has fallen from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) I would like to do so. The object of the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, was obviously to make plain to the returning officers throughout the country what form of oath should be used. It was absolutely necessary that the form should be made plain, because you were using the provincial forms which varied according to the different provinces, and you were also providing for certain purposes a form for use throughout the whole of Canada. You therefore had a form of oath which varied in each province but a portion of which was the same throughout Canada. It would seem obvious that under these circumstances the provisions of section 21 of the statute should be followed strictly, and I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is able to argue that they have been followed strictly. I will point out why I think that. Section 21 provides that the returning officer-omitting matters that are immaterial-should receive a copy of the Act, the instructions approved by the Governor in Council and the forms of oath referred to in sections 65, 66 and 68. These are the three essentials as to the information which should be given to the returning officer for the purpose of carrying on the election. Now, we come to section 65. Section 65 says that the voter

Shall, before receiving his ballot paper, take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held

My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that only part of the oath prescribed by the provincial Act is the oath of qualification. The statute speaks of the oath of qualification not such part of the oath as relates to qualification. The statute provides that he shall:
-take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in ihe like ease at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held, and shall' also, if so required, take the oath in Form ' U.'
The elector may be required to take the provincial oath of qualification and also to take the oath in Form 1 U If the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice were a correct argument he would have to admit that the form sent out in 1904 is an incorrect form, because it contains the provision which is embodied in both the provincial form and the Dominion form ; that is to say that the government sent out to the returning officers in the month of November last a form of oath which contains these words :
That you have not voted before at this election, either at this or any other polling place.

The Minister of Justice seems to think that anything that had been provided for in Form ' U ' must be omitted from the provincial form. You have there exactly a provision contained in Form ' U.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the provincial statutes there is a definition of what bribery is and there is also a definition in the federal statute. Then, if we are going to adopt the oath as it is incorporated in the provincial law, we should have the elector declaring whether he has been guilty of corrupt practices under the provincial laws. That is certainly not the intention of parliament because our law provided for the declaration of the corrupt practice.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) has not observed the words I read :
Such changes having been made in the form of oath to make it applicable to the election being held.	.
I was dealing with the point on which the Minister of Justice rested his case : that the provincial oath is an oath of qualification, and the oath in Form ' TJ ' is not an oath of qualification. The argument which says that whatever is in one oath should be eliminated from the other, would demonstrate absolutely that the form of oath sent out in 1904 is wrong, because it contains a provision which is also found in Form ' U.' The essential point about the whole matter is this : that you are to send out the forms. The Minister of Justice says they have sent out the forms, and he refers us to the instructions, and the instructions are in these words :
The oaths prescribed under sections 64, 65, 74 and 75, Forms ' T,' ' U,' ' V,' * W,' first schedule, are administered viva voce. You will instruct your deputies that, when occasion demands it, they will swear the elector direct from the copy of the Dominion Elections Act which is supplied to them.
Forms of the other oaths prescribed by the provincial law, adapted to the purposes of the present election, are furnished to you herewith.
That is not what the statute says. The statute does not say the forms of the other oaths prescribed by the provincial law are to be sent herewith. The statute says :
The instructions referred to in subsection 1 of this section shall contain forms of the oath referred to in sections 65, 66 and 68.
And that, for the very reason that because you have adapted to Dominion purposes oaths contained in provincial Acts ; because you are also supplying a certain form applicable to all the provinces under the Dominion Elections Act, the statute makes it absolutely necessary that the exact form for each province should be sent forward to each deputy returning officer. The way the matter has worked out shows the absolute necessity for that. If the statute intended that, it was wise, and


Robert Laird Borden: in no other way can you work it out satisfactorily, as has been shown by the practical experience of lion, gentlemen in this House.
If you leave the deputy returning officer to work this out for himself under the form of instructions the Minister of Justice has referred to, you will have exactly the same difficulty which prevailed in nearly every electoral district in this country. You have adopted an extraordinary procedure ; you have adopted, not only the provincial voters' lists, but part at least of the provincial form of oath. You have added to that the Dominion form of oath, and it is essential therefore, when you put your instructions in the hands of the returning officer, that you shall make them so absolutely plain to him that any man reading the instructions 'and reading the forms will know exactly what to do. We complain that you sent a form to the returning officers which some returning officers at least ciaimed to he an exclusive form. Every line and every word of these instructions will not be present to the mind of a deputy returning officer when he is carrying on an election in the hurry and confusion and controversy that sometimes arise in a polling booth. But if you have a form placed before him which contains everything that any voter can be required to swear to when be comes to vote, then you will not have the difficulty that has occurred. It may be that a very intelligent and studious returning officer, or deputy returning officer, if he cut out from the Dominion statutes what was necessary and added it to the form placed before him, might get along all right; but this statute was designed to give him a form -which, when he had it before him, would guide him exactly in the course which the law intended. Notwithstanding the argument of the Minister of Justice, I venture the statement that the forms which have been sent out are misleading ; that they are not the forms which are contemplated by the statute ; that the intention was that the forms sent forward with the instructions would contain everything that the deputy returning officer would be required to administer to auy voter. Whether I am right in that or not, I am sincerely of that opinion, and X venture to think that the Minister of Justice, after what lie has heard to-day, will conclude that that would be a wise way to carry out the law. If the law does not mean that at present, then the law should he amended in that direction.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I should make a statement to the House. The im-piession may have gone abroad that the Secretary of State is responsible for these forms as they went out. I sent for Mr. Fraser, who acted as Deputy Minister of Justice in the absence of Mr. Neweombe, and he tells me that I am responsible. Mr. Fraser prepared a memorandum for me on the 23rd of August, 1903, suggesting this



JETSTE 13. 1905

[Stage Direction]
change, and I approved of it. Therefore, I should take the responsibility for the same.
Sir WILFRID LAURIE®. If I may be permitted one more word, I would say that we know a little more of what has taken place in these elections that have just been concluded, and the result of which we shall know presently, than we knew when my hen. friend (Mr. Armstrong) brought the question to the attention of the House. I concluded from the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) that it would not have been possible for an elector to be sworn to-day as to whether or not he had accepted a bribe in contravention of the law. We now know that such is not the case. It was open to any elector to challenge the vote of any other elector and to put to him the oath as to whether or not he .had received a bribe and was disqualified. That is now beyond doubt, because, although the form that was used in 1900 has been amended by striking cut .paragraphs 8 and 9, which refer to bribery in the province of Ontario, the returning officer was supplied with a form of oath to be administered to the voter, which is contained in Form ' U,' and which is :
You swear or solemnly affirm
[Stage Direction]
That you have not been disfranchised under the provisions of the Act to disfranchise voters who have taken bribes, or for corrupt practices, under the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.
That you have not voted before at this election, either at this or at any other polling place;	*
That you have not received anything, that you do not expect anything, nor has anything been promised you directly or indirectly, to induce you to vote at this election, either for loss of time, travelling expenses, hire of team, or for any other services connected therewith ;
That you have not directly or indirectly paid or promised anything to any person either to induce him to vote or to refrain from voting at this election ;
That you are not otherwise disqualified from voting at this election.
This is as broad as the oath under the Ontario law, aud therefore no injustice could have been done to any one. I would say further that these very forms were used iu the elections in November, 1904, and, although seven months have elapsed since that time, I have not heard that any particular injustice has been done to anybody. My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) says that he could not have this form with regard to bribery used in his election. That may be, but I do not know of any election in which you do not hear some complaint that there has been an irregularity. Even in the forms used for the ballots irregularities have been committed, aud committed most innocently. There is the Wentworth election case, now before the Supreme Court, where forty voters were disfranchised by an act of the returning officer, and, had they not been disfranchised, the Liberal candidate would have beeu returned. That cannot have 2341
beeu done in bad faith, because if the returning officer in Wentworth was a political partisan, as It is said he was, it was his own party which suffered. I quite agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition aud with everybody else who has spoken on that side, that we should endeavour to make the law as simple as possible ; and if we have printed forms of oaths to distribute, perhaps it would be less confusing to the returning officers if the other forms in this book were included. If that is a proper suggestion, I have no doubt the government would be anxious to have it carried out; and for my part I shall be glad to bring the matter at once to the attention of the Secretary of State. Because the returning officers are partisans, it does not follow that they are dishonest; on the contrary, I believe they are honest men, who desire to do justice. But as these laws are only brought into operation once in four or five years, they are liable to be forgotten ; so that the simpler the forms are the better. Certainly the Minister of Justice has no objection to having the matter attended to ; and he has thrown out the excellent suggestion that it he referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, where it can be threshed out, and where members on both sides of the House can give their opinions. For my part, I would be glad to act on this suggestion if it is agreeable to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the Minister of Justice what is the reason we did not establish a general form of oath when we passed the Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because there are different qualifications in the various provinces. After having listened to the discussion, I think myself that the instructions to the returning officers should, in the spirit of the Act, contain every form of oath, instead of referring to an oath in the Franchise Act or in any other Act, as at present. Every form of oath should be embodied in instructions themselves.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the hon. Minister of Justice make that remark. After the discussion which has taken place, I think it must be admitted that the Prime Minister's rebuke to me was quite uncalled for. I can only say that I believe I was doing my duty in bringing this matter before the House and the country. If the form of oath is not satisfactory, is it not wise for us to change it and make it satisfactory ? I might also say, with regard to notifying the government, that I did what I could in that respect. I went to the returning officer and urged upon him the necessity of adding to the form which he had sent out to the deputies, these clauses which we have been discussing this afternoon. In doing that I believe that I was doing what was right; and I think the argument here

