1905-02-15

[Stage Direction]
c

Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Has Henry Lawson been dismissed as postmaster for Stanhope, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, why, and on whose recommendation?
3.	Were there any complaints ? If so, of what nature, and what are the names of those who made them ?
4.	Were any petitions received for his dismissal ? If so, by whom signed ?
* 5. Did the postmaster or post office inspector in the- province ask for Mr. Lawson's dismissal?
6.	How long has Mr. Lawson held the position ?
7.	When were complaints, if any, first made ?
8.	Did the Postmaster General furnish Mr. Lawson any reasons for his dismissal ?


Mr. INGRAM.: Then I think the rumour about the cost of this lot is well founded. If this lot cost $6,000, or rather $7,200, it is quite evident that the department has paid too much for it. That is borne out by the statement made by my hon. friend from Carleton N. B. (Mr. Carvell), who states 34*	.


Hon.   S@: It having been clearly established that this officer adopted an active political partisan course in connection with the recent Dominion elections, he was removed from office. He was appointed postmaster at Stanhope on the 30th June, 1884,


Mr. A. MARTIN.: I do not tliink tlmt the lion. Postmaster General has given an answer to the question. I asked the hon. gentleman if the Postmaster General had furnished Mr. Lawson with any reasons for his dismissal, and he has not answered that.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Mr. Lawson was not furnished with reasons. I fancy he knew very well the reasons for his dismissal. He is not in any doubt ; he is quite cognizant of what occurred ; there is no doubt of what occurred, and his dismissal is in accordance with the rule laid down eight years ago, of which he had ample notice.


Alexander Martin: I think this question has not been answered at all.


William Mulock: I think I have answered that part of it.


Alexander Martin: The question as to who made these complaints against Mr. Lawson has not been answered. Mr. Lawson ought, in all fairness, to know who made these complaints.


HARBOURS CONTROLLED BY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	What are the harbours in Canada under boards of commissioners ?
2.	What are the names of the commissioners in the different harbours ?
3.	How are they appointed ; and how many are named by the Governor in Council ?
4.	What is the remuneration of the commissioners ?


Hon. R. PREEONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The harbours in Canada controlled by
boards of commissioners are :	Montreal,
Quebec, Toronto, Belleville, Three Rivers, North Sydney and Pictou.
2.	Montreal - Robert Mackay, Jonathan Hodgson, Robert Bickerdike, Alphonse Racine, Eustache H. Lernay, His Worship the Mayor, James Cratliern, Robert Reford, L. E. Geoffrion, W. E. Doran, Alexander Me-Fee.
Toronto-J. T. Mathews, W. P. Hubbard, Barlow Cumberland, Joseph Oliver, Francis Stephen Spence.
Quebec-Jean Baptiste LalibertC, Narcisse Rioux, Dosithee Arcand, Harold Kennedy) William M. Macpherson, Felix Carbray, E. T. Etienne Dussault, George Tanguay, William Molson Dobell.
Belleville-T. S. Carman, the Mayor of Belleville, David Price.
Three Rivers-Henry E. Hart, Alexander Houliston, Richard S. Cooke, K.C.; the Mayor of Three Rivers, Louis Brunelle.
North Sydney - William Hackett, jr.; Peter McDonald, M. W. Lawlor.
Pictou, N.S.-Henry G. Ives, J. Robert Brown, Edward Doherty, John C. Reid, William A. McIntosh.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 3. For the harbour of Montreal six are appointed by the Governor in Council, the Mayor of Montreal is ex officio a member, and four as follows :-One by the Montreal Board of Trade, one by the Montreal Corn Exchange Association, one by the Chamber of Commerce and one by the shipping interests.
At the port of Quebec there are nine commissioners-five appointed by the Governor in Council, the other four are : One appointed by the Council of the Board of Trade, one by the Council of the Levis Board of Trade and two by the shipping interests. In addition to these, the Chairman of the Corporation of Pilots for and below Quebec is ex officio a member, so far only as respects pilotage matters.
For Toronto the common council of the city of Toronto appoints two commissioners, the Toronto Board of Trade two, and the majority of such commissioners to recommend another person to be a commissioner to be appointed by the Governor in Council ; but if the majority of the commissioners cannot agree upon another person, then the Governor in Council appoints the fifth commissioner.
For Belleville the corporation of the town of Belleville, by an Act assented to on the 18th of May, 1870, are authorized and empowered to pass by-laws for the imposition and collection of harbour dues to be employed, after the expense of collection, for the purpose of assisting and liquidating the debts incurred or which may after that date be incurred, for the improvement of the harbour within the limits of the said town.
For the harbour of Three Rivers the Governor in Council appoints three persons the mayor, by virtue of his office, being a commissioner, along with the President of the Three Rivers Board of Trade-in all five persons.
For the harbour of North Sydney three commissioners are appointed by the Governor in Council.
For the harbour of Pictou the Governor in Council appoints three commissioners.
4. The commissioners at the port of Montreal receive $5 for each sitting of the board. The chairman of the board receives $2,000 annually.
The harbour commissioners of the other harbour boards receive no remuneration, except at the port of Quebec, and the returns of the department will not enable it to speak definitely about that port. The information is being asked for. So far as the returns in the department show, they have received no remuneration.


IMPORTS OF HAY.
Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	What quantity ol hay was entered for consumption from the United States at the port jf Sault Ste. Marie during the calendar years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904 ?

2.	What was the amount of duty collected upon such imports in each of such years ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The total quantity of hay imported from the United States and entered for consumption at the port of Sault Ste. Marie, and the duty collected thereon during each of the calendar years mentioned was :-
Year.	Tons.	Value.	Duty.1900 .. ..	$ 144	$ 281901 .. ..	.. .. 61	647	1221902 .. . [DOT]	.. .. 435	4,364 1,886	8701903 .. . [DOT]	.. .. 188	3761904 .. ..	6,224	1,348


EMPLOYMENT OF R. A. E. LEACH.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1.	Is Mr. R. A. E. Leach in the employ of this (government ?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary ?	,	, n
3.	What is the date of his employment ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inspector of Dominion Land Agencies, *2,000 per annum.
3.	January 1, 1905.


WORK IN INLAND HARBOURS.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	How much money has been spent by the
Dominion government since 1896, upon each of the following : (a) Port Arthur harbour ; (b) Fort William harbour ;	(c) Kaministiquia
river ; classified into (1) dredging : (2) breakwaters ; (3) other purposes ?
2.	What quantities of each of the following .are to be excavated during 1905-6 in each of the three locations above named ?
3.	What' are the dates and terms of the contracts entered into with those engaged in dredging at the aforesaid points in 1903-4 and 1904-5?
4.	Will the government lay the said contracts upon the table of this House ?
5.	What are the horse-power, tonnage and dimensions of each of the dredges engaged in said work ?
6.	What is the cost of dredges newly built, similar to those engaged at the above three points ?
to question 5. Take for instance the 5th section of the question.
What are the horse-power, tonnage and dimensions of each of the dredges engaged in said work 1
There is no information of that character in the department and the question would have to stand a considerable time before I would be able to get the information.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries should be able to give that information.


Mr. HYMAN.: It is the usual way where a question includes such a detailed answer as this, that the hon. gentleman should ask for a return.


YUKON ELECTION.
Rt.   H@: In answer to a question that was asked yesterday by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) with regard to the return of the results of the election in the Yukon Territory, I would say the only information that we have upon this subject is contained in the following telegrams which have been exchanged recently.
Dawson, Y. T., Feb. 8th, 1905.
R. W. Scott,
Secretary of State, Ottawa.
Alfred Thompson was declared elected yesterday by a majcrity of 618. My report with writ will be sent in a couple of days.


PIERRE LEDIEU,
[Stage Direction]
Returning Officer.
Another telegram reads :	.
Dawson, Y. T., Feb. 13th 1905.
R. W. Scott,
Ottawa, Ont.
Was served to-day with writ of subpoena in a case of conspiracy ordering me to produce on the 1st of March the writ of election, the voters' lists, the poll books and all other election phpers. Shall I obey the order of the court or not ? Dr. Thompson is leaving for Ottawa on the 15th.

[Stage Direction]
Returning Officer.
Hon. OHAiS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works). I must ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) to move for a return for this information. It will be necessary to go over a considerable amount of correspondence and there is information .asked for which is not in the possession of the department.
Samuel Hughes: I have asked the question and I insist that I am entitled to an answer. It is a very proper question and the information should all be available in the minister's own department. I want to know why he insists on a motion for return.


Charles Smith Hyman: I must ask the hon. gen-teman to make a motion for the answer
The answer to this was as follows :
Ottawa, 14th Feb., 1904.
Pierre Ledieu.
Returning Officer, Dawson, Y. T.
If there has not been any demand for a recount under section ninety, Dominion Election Act, then your duty is to return the candidate-elect and conform to all the requirements of section ninety-two of the Act.


R. W. SCOTT.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I understood that some demand had been made upon the returning officer for an explanation of this very great delay in fixing a date for opening the ballot boxes and officially counting the ballots. The correspondence which has just been read by the Prime Minister does

not make any allusion to any such telegram to him or to his reply.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am sorry to say that this part of the observations of the hon. gentleman escaped my attention. I thought that what was in his mind was the delay in the return of Mr. Thompson, the member elect for the Yukon. If there is any other correspondence I shall bring it down.


Mr.   I@: I alluded to that as a result of the action of the deputy returning officer in delaying the returns so unreasonably and I pointed out at the same time to the Minister of Justice that it would be perfectly competent for any returning officer to fix a date one or two years from the date of the election and thus disfranchise a constituency for that time.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that the writ has to be returned within a certain time and the official count cannot be delayed beyond the date of the wr*it.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not able to find any date nor could the Minister of Justice. It simply says that he shall fix a date, whenever he sees fit. We have never had any trouble before and we may not have any trouble again, but this delay would indicate a possible necessity for an amendment of the law. The Minister of Justice on February 2, if I remember correctly from a perusal of ' Hansard ' stated that a telegram had been sent to the returning officer asking him the reason for the delay-until February 0, which I think was the day for opening the ballot boxes and summing up the figures. As to that we have no information; if there is any information I would be glad if the Prime Minister would give it to us to-morrow.



THE ANSWERING OF QUESTIONS BY MINISTERS.

['I think I see the point all right now.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Samuel Hughes: I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that on a recent occasion the First Minister, who is nearly as important in the House as the acting Minister of Fublie Works, took occa-. sion, in answer to a question asked him by one of his supporters, to give a deliberate answer taking about twenty minutes to read. He answered the question with great detail, but when a member of this side asks a question that requires a particular answer he is asked to make a motion for a return. There is not a question here to which, if the minister had his work properly prepared when he brought his estimates before the House he would not have the answer at his finger ends in five minutes. He says he cannot get the information as to the horse-power of these dredges. He has a colleague who poses as a very efficient Minister of Marine and in his department there should be a record of every matter of this kind. I must protest against


Robert Laird Borden: the Minister of Public Works giving any such answer to questions that are placed on the order paper; it is not treating the House with proper respect.


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Mr. SPROULE.: If a minister cannot answer a question the first time it is asked, it is usual to request a delay until he can get the information, perhaps a portion of it from other departments. We frequently allow questions to stand for a considerable length of time until the information is obtainable.



Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask the gov-eminent to be good enough to lay upon the table of the House any correspondence between this government and the Imperial government as well as between this government and the governments of the different provinces, with respect to a convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relative to the disposal of real and personal property which was signed at Washington on March 2, 1899, and of which ratifications were exchanged att Washington on July 28, 1900. My reason for adverting to it is that by the terms of the fourth article of the convention, the stipulations of the convention are not to be appli-

cable to any of the colonies or foreign possessions of Her Britannic Majesty unless notice to that effect shall be given on behalf of such colony or foreign possession by Hei' Majesty's representative at Washington to the United States Secretary of State within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the present convention. So far as il can gather, no such notice has been given on behalf of Canada, and therefore I would like to know what is the nature of the correspondence between this government and the governments to which I have referred.


CENSUS AND STATISTICS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Census and Statistics-Mr. Fisher.
On section 3,-permanent office of census and statistics and its officers ; appointment of census officers and commissioners,
Mr. PUSHER.: The first part of this clause is new, and establishes the permanent office. The second part is the same as the provision in the Census Act, and gives to the minister the usual authority for taking the census.