this afternoon proves that it would have been wise had these two sections been added. You cannot expect men throughout the country to pick out of the Acts what is suitable for the occasion. I sincerely hope that before long the Minister of Justice will see that the forms sent out in future shall have these bribery clauses included. When the right lion. Prime Minister says that the government is not responsible, I cannot agree with liiin.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that ; I say we are responsible.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am very glad to hear it. I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that the government were not responsible for the present situation. However, so far as our judgment goes on this side of the House, this oath, as it has been administered, is to a certain extent a mutilated oath, and I hope the time is not far distant when the government will arrange to have these forms sent out in a proper way.
Motion (Mr. Armstrong) to adjourn, negatived.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Public Works-harbours and rivers-Quebec- River Ouelle-repairs, &c., $5,600.
['This is in Guysbor-ough. It is to provide for the construction of a block and span wharf 175 feet long at White Head which will reach a depth of 16 feet at low water. The total cost will be $4,000.', 'Wednesday, June 14, 1905.']
Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR-(for Minister of Public Works). This is to continue the heavy repairs which were begun in the spring of 1004. The expenditures from the 1st of July to 31st December, 1904, was $2,985.83. This will complete the work.
Ottawa river-wharf near the mouth of Riviere du Lievre, $4,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make further provision for the construction of a public work at Masson or Buckingham Junction, some 20 miles below Ottawa, so as to give shipping faiicilities. It is government property. The total estimate is $S,500 and this $4,500 will complete.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: What is the policy of the government with regard to building wharfs ? They seem to favour some particular places and utterly ignore others. We have never had a wharf built by the government in the riding I represent. Would the minister state what are the conditions which will induce the government to build a wharf ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The policy is the same as that which was carried on by our predecessors, namely, to construct wharfs for the accommodation of the public where the public interest demands it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Uriah Wilson: We should have something more definite. Because the Conservative government set the example is no reason why this government should follow it. If wharfs are to be built indiscriminately, without regard to any definite plan or condition or policy, you will have people in every locality asking the government to build their wharfs. Why should not these works be left to private enterprise ? In the part of the country where I come from, the wharfs are built by private individuals, but I do not see why we should not have them built by the government, if the government is to follow the policy of building them wherever the pressure is strong enough to influence it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the duty of the government to see that shipping facilities are given wherever they are required for the development of trade. There are localities where private enterprise will do the work. On the Ottawa river there are wharfs which have been built by private companies, but these companies will not allow the public to use them and exercise a monopoly over them. It is thus frequently found advisable in the public interest, in order to afford shipping facilities to the whole community, that the government should construct these works.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think the first reason the hon. gentleman gave is the best one, and that is that he is following the example of his predecessor. But lie evidently forgets that his party, when in opposition, took days and days to criticise these expenditures by the late government. Evidently they were not sincere in ,their criticisms' since they say_they are carrying out the same policy.
Riviere Richelieu-dredging at Isle St. There-ese, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This work is being done by a dredge belonging to the government. It is a revote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There cannot be much hurry for the work since the money has been voted three times.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it was only voted once, namely, for the year' 1904-1905, and this is a revote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has anything been expended yet ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but the dredge is there now.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will that be the whqle cost ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have been dredging in this river for some time, but this is the first time at that place.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At that place ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At this place ; it was the
first time the dredging was done. This is on



[Stage Direction]
the Richelieu river between Lake Champlain and Chambly.
Samuel Hughes: What is the depth of water maintained on the Richelieu 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Ten feet. Between St. John's and -Lake Champlain there are large boats.


Samuel Hughes: Between Lake Champlain and the River St. Lawrence is there a minimum depth of 10 feet 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is controlled by the depth of the Chambly canal, 7 feet.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that done by contract or how 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: By government dredge.
River Saguenay-dredging, $75,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is dredging at Chicoutimi which is being done by our own dredge. It is for the improvement of the navigable channel of the Saguenay, by dredging through shoals below Chicoutimi. The intention is to carry the. depth of water there to 23 feet. The dredging is now being done to 17 feet so as to allow temporary relief and it is intended afterwards to continue it to 23 feet so as to allow vessels and steamships to come up the Saguenay river to Chicoutimi.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are these vessels that go to the gulf 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, trails-Atlantic vessels. There is a large export of pulp from the mills there. I think one of the largest pulp mills in this country is established at Chicoutimi.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How' do they get there to-day ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They ai-e loaded by lighters.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How far do they come up the Saguenay ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Within 9 miles of Chicoutimi.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And this is to bring them to Chicoutimi ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. AMES.: Will the work of one dredge cost $75,000 in a single season there 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed it is intended to put tvyo dredges if we can find another one.


Herbert Brown Ames: The average cost of the dredge is less than $100 a day ; that w'ould mean 750 days of dredging. Do you plan to give 750 days of dredging this season ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If wre can get tw'O dredges.


Herbert Brown Ames: That would take ten dredges working two and a half months each ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We work seven months.


Herbert Brown Ames: 750 days on one dredge would be equivalent to five dredges working 150 days each. I do not see how' you are going to spend that with twTo dredges 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If we can get the dredges the money can be easily spent. I am informed by the department these dredges are working day and night so that makes two days for each one.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do you mean it costs $200 a day ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It w'ould be $400 if there are two dredges.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does it cost $200 a day to run a dredge day and night 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are a good many fixed charges and it should not cost tw'ice as much to run twenty-four hours as to run twelve hours. I think we should have fuller details as to the number of men engaged, &e.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the number of that dredge 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the ' International.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much can she do in a day ?	,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is supposed to do about 1,500 yards in that kind of material.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not think the minister catches the point I am making. He wants $75,000 for dredging and states it takes $100 a day, for each dredge. That would mean 750 dredging days. It would require five dredges working 150 days each to use up the $75,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed by the chief engineer there are 216 working days during the navigation season. These dredges are working day and night, that would make $400 a day, and this for 216 days would make $S5,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are they working there now 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The ' International ' is going out there. My hon. friend will see that $75,000 is not too much.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: She w'ill not work five months this year 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will begin on the 1st of July and w'ork until the end of the season and then next spring until the first of July. We are voting money to be expended during the fiscal year 1905-6 which includes from July 1st, 1905 to July 1st, 1906.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why is this revote of $25,000 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because we only spent $30,000 last year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was the work I commenced 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The ' Minto ' began to work in July, 1904.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How mueli did slie spend last year 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was spent for the 'Minto' $11,032.73, for the tug $2,000 and for the ' Champlain ' $1,250. And the sum of $15,000 on account of dredging in the upper basin of the River Saguenay was transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to recoup it for disbursements.


Uriah Wilson: How much will the whole work cost ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The whole work of making a twenty-foot channel will cost in the neighbourhood of $300,000. It is to enable transatlantic vessels to reach Chicoutimi.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of material do they take out there ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sand, boulders and hard-pan.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there any danger of the channel filling up again with sand ?


Mr.   BRODELTR@: I am informed that there is not.
Rivitire St. Louis-improvements, $7,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This revote of $7,000 is to make improvements in dredging the channel of Riviere St. Louis. The channel is to be six miles long, thirty feet wide and six feet deep at ordinary low water. It is carried on with a view to prevent the overflow of the land adjoining the water-course.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can this work be completed for $7,000 7


Mr.   BRODELTR@: No. I am informed that the money voted last year will have to be revoted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There was $15,000 voted last., A dredge was built, costing, I suppose, $8,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the amount spent.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It has taken all the time to build the dredge, and she has not done any work. If she is not set at work, the money spent in building her will be lost, because she cannot be taken away. But this six miles of dredging cannot be done for $7,000. Unless money is voted, the money already spent will he lost.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The total cost will be about $25,000. As my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) knows the dredge was completed too late to work last season, and it is only now that she is ready to work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But unless money is voted in the supplementary estimates, the dredge cannot go on.	1


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is the vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But there is nothing to pay for work done between now and July first.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, $15,000 has been voted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the dredge at work now ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but she is getting ready for work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This new dredge was built last year, but, because she was completed too late in the season, or for some other reason, she has not done any work. She should have been ready this spring to earn the money voted last year. And I do not see how she is to go on working through the whole season when only $7,000 is voted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The dredge was not wholly completed last year, and the work necessary for completion has occupied the present season. But I am told she is now ready for work and will soon begin.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This $7,000 will not go far. Is there to be a vote in the supplementary estimates 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The chief engineer informs me that $7,000 will cover the work that will he done this season.
Riviere St. Louis-feeders-opening waterways between Ste. Anicet and Ste. Barbe, $10,-
000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote is asked to carry on projected improvements at the head of Riviere St. Louis with a view to securing an outlet for drainage waters and so preventing the rising of Lake St. Francis as a result of the dams built in 1840 toy the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada at the head of the Beauharnois canal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that work going on 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No work has been done. That is why we are asking a revote of the whole amount.


Mr. WALSH.: Was work done there in the fall of 1904 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was some work done for a few weeks.


Robert Nelson Walsh: About what time of the year 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The expenditure was from 1st July to 1st December-I have no more definite date.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Is it not a fact that only a few men were on that work about the latter part of October and early in November 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That may be ; I do not know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What work is to be done 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As I have explained, the government intend to secure an outlet for the water which, coming from the St. Lawrence now overflows the land in that locality. The people there claim-aud it would seem that their contention is correct though I have no information on the subject myself -that this overflow has been caused by the action of the government. So, this money is voted to prevent the repetition of this overflow. I am sure the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh) will not object to the expenditure.


Robert Nelson Walsh: I would like to know where the $5,000 was spent ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was only $500.


Robert Nelson Walsh: In 1904-5 there was a vote of $15,000, and I see now that there is a revote of only $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The estimates before us were prepared about the beginning of January, and it was expected that a certaip amount of money from the vote of last year would be spent before the expiry of the fiscal year, 1st July next. That is the reason a revote of only $10,000 is asked.


Robert Nelson Walsh: I do not object to the vote but I would like to know whether the work is actually to be proceeded with ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not going on at present.


Robert Nelson Walsh: But we understand that it will be prosecuted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether the government has taken any definite steps as to that, because we must ascertain whether the cost will not be too large.


Robert Nelson Walsh: I believe that a survey and estimate have been made ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, there was an estimate that the work would cost $99,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This amount for improvements at St. Louis for which $15 000 was voted last year and this item of-
St. Louis, feeders-opening waterways between St. Anicet and Ste. Barbe, $10,000.
-are as matter of fact the same work. It is a good thing and should be done. Work has been carried on here for many years. A great many works have been carried on in the River St. Louis in the last twenty-five years but they have not all been completed. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue understands very well that there is a good deal of politics in this.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This work lies between Huntingdon and Beauharnois which w7ere before the last election both represented by friends of the government. The government came to the conclusion that it might exercise an influence in favour of their
friends to have a certain amount of money voted for this work. Consequently $15,000 was voted for the improvements at St. Louis. The question as to the best method of doing that work was discussed for a long time. The government or the department finally came to the conclusion that it would be done better by a dredge. This is a matter in regard to which there is a difference of opinion. My own impression Is that it might be done better in another way. But, it was decided to have the work done by a dredge. Any money which was appropriated for the deepening of the river was expended on the construction of a dredge. The work of constructing the dredge was carried on until a few days before the election. They were paying one superintendent $3 a day to superintend another superintendent and so on. A few days before the election the dredge was working so hard that it broke down. After the election it was so late in the season that it had to stop work. Another $15,000 was voted for opening the waterways between St. Anicet and Ste. Barbe but my hon. friend does not know whether anything is going' on or not. The government have not made up their mind how much it will cost. I want to be more just to the government. I have no doubt that before they decided to ask parliament to vote that money they found out how much the work could be done for. I think the estimate of $96,000 is too high. If the officers of the department search the files they-will find that there is a report which was made by Mr. Parent, the engineer of the canal some years ago, in which he estimates that the work can be done for a great deal less by doing it in a different way. This is the first time I have seen the item placed in this form ' opening waterways between St. Anicet and Ste. Barbe.' Formerly it was to make a kind of dam to keep the water in Lake St. Louis.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Was there sot some work done in the old days?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There was some done but not much. It was a great deal harder to get money from the government then than it is now. This vote will go through but as Huntingdon and Beauharnois are not now represented by the same men the work will no doubt stop.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Quite the reverse. We are doing some work on the River St. Louis.
Mr.. BERGERON. On the River St. Louis you built a dredge. Unless that dredge "is put to work this money will be completely lost because she cannot be taken anywhere else. She has to stay there and unless my hon. friend places some more money in the supplementary estimates to keep that dredge at work until the end of

the season the money already spent will have been spent in an almost useless way. I think it is very important that some work should be done between Anicet and Ste. Bartoe. My bon. friend, I am sure, will find that the amount of money which he has mentioned there is necessary, but before the government asked parliament to vote $15,000 for that part of the work they surely must have had an idea of how much it would cost, and they must know that the Work there was promised to be done. It was promised by Mr. Boy and his friends and it was promised by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) very often in my presence. It is a good work, it should be done and I call upon my hon. friend to see that the money which is voted is spent in prosecuting this work to as great an extent as possible.
Mr. B'RODEUR. I do not know why my hon. friend should complain so much of the action of the government. The money has been voted. He says that he was eighteen years asking for the money to do this work and that he could not get it ; yet, because we have begun the work and because we have begun the construction of a dredge which was absolutely necessary, my hon. friend complains. He suggests another way of doing the work. I would like to know what other way-toy pick and shovel?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it will be much more expensive than to do the work by dredging even if the dredge could be used only in that place. It is a work which will cost some money and I think that if the work were done by pick and shovel it would not be done as satisfactorily as it would be done toy a dredge to say nothing of the fact that it would cost a great deal more. My hon. friend should not complain of the fact that the late member succeeded in having money voted for this work after my hon. friend had been unsuccessfully asking for it for eighteen years. If the late member was fortunate enough to have the necessary money voted for that work which he declares himself to be a very necessary work, what has my hon. friend to find fault with? Now, the work is going on. The dredge has been completed and the work will go on. The money which has been voted, I understand, will cover the expenditure ou account of that dredge during the year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Now that the money is voted it should be expended for the object for which it is voted. I say it is a good object. If Mr. Loy were here he would not thank my hon. friend at all. That' money was promised to him about five years ago and it was put in thg estimates every year but it never amounted to anything until the election came on and Mr. Mr. BERGERON.
Loy himself has complained that he has been played upon. He has complained that the work was not done as it should have been done. This was an election promise and if my hon. friend met Mr. Loy I am sure he would tell him so himself* I cannot ask for any favour, as I have no right to ask a favour of my hon. friend.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Why not?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, no; I would not do it. I give credit to the government that they did vote the money and I take it as an indication that they intend to have the work done although they do it very late.. The object is good.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We had $15,000 voted last year and more than $S,000 has been already spent.
Mr. BERGERON But you expended it upon the construction of a dredge. There is no work done yet.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But, it is in connection with that work. I do not know why my hon. friend should complain because he admits that the dredge could be used only there. The dredge has been built for that purpose and it is beginning the work about which my hon. friend should not complain at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why did the dredge not begin to work until May? She is not doing anything now, I understand.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because it was not completed.
Mr. BERGERON, if was completed last fall.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the information I have.


Robert Nelson Walsh: I would like to ask the hon. minister if any work is going ou there. The only work which has been done there was done by this pick and shovel brigade which you speak of. just before the last election. A few men were set at work before polling day.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If there is too much complaint about the pick and shovel brigade I will drop the item pure and simple. Stands.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not know tuat we should allow this item to stand. The hon. minister is not running the whole House. There is no use of getting mad because we choose to criticise an item. I think the hon. minister had better keep his temper.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am keeping my temper.


David Henderson: Because a member from that section of the country chooses to offer a little fair criticism I think the

hon. minister is not doing justice to his usual reputation in this House bv standing up and threatening to drop the item.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will consider it.


David Henderson: I will give the Minister of Inland Revenue the credit of being courteous generally, but lie made a mistake in attacking my young friend (Mr. Walsh) and threatening to drop this item. The minister can suit himself about dropping the item, but he should not drop it because a member on this side thought it his duty to offer reasonable criticism.


Robert Nelson Walsh: If the minister had allowed me to finish my explanation, he would have understood my position. The work was promised by friends of the government, and I have no criticism as to that, but the men whose property is affected came to the conclusion that the work was not to be prosecuted, and they asked me (a great many times to inquire about it. That was my object in mentioning the matter. Personally,
I have no interest, 'but the people there have been promised it for years and they are interested. Nothing has been done to proceed with the work this year, and that is why I asked what was the intention of the government.


Samuel Barker: I object to this further example of the very improper method in which the government deals with these matters. Last year $15,000 was granted for this work ; apparently a small sum was expended, and the minister tells us that up to the 1st of July next $5,000 will have been expended, and he asks a revote of $10,000. It transpires that the minister has an estimate of what this work is going to cost, which he says amounts to $96,000, but he says that estimate is an exaggeration.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I said the estimate was $96,000, but I did not say it was exaggerated. That statement was made by the hon. member for Beauharnois.


Samuel Barker: I have protested time and again against taking these small votes from year to year for a work that in the end will cost a very large sum of money. I am told by hon. gentlemen on this side that this is a deserving work, but we who do not know tlie locality are entitled to be told what the entire expenditure will be without being asked to vote blindly. Some of these ex-pcndituras would never be endorsed by parliament if we knew what their ultimate cost would foe.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The excavation is estimated to cost $69,000 ; the improvements at the mouth of the river, $6,000 ; three bridges, $6,000 ; clearing of the River St. Louis, $7,000 ; and $8,000, or 10 per cent, for superintendence and contingencies. The work may be done in a way to cost less than $96000, but new surveys would have to be made for that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who made that report ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Michaud, the engineer of the district.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there not a report made by Mr. Parent some years ago ; an entirely different report ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The chief engineer informs me there is no record of it in the Department of Public Works, although it may be in the Department of Railways and Canals. Twenty years ago the government did work in connection with this scheme.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister gravely tell the House that $5,000 has been expended, and that he does not know what this work is going to cost ?	,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There have been only $500 spent.


Samuel Barker: The minister said $300 or $400 had been spent and that the balance of the $5,000 would be expended up to the 30th of June.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. There was an expenditure of $548 up to the time these estimates were prepared, and it was then estimated, in January last, that $4,439 would be expended up to the 30th of June, but that money has not been expended.


George Taylor: Why does not the minister ask for a revote of the balance of the $15,000 ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because the estimate had been prepared in that way, as I explained.
Mr. TAYLOR, What was the $451 spent for ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In pick and shovel work on the land.


George Taylor: What work has been done for that expenditure, and why was not the balance of the vote of last year expended ? Is it the intention of the minister to discontinue the work altogether ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will report to the Minister of Public Works what has been said with regard to this work, and I suppose we shall have to examine the question and see whether it is advisable to continue the work or not.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman said he would drop the item.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly, if the member for the county wants to have the item droped.


George Taylor: He did not ask to have it dropped. He was giving it fair and honest criticism, and the minister off his own bat suggested that he would drop the item. It looks as if the $15,000 was put in last year for election purposes, and now that the elec-

tion is over the minister is ready to drop the item and not go on with the work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This work is not the same as the work I was speaking of. The object of the vote is to prevent the waters of Lake St. Francis flooding the farms of St. Anicet and Ste. Barbe. The report of Mr. Parent, an engineer of the government some years ago, recommended the building of a dam, which seems to he the more natural plan for preventing the waters of Lake St. Francis flooding these farms. The dam was partly built by the government years ago, and if it were continued, there would be no need of having waterways or bridges. That is always the idea I had of that work, and I am convinced that the figures of its cost was a great deal less than the amount mentioned by my hon. friend for the proposed work. This is a very important work, as most of these farms are valuable, and they are covered with water for a long time in the year. I was glad to see the money appropriated for this work, but why was the work not commenced in time ? We hear that a few men were there with picks and shovels; but that was not serious work, which is also evident from the fact that my hon. friend is willing to let the item stand. These are two different things, although they may both be connected with the River St. Louis. I want to hear what my hon. friend has to say before I give further criticism of the item.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member for Beauharnois evidently thinks that it would be better to proceed in some different way from that suggested in this vote. This vote is for the opening of waterways, but my hon. friend thinks it would be better to extend the dyke which was commenced some years ago, and he says there is a report of Mr. Parent to that effect. There is no such report in the Public Works Department ; but in view of the remarks of my hon. friend, I think it is the duty of the Public Works Department to look into the matter and see whether the suggestion he makes is better than what is proposed in this vote. Under the circumstances, I think it is perfectly justifiable to wait until the minister is here and can inquire into the matter and see whether it is better to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend is not serious. I am not proposing any plan ; X am not managing the affairs of the Public Works Department; I take things as I find them. The present engineer of the department has made a report; the department have acted on that report, and have proposed a vote to parliament. I want the department to carry on their own works. I was answering my hon. friend, who said that the report mentioned the sum of $96,-
000.	I am not going to prevent my hon. friend spending that money if he wants to spend it or thinks the expenditure of it Mr. TAYLOR.
is necessary. In answer to that, I said I had seen a report in which the estimate was a great deal less, and according to which the work was to be done in a different way. The report I saw was that of an engineer, but of course I am not competent to judge between the two reports. All I ask my hon. friend is to carry out the work for which the money was voted last year. It will be childish for him to say :	we will
wait to find out whether you are not right or wrong. If he would agree to take my opinion on everything, of course let him accept this with the rest; but if he wants to leave the item out merely because I have pointed to another report, I am opposed to that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote is asked for on the advice of a local engineer. My hon. friend informs me that there is another report, not in the Public Works Department but probably in the Department of Railways and Canals, because the engineer who made it was then the engineer of the latter department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is true that Mr. Parent was the engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, but when I was urging the Department of Public Works to have the work done-because we have been asking to have it done for twenty-five years-that department asked Mr. Parent who was on the spot, to make a report, which he did.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The chief engineer informs me that he''never knew anything about that report of Mr. Parent, and he infers that as Mr. Parent was then the engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, his report must be in that department. If my hon. friend however says it is in the Department of Public Works, we will look for it there. The object of the government is to drain these lands because it is complained that if they are now covered by water, that is due to some works which the government built in connection with the canal. That is why I think my hon. friend is mistaken when he says that the report must have passed through the Public Works Department.