Mr. BLAIN.: Has the minister any persons in view to occupy these positions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would as much as possible take the men now in the employ of the department, to take charge of the work and to do the work.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. gentleman give the committee any information as to what salaries these gentlemen will get ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are giving the same salary as to the head of a department and the same status.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same salary, but not the same status as I have not the intention of making it a separate department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you give the same salary, that amounts to the same thing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you lay out as much money on this new branch or department, or whatever you choose to call it, the result as regards the public exchequer is practically the same. We should have a more definite statement as to the number of hands that will be required and the salaries to be paid them. As it is we are only given the information about two new officers, and without having a pretty fair idea of what really this new department involves, I don't see how we can be in a position to pass upon the project.
Mr. FISHER, Until the work is organized it will be quite impossible to state definitely how many employees will be required. It is new work and the number of employees and their salaries will be limited by the amount voted. At present, in addition to those on the civil list, there are six or seven employees doing work in my department which is covered by the provisions of this Bill. That is they are employed on general statistics work. There are three others paid out of the vote for general statistics but who are merely working on the Year-book. The six or seven employed on general statistics would have to be increased if this Bill passes, and that increase would be determined when the work is elaborated. Probably as many as four or five more would be required to be employed permanently besides such temporary clerical assistance as may be deemed necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend has given us to understand that there will be at least twelve employed in that branch among whom the money voted will be divided. What will be likely to take place next year and the years following ? Those employed will require larger salaries and more money will have to be voted. We will find that additional third-class clerks will have to be engaged, and that clerks will be promoted from one class to another, entailing every year an increased vote, and in the end this branch will reach the dignity of a department, so far as the expenditure is concerned. It does seem to me that we have not got all the information we should have. We have no definite information as to what this branch will do beyond dealing in statistics.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would be interesting to know what number of employees the department has now under the Act respecting the census, the Act respecting statistics, and the Act respecting criminal statistics and the salaries paid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I had a list yesterday of the employees, but regret that for the

moment I cannot lay my hand on it. Speaking from memory there are at present four paid out of civil government; I think there were four more whom we paid out of the general statistics vote who were practically permanent in the department. Three have been in the department for many years. One is a sort of messenger and typewriter who was appointed several years ago. There are also six employees who have been engaged in working up certain tables from the compilations of the census. That makes altogether fourteen employees in this branch. Of course, none of these are paid out of the census vote, but all are paid out of the general statistics vote, except one or two who are paid out of civil government. There is one officer employed in preparing the criminal statistics. The statistics are secured by arrangement with the judicial officers all over the Dominion, who are paid for sending in the returns. These returns are edited and put into the form of a report, and there is no expense here for compilation except the salary of one clerk. I think he is a junior second-class clerk and is paid $1,100 a year. His salary is charged to civil government. All the others are paid out of the general statistics vote. There is no payment out of the census vote or under the Census Act this year.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, money voted toy parliament for general statistics has been taken for the census ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained yesterday to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that certain tables had been made up from the facts compiled in the census, i suppose this might be called census work, but it is a kind of work that I want to have go on under the Act we are now discussing ail the time between the times of taking a census. There is a vast quantity of information in the census volume which it is important to the public to have published in tabulated form. That is the work that some of these clerks have been doing. Some of these tables will be finished before the publication of the last volume of the census-some of them are ready now. I think it would be advisable that they should appear in this last census volume. I confess frankly that I cannot define precisely the limit between what may fairly be called census compilation and tabulation of this kind. I would point out that, under the arrangements of the United States permanent census bureau, they have already published two or three very important volumes of information drawn from the census-not issued as part of the census, but as special volumes. And they have a list in the document we have here, of subjects some of which are now in course of tabulation and others of which will be taken up as opportunity offers.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, the figures the minister has given us as to the actual cost of Mr. FISHER.
the census are hardly correct because some of the money voted for general statistics has been taken to complete the census ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The figure I gave the other day included all that could possibly be charged to the census, down to the date fixed-the 1st of January.


Andrew B. Ingram: What was the amount '1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not recollect. It is recorded in ' Hansard.' I included in that aggregate every charge that could with any reason be charged to the census. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) that I do not wish in any way to minimize the expenditure in connection with the census.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it not the fact that when parliament voted the money for general statistics, it intended the money to be expended for that work ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot speak as to that. But I can say that I intend to go on drawing information from the census. Believing that , there was information of a statistical nature to be drawn from the census compilation, I sought to have that information tabulated. As being in charge of the general statistics service, I have always had the power-and on different occasions have exercised that power-to instruct the proper officers to draw up such tabulations. I do not pretend, and never have pretended that we should refuse to regard the census compilation as one of the sources from which we should draw information for general statistical purposes. Those compilations contain an enormous amount of information of great value to the public, but the ordinary individual can not extract that information for himself. It is the duty of the statistical staff to do that work and to do it in a way which will meet, not perhaps, individual demand, but a general demand. In that sense and to that extent that work has been done during the last fiscal year.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the Minister of Agriculture does not use the best judgment in choosing how he should expend this money. He gives to parliament a very wide interpretation indeed. In fact, he has been known to devote money voted by this parliament to an entirely different purpose from that for which parliament voted it. The hon. gentleman has taken some of the money that was voted for the census and expended it in investigating the census that had been taken ten years previous, and parliament never voted the money for that purpose ; and we complain that the hon. gentleman has diverted money voted by parliament to a purpose that it was never intended for. It may be so now, that the money voted for statistical purposes, and that should be expended in a certain way, has been diverted and put into the census expenditures of this year, and will never be shown in the total census expenditure.

On section 4,-census enumerators-collection of statistics-temporary clerks and *employees.


Richard Blain: Will the minister give us an explanation of the meaning of ' census subdistrict ? '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Let me first explain that this section is a combination of the similar *clauses in the two Acts that are here consolidated, the Census Act, section 9, and the Statistics Act, section 3. This is a consolidation of these two Acts, and I have brought the powers and authorities under these two Acts together in this section 4 and its subclauses. There is no additional power asked for in this Act. As to the meaning of a census subdistrict, a census district is the district for which there is a commissioner appointed, like the division of a riding or an electoral district, a subdistrict is the enumeration district.


Richard Blain: What would that be in the province of Ontario ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Generally speaking, in the last census we used the polling subdivisions. We took them as the basis of the subdistricts-those are the exact words in the present Census Act-to provide for the division of census districts into subdistricts for enumeration purposes.


Richard Blain: In other words, the minister will have power to appoint every year the same number of officers that he appoints every ten years under the old Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have that power to-day under the General Statistics Act; but I would never think of exercising it. It is quite out of my plan, as I explained yesterday.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I understand from with reference to gathering statistics. Would it not be advisable to take into consideration the fact that there were imported into our country over one hundred million dollars worth of manufactured goods in the year 1904 ; and would it not be interesting to our people to know about how many men are employed, and the amount of money that is being paid to workmen in foreign countries to manufacture the goods that come into this country ? For instance, $100,000,000 worth of goods that might have been manufactured in Canada were imported in 1904, and outside of that, the increase in importations from Great Britain and the United States from 1896 to 1902 was $34,778,000. I would like to ask the minister if it is possible for him to obtain that information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No doubt that line of investigation might be very interesting, but I think it would be my duty first to investigate the conditions and productions within our country before undertaking to investigate those in foreign countries.


Mr. BOYCE.: Could the minister tell the committee how much it costs to collect the criminal statistics ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Last year it cost $2,000.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How was that expended ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was expended on a fixed scale, established by the statute, of payment to judicial officers of courts all over the country. Five cents, I believe, is the amount paid for each case, and in the case of summary convictions, two cents. We pay so much for each return ordered, which may contain one case or fifty cases. I am told we paid one dollar for each return. In many cases we pay the officer of the court so much for a return, according to the number of returns he sends in.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the minister discontinue that method of obtaining statistics ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I propose to continue it on that line.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would the minister use the same staff to that extent, that he has been using for that purpose ?
air. FISHER. There is no staff except the one man here in Ottawa, who compiles the returns which are obtained from officials all over the country. I propose to use that same agency still. I am reminded that by law, and this law re-enacts it, those officers are bound to make these returns at the rate of pay which is fixed by statute.
air. HENDERSON. Under section 4, it appears to me that the minister is taking to himself full power to appoint all the enumerators. My impression was that heretofore the enumerators were appointed by the commission. I would like to ask the fion. minister if this is a change, or is he not taking to himself greater powers than he had before, and if so, what is the reason for the change ?
3Ir. FISHER. I can assure my hon. friend that the wording of this part of the clause which applies to the appointment of enumerators is just the same as it is in the present Census Act. I take no extra power and I have no intention of making any change. The census enumerators have been appointed from Ottawa just the same as the commissioners themselves. The commissioners do not appoint the enumerators. They are appointed through the department here by Order in Council.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Then, as I understand, the meaning of the Act is that these enumerators are to be appointed practically by the minister ; that is to say that he is not satisfied with the patrongae which former ministers had.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the hon. gentleman will excuse me ; I am making no change. 1 am taking no power that I did not have before.


David Henderson: That is quite possible, but I think the hou. gentleman is taking powers that were not exercised by previous governments showing that he has the disposition with this great ' I ' that we hear so much about, to make all the appointments instead of the member for the county or the commissioner for the county having some little say in the matter. My impression is that the commissioners in the various counties will understand much better who are fit and proper persons to appoint as census enumerators, and if the Act is changed in regard to the census of 1901, and made different from what it was in 1891, I think it would be very well to take a backward step. I think the old rule was the best, that is to appoint the commissioner and let the commissioner from amongst the people living in the riding whom he knows well and with whose qualifications he is familiar, name his enumerators without having to fall back on the minister who could not possibly know the men who are qualified to do this work. I am not at all favourable to concentrating all the patronage of the country under the head of a department. I think we had a sufficient illustration of that in the province of Ontario and I am glad to say that the people have condemned it and I think they will condemn it here too. I think it is a bak principle for the government to persistently seek to take power from the people. Seventy-five or a hundred years ago the fight was to obtain power from the Crown and vest it in the people. Here we have a government calling themselves a Liberal government-
Some bon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. HENDERSON

and yet they will not allow the people to have anything to say in the administration of their own affairs. That is for the purpose of keeping a string upon the people, of concentrating and centralizing every power that can be possessed under this great ' I ' that we hear so much about. I think it is a mistake and I would advise the hon. minister to go back to the old rule and let the commissioners appoint the enumerators.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am ready to go back to the old rule ; in fact, I have never departed from it. Tlie minister who conducted the census in 1891 followed this very same rule. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) was in the House at that time and he did not object to it. The minister who conducted the census of 1881 under an administration which the hon. gentleman supported for many years carried out that rule and that practice and appointed every enumerator in the Dominion of Canada from the central office at Ottawa. I dare say the rule is wrong. I dare say that the principles which the hon. gentleman is enunciating are right, but if ever there was an occasion when the great ' I ' was repeated and exemplified in this country it was before the present Liberal government came into power.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


David Henderson: I remember when the census of 1891 was taken. I remember the gentleman who was commissioner in the county which I have the honour to represent, and I am quite satisfied that he appointed his own enumerators. I am not aware that he had to send to Ottawa te have his appointments confirmed ; at any rate he made the appointments himself. There is no doubt about that. Whatever the statute was the practice was different. The practice was that the commissioner appointed his own enumerators, selected hi* own men and appointed them to the work they were to do. If that practice is not consistent with the Bill, then the words applying to the subject should be eliminated, from the Bill so as to leave the appointment of these men in the hands of the commissioners without having to appeal to Ottawa to have these appointments confirmed. It seems to me that it is only dealing fairly with the commissioners and I am quite sure that a better selection will be made if some greater powers are given to the commissioners in the counties, because they certainly know a great deal better who should be appointed than an officer at the) head of the department here. It is quite absurd to say that an officer here should know who is fit in the country to be appointed an enumerator. It is very nice-apparently the hon. minister thinks-to have the honour ofi that patronage. I am not aware that even the representative of the country is permitted in any way to interfere with the commissioner in his appointments. In the county which I have the honour to represent at the present time and which I represented at the time the census of 1891 was taken, I abstained altogether from attempting to influence the commissioner in his selection of enumerators. I think it should be made non-political, that the commissioners should be given a free hand, that these appointments should not be political appointments, but that the best men available should be selected. We are simply providing means to make these appointments purely political appointments, independently of fitness, honesty, or ability to do the work. I would advise the hon. minister to eliminate the words from this clause that vest in him powers to control the appointment of enumerators and tq leave these appointments entirely in the hands of the commissioners.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would beg to point out to the hon. minister that the statement he has made is not exactly in accordance with the fact. Under the Conservative regime the number of enumerators was very muchi less than under the hon. gentleman's re-i gime. In my own city, for instance, under! the Conservative regime there were four enumerators, while under the hon. gentleman's regime there were fourteen. The difference as between four and fourteen is very great, and when you apply this to the whole of the Dominion of Canada you will see

liow it is that the hon. gentleman has increased the expenditure for the taking of the census. In the first place the census commissioner must collect these enumerators together and instruct them in their duties and for their attendance these men get so much per day. Take fourteen enumerators at $3 per day while obtaining their instructions and it will amount to so much, whereas, in our time, the instructions were, only given to four men. Four men at $3 per day would mean $12 and if the hon. gentleman will multiply 14 by 3 he will see the difference between the two systems. That applies throughout the whole Dominion. The hon. gentleman has not only increased the number of enumerators but he has increased 'their pay, and the result shows the difference between the two systems. The hon. gentleman has stated that section 4 of this Bill is somewhat similar to the "old Act. Section 9 of the old Act is section 4 of the new.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: But, the hon. gentleman has added these words to it ' and in remote or sparsely settled parts of the country the minister may appoint one or more assistants for each enumerator.' While in the census of 1901, as compared with the census of 1891, you multiplied the number of enumerators, you are, by the Act you are now introducing, going to multiply that to a still greater extent in 1911, and it can only mean the increasing of the cost of taking the census of this country.
On section 0,-forms, rules, regulations and instructions, and rates of allowance.