Mr. BERGERON  .@: At that time the whole thing was in the Department of Public Works.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But my hon. friend is referring to a report which was made at a time when the Public Works Department was not included in the Department of Railways and Canals. My hon. friend says that the plan we are proposing is much more expensive than that recommended in the report of Mr. Parent. Does he then think, that I would be justified, in the absence of the minister, in committing the department to an expenditure which could be reduced, if my hon. friend's statement be correct. If we can save $20,000 or $25,000 in the drain-

iug of tliose lands by the adoption of the suggestion of my hon. friend, we ought certainly to adopt it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am not speaking as an engineer, and I would not say that Mr. Parent's report is the better one of the two. My hon. friend should take the report of Mr. Michaud, and ask parliament to vote the money, and there will be nothing to prevent his having the work done for a less amount of money if possible. But he should not try to throw the responsibility on me if nothing should be done.	*


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not doing that, but I say that my hon. friend is making a very valuable suggestion. He says there is a report somewhere, according to which this work may be done for less money. No money has yet been spent, why then should the government go on without looking up this other report 1


George Taylor: That will not prevent my hon. friend allowing the item to pass. Then he can consult with the minister, and when we come to concurrence, if the minister thinks we ought to drop thf !tem, let him drop it. But my hon. friend should not get up in a huff and say :	Because my hon.
friend criticises, we will drop the item.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: All I said was that the item should stand for the reason given by my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). But I am quite willing it should pass with the understanding that the minister himself will look into it.


Robert Nelson Walsh: I do not believe that the hon. minister wants to be unfair to me, especially as I am a young member. I certainly was not opposing the vote. On the contrary I wanted to know whether it is going to be expended, because we have been asking a long time to have this work done, and this waterway will have to be built some time or other.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What does my hon. friend think about a dyke ?


Robert Nelson Walsh: You will still have to make a waterway as well as a dyke. This land was flooded on account of some works erect ed at the mouth of the canal by the government, and the government recognized its obligation by paying many years ago the damages caused to some of these lands. In order to drain the lands, there must be a ditch or canal to connect with the St. Lawrence river. A dyke would not be sufficient.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Suppose a dyke would be made on the bank which would prevent the water overflowing, and that was found less expensive than a canal, does not my hon. friend think it would be better to adopt that system ?


Robert Nelson Walsh: That is not practicable because theie is a river there which flows into
the St. Lawrence, and the water is backed up this river and overflows the lands. It is necessary that a waterway be built on that account, because by closing the outlet you are preventing the water from being drained off.
Rivi6re Verte-improvements at mouth, $5,800.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to cover the estimated cost of completing the work commenced in 1904-5 near the mouth of the river, together with a widening and deepening of the centre of the channel, and is required to carry away the wrater of the swollen stream in the spring. The object is to prevent the properties on this side of the river being eroded by ice and currents in the spring.
Sacrd Cceur-wharf, $9,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is required to complete the wharf, 210 feet long, which is being built on the north side of the Saguenay, at this place, about twelve miles above its mouth. The work is under contract.
St. Alexis, Ha Ha hay pier, $17,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is also under contract. It is to complete the pier 1.44S feet long began in 1899-1900. There will be a depth of 9 to 10 feet at low water spring tide.
St. Andre de Kamouraska wharf-repairs to earth approach, &c., $6,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the accommodation of another block of cribwork, measuring 100 feet wide, 20 feet in diameter, in order to accommodate the increasing traffic. The present structure is only 24 feet long and altogether too small for that purpose.
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere-reconstruction of pier. $1,200.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to cover the estimated cost of rebuilding the pier which wa s destroyed in 1905.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What county is that in ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Kamouraska.
St. Chairles BorromOe-wharf, $4,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote is asked in order to make further provision towards the construction of a small wharf. It is in the county of Chicoutimi.
Ste. Famille, Island of Orleans-extension of wharf, $700.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that a new wharf ? Mr. BRODEUR. It is an old work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was it built ? Mr. BRODEUR. About twenty years ago. Mr. BARKER. Will this complete the work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Ste. Fid61e wharf, $11,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to complete the payments for 1906 in connection with the public works being built at Ste. Fidele in Charlevois.


Samuel Barker: Will that complete the work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it is expected to complete it.


Samuel Barker: Is that the estimate given to the department that it will complete ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, according to the estimate of the department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: $3,000 was voted before which will make $14,000 in all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
St. Francois, Island of Orleans-approach to isolated block, $10,000.	.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for the construction of a length of 200 feet of cribwork to the isolated block. It stands at a distance of 650 feet from high water mark. It is proposed to call for tenders. This is in Montmorency county.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is a revote ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The department had no time to prepare plans last fall. The plans are being prepared now.
St. Francois de Sales-wharf, &c., on River James, $7,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for the construction of a block from the river.


Samuel Barker: Why was that not expended last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand the department had no time to prepare the plans.


Samuel Barker: There are four items here, one after the other all in the same position, money granted last year and not a dollar has been spent. These grants were made two or three months before the elections. I think the inference is fair, it was all done in August or July, preparatory to the autumn elections, and not a dollar was spent, and now the government come back this year for renewals of these votes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken. For most of the works for which money was voted last year the plans were prepared. Parliament prorogued late and it was not known before the appropriation was voted whether the money would be at the disposal of the department or not. I must mention the fact-I do not know for what reason the criticism is made-but in my district there was a public building in which I was much interested, it was of the greatest importance to me that the work should be done, but I could not get the plans prepared. The officers of the depar-ment did their best, they worked day and night upon different works for which money was voted, but the money having been voted so late in some cases the plans could not be prepared.


Samuel Barker: And the electors were allowed to live in expectation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think this had anything to do


Samuel Barker: No ?
Mr. BRODEUR

with the election. And
I am sure the member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) will not say that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are plans prepared during the winter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are being prepared now.


Samuel Barker: The department took a grant before the first of July for this money?


Samuel Barker: Are they ready ? have had a whole year.
You


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it was after July 1st that parliament prorogued.


Samuel Barker: A month afterwards. Was nothing done last year, was no estimate made ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Nothing has been done, no.


Samuel Barker: Was there any reason for granting it last year when it was known the work could not be done ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was expected the work would be done last year, but the plans could not be prepared.


Samuel Barker: Had the November elections anything to do with it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is true the elections were held then, but we might expect the plans could be prepared ; there were manv works to be carried on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are just about ready.
St. Fuljrence wharf, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This covers the estimated cost of extending the block and span high water wharf commenced in 1904 on the north side of the River Saguenay, 10 miles below Chicoutimi.


Samuel Barker: Will this complete that work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Y'es.


Samuel Barker: The estimate given to the government shows that this $5,000 will complete the work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
St. Gedeon Islands-wharf, $2,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This work is under contract, it is to complete.

St. Jean, Island of Orleans-repairs to wharf, $5,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What county is this in ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Montmorency.


Mr. WILMOT.: I would like to inquire if the iirovincial government is called upon to give any share of the expense for the construction of these works ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they are public property. It is repairs made to a wharf which belongs to the government.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: The reason I asked was that in the River St. John, New Brunswick there is an amount here :
To provide for contributions to local government, not to exceed one-half the first cost of wharfs built by them in tidal waters.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that is in virtue of an understanding between two governments.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I should think a similar understanding should be made in both cases.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These are inland waters, I understand ; but the present work is on the River St. Lawrence.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: The River St. John is a t cry important river.


George William Fowler: The St. John is a navigable river, as the St. Lawrence is.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is it of as much importance ?


George William Fowler: No ; but the same principle applies.
Mr. BRODEUR, This work was built many years ago, and the vote is only for repairs.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I am not complaining of this expenditure, but I think that if the Dominion government build wharfs on the St Lawrence, they ought to build them on other waters.
St. Simeon wharf-extension, $15,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the nature of the work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to complete the work in connection with the approach to the isolated pier at St. Simeon, which is being-built under contract, The amount of the contract is $19,062.67, and the contractor is Napoleon Trudel.


Andrew B. Ingram: How many tenders were there ?	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not that information, but I can get it if the hon. gentleman desires. The tenders were advertised for
publicly, and the contract was given to the lowest tenderer.
Terrebonne-wharf with approach, on River Jesus, $7,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are the plans ready for this ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are being made ready. It is just the same case as the other.


Mr. LEONARD.: (Translation.) Are those works being carried out simultaneously with those that are in process at St. Francis of Sales for which a vote has just been taken ?
Mr. BRODEUR, (Translation.) Altnougb the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh) does not seem to take any stock in the statement made by the government when asking a vote from the House in connection with such works, I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Leonard) that they will be carried out in the proper time. I am quite sure that the works at St. Francis of Sales will be dealt with in the same way as those at Terrebonne which have just been referred to.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) I do not find any fault with ihe works contemplated here; on the contrary, i believe that they will serve a useful purpose. I entertain no doubt about their being carried out, owing to the fact that both the county of Terrebonne and that of Laval will be benefited by those works.


Mr. DESJARDINS.: (Translation.) Those works concern not only the county of Terrebonne, but also two other constituencies. They will prove useful to the three counties of Laval, Terrebonne and L'Assomption.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) As I said a little while ago, I find no fault with the contemplated works ; but I wanted to know whether they were to be carried out this year, and whether the government intended to redeem a promise made long ago.
Yamaska river-dredging, $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who has the contract ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: William Davis & Son, of Ottawa. This is dredging at the mouth of the River Yamaska, which empties into the St. Lawrence. The work has been going on for some time.


George William Fowler: What is the object of this work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is at the mouth of the river and allows navigation of the Yamaska, which is navigable for several miles above this place.


George William Fowler: Is it not true that there are certain saw-mills on the Yamaska, and that this work is done to benefit these mills, and should be done by private enterprise rather than at the expense of the country ?

Mi\ BRODEUR. No ; there are no mills there that I know of, and I know the place very well.


George William Fowler: What vessels ply there- ocean steamers ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but market boats running between places on the river and Sorel.	.


George William Fowler: It seems to me the same argument that would justify this work would justify work on the St. John. If the Yamaska empties into the St. Lawrence, the St. John empties into the Bay of Fundy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that dredging in New Brunswick is done by the government.


George William Fowler: Only in the harbours, not in tributaries of the St. John.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed that there were two dredges working on tributaries of the St. John last year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did we not vote some money in the supplementary estimates for this dredging at the mouth of the Yamaska ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes ; $12,200 has been spent so far. It must have been $2,000 that was voted in the supplementary estimates. I have not the figures before me.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the material that is taken out ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Soft and hard clay and quicksand.
'Mr. BERGERON. Does not that quicksand fail back into the channel ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not to a very large extent.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How far is the river navigable from its mouth ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About fifteen miles, I suppose. My hon. friend will remember that some years ago, in order to afford navigation on that river, the government built a lock there, which has cost a large sum of money.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That lock supports navigation for what distance?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For about fifteen miles.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the matter with the lock now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The lock is there.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it in operation ? Was it not carried away by an accident?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it is a very useful work.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Apple river wharf, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hou. minister to make a brief explanation of each one of these items stating tbe Mr. FOWLER.
county in which the proposed work is, the purpose for which it is required, the amount that is already expended, the total amount that is estimated for the completion of the work, and the probable date of completion in each instance. If the hon. minister will give us these particulars it would save time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This breakwater aud wharf is in Cumberland county. This is a vote which is asked to be taken to make provision according to an estimate submitted by the chief engineer for completing a breakwater and wharf at Apple river during this year. The total cost of the proposed work will be $0,000. The Apple river falls into the Chignecto up at the head of the Bay of Fundy. At its mouth there is a good and well sheltered harbour.
Baddeck-wharf, $5,000.


Mr BRODEUR.: This work is in North Victoria. This revote is asked to be taken to make provision towards the construction of a public wharf 40 feet wide at Baddeck, which will reach a depth of IS feet at low water ou Little Bras d'Or lake as requested by the inhabitants of the town. It appears that there is no port on the island of Cape Breton from which there is shipped as much of the soil as from Baddeck, that the imports as well as the number of passengers landed here are large and that all imports to and exports are by water. The appropriation for the current fiscal year was $5,000. No money has been expended. There are three sites which have been offered, but no definite choice has been made as to these sites.


Samuel Barker: Have the plans not been prepared until now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the delay is in regard to the site.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister lias omitted to state the total cost of the work and the date of completion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The maximum estimate of the cost of the site is $5,000. The whole work will cost $15,000.
Barachois-boat harbour. $1,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This revote is to make provision for protecting the anchorage at Barachois in rear of the shingle beach, by constructing a light breastwork that 'will arrest the heavy surf, also blasting with dynamite a narrow ledge or rock which obstructs the entrance to the boat harbour. There was an appropriation of $1,500 last year but no money was spent.


Mr.  R. L.@: RORpen. Will that complete the work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The cost will be that amount.
*739'


JUKE 13. 1905
[Stage Direction]
Bass river-repairs to wharf, $500.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the purpose of completing repairs commenced in 1904 on the Bass river wharf in order to place the structure in a serviceable condition.
Bay St. Lawrence-boat harbour, $5,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This work is in North Victoria. This revote is asked to make provision towards converting Macdonald's Pond in to a safe boat harbour, and it is to complete the work of opening a channel 30 feet wide across the beach which closes the entrance of this pond at low water. The total cost of the work contemplated will be $10,000.


George William Fowler: We had an experience in connection with making a boat harbour in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). In that instance they cut a channel through to an inland body of water. After they had got the channel completed the water ran out. Have the minister's engineers looked into this matter carefully to make sure that the same thing will not be repeated?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I ant informed by the chief engineer that they will look into that question.
Bear cove-breakwater, $5,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This work is in Digby county. This vote of $5,500 is asked to make provision for the construction of a breakwater at Bear Cove between Cape Cove and Meteghan, each four miles distant, that will afford protection to the fishing boats of the locality. The total cost is $4,500.
Beekerton-public wharf, $2,700.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This revote is required to complete during the year the block and span wharf which is being built at Becker-ton. The total cost will be $4,200.


George William Fowler: Where is Beekerton ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Guysborough county.
Breton cove-boat landing, $4,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract. This is to complete the wharf which is in course of construction. The amount of the contract is $5,585.


Mr. II  L.@: ROI1DEN. That seems to be a very large amount for a mere boat landing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, this is the report of the engineer.


George William Fowler: What county?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: North Victoria.


Mr.   I@: Why should a boat landing cost so much as that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That was the lowest tender that was received.


George William Fowler: Who has the contract ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Reid & Archibald.


George William Fowler: Has any work been done yet? [DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is expected that $2,250 will be expended up to the 30th June.
Bridgewater-dredging, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This work is in Lunenburg county. This revote is to be applied towards dredging the River La Have and extending the channel as far as the steamboat wharf, five-eighths of a mile below the bridge in the centre of the town of Bridgewater.


Samuel Barker: Why did you not do the work last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will be done by a government dredge, and there was no dredge available.
Broad cove-repairs to wharf, $.3,700.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Inverness county. This work is according to the estimate of the chief engineer ; nothing has been spent.
Carlos' breakwater, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Guysboro county. This is to make provision for a breakwater 900 feet long which it is believed will afford protection for the boats.


Samuel Barker: What is the total cost of this work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will be $29,000.
Clark's harbour-removal of rocks from channel, $4,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Shelbourne county.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any estimate of the total cost ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There cannot be any definite estimate because they do not know what quantity will have to be removed. The population there is 1,500, and the total expenditure has been $14,000 so far.


Robert Laird Borden: You would not go into a work of that kind without some idea of what the total cost will be. It might he reasonable to do it if it would cost $25,000, and not reasonable if it would cost $500,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is expected that this amount will cover the whole expenditure, but that is not certain.


George William Fowler: Is it a river harbour ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.
Country harbour-removal of obstructions,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The estimated cost of this is $2,200.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention of tlie government to make Country harbour the terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific ? I think a former member for Guysboro' advocated that.	.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It might be a good place fo.r that purpose if there is not too much objection to it.


Mr. OSLER.: Nearly the whole of these are revotes. Why do you put them in the estimates from year to year ; there is no election now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the intention to carry them out this year.
Oow bay (Port Morien)-repairs to breakwater, $20,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for carrying on during the fiscal year repairs and improvements and extensions in order to insure the stability of the breakwater still standing, and restoring it to the original length. The total probable cost is $225,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: How much has been spent ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Over $200,000 was spent some years ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do you mean that now you intend to spend $225,000 or only $25,000 more ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The cost of restoration and repairs will be $225,000 more.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What business is done there ?


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: Coal mining.


Robert Laird Borden: What company ships from there ?


Alexander Johnston: The Newcastle Company.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How much coal was shipped last year ?


Alexander Johnston: I have not the figures for the output last year but it was about
40,000	tons. They have been developing during the winter and the intended output during the coming season is about 1,000 tons per day.


Mr.   I@: Is this the place where the Archibald mine was ?


Alexander Johnston: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That mine was acquired by the Dominion Coal Company ?


Alexander Johnston: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The Dominion Coal Company do not ship from there ; this is a new company ?


Alexander Johnston: This is a new company called the Gowrie Blockhouse Collieries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Robert Laird Borden: Developing a new seam ?


Alexander Johnston: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do they not ship from the same place as the Dominion Coal Company ?


Alexander Johnston: The Dominion Coal Company have abandoned the piers at Cow bay. This colliei'y company have no connection with the railways, and are entirely dependent on their own wharf for the shipment of their coal. They have erected a short distance from this breakwater a pier, and this breakwater will protect that pier. They cannot build their pier .sufficiently large to accommodate their traffic until the breakwater is restored to its former condition. The work on Cow bay is a very old work on which twenty years ago or more a very large amount of money was expended. Ten or twelve years ago about 200 feet of that breakwater was carried away, and nothing was done to save it. The result has been that during the last eight or nine years a large amount of money has had to be expended to preserve what remained of that work. What did remain has been jxre-served and is in fairly good condition now ; but in order that the breakwater may become useful to the port, it is necessary that it should be restored. The coal company cannot carry on their work unless the breakwater is restored.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total quantity of coal supposed to be in the seam that is being developed ? Will it continue at the rate of 1,000 tons a day for any great length of time ?


Alexander Johnston: \res. There are millions and millions of tons of coal in the area held by these people.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the seam under the Archibald seam ?


Alexander Johnston: Yes, and their property is a submarine area. They have now reached their own property, and last year they drove their levels in order to get a considerable output this season.


Robert Laird Borden: It amounts, I suppose. to building a shipping place for this company ? I do not say that may not be justifiable.