Richard Blain: Does the minister propose to keep the commissioner down to the schedule referred to in this clause ? The minis-: ter will remember that when this matter was before us two years ago, many instances were recorded where enumerators had overcharged the department, and these amounts had been paid. The hon. member for East Simcoe brought up a case the other day where an excessive amount had been charged, contrary altogether to the Act. The minister or his officials had signed for it and the money had been paid. If we are going to endorse the old rules we should have a promise from the minister that he will keep his departmental officials down according to the Act and not permit them to collect too large amounts.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try as much as possible to keep them to the rules.


Richard Blain: I suppose he will be more careful in the future in respect to the kinds of officials he appoints.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Experience teaches.


Richard Blain: Experience teaches, the minister says. It does not always teach, but I hope it will with my hon. friend. I would
draw his attention to the fact that in North Hastings the commissioner who was appointed by his government had a bill of $053.14, and that mnay of the items were in excess of the table laid down by the hon. gentleman. Some little trouble took place in the county and Mr. Kelly thought he would bring some political pressure on the hon. gentleman, and so he brought down the famous Mr. A. B. Lott, who is well known in Canada at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is he famous for ?


Richard Blain: Ballot boxes at the bottom of the lake ; it was that same gentleman. He brought Mr. Lott down to the House and had an interview with the minister himself. That was brought out in the House two years ago and the hon. minister did not attempt to deny it. As soon as Mr. Kelly brought down Mr. Lott, who was a politician and had been a government candidate, the account was paid without any further trouble. The minister shakes his head.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A part of it is paid.


Richard Blain: The full amount $653.14 was paid. My hon. friend remembers that very well of course.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A good deal more was asked for.


Richard Blain: A good deal more was asked for ; there it is again. My hon. friend tells the committee the story. He says that the kind of officers he appointed under the old Act were the kind who asked a great deal more than they got, and that it was a question of compromise with the hon. gentleman. Here is a letter dated March 24, 1902, addressed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture :
The Ontario elections are coming off at the end of May or the beginning of June.
That is what the commissioner appointed under the hon. gentleman said over his own signature in writing to the minister himself.	*
The Ontario elections are coming off the end of May or the beginning of June. Mr. B. O. Lott is the unanimous choice of the Liberal convention. [DOT] I have made up my mind to do some hard work in this north riding of Hastings. Mr. Lott is the best', canvasser and the hardest worker ever went into a political contest.
I have the honour to remain,
Your old servant,


WM. KELLY.
[Stage Direction]
I hope that the hon. gentleman, when he-is appointing his enumerators will not appoint old friends who will ask him to pay much more than the amount set out in the clause he Is asking the committee to adopt.
On section 8,-census of the Dominion to be taken in the first year of each decade.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This corresponds to section 3 of the Census Act, changed as to the time of year at which the census had to be taken. The Census Act says it shall be taken in the month of April. I believe that It would be much better to take it in June than in April, I think that that change would conduce to great economy and that a great deal more work could be done and done more [DOT]easily and better in Juiie, when the days ere longer and as a rule the roads are much better, so that people could get about much more easily than in April when in the greater part of Canada the roads are breaking up and it is as difficult to get about as In the beginning of the year.


Richard Blain: Has the minister considered that in June a great many people are away from home ? On their wedding trips, the hon. member for West Toronto suggests. For instance in Ontario, a large number of workmen go to the west and stay out there for a great part of the summer while a great many are absent on pleasure, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Blain: And after all that he has arrived at the conclusion that June is a better month.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: True, but all of these would be taken by the de jure system, just as they are now. There is no time of the year when a considerable number are not away, and that is the reason for employing the de jure system. I think that is a good reason I think that really there are fewer people absent from home in the first half of June, than at any other time of the year. The other reasons are very strong in favour of taking the census at that time.
On subsection 2 of section 8,-census of Manitoba and parts of the Northwest Territories, to be. taken in the sixth year of each decade.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is to provide for the taking of a five year census in the province of Manitoba which is required by the Subsidy Act of that province, and it also applies the same principle to the provisional territories. If an Act is passed during the present session of parliament constituting these provinces, that would have to be consolidated with this, and the change would be made applying it to the new. provinces. The reason for taking a census in Manitoba every fifth year is that we are required to do so by the Subsidy Act, and I think the same reasoning would apply to the territories or to the new provinces when created. Therefore I have introduced this section, which carries out that requirement.


David Henderson: I quite understand the hon. minister's intention to be that the general census shall be taken all over the Dominion every tenth year. Then subsection 2 makes provision that a census shall be taken in the province of Manitoba and Mr. BLAIN.
the Territories in 1906 and every tenth year thereafter. The intention is quite apparent to my mind, but I am not sure that the language used conveys that intention clearly. Might it not be interpreted to mean that in the province of Manitoba and the Territories the census should be taken only in 1906 and every tenth year thereafter ? Is that not an amendment to section 8 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not undertake to give a legal opinion upon that.


David Henderson: I think the hon. gentleman should be able to give us a legal opinion, and let us know as a certainty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These clauses were drawn by the Department of Justice, who knew exactly what they were intended to do, and I supposed that they carried out the intention. I may say that I do not consider that subsection 2 can override the main body of the clause, which says that a census of Canada, which means the whole of Canada, including Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, shall be taken in 1911 and every tenth year thereafter. The next clause says that a census shall be taken in a certain portion of the Dominion in 1906 and every tenth year thereafter ; but that does not in any way limit the first part of the clause, or provide that no census shall be taken in the province of Manitoba and the provisional districts in 1911 and every tenth year thereafter. I think the meaning is quite clear.


David Henderson: Well, we do not want to rest on a ' think.' If tiie hon. minister would say so absolutely, I would rest there. I am glad to know that the Minister of Justice drafted the clause, for I would not set up my judgment against his ; but it seemed to me that there might be some doubt, and now is the proper time to settle it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We might pass the clause, and I will see that the attention of the Minister of Justice, with my hon. friend's view, is called to it again.


Robert Laird Borden: The census of Manitoba and the Territories is different from the general census. Is that the intention ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, the requirement is only for taking the number of the people. That is done for the purpose of fixing the subsidy. The other census is far more general in its scope. This Act empowers us to take more information in the fifth year, between the decennial censuses, if we desire.


Robert Laird Borden: It says something more than the population. It says a census of the population and agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, it is intended that we should take some agricultural statistics at the same time. I do not think those words are really needed, because in other clauses of the Act we have power to do that. But

the probability is that we shall make use of the machinery which we shall employ for taking the numbers of the people to get some other information though not so complete in its scope as we now get in the decennial census.
On section 9-division of country into census districts by proclamation-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the -same as section 7 of the Census Act, with some slight verbal changes. The scope of the section is precisely the same.
On section 10-details required for general census,-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is based on section 5 of the Census Act, the chief change being that we provide that the values shall be taken as well as the quantities. We add here : ' whatsoever other matters are specified in the forms and instructions to be issued as this Act provides. We have that power in the Census Act, but it is put in here so as to be a definite statutory department. There are some other changes in details.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I think that in the taking of our census there should be a column for fallow land. I pointed out to the minister some time ago that in none of the censuses of Canada taken hitherto has there been any column of that kind. The minister stated in the House two years ago that the reason for that was that there was now no fallow land of any importance in Canada. The minister could not have given attention to the matter, or he would have known that there is a great deal of fallow land in Canada. There is hardly a farm in Ontario which has not every year from ten to fifteen acres being cleaned and made better for crop in fallow, and I am informed that the same thing is true of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories to some extent, and I suppose of eastern Canada. I think we should have a column for the enumerators to take the quantity of fallow land. It is very important that people intending to come to Canada, should be able to realize, on taking up the census, that Canadian farmers are up to date. But if they find that there is no fallow land in Canada and then take the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, they will come to the conclusion that our farmers do not understand the most advanced methods of cultivation. Every one knows that one of the great essentials for successful farming is to set aside a certain portion for fallow purposes, and it is very important that in the schedule we are now adopting there should be a column showing what land is in fallow.


Mr FISHER.: I shall be very happy to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend and I would propose an amendment that a column be inserted showing the land in fallow.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15,


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask that that section be allowed to stand as one of my hon. friends who is not here has something to say about it.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 16,-the minister may arrange with the authorities of a province or territory for supply of its statistics.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is practically the same as section four of the General Statistics Act. There are only one or two verbal changes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see that in the Ontario Act, the Ontario government take power for their Minister of Agriculture to make arrangements with the Dominion Minister of Agriculture regarding such statistics. Has the hon. minister endeavoured to make any arrangement?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not undertaken to make any arrangement and will not be in a position to do so until this Bill becomes law. When adopted, I shall try to enter into arrangements with the various local authorities, as contemplated under this clause.


Andrew B. Ingram: The province of Ontario has a very complete system of collecting statistics. Does the hon. gentleman intend compensating the local government for furnishing these statistics which they have gone to the expense of collecting?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This section does not mean in any way that we should contribute to the collecting of those statistics or their compilation, but if we make an arrangement with local bodies under which they will supply us with the information they collect, we will have to come to terms with them regarding the expenditure. It is not proposed that we should go into a sort of partnership with them for the collecting of statistics.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask the hon. minister to allow this section to stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 17,-minister may call upon public officers for copies of papers, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the same as section 5 of the General Statistics Act.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the hon. minister explain to what class of public officers he refers in this section ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The section refers to any and every public officer in the country,, whether provincial or municipal. That, I believe, is the interpretation that has been put upon the clause, and I do not know that any question has ever arisen under it. The-hon. gentleman will see that it says :

-with or without compensation for so doing, as is regulated from time to time by the Governor in Council.
J understancl it, that contemplates an amicable arrangement with such officials as are referred to. I might cite, as an instance, the collection of criminal statistics. There is an arrangement with the officers of the courts to supply information for pay. A similar arrangement could he made by the office here, as the result of what I might call bargaining with the various provincial and municipal officers for returns of the information they possess.


Haughton Lennox: I agree with the minister that this would include officers of the local governments and the municipalities. That being the case, it seems to me we are legislating far beyond our powers as a parliament. The wording of the section, it seems to me, does not bear out the minister's argument. He says an amicable arrangement is contemplated by the wording. Well, if it read ' upon making compensation,' or 1 upon entering into a satisfactory arrangement,' or something of that kind, it would more clearly cover the idea of an amicable arrangement. But the words ' with or without compensation ' may cover a different idea. A municipality may collect, at considerable expense, a large amount of valuable information. It is their own, and they have an absolute right to use it .as they think fit. But if this clause were carried out according to its wording, we would assume the right to expropriate-because that is what it means-the results of their labour and expenditure with or without compensation. I do not think it advisable that this parliament should trench upon the rights of the provinces. It is not wise that, depending upon the chance of an amicable arrangement, we should pass such a clause as this until we have considered carefully, and until the Minister of Justice has considered carefully, the wording of the clause. To me it appears to go clearly beyond our powers and to assume to vest in the Minister of Agriculture authority which this Dominion parliament does not possess. I am in favour of clothing the Minister of Agriculture with all reasonable prerogatives, but I am not in favour of assuming to give him powers beyond the authority of the Dominion parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not undertake to give a legal opinion on a point of this kind. But I might say that this is a clause that has been on our statute-book since 1879, and, apparently, it has never been called in question or disputed in any way. I think it a power that must be used with discretion And my hon. friend, will notice that it can be exercised only under regulations by the Governor in Council-not by the minister- as is shown by the last part of the clause.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the question of expediency is concerned, it is con-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ferring rather wide powers upon the Minister of Agriculture to provide that he may command from provincial officers certain work without compensation. I am inclined to think that parliament has the right to give him that power, but, as a matter of expediency, I would not think it very wise legislation. We have a somewhat similar case in the Franchise Act. According to my recollection, it is provided in that Act that the government here shall have the right to demand from provincial officers copies of lists in their possession, but it can only be done on giving them reasonable compensation, which, if I remember the terms of the statute correctly, was to be regulated by Order in Council. So far as the Dominion officers are concerned, it is quite right that the minister should have power to demand this information of them without further compensation than they already receive. But I would doubt the wisdom of making it apply to provincial officers. It might be advisable that the minister should allow this section to stand for a moment, in order that we may consider that point.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no objection to allowing the section to stand for a few minutes. But, as I have said, it has been the law for a long time, and no difficultv has arisen under it. Of course, the power granted must be exercised with great discretion. I think it only fair that when information is required from such officers, due compensation should be given for any trouble they take or labour they perform, and, certainly, for any expense they are put to in furnishing the information. That,,
I think, would always be the plan followed by the Governor in Council. I think this clause is ,more to require the officers to do the work, that we may not be at their mercy as to whether they shall do it or not, or as to the amount of compensation they shall demand. I think it is an authority that is required, and I think the Governor in Council should always be ready to afford reasonable compensation.