Alexander Johnston: I am perfectly willing to admit that it is the most important purpose that this breakwater will serve. At the same time, I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that Cow bay is a very important fishing community, and the people who have fishing craft are entirely dependent oh the breakwater for the safety of their waft. The present coal company are not using the breakwater for the purposes of their own shipment. They are erecting their own pier


JTTN&quot;E 13. 1905 7402'
[Stage Direction]
at a very considerable expense ; but this breakwater is necessary to protect it.
Robert Laird Borden: In other words, the breakwater forms a harbour, and it is to be put in the same position for this company that it was for the Archibald company years ago ?


Alexander Johnston: Precisely so.


Samuel Barker: I would ask the minister to give us the details of the $225,000 that this work is likely to cost. What are the different portions of the expenditure ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: To construct and complete the dock removing the ballast deposit along the inner quay face and placing concrete blocks or quarried stone on seaward face and outer end of portion of breakwater still standing, $89,700 ; restoring the breakwater to its original length by constructing 260 feet of native timber cribwork filled with concrete placed along the continuation of the inner face of the work, and protecting with concrete blocks or quarried stone the seaward side of the proposed extension, $135,800.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it the intention of the government to do* this by day labour, or will they call for tenders ?	.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: By day's work.
Cow Bay Run-breakwater to protect outlet of harbour, $500.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This vote is required for the purpose of completing the breakwater of strong ballast cribwork 125 feet long by 25 feet wide, which is being built outside of Cow bay run at the entrance of Halifax harbour in the county of Halifax.
Culloden breakwater, $2,000.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is to make provision towards the construction of this breakwater for the protection of fishing boats. It is in the county of Digby.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the total cost of this and the previous item ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This will cost about


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the size of the place ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: The population is about
1,000	fishermen.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the work started yet ? Mr. BRODETJR. No.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the cause of delay ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Plans are now being prepared.


George William Fowler: I might suggest a reason to the minister for all these votes. He will remember that we had an election last year, and previous to that election these 235
promises were ot course all made. That is the reason.
Cunningham Point-wharf on Milford Haven river, $2,360.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is in Guysborougll county and is to provide for lock and span work. Total expenditure $2,360.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is exactly the same as the other case. Are the plans ready yet ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: No, nothing is ready yet.
Devil's Island-breakwater, $4,000.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that in North Oxford V


Mr.   BRODETJR@: No, it is in Halifax county.


Andrew B. Ingram: I thought from the name it was in North Oxford.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: $5,900 is the amount of the contract.
Digby pier-repairs and renew'als, $1,000.


George William Fowler: Is this the contract which was made by the member for Digby with the town of Digby ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I do not know anything about that contract. I think that happened before the election and did not give any bad result.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was it not to be $5,000 '!


George William Fowler: That was what the member for Digby was to get.
East Chezzetcook-breakwater, $4,000.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is for extending the breakwater a distance of 400 feet. It will have a total length of about 800 feet and cost $8,000. It is in the county of Halifax.
Freeport-landing pier, $14,000.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is to provide for the protection of the landing pier on the east side of Grand Passage. It is to be let by contract this year. The lowest tender is $13,700.
Gabarus-harbour improvement, $20,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to provide for all improvements during the present year and is required to give protection to vessels entering during south-westerly gales. The contract is for $19,000 given to the lowest tenderer. It is in the county of Cape Breton.
Georgevillle wharf-extension, $1,300.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Antigonish and is required to add a wing of 400 feet long. The expenditure will be $2,300.
Habitant river-wharf at Canning, $16,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in East King and is to provide for the construction of a wharf | on the north side, which will have a river



front of 20 feet, mean depth 129 feet. This is the estimated cost.
Harrigan cove-wharf, $800.
Mr. BROI>EUR. This is to provide for the construction of an approach 700 feet long, 20 feet wide. It is in Halifax county and the total cost will be $2,000.
Indian harbour-wharf, $1,400.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is also in Halifax county, and the total cost is $2,000.
Inverness (Broad cove) Mines harbour-repairs to harbour works, $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the extension of the harbour works built by the Inverness Coal Company. The total cost will be $10,000. The work will not be started until the property is transferred to the Crown.


Robert Laird Borden: How is it that a harbour on which you propose to spend money can be private property ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are having it transferred to the Crown because if it were left in the hands of a private corporation, that company would have the monopoly and could prevent others using it. It belongs now to the Inverness Railway and Coal Company.
Mr. OSLER, This is to provide the coal company with a wharf and get the government to spend $10,000 on it ?	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will be transferred to the government.
Mr. OSIjER. Why should the government take it over ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In order to give the general public the use of it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am interested in some shipping in Lake Ontario in connection with the Niagara Navigation Company. We have had to build our own wharf. We have to keep it in repair. Other people must have a public wharf more or less and if the government are doing this it would be a good thing to transfer the wharf and get the government to keep it up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The company would then be willing to pay wharfage dues ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly, if the government would take charge of it. On the face of it, this looks like a private wharf, owned by a Private company, which is getting the government to relieve them from the responsibility of keeping it up ; and they make it a public wharf, the company getting the full benefit of it as they do now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have a case in mind where a private company absolutely refused to transfer the wharf unless they got private use of it ; they would not allow the public to use the work as they chose. I do not know whether it would be good policy for the government to take over all the


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: works, but I suppose where it is for the public advantage it should be done.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What other necessity is there for this work 5


Mr. McLENNAN.: The Inverness Coal Company agreed with the government to hand them over this harbour in the interests of the public, provided that parliament would make a grant in behalf of that harbour, in order that it would be improved to accommodate the public. There is. now a town of about 3,000 inhabitants that has sprung up around that mine and in the vicinity of that harbour. The present company purchased these works from the original company who used them, but the present company have built a railway for their own purposes, and ships their coal at the Strait of Canso ; they have abandoned this harbour and these works altogether, so that it is the public that is now interested in the repair and fixing up of this harbour for public use.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it an artificial harbour ?


Angus McLennan: It was a large pond-a small lake, in fact-and the original company that owned the mines cut a narrow isthmus that existed between this small lake and the sea and built two piers to protect the entrance to this harbour, and used it in a small way to make small shipments of coal when they were first developing that coal property, but they sold out to the present company, who built their own rail-way to ship from the Strait of Canso, where they now have one of the finest shipping places perhaps in North America ; it is just as good and extensive a shipping place as that of the Dominion Coal Company in Sydney, and they thus have no use whatever for the Broad Cove harbour, as it was formerly called. I say again it Is the public that are interested in opening up this harbour, a considerable business having sprung up around the mines. The public are thus interested in the opening up of this harbour and having it for use, in order that the business interests of the place may be encouraged, particularly that a fair amount of competition may be set up with the company's railway, running-sixty miles, over which almost every article of consumption for that town must be carried.


Mr.   I@: What is the nature of the work ; completing piers, dredging the harbour, deepening the channel, or what ?


Angus McLennan: There are two piers built for the protection of the entrance to the harbour, in other words, to keep sand from being banked up at the entrance of the harbour. These piers have been wrecked by storms from time to time, and the company at present owning them, having no particular interest in maintaining them, allowed them to go to wreck, and the object of the gov-

eminent now. in the public interest, is to keep the company to the original engagement, that is to hand the harbour and these old works over to the public on condition that the government would rebuild those piers and otherwise render the harbour fit for shipping purposes. There is no doubt the company would use the harbour for local shipping of their coal in a small way to local ports as well as the public, but the government would not make a grant without the company first arranging to hand over the harbour to the public. The company are now hesitating to hand these works over, and untii they do so the government refused to go on with the work, -and the prospects are that the entrance to that har-hour will very likely have to be expropriated by the government in the public interest, in order that this grant may be used for the purpose for which it was voted.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the piers are built, will they be covered by the company with tracks and constructions of various kinds for handling the coal, so that the companv would have a practical monopoly of the use of this harbour ?


Angus McLennan: Oh, no ; they are simply brush and stone for the protection of the entrance to the harbour. The facilities for handling the coal are entirely within the harbour.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


George William Fowler: It is understood that before the government spends this money they will have handed over this Inside harbour that the member for Inverness speaks of ?


Robert Laird Borden: That, as I understand, is a condition precedent to the expenditure of the money.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the reason no expenditure has been made.


Mr TAYLOR.: The member for Inves-nciss said the government would have to expropriate it.


Angus McLennan: Unless the company v.ould keep up to their promise.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand the owners have agreed to transfer.


Herbert Brown Ames: The money should be voted provisionally that no share of it would be spent in purchasing property.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The committee may be sure that no money will be spent unless a transfer is made to the government.


Samuel Barker: That is, all the money is to be spent on work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Samuel Barker: There are no payments for property ?
235J


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is very much like the case of the harbour at Glace Bay last year, where some money was voted on the understanding it was not to be expended until the harbour to be converted into a public harbour should be transferred from the company. In that case, as in this, the harbour had been created, and it was practically an artificial harbour, used entirely for the purposes of a corporation and controlled by that corporation. The promise then made to the committee was, and the one I understand that is being made nows is, that the money will not be expended unless there is such a transfer as will make the hrrbour available in every way for the public use, so that it will cease to be a private harbour or private work, and will become, to all intents and purposes, a public harbour, just the same as if it had been a public harbour from the commencement. That is what I understand from the minister.
Janvrin's island wharf, $600.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote is to complete the wharf on the north side of this island. To complete it will cost $600.


Andrew B. Ingram: What has been spent so far ?
- Mr. BRODEUR. $2,000 has been expended and $600 is required to complete.


Herbert Brown Ames: What county is this ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Richmond.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the orignal work, was not $2,000 supposed to cover the whole expenditure ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes ; but the sum of $600 is required to complete.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the $2,000 was a vote for the whole thing, and now you ask $600 more.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: We want to know what the additional work that you are to do is ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is because the work cost more than we expected.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the only reason ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the only reason.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the first estimate was not a correct estimate ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not absolutely correct ; we have to ask $600 more.


Andrew B. Ingram: That estimate is rather wide of the mark-a vote of $2,000. and then you must come and ask for almost one-third more, $600.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not a very big difference.


Herbert Brown Ames: How many people live at .Tanvrin's Island?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: About 200 people, I am informed.