Mr.  R. E.@: BORDEN, On consideration. I would be inclined to the view that the section might pass in its present form. Perhaps the proper view is that the responsibility is imposed upon the executive of working this section out, and therefore parliament would very well conclude that, so far as provincial officers are concerned, this work will not be imposed upon them without provision for compensation. If you attempt to amend the section, you wilt make it a little cumbrous. In consideration of what has just been suggested, I would not, so far as 1 am concerned, ask that the section be allowed to stand.
On section 18-statistical abstracts of public reports and documents may be authorized-*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the same as section 6 of the General Statistics Act.
On section 20, examination for and correction of errors, &c.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course the minister will give the committee notice whenever these sections depart from the law as it stands at present.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Maedonell) desires to make some suggestions with regard toi *section 15, if the minister will allow us to return to it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Mr. MAGDONELL.: I desire to draw attention to the fact that the manner of obtaining the information regarding commercial and manufacturing industries is really of an inquisitorial nature. This information has been obtainable at decennial periods in the past ; and I think it is questionable whether it Is a wise provision to give the minister power, every year, to obtain this information regarding commercial and manufacturing interests. We all know that capital is a sensitive creature, and commercial men often decline to give information for various reasons, reasons which I need not point out to the committee. But manufacturers do generally decline to give information about their private affairs, especially when that information is asked for every year. Agricultural information and statistics are of a different nature. But where you have capital invested in large enterprises, joint stock companies and other corporations, I question whether it is a wise provision to have this information collected and tabulated. The concluding part of the section also provides that the minister, in cases where he thinks it advantageous, shall cause such information to be published in such a form as the Governor in Council may prescribe. That provides machinery for the collection and publication of this information. It is, as I have said, of an inquisitorial character, and I would like to ask the minister if similar machinery has been working advantageously in the United States. In any case, I know that in the city of Toronto where this information is partially obtained municipally, great difficulty is experienced in dragging it out from manufacturing enterprises and concerns. If this is an experiment, if it is only pioneer legislation, I doubt its expediency ; if not, will the minister tell us what the experience has been in providing this information for the census in the United States ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At present this very system is going on in the United States, although the work is not completed. The permanent census office in the United States
has the same power we are authorized to exercise by this Act, and the same power we have had under the Census Act in census years. I have found myself, and I believe my predecessors have had the same experience, that when information is asked from manufacturing establishments it often happens that they do not understand what use is going to be made of it, and a great deal of hesitation if not indignation is sometimes expressed at what they call the inquisitorial nature of the questions. A number of instances of that kind occurred during the taking of the last census. Wishing to avoid all friction and desiring to proceed cautiously, and with due regard to the feelings of the people, whenever any instance of that kind was reported by one of my enumerators, I sent up a special officer whose business it was to interview the individuals and explain the object of our proceeding. Also we wrote from the central office here a full explanation of the modus operandi of the census, showing to these people that although the information appeared in the schedule as regards their own business, in the published tables it only appeared as information in regard to the whole industry, the whole capital invested, the whole number of employees, the whole amount of products and so on throughout the list ; and nobody could find out on examination of the published compilations what were the facts with regard to any individual industrial establishment. It was also pointed out to them that the original schedules containing all the details of their operations were absolutely secret, and nobody except the officers of the census had any access to them. When that was done their objections were removed, and with the exception of a very few cases, that I could count on the fingers of one hand, all the industrial establishments in Canada freely gave all the information we asked. What my hon. friend says in regard to the collection of this information in Toronto, is quite true, and it is true generally for the! collection of industrial information for the) province of Ontario. But I think that is owing to the fact that they have no authority under the law to extract this information, it is purely voluntary.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Not at all, the giving of such authority is entirely a matter for the provincial legislature, it is a matter that concerns property and civil rights within the province, and they have a right to legislate and have legislated upon it, and actually obtain information along those lines.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I have been erroneously informed. That may be the general law, but I do not think it is a provision under which machinery is operated for getting this information. I am not familiar with the Ontario laws, but I am informed there is no such provision or authority in

108&
the Act under which this information is collected. It may be in the general law of the land, and there may be some provision in the Ontario legislation which, in a general way, gives that power to the government or to the municipality. I quite agree with my hon. friend that at first sight people engaged in industries are averse to giving this information until they are thoroughly satisfied that it is absolutely secret and confidential. When they are so satisfied, their opposition ceases immediately ; and I am sure those people would themselves be the first to take advantage of the information thus acquired when it is published in tables covering the whole country. In regard to the United States, I may say that they have just the same authority we have here, an authority which is given to the Permanent Census Bureau, as it is called there, and they are working under that to-day. I have here a publication regarding the census in the United States, which alludes to that very thing, and shows that it is working satisfactorily.
I think it would be a great pity if an impediment should be put in the way of collecting industrial statistics as well as agricultural statistics. I think that the manufacturing interests of Canada would suffer if there were no such statistics collected. But I would say to my hon. friend that we have no intention or expectation of collecting these yearly, to begin with, at all events, and probably for a good many years to come one, two, or, at the most three) such compilations between the decennial censuses were all we had any thought of. I think probably in this decennial period we would only be able to undertake one, or at the most two-probably only one. I am satisfied that after it had been once taken the very industries whose representatives have been speaking to my hon. friend would be amongst the first to say that the results of such industrial compilation were satisfactory and useful to them and that the dangers which they had anticipated had not resulted.
Mr. MACD ONE'LL. In view of whac the hon. minister has said I would still point out that this legislation is pioneer legislation. The experience of the working out of a similar clause in the United States is not before the people of this country or before the people of the United States. I understand the hon. minister to say that the American legislation was passed in 1902. Therefore, the real working or workability of the Act has scarcely been decided as yet. I desire to point out further that the information regarding industrial concerns that it is proposed to collect, is after all the private information of the parties to whom it belongs. It is the information of the corporations and individuals who own these establishments and it is in nqt sense a matter of penal legislation on the part of this House. It should not be made the subject Mr. FISHER.
of penal legislation such as this legislation is in that feature of it which provides penalties for non-compliance with the Act. There should be some evidence of the successful working out of similar systems In other countries before we adopt it here. I know a number of business interests that are protesting against this proposed legislation. They are satisfied to comply with the local Assessment Acts of the various provinces-I speak more particularly of the province of Ontario-and to supply the information called for in the schedules attached to these Acts. In the first place they have had something to say in the preparation of these schedules, and in the second place they are aware of what these schedules are. The hon. minister does not bring down a list of the questions that he is going to ask these people; he does not indicate what the schedules contain or what would be the nature of the information that he will require. There may be something in this regard in the mind of the minister, but he has not indicated to the House what information he is going to insist upon obtaining from these manufacturers. I think the people who own these establishments, who have their money invested in them,, should be consulted. They should have some knowledge as to what inquisitorial proceedings are going to be taken in regard to their business. The hon. minister says that he is going to act with fairness and discretion in putting this Bill into operation and that the information shall be given in confidence, but his eternal continuance will end one day in this passing sphere. It may be that the hon. minister may not be always with us. Who knows who is going to take his place? What monument does he leave behind him in the shape of these tabulated schedules? This House has had no information as to what the intentions of the minister are nor has the country had any information. I think the least the minister should do in asking for drastic legislation such as is contained in this paragraph is to bring down to the House a statement of the information that he is going to ask from these establishments. I think that is required. It may be that the hon. minister has in his mind an idea of what this information is, but I think we are entitled to something more than the unopened and sealed mind of the minister. Sus-ceeding ministers may have a different policy. It seems to me that there should be a uniform statutory policy which all ministers shall be bound by. I urge that this paragraph in its present form should not be inserted in this Bill. I think there should be some more detailed information given. The Bill is a pirate roving in provincial waters. I call it a piratical Bill because it provides for getting information from the provincial and other authorities with or without compensation. I think that before the power is given which the

109a
hon. minister seeks, he should state what information he is going to ask from these people concerning their own private business affairs.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would be very sorry that the hon. gentleman should have such a had opinion of the Bill as to characterize it as a pirate Bill, and to say that it is pioneer legislation and so on and so on. I do not thiifk there is anything in the nature of a black flag or skull and cross bones in the legislation. Certainly this clause is not pioneer legislation. This power and authority have been given to the Department of Agriculture under the Census Act ever since we have had a census taken in Canada. It has been given in every country in the world where a census is taken. It is one of the absolute essentials of the collection of statistics. If you want to secure information and if you have no power to require the information your statistics are simply worthless because your information is not complete. Any bad natured or sulky individual in the community, or any small group of individuals could at any time defeat the whole object of the investigation if it were allowed at the caprice of an individual or a group who entertained some peculiar ideas as to their particular rights to refuse to give the information. That is one of the essentials of census taking. My hon. friend says that this is pioneer legislation. We have had the same kind of thing exactly in our Census Act for thirty or forty years.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Only once in ten years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Only once in ten years but the principle is exactly the same. What does it matter whether you get certain information confidentially and secretly so that it cannot be published to the world once in ten years or once in five years? That does not interfere with the principle or the practical necessity of the thing. The thing is just as necessary in the case where you do it every five years or every three years as it is when you do it every ten years. My hon. friend says that this is pioneer legislation. The Act in the United States giving this power was passed in 1902 and it is working to-day. It has been working in regard to other things since 1902, and in the United States before that this same principle was applied to the taking of the census every ten years. I have here the report of Mr. Cortelyou who was the secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labour in the United States until quite recently and who had the management of this census. In this report he refers to the taking of the industrial census which is going on in the United States, and he takes credit to his bureau and to himself for doing this work and for requiring this information. That is the authority that I am asking for in regard to this matter. I do not think my 35
hon. friend is quite right in saying that this is pioneer legislation and that it has not been tried. It has been tried, not perhaps in the degree in this country in which it is proposed to put it in operation but it has in this degree been tried in the United States, and the gentleman who has had the operation of it reports favourably on it and says that it is working satisfactorily. If I were to adopt my hon. friend's proposition and leave out this clause it would practically mean the prevention of the taking of industrial statistics of any kind whatever in Canada except in the census years. I would not undertake the responsibility, in establishing a census office for the express purpose of taking statistics, to exclude from its operations such a large, important and valuable class of statistics as those connected with the industires of the country. I think that the people engaged in the industries of the country themselves, in vast majority, would condemn me if I would agree to that exclusion.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What I desired to suggest when I said it was pioneer legislation, was that the result of the operations of the American Act was not yet manifest to us, and I would again point out to the minister that under the language of this particular section No. 15, the. information that the minister has a right to ask for and to insist upon obtaining, is not confined to the information authorized to be obtained under the existing law, upon the taking of the census. There is no limit to which he) may not go. Further, he may demand the information which he is authorized to obtain, from one class of manufacturers and not from another or from one individual in a class of manufacturers ; it need not be uniform. The minister may shake his headj and say he does not intend to do so ; 1 have no doubt he does not intend to work the Act oppressively, but I say that it is susceptible of that operation. You may pick upon a class of manufacturers engaged in a certain class of enterprise and insist on their making returns of their private enterprises year in and year out, and they might possibly be so harassed as to be driven out of business. The minister may again shake his head and say : ' No, no,' but the language of the Act permits that to be done. It may not be done by the present minister, but it leaves the way open for succeeding ministers to harass individuals. I am simply remarking on the loose framing of the clause, the indefinite character of the Act, and its wide, far reaching scope under which any information can be obtained.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend mean to say that I could ask one manufacturing industry to give information and not ask another to give the same information ?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I certainly think so,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If this is my hon. friend's legal opinion, I would certainly ask the



clause to stand and liave the opinion ot the Department of Justice upon that point, because I would not wish for a moment to take that authority. If this meaning can he read into these words, I am willing to amend the clause to prevent this being expressed. The objection which the hon. member states is one to which I would at once give weight. The hon. gentleman, I understand, is a lawyer of high standing and he states as a lawyer on the floor of the House that this interpretation can be taken from the clause. Not being a lawyer and not pretending to have a legal opinion) or knowledge I would certainly refer the matter to a competent authority before goj ing further.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I thank the hon. minister exceedingly for his kindness in that respect and I do urge the minister, not captiously but sincerely, in the interest of the House and of the industries of this country, that the information for which he can ask should be tabulated and placed in the schedule of this Act to be read concurrently, side by side, with clause 15. I commend that suggestion to the most respectful consideration of this House, and I think that the members of this House and the business interests of the country are entitled to know what they are to be asked concerning their own business. I think that the business interests of the country are entitled to know when embarking upon any enterprise just what information is to be asked of them and published more or less in the public records.


Mr. MONK.: I think that clause 15 is susceptible of the construction which the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) has put on it, and that it is open to the minister, under the wording of that clause, to seek to collect information from a certain class of manufacturers. I think there is no doubt about that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is any doubt about that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And from individual manufacturers alone, not from the whole class.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the point in question.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The legislation is not new as the minister says, but it is being applied in a very extensive way in the United States. The circumstances that exist here are different from those that obtain in the United States, and I have had complaints of the same nature as those mentioned by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). In the United States the inquiries made and the information collected have become exceedingly detailed because in the United States they have a law against trusts and combinations which we have not here. The inquiry at present being held into Industrial affairs is. I think, being held by the Bureau of Corporations which is a Mr. FISHER.
branch of the permanent Census Bureau, a new institution, in order to be able to apply with some degree of efficiency the law against trusts and combinations. It is necessary for the Bureau of Corporations to have this inquisitorial power which they have in the United States, under almost the same wording as we find here in section 15. But here we have no law against trusts and combinations, and it seems to me that until we have such a law-and I believe we are approaching a time when we must have that law-it is fair for us to ask that we should know exactly what kind of information will be asked from us. A very interesting report has been made by Mr. Garfield, the chief of the Bureau of Corporations, who is proceeding with this inquiry regarding industrial progress and industrial conditions in the United States. He has called into operation that power which my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) is seeking to take here by section 15, and he had to ask from certain classes of manufacturers, or certain manufacturers in certain parts of the United States, questions which have not hitherto been asked, and which were not found in the usual schedules, such as the cost of production of the articles manufactured, the wages paid, the prices at which they sell an article in different parts of the United States, and the prices at which they sell in foreign countries. Mr. Garfield says that the securing of that information is absolutely necessary for him in order to place the government in such a position that it will be enabled to enforce the anti-trust and anti-combination laws. I may say frankly that I believe that we will soon have a similar law in this country and that it will then be necessary for the minister to have that power. Of course, as Mr. Garfield obJ serves, he has had very few refusals from manufacturers and commercial men to give this information, once he has been able to ensure to them the privacy, between the government and themselves, of this special information he requires. As I said a moment ago we have not the anti-trust laws here, and I quite understand that our manufacturers under those circumstances would not feel inclined to give information in regard to the cost of production in regard to wages and in regard to the selling price of the articles they produce. Perhaps until we have such a law it would be better to) fix exactly the nature of the information they have to give.