Herbert Brown Ames: Wliat country is that in?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Richmond.
Jersey cove (or Eel cove)-wharf, $3,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for the construction of a wharf at an estimated cost of $4,300. This is in the county of North Victoria.
Larry's river breakwater-extension, $1,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for the completion of a square of crihwork 16 feet wide extending 160. feet long. The total cost will be $4,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it under contract?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it is being done by day's work.


Herbert Brown Ames: In what county is it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Guysborough.
L'Ardoise-extension of breakwater up to the shore, $7,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Richmond.


Andrew B. Ingram: The government let a contract for $24,000 for this work, and now they come down for nearly one-third as much more.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The main contract was for $24,880. Inspection and contingencies, $1,470'-total, $26,350. There has been expended in 1903-4, $104. Supplementary estimate for 1904-5 to cover the salary of the inspector as above, $750. Appropriation for
1904-5, $18,000-total $18,854.27. And the vote required is $7,500 to complete.
Litchfield breakwater, $1,000. [DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Annapolis, and it is required for a breakwater the construction of which is expected to be completed in the next fiscal year. The total is estimated at $4,000.
Little Brook-repairs to breakwater, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to complete the work. The total cost is estimated at $5,030. This is in Digby county.
Little Judique-boat harbour, $1,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Inverness, and it is to improve the entrance to the pond at the entrance of the Little Judique river to enable the fishermen to enter with, their boats at all stages of the tide.


Frederick William Borden: How much will be the total cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: An examination will be made, and if the work can be done for $1,000 it will be done.


Herbert Brown Ames: 


Robert Laird Borden: Is that supposed to be approximately the cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What county is it in? '


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Inverness.
Lunenburg-dredging harbour, $5,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: At last ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a revote and it is to carry out the work of improving Lunenburg harbour in accordance with the estimate, which is $8,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the money be spent this year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we expect that there will be a dredge ready to do the work.
Mabou-bridge, $1,S00.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make a bridge in Inverness harbour. The vote is to make provision for the construction of a pile wharf at Mabou bridge for general shipping and landing purposes. The total estimated cost is $1,800.


Herbert Brown Ames: The county of Inverness is being pretty7 well treated-Long Point, Little Judique, Mabou, Broad Cove-pretty nearly every port on the western side of Cape Breton has something done for it.
Mr. McLennan. That county has a coast line of 150 miles.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman should leave somethiug for next time. The whole thing will be exhausted by 1908.
Mr. McLennan. It won't be necessary.
Mahone bay-dredging, $5,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This will be done by the government dredge.


Herbert Brown Ames: What county is it in?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Lunenburg.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it just ordinary dredging.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What depth of water is there now, and what is it proposed to obtain?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The present depth is about 9 feet, and it is proposed to obtain a depth of 13 feet. It is being filled up with sawdust from the mills.


George William Fowler: Is there not an Act of parliament against that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I believe there is a law to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it due absolutely to the filling up of the stream with sawdust ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That and the ordinary silting of the river.


George William Fowler: It would not be a very expensive work to dredge out saw -dust.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is not only sawdust in the river. I am mtormed by the chief engineer that it is very expensive to dredge sawdust.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: What do you dredge it with ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With a hydraulic dredge. That is really why the work has not been done.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a hydraulic dredge ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A suction dredge.
Main & Dieu-breakwater on west side of har bour. $7,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is required for completing the breakwater which is being built. This is a payment on the contract. The contract was for $8,925.


Andrew B. Ingram: What county ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: South Cape Breton.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there another work of that kind in Inverness county ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will see later on. Mr. INGRAM. I mean Margaree.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is further on.
Malignant cove-dlose piling end and sides of channel piers with creosoted piles, $1,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is the total cost of the work contemplated here.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, but it is not the total cost of the works constructed by the government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There has beeu expended in late vears up to the 31st of December, $28,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to know why the local government, having expended money on this wharf we should refund it to them ?
Mr. McLennan. The local government' of Nova Scotia had all these wharfs and smaller harbours in charge before confederation. It was only after confederation that they were handed over to this government and paid for. That harbour has been under improvement for the last 35 or 36 years and this amount is simply to complete the work of blasting rocks from the entrance to this harbour. It is rather a commodious harbour and as the hon. minister stated an expenditure of something like $25,000 or $30,000 has been made by the. government in the past thirty years in its I repair. I may say in regard to this small appropriation that the lateness of the session last year prevented this money from being expended for the simple reason that the coast there is facing the north and as the prevailing winds are north, these appropriations could not be expended. Hence, it is that the appropriations of two years are mixed up in this list.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure that the money refunded to the provincial government was money expend ed by themselves on this harbour ?
Mr. McLennan. I know it from personal knowledge.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Antigonish and is required to cover the cost in connection with close piling of the outer ends and 30 feet in length of the sides of the entrance piers of. Malignant Cove harbour which has been undertaken to make good in a permanent manner the damage done by the teredo. The total cost is $1,000.
Margaree harbour-improvements, $1,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Inverness county. This vote is required to cover the estimated cost of completing the following works in process at Margaree :	(1) R^ck
excavation to secure a clear depth of 8 feet at low water along the channel face of the pier on the west side of the entrance to Margaree harbour over a distance of some 9()0 feet from a point 200 feet from the inner end outwards. (2) Urgent repairs to the outer end of this pier commenced in November 1904 to make good damage done by a storm. The total cost will be $1,500.


Andrew B. Ingram: This Is not the total cost of the works there ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the general policy been pursued that moneys expended by the government of Nova Scotia previous to confederation, 38 years ago shall be refunded by this government ?
Mr. McLennan. It certainly was the policy of this government to take over all the works that were considered of Dominion importance and refund whatever money was expended upon them by the government of the province.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to find out whether this has been the policy of the Dominion government since 1867.


Mr MCLENNAN.: The hon .gentleman's friends were good enough to take these works over and pay for them.


Mr BARKER.: Is the Dominion government returning to the province of Nova Scotia moneys expended for the maintenance and repair of these works 38 or 40 years ago ?


Angus McLennan: I cannot say iu regard to repairs, but I do say that the Dominion government took over all these works, breakwaters and harbours of Dominion importance, and they refunded whatever expenditure had been made on these works by the provincial government.


Robert Laird Borden: I never knew that before.
Mr. MCLENNAN- Well, it is a fact all the same.


Robert Laird Borden: When did it take place ? I am asking for information.


Angus McLennan: I cannot say really what year, but I know it was done. By reference to the records it will be shown that it has been done. I do not know whether it has been done in the ease of other provinces, but I am sure it has been done in the case of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: That is to say that money expended on public harbours and breakwaters by the provinces before confederation has been refunded by the Dominion government ?


Angus McLennan: Yes.


Samuel Barker: That has not been general.


Angus McLennan: There was a wharf at Port Hastings in the Gut of Canso, and there was a wharf at Point Hood in Inverness, built by Nova Scotia before confederation, and these wharfs were taken over by the Dominion government.


George Taylor: At the time of confederation ?


Angus McLennan: I cannot say it was done just exactly at confederation, but I do say that the Dominion government took over all these works of Dominion importance and whatever outlay was made by the government of Nova Scotia was refunded.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. minister if moneys expended by the province in the maintenance of breakwaters or harbours before 1867 are being refunded to the province by the Dominion government ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: Y'ou would have as good a chance to find it there as anvwhere else.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the Minister of Justice would give his views on the subject.


David Henderson: The British North America Act, 1867, provides that the public works and property of each province enumerated in schedule 3, shall be the property of Canada. Schedule 3 specifies these works to be: Canals, and waterpowers connected therewith, lighthouses and piers Sable Island, and public harbours. Public harbours are specially mentioned as being the property of Canada and there is nothing in the British North America Act about the province being indemnified for any expenditure on them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have been informed [DOT]	some public works were bought
m this way from the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


Robert Laird Borden: If the money has been paid to the provinces I do not think you could recover it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The government in power in 1884 was, my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will say a very good government, and I am surprised they would have done anything unconstitutional.


Samuel Barker: That was probablv a refund of expenditure made by the ' provinces after 1867.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like the minister to give us the date of the1 payment of this money to the local government. If it was before 1867. the hon. gentleman (Mr McLennan) is correct, but if it is since 1867 we ought to know it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will ask the officers of the department to get the information and I will give it to the House on concurrence.


Robert Laird Borden: There may have been in the early history of confederation some moneys expended bv provincial governments after the date of confederation on works which became the property of Canada. The payment would likely lie to recoup the provinces for that expenditure.


Angus McLennan: I presume that was why it was done, but I know the fact that it was done.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. The minister's answer about not having it in his notes reminds me that when Sam. Weller was asked if he saw his father, he looked into the ventilator and said he did not. We would not expect to find much in the min-Mr. BARKER.
Mr. INGRAM, make a difference.
If that is the case it will
.

at ivyana
sion of breakwater, $1,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Inverness county?


Angus McLennan: No.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Herbert Brown Ames: There was work done there in 1903-4 to the extent of $2,500. Has that work been washed away?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. This vote is for the completion of that restoration work. The damage was raised by the teredo worm.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the expenditure?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Robert Laird Borden: Will this finish it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is expected to.
Mill cove-breakwater, $13,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Lunenburg. The total cost will be $13,500, and we will call for tenders.
New' Campbellton-ballast wharf in Kelly's cove, $12,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in North Victoria. The total cost will be $12,000; tenders have been received but the contract has not been awarded.


Robert Laird Borden: WThat has given occasion for this work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Development of coal mines.


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard something of mines at Kelly's Cove and I would like to know what development there is.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Coal was struck in the neighbourhood of Kelly's Cove and it proving valuable the mines were opened up. The mines are owned and managed by the Cape Breton Coal Company, and since they came under the new management, they have been more extensively worked, and the output has been largely increased.
Newport landing-wharf, $5,200.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Hants. This vote is for completing the work, the total cost of which is placed at $6,200.
Noel wharf-repairs, $1,200.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the same county. The total cost of the repairs will be $1,200.
Ogden's pond-to complete protection works, $800.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is Antigonish county. It is to cover the expense of protection works on both sides of the channel.
Pembroke breakwater, $800.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract. The amount of the contract is $7,970. This is to complete. It is in the county of Hants.
Pleasant bay-wharf, $6,700.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the formation of a small harbour which will afford landing facilities and shelter to small vessels and fishing boats by constructing a cribwork and pier extending to 5 feet depth at low water. The total cost will be $8,000. This is in Inverness county.
Plympton-repairs to breakwater, $2,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for completing the repairs commenced on the breakwater in order to place the structure, which has been badly damaged, in a thoroughly sound condition. The total cost will be $2,500. It is in fRe county of Digby.
Port Greville-extension of breakwater and repairs, $8,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in the county of Cumberland. The total cost will be $12,000. It is under contract to Mr. Thomas B. Charlton.
Port Hastings-wharf, $4,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the construction of a wharf at Port Hastings in the county of Inverness.
Port Hood harbour-closing northern entrance with brush and stone work, $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for closing the northern entrance of the harbour of Port Hood by a dam 3,860 feet long. The total cost will be $60,000. It is done by day labour. $20,000 was spent last year. It is in the county of Inverness.


Andrew B. Ingram: The total expenditure to June 30, 1904, was $61,592.20, besides $2,708 for dredging, and now you are asking for more money.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the same work.


Angus McLennan: That is not the same work at all. The work to which my hon. friend refers is the old wharf which is" built inside tbe harbour. The work to which this vote refers is a breastwork of brush and stone built across tbe northern entrance to the harbour in order to prevent the harbour filling up with sand, which is washed in by the northerly winds and the seas, thus rendering the harbour next to useless.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have previous appropriations been made to open the northern eiv-tranee to the harbour ?


Angus McLennan: No, not at all. Unfortunately the elements opened it.
^415


Andrew B. Ingram: So that this harbour, instead of costing $60,000 will cost something like $125,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am'only speaking of this work, not of the other improvements made in the same harbour.
Port La Tour-extension of breakwater, $11,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the completion of the breakwater at that place. It will cost $24,000. It is in the county of Shelburne and Queen's.
Scott's bay-extension of breakwater, &c., $2,100.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is. for the extension of the north breakwater, a distance of 75 feet, which will necessitate the construction of cribwork. The total cost will be $3,100.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot let that last statement about Port Hood go. I have made another discovery, and my friends must be fully aware of it, or they would not allow that statement to go unchallenged. I showed an expenditure in one case of $60,000 and in another of $63,000, making a total of $123,000, and I am surprised at gentlemen nodding assent to an incorrect statement which they must have known was not correct. We are not supposed to be acquainted with every detail of the public expenditures. Here is an item of $482,000 and another of $191,000, and I think that a statement assented to in that way is not a proper thing for the officers to do. I find on pages 53 and 52 of part IV of the Report of the Public Works Department a statement which shows that there are $61,500 and $2,000 in one instance. Let me read from the report to show how careful we have to be to get the correct information :
thing like $482,000, and the information the hon. gentleman is giving is misleading.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think that the criticism of my hon. friend with regard to the officer's of the department is justified. It is true that the statement he read has been made, and that it was estimated that this work would cost a much larger sum than I have mentioned. It is true that the officers reported at first that it would cost a much larger sum, but the chief engineer, with his usual ability, went to work and found out some other means of doing the same work and getting the same results. Instead of spending the larger sunn, we are simply providing for ;an expenditure of $60,000, and we expect with that to reach the same conclusion. So that my hon. friend was entirely mistaken in trying to infer that we are not giving proper information.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. minister had given at first the information he is now giving us, that would have been perfectly satisfactory.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was asked what would be the probable cost, and I said $60,000. I am not saying that my hon. friend was unfair, but he thought he had a point against us when he was simply relying on the first report, which has since been abandoned.


David Henderson: I think the hon. member for Elgin was perfectly justified in the statement he made. He read from the report of the Department of Public Works. Why was that statement put iu that report unless it was intended to be information for the public, and surely we had a perfect right to accept that information ? I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to cast any reflection on the hon. member for Elgin when that hon. member read from the minister's own report.
The harbour of Port Hood is on the west coast of Cape Breton island, about twenty miles to the northward of the northern entrance to the Strait of Canso.
The harbour was formerly <a secure one, Smith island, which forms its west side, having been connected with the mainland by a range of sand hills. In 1893 the sea made a breach through this protection ; the opening, at first narrow, was enlarged by the tidal currents with increasing rapidity until it was entirely swept away. The harbour is now unsafe during northerly gales, except in a small cove on the east side of Smith island.
In March, 1902, a report was submitted on the closing of the northern entrance in which the estimated cost of work suggested varied from $482,000 to $291,000, according to design and location.
During the fiscal year 1903-4, the sum of $2,968.85 was expended in constructing a length of 330 feet, 28 feet wide on top, of a proposed breakwater, and in procuring materials for its construction.
This would appear co involve the idea that the department intended spending a very *large sum at this point, an expenditure some-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think he might have asked the question how such a statement came to be made, without reflecting on the officers of the department. In this instance, instead of being open to censure for what they have done, we ought to declare that they done their duty most admirably.


Robert Laird Borden: The fault is not with the officers, but with the minister, iu not making that explanation in the first instance.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am taking the responsibility.


Robert Laird Borden: My bon. friend will understand perfectly that when I allude to him I am alluding to a gentleman who is not very familiar with the department, and am simply doing so as an illustration for the time being. Where there has been a departure from the course intended to be followed, and a departure which makes the information before the House absolutely inaccurate, it is only right that the min-
Mr. Mclennan.


J1TJS7E 13. 1905
[Stage Direction]
ister should make that explanation in the first instance. I realize perfectly that in this case the minister is not very familiar with these estimates, 'and we must make some allowance for him. That explanation should have been given in the first instance. Why are you closing the harbour ?
Mr. McLennan. 1 think I gave the reason a minute ago. The sand along the coast is "-etting washed into the harbour and destroying the anchorage there entirely. Just as has been read from the report ot tbe Department of Public W orks, tbe harbour bad been closed at the northern entrance, and about sixty or seventy years ago it was an excellent harbour with excellent anchorage-not only serving the purposes of a local harbour, but those of a regular harbour of refuge along that western coast. The object now is to bring back, as it were, the old order of things, and form a beach or a protection breast-work across the northern entrance, which has been broken into by tbe elements. It is quite true that the resident engineer reported that the Closing of the northern entrance to Port Hood harbour would cost the amount which the lion, member for Elgin has -stated', but -the present chief engineer devised a plan by which the object in view could be secured for the amount of money stated by the minister. This Mill be done by substituting brush and stone, built after a particular plan, and so compactly [DOT] put together that to-day there are 950 feet or so of' this breast-work completed, the result being, as the chief engineer predicted, that the sand, -Which used to he washed into the harbour, is washed up against this breastwork, and a regular mound of sand is thus forming along that work,, so that one-third across the entrance to that harbour is now shut across by means of a mound of sand which this breast-work has served to form. So far as regards tbe 930 feet of breast-work already constructed, it is an entire success ; and everv person who knows anything about public works of that character has no hesitation in saying that the plan is most successful.
Andrew B. Ingram: I am not going to let this go for ,a moment or -two. WTe have been very liberal in allowing items to slip through very easily, but it is not to be expected that we on this side -can follow each item carefully -and peruse the reports of the department minutely in the -few minutes we have at our -disposal. The generous offer made by the leader of the opposition with respect to the Nova Scotia items was with a view of getting all thi-s information without having to ask questions. In reading this report, I was surprised to find this in two different places. That is why I referred to the $482,000 and the $291,000. Now, the minister says he proposes to expend about $60,000 upon this work, but the other statements are contained in the report. Apparently they are going to abandon the report, although this is the report which was brought down for the year ending June 30, 1904, and 1-aid^on the table of the House this session,


Mr.   BRODETJR@: When I explained the item, I was asked what would be the total probable cost and said it would cost $60,000. That is the work that is contemplated and is going to be done according to tbe late report of the chief engineer, but in the first instance the chief engineer reported that the cost would be as stated by my friend and as he says in the report, but it was found it -would he more expensive and the chief engineer reported on another plan which has proved to be as effective and would cost less.


Andrew B. Ingram: And that as we understand now would cost about $60,000.
Shelburne harbour-dredging, $1,000.
Mr. BRODEUR, This is for dredging to remove a strip 150 feet wide and 300 feet long to 8 feet depth at low water ordinary spring tides, from the eastern part of a shoal in Shelburne harbour running practically northeast and southwest which is a hinderance to most of the shipping business done along the water front of that town. It is in the county of Shelburne and Queen's.


Mr. DANIEL.: What is the depth of the water now ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is a shoal there ; it is from 4 to 5 feet.
Skinner's cove-boat channel and protection works, $8,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Pictou. It is to complete the excavation of the projected channel into Skinner's pond where fishermen's boats can be taken for safety and the protection of this passage on both sides with walls of cribwork. The total cost will be $10,500.
Summerville wharf, $2,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Tins is in Hants, and is to complete the block or ordinary round log well tendered and fully ballasted crib-work about SO feet long, 26 feet wide and 24 feet high, at the outer end of Summerville wharf. The total cost will be about $3,500.
Three Fathom harbour-restoration of beach protection works, $1,200.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Halifax county and is for continuing the restoration of die beach protection works commenced in RlOl-2. The total cost will be $1,200.
Victoria beach-wharf, $58,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Annapolis county on the north side of Annapolis basin, two miles from the Pictou landing pier.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this was supposed to be constructed in connection with a railway that was projected. What is the position of that railway.	.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In connection with the railway from Victoria bridge to Middleton which is now nearly completed.


Mr. PICKUP.: It is owned by Mackenzie & Mann and is run in connection with the Halifax and Northwestern.
Wallace harbour, $12,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to make provision for carrying out works which are recommended to be undertaken in connection with the ferry slips on both sides of Wallace harbour.
West Arichat-landing pier, $7,200.
Ml'. BRODEUR. This is in Richmond and is to provide for the construction of a landing pier to extend to 15 feet depth at low water spring tides off Bosdet point. The total cost will be $7,200.


Herbert Brown Ames: What was the estimate last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The same estimate. We are going to call for tenders and expect to do the whole work during this fiscal year.
White Head wharf, $4,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is in Guysbor-ough. It is to provide for the construction of a block and span wharf 175 feet long at White Head which will reach a depth of 16 feet at low water. The total cost will be $4,000.

Wednesday, June 14, 1905.