Haughton Lennox: The point brought out by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) Is a most important one, as regards the necessity of having a schedule determined now. I did not fully appreciate the importance of that until I examined the Act from which the Bill is taken. Looking at part 4, which we are just approaching, and at section 26, and referring back to the statute from which the minister takes section 15, with which we are now deal-

ing, we are enabled to appreciate tbe effect of what is proposed. The member from Toronto says it occurs to him that we should have it prescribed what the schedules shall contain and the information that shall be demanded. Strangely enough, when we refer to the statute from which section 15 is taken, we find that there is a safeguard thrown about the transaction in the original statute which is not to be found in the section we are now [DOT] dealing with. Section 15 has a foot note leading us to suppose that it is taken from Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 59, sections 1 and 2. Therefore, we are to assume that there is no material change-in other words, that this is not what the minister speaks of as pioneer legislation. Let me say that upon looking at this section, I find that we are having pioneer legislation of a very dangerous character, if the provision of the original section was necessary. That the minister may appreciate the importance of this, let me call his attention, in the first place, to the fact, that section 15 provides for the collection not only of agricultural, commercial, educational and manufacturing statistics, but also of criminal statistics. Then, part 4 of the Bill provides specially for the collection of criminal statistics, but in this case a special safeguard is provided, for section 2t>
of that part enacts that:
All schedules transmitted under this part shall he according to forms from time to time approved by tbe Governor in Council and published in the ' Canada Gazette.'
On looking at section 1 of chapter 59, I find that although we have not in this Bill a provision to safeguard the public by providing that the form of schedule shall be determined by the Governor in Council, there is such a provision in the original Act. Section 1 of that Act says :
The Minister of Agriculture shall, from time to time, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, make such regulations and prescribe such forms as appear necessary and expedient, for the purpose of collecting, abstracting, tabulating and publishing vital, agricultural, commercial, criminal and other statistics, and such rules, regulations and forms, when assented to by the Governor in Council and published in the ' Canada Gazette,' shall have the force of law.
In other words, exactly what my hon. friend from South Toronto regarded as a proper and necessary safeguard was provided in the original Act from which the minister takes his Bill, and from which we are led to suppose that section 15 is taken by reason of the reference at the bottom of the section. Now, I quite apprehend that the minister did not himself realize that such an important change had been made. It emphasizes the necessity of very great care, in making these foot references, to see that we have a substantial re-enactment. In this particular case, unintentionally I have no 35J
doubt, but fatally all the same, we have left out this most important safeguard- that this shall not be exacted from the public until the assent of the Governor in Council is obtained-emphasizing the entire propriety of the demand made by the hon. member for South Toronto.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is correct as to one point, but not as to the other. The whole of clause 15 is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and I do not think any part of it can be acted upon by the minister without an Order in Council. That provision is in clauses 1 and 2 of the Statistics Act. My hon. friend is correct as to the publication in the ' Canadal Gazette '; but if my hon. friend refers to section 0 of this Bill, which applies to the whole Act, he will find that all these things have to be published iu the ' Canada Gazette.' Therefore the provisions contained in sections 1 and 2 of chapter 59 are contained in this Act, although the whole of them are not specifically mentioned in section 15. My hon. friend is not right, therefore, in saying that any part of the original safeguards is omitted. I would like to say a word in reply to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I am quite willing and desirous of securing that in no circumstances shall any arrangement be made for the collection of statistics which would permit us to ask from one industrial establishment, or from two or three or any number, what we are not asking from all industrial establishments of that class. Any wording that is necessary to make that clear I shall be only too glad to add to clause 15. As to the inclusion of the schedule in the statute, I think that is quite impossible. I say that not with any desire to prevent what my hon. friend is aiming at ; but in the practical working out of the matter, I think it would be quite impossible. The different arrangements which might be found from time to time desirable, as to the kind and amount of information asked for, are so varied, and might require so many different schedules, that if we were to undertake to cumber the Act with those schedules, I think it would be quite impossible to carry on the work. I have a precedent for that: the Census Act does not contain the schedules or lists of questions-what my hon. friend is asking for in this case. The schedules are prepared every ten years for a census under the Act, and are authorized by the Governor in Council. So under this clause all schedules and questions must be arranged with the approval of the Governor in Council, and can only be issued and acted upon by virtue of an Order in Council. My hon. friend says that this is inquisitorial, and that there are great objections to it. For many years we have been asking questions under the Census Act, and there has been no practical objection. As I pointed out, at first, when these

schedules have been presented, a certain number of firms, not many, have objected, thinking them inquisitorial ; but when they found that the information contained in the schedules was absolutely confidential, and was not to be given to the public except as contained in a compilation of the whole information in regard to that particular industry, their objection ceased at once ; and I am satisfied that any objections made to this power will cease in the same way as soon as the matter is understood. The only position my hon. friend has practically taken in this respect is that this information is not inquisitorial when taken every ten years, but that it is when taken every five years or thereabouts.
Governor General in Council, and it is equally important that the same precaution should be taken in commercial matters. I quite agree with the minister that it may not be necessary to incorporate the schedules in the statute, but I think that they should be subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention, and in consequence of the doubt expressed by my hon. friend on that point and that expressed by the hon. member from Toronto on the other point, I would ask that this section should stand so that I may refer it to the Department of Justice and have It so worded as to clearly indicate the intention.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I desire to point out to the minister the difference between the old Act and the present Bill. The minister has omitted to mention that the word ' manufacturing ' is in this Bill and not iD the old statute. The statute says ' commercial and other statistics ' and I do not think that under it the minister could obtain this information from manufacturing establishments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The words ' commercial and other statistics,' it seems to me would cover manufacturing.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Why then insert the word 'manufacturing?'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To make it clearer.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am still of the opinion that, read with the preceding words, the word 4 commercial ' would not cover manufacturing. But why not have the schedule so clearly defined that the people will know what information they will be required to give? People who are investing capital in manufacturing enterprises should know what kind of an inquisition is to be made into their private affairs.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister did not meet the point I made. Under the old statute it is left to the Governor in Council to determine what forms of schedules will be adopted as well as whether any shall be adopted at all. Two things are thus left to the Governor in Council, namely, to determine whether the minister shall collect the information, and, if so, what forms of schedules shall be used. But under this Bill the Governor in Council has nothing to do with the forms. The Governor in Council authorizes the minister to collect the information, but the minister alone decides what forms shall be used. I think the House will see the importance of having investigations into people's business first sanctioned by the Governor General in Council and the forms of schedules determined on by the same authority before the department can set to work. In the part of this Bill referring to criminal statistics, it is expressly provided that the schedules shall be approved by the


Angus Claude Macdonell: This clause should be also amended so that information may not be published only partially. As the Bill is now drawn, a portion of the information may be made public and a portion not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What my hon. friend means, no doubt, is that no information should be published about one firm which is not made public about other firms in the same business.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes, so as to prevent rival firms getting an advantage over each other.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree in the opinion that it is desirable to reconsider the wording of this section. I have listened attentively to the remarks of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and I agree with him that the same safeguards which are provided in the present law should be found here, and that they are in this section to say the least very doubtful.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My intention was that they should be here.
Section 6 allowed to stand.
On section 15-agricultural, commercial, criminal, educational, manufacturing and other statistics.


Andrew B. Ingram: I ask that this stand in order that I might get some information respecting the arrangements for collecting statistics. I find that the Ontario law is largely on the lines of the section in the hon. gentleman's Bill. I asked if any arrangements had been entered into between Ontario and the Dominion government regarding statistics, and he said no, but that it was his intention to make some arrangement.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 21-Schedules of Criminal statistics to be furnished by clerks of courts.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This and the succeeding clause are a repetition of clauses one and two of chapter 60, Criminal Statistics Act. There is no intention to make any change.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On section 29-this part shall remain in force and effect until it is declared to be no longer in force by a proclamation of the Governor in Council, stating that provision ha9 been made for the collection of criminal-statistics in accordance with the requirements of paid: III of this Act; and from, and after the issue of such proclamation, this part shall cease to have force and effect.


Haughton Lennox: Is that consistent with what has gone before ? I would like the minister to explain why this is necessary and how it works out.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Criminal Statistics Act says, 'This Act shall remain in force and affect until '-and so on. We have to say, 'this part shall remain in force and effect '-and so on. That is, under the Criminal Statistics Act we have power to collect the criminal statistics in another way, and this part of the Act takes the place of the Criminal Statistics Act.


Haughton Lennox: But does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) think that part 4 is necessary at all ? In part 3 general statistics are provided for, and they would naturally include criminal statistics.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are certain special provisions of the Criminal Statistics Act which must be incorporated here, it seems to me.


Haughton Lennox: It may be all right. .


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister utilized the work of the commissioners who are revising the statutes ? Have they done any work on this part of the Bill 5


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The officer of the Justice Department who drafted the Bill is thoroughly familiar with the work of the committee on consolidation of the statutes, and he had before him, when he considered this Bill, the first draft of that commission.
On section 30,-every person employed in the execution of this Act to take an oath of office.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is practically the same as the old section, with the addition of the words ' and to the secrecy of the statistics and information collected for the office.' We thought that should be inserted in order that it might be clearly understood that the oath of office bound the one who took it to secrecy in regard to the information coming into his possession.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) will remember a former discussion when a circular was produced that originated in the province of Ontario, in the office of the Reform Association, and which was brought to the attention of the House. I have a copv of that circular here, but it is useless to put it on * Hansard ' again. The hon. minister will remember that it was directed to the enumerators of the census,
and ordered them to report in duplicate the names of young men approaching 21 years of age. They were to find out the politics of these young men and in what polling subdivision they lived and a copy of the report was to be sent to the Liberal candidate in the last provincial election or to the candidate nominated on the Liberal side for the next coming provincial election. Has the minister put into this new law any provision that would cause the instant dismissal of any enumerator who would fill up a report such as is required by this circular and have him dismissed immediately ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that there is any provision of the law which would have that effect. I would certainly think that such an Act on the part of an officer of the department was entirely unwarranted and improper, and should not be allowed for an instant.


Richard Blain: That is all very well. But the fact remains that this was done. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) himself produced on the floor of this House telegrams that had been sent out to those who were supposed to have received these circulars. He received answers from enumerators some of whom said the circular had not been placed in their hands, while others admitted that they had received it. The hon. minister did not make any investigation, although the leader of the opposition brought the matter to his attention and demanded that an investigation should be made. A clause should be inserted in this law-whatever may be necessary in the opinion of the Department of Justice-to provide for the immediate dismissal of any enumerator who will act upon such a circular in the interest of any political party. I should have thought that the minister would have a clear recollection of this case, and that he would, have provided against it in some way. But it seems that he has neglected that-I suppose it is only neglect.


Mr. BARKER.: I would remind the minister that there was a Quebec case also in which an officer of his own department issued a very important circular for which he had no authority whatever, and sent it all over the province of Quebec, demanding information that the statute in no ' way authorized. That was issued, I think, by Mr. Cot6, a deputy, or a gentleman holding some position in the Census Department; it was issued without the knowledge of the minister himself, as he told the House, and was issued as a document from the Census Commissioner's office, and was franked by another minister's office, and sent broadcast throughout the province. Now, the hon. gentleman is providing, in section 31, that the neglect of certain duties by the officers of the department should be an indictable offence. I think the hon. gentleman should go further, and provide that if any officer, or commissioner, or agent of the

department, whether by letter or otherwise, requires information not authorized by statute, he shall also be guilty of an indictable offence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like off-hand to give an opinion on that proposition ; I would like to consult the Minister of Justice in regard to it. It may be advisable that such a clause should be introduced.


Robert Laird Borden: Might it not be advisable to consider the necessity of some provision in the statutes to this effect, that any officer undertaking or assuming to obtain information other than that which he was instructed to obtain by the department, should be criminally liable, and any attempt on the part of any outside person to induce an officer of the department to procure information not authorized by the department under the law, should subject such person to penalty or imprisonment ? It appears to me that might be a very proper provision, in view of the matter which has been referred to by my hon. friend.
Mr. FISHER, I think it would be proper to provide that the officers collecting information should not be allowed to collect any other than that provided for in the schedule. As to the other point, I should like to consult the Minister of Justice.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I think the Criminal Code provides for that already ; I know there is some provision.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it very probable. The Minister of Justice would do well to consider that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Section 12 of the Act prohibits the enumerator from obtaining any other information than that which he is required to obtain under the Act, but there is nothing in the Act to enforce the provisions of section 12. That is merely a statutory direction more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Therefore, it is vitally important that if the words 'and no others ' provided for in section 12 are required, that any infraction be penalized in the closing clauses of the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will look into that.


Haughton Lennox: I would ask the minister to'answer the question in reference to section 30, which says :
Every officer, census commissioner, enumerator, agent or other person employed . . . shall take an oath.
Would that apply to section 17, in reference to public officers ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should think it would apply, at any r&te, to this extent, that if these public officers supply information to this office they should accompany that by some declaration that it was correct as originally collected. But I do not think that Mr. BARKER.
would apply to the extent of requiring them to take an oath that the information they supplied was initially correct, because they have to take the word of somebody else for that. But we could require that all the information they supply was such as was given them.


Haughton Lennox: There are some other matters in this section that would indicate that to be the case, and I would like to consider it further.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 22 respecting the Calgary & Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 2,
Haughton Lennox: How much is this bridge to cost?


Mr. OLIVER.: It is estimated by the railway company to cost $600,000 if built for railway purposes, or $1,000,000 if built for railway and traffic purposes.


Haughton Lennox: Which is it to be built for ?


Frank Oliver: Authority is being asked to build it either for a railway bridge alone or for a railway and traffic bridge as may be subsequently agreed upon between the different parties interested, that is to say between the railway company, the government and the municipalities particularly concerned in having the bridge made a traffic bridge.


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand this very well and probably I am asking questions that may seem very absurd, but as no one else is asking anything I want to find out what it means. I understand that there is power to borrow $1,000,000 ' in aid of the construction of the branch line from Strathcona to Edmonton.' Then paragraph 2 says :
The said bonds shall be called bridge bonds and shall be the first preferential claim and charge upon the said branch line and upon the said bridge and its approaches.
Then this million dollars is not exclusively for the bridge?


William Mulock: No.


Haughton Lennox: I think I see the point all right now.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 25) respecting tlie Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. P. H. McKenzie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Geof-frion.
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the Canada-Middlesex Railway Company-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 57) to incorporate La Compagnie de chemin de fer electrique de Trois-Itivieres, St. Maurice, MaskinongC et Champlain."-Mr. Bureau.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Lamont.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public buildings, Quebec-Acton Vale public building, $8,000.
Charles Smith Hyman: This, Mr. Chairman, is to complete the payments on the public building at Acton Vale in the county of Bagot. The contract for the building was let on the 28th of June of last year for $10,250. The population of the town and parish to be served by the office is 3,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to say in a general way in connection with these public buildings and without my remarks being especially applicable to the public building at Acton Vale and without going over the ground that was gone over yesterday in connection with our system of procedure in regard to public buildings, that I have looked over the list of public buildings in the province of Quebec, and I find that there are 12. 13 or 14 public buildings as regards which I doubt if there has ever been any urgent demand upon the government for their construction, otherwise than by the desire exhibited by the sitting member to have a public building. I think that is about the genesis of the public building.-1 have seen many of these buildings in Quebec and I suppose they are the same ail over Canada-and it bears the date of itsl erection and the name of the minister prominJ cntly displayed; sometimes it bears the narnq of tlie sitting member, and the expectation oti the sitting member is that if he gets a public; building he will consolidate himself in the constituency. As a matter of fact a number of members have declared to me that public buildings have been the cause of untold bitterness to them.


William Mulock: It works the other way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Generally it works the other v ay. The locality chosen gives rise to a good deal of bickering and heart-burning
and often there are several possible sites chosen and the ultimate choice of the location leads to a lot of heart-burning. The contractor who erects the building finds many enemies for the sitting member and the man who is placed in charge of it generally makes a great many enemies for the sitting member also. That is what I have noticed in regard to public buildings since I have been in this House. The hon. member for .South Toronto (Mr. Maedonell), I think, pointed out what has been a ground of complaint since 1896. that there is no system in regard to public buildings, there is no rule and as a general thing we never have any information here in regard to these public buildings. I have heard time and time again the predecessors of my hon. friend tell us that such and such a sum which we were voting would finish certain public buildings, and the next year we were called upon for a new appropriation for the same buildings.
I have asked for plans time and time again, before we started on a public building, and I have never been able to obtain them nor much other information which is absolutely necessary in order to proceed in a businesslike way to the execution of this policy of building public buildings, if it may be called a policy. Take the public buildings in Quebec for this year and we have no data ; my hon. friend will admit that. My hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) is a stranger to the province of Quebec.


Charles Smith Hyman: A foreigner.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not a foreigner but a stranger, and I would not like to ask him a number of questions in regard to these public buildings which would prolong debate uselessly. As a matter of fact, many of the constituencies where many of these public buildings are to be erected are not even represented here to-night and probably the bitterness of which I spoke a moment) ago is already in the souls of the members who have asked for these public buildings. We will vote to-night for the class of public buildings I have alluded to, some $500,000, about $200,000 for public buildings in localities that I am perfectly sure could be benefited infinitely more by another kind of expenditure. We will vote a couple of hundred thousand dollars to complete what t To complete a sum I have no hesitation in saying of about $600,000, nearly three quarters of a million dollars, in order to finish these public buildings, and when we have spent $750,000 or $600,000 or perhaps more than three quarters of a million dollars on these public buildings erected in localities of which I will say a word in a moment, we will have made a permanent charge upon the public revenue of nearly $60,000 a year. If my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) will take these'public buildings and have an estimate made of what they cost for repairs, gas, heating, and caretakers. I think I am making a moderate estimate in saying that he will find that it will cost us about $60,000

a year to maintain these public buildings. I am equally certain that I am within the limit of reason in saying that for the purpose for which these public buildings are being erected $60,000 a year of rental would give the public all the accommodation they) required. I am prepared to go carefully over each of these localities-I am not speaking of the city of Quebec or Montreal or Three Rivers, but of the smaller places- and to say that with $60,000 a year we would secure sufficient accommodation for all the public services and be free in each case to change the office to lease more space and sol forth. In these small localities the important part of the town is often changing. I could point out a number of public buildings in Quebec that were probably erected in the right places when they were erected, but which are not now in the most suitable part of the town. But they are there to stay and to remain a charge upon the public treasury. Yet if the government to-day wished to secure accommodation in the same towns it would probably erect buildings elsewhere. I desire very much to emphasize this fact, that I am not opposed tot public buildings in any of these particular smaller localities ; not at all. If the Minister of Public Works wished to put up ai public building in every locality in my own county I would not refuse.
As a matter of fact, when I was younger in public life, I think it was in 1901, I called the attention of the then Minister of Public Works to the fact that he was putting up no public building in my own constituency, where one might be of use, and he promised to take the matter into his serious consideration. The ground I take is that we could spend the same amount of money in these constituencies with much better result than by continuing what I am told has been the slipshod policy of every government, of putting up a public building merely to satisfy a particular member, because a previous government had put up one in another constituency. Now, I have looked over this list of appropriations for public buildings in my own province, and I believe that in many of these instances, if the people at large were consulted as to whether they would prefer to have a public building in one of the villages-because most of them are villages-or to have some other improvement which would benefit the whole constituency, there would not be a moment's hesitation. Our policy regarding public buildings is one that rests very often upon the vanity or the individual ambition of the sitting member to do as much as some other man has done. For instance, take the first place mentioned, that is, Acton Yale, in the county of Bagot, a very strong agricultural constituency, where much dairying is successfully carried on.
I have no hesitation in saying that we could do much more for that constituency in the field of agriculture than by putting Mr. MONK. .
up a public building at Acton Vale. What is the great complaint in Montreal and the other centres from which butter is shipped ? It is that our present system of bonus-ing the steamship and railway companies to provide cold storage facilities for the conveyance of perishable goods is faulty- why ? Because these companies would be obliged under any circumstances to provide accommodation for perishable products, particularly butter. Our produce men in Montreal say that the government, instead of spending so much in bonusing these companies, which must supply cool space for the purposes of their business, should give some aid to the farmers who after bringing their butter to the stations, are obliged to leave it there sometimes three or four hours in the sun and subject to great deterioration. It has been urged upon me very often in Montreal that the government had much better devote some money to the erection of cooling rooms or small ice houses at the principal depots where butter is received. That would benefit, not a particular locality or a particular contractor or a certain set of men, but the entire district. Then, improvements might be made in the mail service. If the hon. minister were to offer, as I do not think he will, either to put up a public building in my own constituency or to spend the same amount of money on improving the mail service, I have no doubt that my constituents would not hesitate for a moment to say, give us an improper mail service, or do what this government has been urged again and again to do-reduce the indebtedness to the government of the Montreal Turnpike Trust; and you will benefit all the farmers throughout the constituency. Then, everybody knows that, for the development which we require in most of these counties where public buildings are going to be erected, important railway communications are required ; and I have no doubt that if the same amount of money were expended on improving the railway communications, a far greater benefit would be bestowed upon the people. I do not apply these remarks to large centres like Montreal and Ottawa. Consider the immense amount of money we are spending yearly in rents in Ottawa, I think over $30,000, with departments spread all over the city. It seems to me that it would be better for us to install properly the central offices of administration than to squander money all over the country in that way. I have given utterance as briefly as possible to the view which I have entertained for many years of the policy of the government in regard to public buildings. I quite agree with what has been said, that if we adhere to that policy, it would be a great convenience for us to have a clearer statement of the stage at which the work has arrived on each of these public buildings, of the site and of the plan, as we .ought to have a eer-

tainty that the expenditure will not go beyond a certain fixed sum in any particular place. But there is no such rule. I make these observations because I know that candidates in the fever of an election contest take up any utterance that we have made here in connection with the erection of public buildings, and invoke it before the people in order to prejudice them against us. Therefore I do not see the use of singling out any particular building. The remarks I have made apply to all, and I thought it well to make them in the first instance in order to facilitate the business of the committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: In answer to the hon. gentleman, 1 have to say, in the first place, that with regard to every building for which the government is taking a vote, there has been a very clear and concise statement made of the estimate by the chief architect, and all the details ; and I will endeavour to see that the expenditure does not go beyond the amount voted, although there are often contingencies arising in building operations to make it impossible to keep the cost entirely within the estimate. For the first time, I think, we have learned the secret of some of the opposition given in the House to this expenditure. The hon. member for Jacques Gartier takes exception to the custom that prevails in the province of Quebec of putting certain names on the buildings. He says it is customary to put on a building the name of the member representing the constituency in this House, and also the name of the minister. Possibly I may soften his opposition to this particular building by assuring him that I shall be glad to forego the honour of having my name placed upon it, and that I should be very glad indeed to place upon it the name of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier if he thinks that will in any way add to the lustre and honour of his name after he departs from this sphere. With regard to the system of erecting public buildings, that did not originate with this government; it has been in existence for many years. As I said last evening, if you consider the system purely and simply from the dollars and cents standpoint, I have no doubt that it cannot be defended entirely as a business proposition. But it has been the custom, I think ever since confederation, to lay aside a certain amount of money for the construction of these buildings. With regard to the particular building at present under the consideration of the committee, I do not know what other expenditure could possibly be made in the county of Bagot. It is an inland county, in which there has never been any expenditure on wharfs or other public works. The hon. gentleman says that the money might be spent in improving the mail service. I feel quite sure that if the people of Bagot have any complaints to make in regard to the mail service, my
hon. colleague the Postmaster General will see that these complaints are remedied. The hon. gentleman referred to the question of a public building in his own county. Well, I shall be very glad to give every consideration to anything the hon. gentleman may lay before the department on that subject; but after his gloomy picture about the granting of public buildings, and the bickerings and heart burnings which he says occur in most constituencies where public buildings are erected, I am sure he would not care to have one erected in his constituency.
As to public buildings in Montreal, Toronto and the other large cities of the Dominion, there can be no question of doubt in regard to the policy of the government. But I must say that I am not prepared, nor, I think, is the government prepared, to subscribe to the idea that, having provided buildings for these cities, we must stop at that. I believe that care ought to be exercised ; but there are so many considerations that govern the decision as to erecting public buildings in smaller places that it is almost impossible to lay down a rule. The matter was discussed many a time when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and they never were able to lay down a rulei that could be always adhered to, nor do I think that any such rule could be framed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would the minister please state the post office and the customs revenue.


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue for the year last reported was $949. There is no customs house there at present.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is it intended to establish a customs house there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that it is.
Chicoutimi public building, $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The site chosen for this building is a very desirable one and cost about $2,400. It is intended to put up a building there that will cost, for the building proper $21,000, and for the whole structure, including heating, wiring, fittings, &c., $30,000.


Samuel Barker: Is the present appropriation intended to complete the work?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I have just explained that, we are to spend $30,000 and so we must ask for another vote.


Samuel Barker: I ask, because last year, $8,000 was voted for this building and $4,000 spent. This vote will make a total of $19,000. The minister started last year with $8,000, then asked for enough to increase that to $19,000, and now we have a prospect of $30,000 expenditure.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not a prospect-a certainty,	*	,

110S


Samuel Barker: I ask this, as I wish to do on every occasion, because I think it is the duty of the minister to tell us, not what he wants for the season, but what he expects ultimately to spend on the work. I think if that rule were followed on every occasion, we should have a little more sense of responsibility on the part of ministers.


Charles Smith Hyman: The first vote was for $8,000. We are now asking for $15,000. I have already put it on 1 Hansard ' that it is the intention of the government to spend for this building $30,000. Of necessity, therefore, the government must ask for another vote to make up the total, and that vote will be asked for in the main estimates or, in the supplementary estimates, of next year.


Samuel Barker: What is the population of Chicoutimi, and why is a $30,000 building required there ? I do not profess to know much about the business of Chicoutimi. I was there a great many years ago. X am not aware that it has made any wonderful progress. This vote of $30,000 compared with the appropriations in other parts of the Dominion seems a very large sum and should call for some explanation.


Charles Smith Hyman: I had the pleasure of visiting Chicoutimi, one of the few places I have been able to visit since I undertook the work of the department. Chicoutimi is advancing very rapidly indeed. It has now, I am informed, a population of about 6,000 or 6,400. A number of important interests have been centering there, and X have no doubt that when it is made, the great practical terminus of the Lake St. John Railway, it will become a very much larger town than it is at present. The lot on which the building is to be placed makes it necessary to construct a building rather more than usually expensive. The lot has streets on every side, and it is in a very prominent place. Every passenger getting off the boat, and every person who comes to Chicoutimi must see the public building. There are practically four fronts, each of which must have a certain amount of ornamentation. This will make it necessary to spend $2,000 or $3,000 more than would otherwise be spent.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the postal and customs revenue ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue is $3,-< 085, and the customs about $8,000. I may say that it is intended that this building shall also afford accommodation for the government telegraph service and engineering department.
Public buildings, Quebec-Dominion buildings -renewals, improvements, repairs, &e., $12,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is it intended to apply this amount ? We vote every year for the public buildings of Quebec $12,000, and every year we spend that amount. A strange coin-j cidence. What is it intended to do with the money this year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Charles Smith Hyman: The vote is always $12,0001 but I do not know that the expenditure will be $12,000 exactly. I have no data to show exactly where this money is to be spent. It depends upon contingencies that may arise and the decision of the architect with regard to them.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements and repairs to buildings, &c., $12,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is called for by the Department of Agriculture, which depart-) ment, as the committee is aware has charge of Grosse Isle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: An amount was voted last year, and we were told specifically what it was for. According to my recollection the installation of a fresh water system was one item of expenditure. What is to be done with the present vote ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is partly a continuance of the work last year. Money has been or is to be spent on police quarters, drainage, plumbing, hospital fire escape, painting superintendent's residence, new quarters for sailors, plank walks and other items-it is a general vote.


Samuel Barker: But this year we do not require to do that work.


Charles Smith Hyman: Only a part of the work has been done. In this item there is completion of the quarters for sailors, an ice house, well, repairs to medical superintendent's residence and other items.


Samuel Barker: Will this vote finish every-; thing except the ordinary repairs that go on from year to year ? ' Improvements and repairs ' is a very general expression. The hou. minister can easily spend $100,000 on * improvements.'


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not in a position to promise the House that there will be no more improvements at Grosse Isle. 1 do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. Barker) has visited Grosse Isle, but I was there some time ago, and I must say that some of the buildings are not in a good state of repair, and must, in time, be renewed. Soi far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, it has no intention of asking more than this vote. But the hon. gentleman will understand that if the department in control of the quarantine station come to the Public Works Department and say that the accommodation is not sufficient and show good reason why a new building should be constructed, I am sure the hon. gentleman himself, considering the importance of that quarantine station, would not ask the department to pledge itself not to ask for another vote.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister misunderstood me. I am aware that repairs will be needed every year.


Charles Smith Hyman: And renewals-there may be renewals.
<


Samuel Barker: Government buildings are, or ought to be, of a very substantial character, and so they should not require to be renewed frequently. But X admit that repairs are constantly needed, because government buildings should be kept in the best condition of repair. I do not dispute that for a moment. But when we have the word ' improvements ' stuck on every year, $12,900 last year, $12,000 this year, and so on, I think we ought to know when this is going to end.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman's remarks might apply to public buildings of the. character we have been discussing a little while ago, but they do not apply to this case. These buildings are wooden buildings, or a large number of them; some of them have been in existence for forty-seven years. Under these circumstances, no doubt, they will have to be frequently repaired and renewed. It is the intention of the department to repair and renew them. Except for these purposes the department does not expect to have to apply for further appropriations in the way of buildings.


Mr. BERGERON.: You are prophesying.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of, course, if the Agriculture Department makes a demand for works we have to supply them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend will regret very much that he made such a promise. I think for the last twenty-five years these improvements have been on the estimates.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year on headquarters for sailors ? I understood that in the vote last year a certain amount was to be expended on headquarters for sailors. How was the money expended?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was expended by day labour. If the hon. gentleman knew the circumstances, he would know that we have to house all the men employed there and provide accommodation for their families, $8,001) was spent last year, and we require some $6,000 more to complete that building.


Richard Blain: Last year we were told that $8,000 would complete; how is it the hon. gentleman comes forward now and asks for $6,000 more?	-


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that last year it was hoped that we would be able to put up this building on the same kind of foundation as was under the other building. But when the matter was further investigated it was found that this building, which was 150 feet long by 32 feet wide, would require to stand on a heavier foundation than the other buildings. That is the explanation of the increased cost.


Richard Blain: How mucii money was spent last year on plumbing?


Charles Smith Hyman: I read out in detail the whole of the expenditures for last year.


Richard Blain: 
Haughton Lennox: This will complete the work ?


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: Yes, according to the estimates submittal hy the Department of Agriculture.
Last year the minister asked for $12,000 to be voted and stated to the committee that it would complete the work. That is only a few months ago. Now, the hon. gentleman comes forward and, in a case where $8,000 was asked for last year to complete the work, he asks for $6,000 more. It is not to be wondered at that the representatives from Quebec are anxious to know when this work will be finally completed. My hon. friend will remember that for this plumbing he has mentioned this evening, about the same amounts were voted last year, with which he promised to complete the plumbing. One would imagine there were extensive buildings going up there every year. Preparation of the plans and specifications on which the estimates are based, would seem to show some recklessness in the department somewhere.


Charles Smith Hyman: I see the point the hon. gentleman is trying to make. Last year the Minister of Public Works made certain statements to the effect that the vote he asked for would complete the plumbing, and it did not complete it. He had an estimate given by the architect of the department, which it was supposed would complete. But it does not follow that the amount voted last year would complete for this year. As I stated, there were old buildings which naturally require renewal and repairs. This is a very necessary work, at any moment we are liable to have 1,000 or 2,000 people landed on that island.


Richard Blain: It is quite true that I am not acquainted with that island, but when the minister comes forward and makes a statement that $8,000 is to be expended for headquarters for sailors, and promises that it will complete the work, and then comes forward the next year and asks for $6,000 more, and without explaining the reason-


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to he unfair. He asked me for explanations and I gave them.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, but I ask him to be more careful in the preparation of his estimates. The committee does not wish to hold him down to exactly $8,000, we would not complain if he exceeded it by a few hundred or a thousand, but when he asks for $6,000 more, almost as much again, it does look either as if his officers were reckless

in the preparation of the estimates or as if the minister was not very careful in making statements before the committee. The committee is quite willing to vote the necessary money, so far as we are concerned, but we are anxious that the hon. gentleman should be more careful in preparing his estimates.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were these amounts spent by day work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see here a certain amount for electric lighting, Ahearn & Soper, Ottawa. Isn't that going far from Quebec for such things?


Charles Smith Hyman: Some of these articles come from the United States.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They can be got in Quebec. I see also an item for wheelbarrows from Frost & Wood in the province of Ontario.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They have an agency in Quebec.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What county is that in!


Charles Fitzpatrick: Montmagny.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that they have been repairing some steamers there.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; we repair the ' Challenger ' there every year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is one of the expenses in connection with that place ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Lachute public building, $10,000.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend give us some explanation about this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a vote for the purpose of erecting a public building in La-chute, in the county of Argenteuil. The site has not been procured for the building yet, but it is intended to procure a site at an early date. There are some negotiations going on in regard to several sites. We are trying to get options on two or three sites.


Richard Blain: How much are the site and building expected to cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot give the information in regard to the site. In a town of any size a difference of thirty or forty feet will make a difference of at least a thousand dollars in the cost of a site. We always try to meet the wishes of the inhabitants of towns and cities, and I do not know what we may have to do in this case. We will buy the best site available for the building.


Richard Blain: Will this amount complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Richard Blain: How much will it cost for the purchase of the site and the erection Jfr. BLAIN.
and equipment of the building ready for occupation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have endeavoured to explain to the hon, gentleman that I cannot venture any prediction or estimate as to the cost of the site. I want to be perfectly frank with the committee, and I want to be left to exercise some judgment in regard to where the site ought to be. Therefore, it is impossible for me to give any estimate in reference to the site.


Richard Blain: Have you no estimate in regard to the building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I expect to be able to put up a building there for about $13,000. I might explain that we have made careful estimates of several classes of buildings, which we designate in the department as A, B, G and D ; and when a public building is to be erected, I simply say that we will put up building A, B, C or D, as the case may be. It depends, of course, on the locality in which the building is to be erected as to the cost. The same building in one locality will cost $2,000 or $3,000 more than in another locality. I propose to put up what we call building B in Lachute.


Mr. KEMP.: When is it intended to commence the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Just as soon as we can get a site. It is intended to advertise for tenders immediately.
Levis public building, $30,000


Mr. MORIN.: Is this building under contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The building is under contract.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who has the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. J. Couture, of Levis.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Have you bought the site t
. Mr. HYMAN. By some arrangement with the Railway Department we have acquired a site for this building.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What will be the size of the building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 64 by 45 feet; two and a half stories, with an annex 34 by 30 feet J pressed brick on a stone foundation.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I suppose this will be the ordinary building to accommodate the post office, customs and inland revenue ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is to cover all the departmental wants of the town.


Richard Blain: What will the total cost of this building be when it is finished ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract for the building is $22,000 ; heating, $2,500 ; and electric wiring and fixtures, $1,500. The furniture and fittings will depend upon the num-i ber of letter boxes that may be decided on

after the building is completed. We have to ask the Post Office Department as to the number of boxes they will require, and for that we have figured $4,000 or $4,500. For sidewalks, if it is found that there is any necessity for replacing sidewalks, we estimate $500, and, with contingencies, it is figured that the building will cost $33,000 or $34,000.	[DOT]


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Was the building let by tender ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the work was let by tender, and the contract was given to the lowest tenderer.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: When is it to be completed?


Charles Smith Hyman: On the 30th October, 1906.


Richard Blain: How much did the site cost?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have just explained that the site cost nothing. It came from the Railway Department.


Richard Blain: Government land ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Intercolonial Railway land.
Longueuil public building, $11,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What class of building is this-A, B or C ? This distinction, which the hon. minister made a few moments ago, is the first one I have ever heard in connection with this policy of erecting public buildings.


Charles Smith Hyman: This building has been under contract for some time, and this amount is to complete it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This new classification of buildings has not been discussed or mentioned in this House before. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has plans, details and specifications of each of these four classes of buildings, because if he has made a classification of this kind, it would simplify our work a great deal if he would place on the table plans, details and specifications of each of these four classes of buildings. Then all we would want to know would be as to whether such and such a class of building had been adopted.


Charles Smith Hyman: Notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Public Works may put up a building which we term A in a certain locality for a certain sum, we may not be able to put up the same building at another point for the same sum, but we adhere to the cost of the building as nearly as possible. In erecting the same building in two different localities we have found a difference of $3,000 in the cost of a $20,000 building. It depends on wages, the question of the availability of stone, the cost of brick and other local considerations. Within a distance of a hundred miles there may be a difference of between 10 and 15 per cent in the cost of the building. I understand the desire of the committee to be to
as nearly as possible, arrive at what the department expects to spend on a particular work. I have endeavoured to reach a standard, and it is as close a standard as I have been able to get.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the cost of each of these classes of buildings-A, B, G and D ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Building A would be a small building which we would put up where there is nothing but a very small post office.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: B ?


Charles Smith Hyman: B would be a building where the accommodation would be somewhat greater, and C where there would be a customs house in addition to post office. In addition to that, we have to consider the question whether we have a Public Works office in the town or not.
Magog public building, $10,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is not begun yet.


Richard Blain: Will the minister give us an explanation of this?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a vote of $10,000 towards the completion of a public building at Magog.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understood it was not commenced?


Charles Smith Hyman: Neither is it. The $10,000 is a vote for the completion of the building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What does the site cost?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have not bought a site yet but we are negotiating at the present time.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What class of building is this?


Charles Smith Hyman: The postal revenue at Magog is $2,527, and the customs revenue is $3,009. The population is 3,516. The building we expect will cost $21,500 to complete. It is a building with a stone foundation with a brick superstructure.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who has devised that kind of building? I have remarked it in many places. It is stone for the first story and brick above.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not always.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may say that it makes a very bad appearance. I do not know who has invented that building or why it was decided to make these buildings in that way.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry we have offended the artistic eye of my hon. friend, but I have always understood that the public buildings put up not only by this government but by the late government under the

present chief architect and his predecessors compared, as a whole, very favourably with the buildings of the larger corporations. I do not think the committee would desire to put up a building costing .$20,000 with a brick foundation. I think the extra cost is warranted by the longer life of the building and the lower expense for repairs.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We will come later to some buildings which I -want to discuss. I think that this class of building is an eyesore in some cases and I do not think it would cost more to make the buildings all nice brick or stone. I must say that the buildings which have been put up by this government are not at all to be compared with those erected by the late government. I do not know if they cost as much. Take for example the public building at Sorel, which is really a very nice building.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is an all stone building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is what I am saying; I do not think it costs much more and it looks a great deal nicer than the new ones.


Richard Blain: This I understand is in Stanstead county. The first knowledge we had of this was an item of $5,000 asked by the Minister of Public Works to put up a public building at Magog. The minister said that the building would cost $12,000 but now the acting minister comes forward and says it will cost $21,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Richard Blain: What does my hon. friend
say?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman says it will cost that amount. I said that the estimate of the department of the cost of the building is that amount but in addition to that there are the boxes, the fittings and the heating.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The peculiar feature of this is that generally there is a vote for a public building a year before an election in a constituency, and then nothing is done. Parliament votes $10,000, as in this instance, for the immediate construction of a building, but nothing is done, the election takes place there is a terrible scuffle about the site and the whole thing is put off from year to year.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of necessity the votes we are asking now were asked last year. Every vote, practically, in the estimates is a vote that was initiated last year except for buildings that have been running more than one year.


Richard Blain: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman then. I understood him to say that the total cost of the building and site would be about $21,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have said that $21,000 is the estimate of the cost of the building. I Mr. HYMAN.
have said that when the site is not purchased it is impossible to put any estimate on it as a few feet difference in the position of the site makes a difference in its cost. I estimated that the building would cost about $14,000 that is, for the contract itself; the heating would cost $2,500 and if there is any wiring to be done it will cost $500. and the fittings are estimated to cost $2,500. We will have to get from the Post Office Department the number of boxes that will be necessary. Renewals of sidewalks, &c., may cost $500 and contingencies $1,500, making a total of $21,500.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says $21,500. The first statement by the minister (Mr. ,T. Sutherland) was $12,000 and at another place he says $25,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am cutting it down.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is getting economical but he has not bought the lot, I notice. I wish the minister would be a little more careful in the statements he makes to the committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: What statement does my hon. friend object to?


Richard Blain: I am not objecting to the statements the hon. gentleman himself makes, but I suppose he is responsible for the statements made by the minister (Mr. J. Sutherland). In the selection of a site I suppose that, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier suggests, the members are perhaps consulted.


Charles Smith Hyman: Why not?


Richard Blain: Because the hon. gentleman does not consult the members on this side, and he is supposed to be non-political in the expenditure of public money.


Charles Smith Hyman: I should be glad indeed to consult the members.


Richard Blain: Perhaps he might explain whether it is the ' A,' 'B' or ' C ' building that will be erected in constituencies represented by hon. members on this side of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have a 1 B ' building.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the minister (Mr. J. Sutherland) to say that it was supposed $500 or $1,000 would be paid for the site. What I find fault with is that we do not have the same statements in successive years. We have a variety of Minister of Public Works and each minister has a different statement.


Charles Smith Hyman: And we are getting worse all the time.


Andrew B. Ingram: One minister makes a statement on which his estimate is passed and the gentleman who succeeds him enlarges a little on that. That has been the general history of the Department of Public

Works. In the general elections the candidates assist the ministers in promising their constituents public buildings. They generally have a promise of a post office or public building on which they ask support; occasionally they have a private letter in their pockets which they show to their friends privately, but they have not the courage to produce the letter publicly so that their opponents could get a chance to see whether the Minister of Public Works takes a hand in promising these buildings. I think it is high time that this sort of thing should stop; let us fight these matters on fair grounds. If a public building is really necessary in any place I am sure the opposition will assist in passing estimates for all reasonable expenditure, but it is like striking below the belt when government supporters have, these private letters in their pockets and endeavour to make votes in that way.
Public building Montmagny, $10,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will the minister state what he proposes to do about this building*


Charles Smith Hyman: I propose to put up a new one.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Then you will throw the old building down. Remember that it has fallen down itself. How much money do you propose to spend on it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I hope to be able to put up a building there at a cost of about $10,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not wish to be hard on the minister or to prevent that building being erected ; but I wish to tell him that there has been a regular farce about that building for the last six years. In the first place, there was a building there, and our friend Choquette took a friend there, and he got the government to buy that building for $7,000. To hear him talking in the House, you would suppose that it was a first-class building ; but the postmaster was id it for only about a year and a half when the whole thing went down on his back. The foundations were no good, and the building went down three or four years ago, and every year since there has been $5,000 or $6,000 asked for a new building. How soon will you put it up ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We are going to put up a new one.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will you have a good foundation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I promise the hon. gentleman that we will try to have a good foundation. I understand that the other was a little shy of foundation.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Ask the postmaster how shy he was when he got caught. It was very lucky for Mr. Choquette that he was not there.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will see that the foundation shall have the particular care of the department.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The ground there is very soft, and you should go deep enough and put up a good building ; and after you have' it built, do not ask us for any more money. Ask enough now.
Montreal barracks for permanent corps, $20,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where is that going to be built ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This vote is put in to enable the department to start the work. There has been no decision as to the location of the barracks, nor am I able to state at the present moment the exact size of the building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has the minister any idea of how much it will cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not able to state the exact amount. It depends on the number of men, the quarters and the character of the building. If I am pressed closely in regard to this vote, I must ask to let it stand.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I thought the minister had some idea of the cost, because this has been spoken of in Montreal for about eighteen months. I may say that I do not see any politics in this at all. The building is very much wanted. I understand that there has been some correspondence between the city council or the authorities of Montreal and the Department of Militia and Defence. Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries can enlighten the House on this subject. I imagine that as soon as the site is chosen the work will be commenced ; for I do not suppose the government have put the amount in the estimates simply to make people believe that they intend to do so.


Charles Smith Hyman: May I suggest that possibly it will meet the views of the hon. gentleman to allow the vote to pass, with the understanding that at any time when the estimates of the Minister of Militia are up the information may be asked from him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may be able to give us some information on this matter, which is one of considerable interest in Montreal. I understand that under the agreement the city of Montreal is to furnish the site. For my part, I have no objection to the item passing, but I think we should have some explanation as to how far the negotiations have proceeded. One site suggested was behind the mountain and another east of the city.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: I am aware that ten years ago the city of Montreal voted $25,000 towards the erection of this military

school building. The matter has been in abeyance since. The military authorities have represented that it is necessary to go on with the enterprise, and last year, before the elections, it was about concluded that the school would be placed at Point aux Trembles where the shooting grounds are. Later it was'represented that the site was not near enough to the city of Montreal, and the negotiations were resumed. It was almost decided to choose a site in the east end near Lafontaine Park; but protests were made. No arrangement having been arrived at, the Department of Militia notified the city of Montreal that it would establish the school on Lafontaine Park, which belongs to the Dominion government; but I understand that the city of Montreal object very strongly to the school being established there, and is trying to secure a site elsewhere. The city has been trying to secure some land on Montreal park, partly on the Brunet estate and partly on property that belongs to the city. That site was objected to, however, and I understand that the city is at the present moment negotiating with regard to three or four other sites which the Department of Militia will have to consider. I am not aware that any particular site has been chosen apart from the notification given by the Department of Militia to the city of Montreal that if they could not secure another site, they would have to erect the school on Lafontaine Park.
Montreal examining warehouse, $20,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is mainly for elevators. There are six, and this is to complete the work.
Montreal inland revenue building-additions, repairs, &e., $50,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where are you going to put that building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: As lion, gentlemen from) Montreal who are acquainted with the present building know, it is a very old one, and understand the city has offered, if the department will extend it, to transfer to the department a small piece of ground now used as a park. I am unable to give the committee even an approximate estimate of what the building will cost. It will depend on the extent to which we can use the old building, which I understand has been built fifty or seventy-five years. In this case, I shall have to ask the committee to trust the department to incur no greater expenditure than will be necessary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government acquired the site which the city has promised -the Place Royale ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, simply because the department has not been able to make up its mind as to the extent of the work it can undertake. I understand that the city is prepared to transfer the site, and this Mr. PREFONTAINE.
amount is appropriated with that understanding. For the reasons I have explained, the department has not started the negotiations. They do not know what the requirements will be.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am told that the inland revenue building is entirely too small.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the reason for the vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But the enlargement cannot be effected for the amount of the vote. I cannot understand how it is that the department has not closed the matter of the site, because it has been pending for much more than a year ? I understand that some of the neighbouring proprietors signed a petition against the site being deeded over to the government. That opposition was made, I think, over a year ago.


Charles Smith Hyman: The first of this vote was only last session, and it was only then the department were in the position to negotiate.


Mr. AMES.: Do I understand the minister to say that he has any authority for the statement that the city will provide the site ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that I am in a position to say that I have any authority in black and white, or that I am in possession of exact information. But I know that the question of the extension of this building came up, and it was intimated to me- I do not remember by whom-that if we desired to extend the building, the city of Montreal would give a site for that purpose.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I have listened to this style of argument for a long while. In our part of the country we would not consider building until we knew where we were going to build. Yet, here we have the minister asking money for building after building, though he cannot tell us anything about the sites. We are simply voting this money blind. And, from what I know of human nature, I think the minister will find that, the announcement having been made that he intends to put up a building, he will hardly be able to secure the site except at exorbitant figures. I understand him to! state that the city of Montreal will give the site if he will agree to enlarge the building, but when he is asked for particulars, he cannot tell us anything upon which he bases that statement; he cannot tell us where he got the information, or whether he got it at all. It seems to me absurd for the minister to ask us, as representatives of the people, to vote public money when he does not know anything about where that money is to be put. The excuse is made that the building is seventy-five years old. What difference does that make ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: It is too small.


Edward Cochrane: But it is no harder to enlarge a building one hundred years old

than it is to enlarge one five years old. The question is, not the age of the building, but whether it is in a good state of repair.
I have no objection to vote money for proper public buildings in this great country of ours, but X think we ought to know from the minister what the cost is to be, and not have further repetitions of what we have seen here-the minister asking for a few thousand dollars and, before the building is completed, asking for three or four times what we were led to believe the total cost would be.


Mr. GALLERY.: I am a member of the city council of Montreal, and I think application has been made by the department for the small piece of ground that has been referred to. Speaking as a member of the city council, and judging from what I have heard other members of that body say, I think they will not hesitate to give it in order to secure this fine improvement. ' I think my bon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) will back me up in what I say.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not wish to suggest foi a moment that this vote is not needed. The building at present occupied by the department is a very old one, and should be exchanged for a modern building within the least possible delay. But the part I object to is the intimation on the part of the minister that the putting up of this building is conditional upon the site being provided by the city. We have voted this evening a great many appropriations for post offices and other public buildings throughout the Dominion, and in every case the site was deliberately purchased by the department. I do not think it quite fair to the city of Montreal to discriminate by saying that unless the city of Montreal provides the site this money will not be spent. The city council, I am sure, are prepared to enter into legitimate negotiations. I listened carefully to learn whether the minister had any authority on which to base his statement that the site was to be provided by the city. In regard to that statement, I have a letter from the acting city clerk of Montreal saying that he has looked up the matter of the proposed extension of the inland revenue building, and he does not find any resolution passed to furnish the land gratuitously. There are a number of matters pending to be arranged by negotiation between the city of Montreal and the government. These questions will probably be settled some day by an interview between the representatives of the city council and the various departments at Ottawa that are interested. I think it only fair to leave the city of Montreal in these negotiations free to offer the piece of land for this building. I desire to enter my protest against making this vote conditional on the city gratuitously providing a site. As the hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Gallery) said, I am sure the city will be ready to negotiate in a friendly spirit, but I do 36
not think you are justified in making the enlargement of the inland revenue building conditional upon the city handing over to the government a piece of valuable property.


Daniel Gallery: As a member of the city council of Montreal, I remember that three or four years ago the city council made application to the government for a piece of ground, and the government were so kind as to give that ground. I do not see why the city of Montreal should now object to give the government this ground, which is of no earthly use to the city, especially when the government is going to use it to put up a good building.
I think my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) will help me in the city council, especially as the government will spend probably $100,000 in putting up this building. The present building is an eyesore. I think the city will not object to giving this property as a site for a public building.


Herbert Brown Ames: X would ask the minister if he would have any objection to striking out) the words ' site for addition to be furnished by the city ' ? That is a discriminating proviso, and does not treat the city fairly. Strike this out, and the question of the site will be a matter of negotiation between the city and the government, and I am sure both will enter into it in a spirit of fairness. But the vote in its present form seems to say that if the city does not provide a site the building will not be constructed. That means that the consent of parliament is made conditional upon the decision of an outside and independent body.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) forgotten that the city of Montreal has received from this government already very valuable sites ? There is the Champs de Mars, there is Logan's farm and Fletcher's field handed over to the city for nothing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that the properties referred to have not been deeded over, but leased to the city.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At a nominal rental of $1 a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But this is a question of handing over property absolutely. I go back to the point referred to by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane)-We are asked to vote an amount for an improvement which cannot be carried out unless the site is provided in some way or other, and, when we ask if the site is provided, the only information we have shows that no site has been secured. The building which the government has on the Place Royale is an eyesore. And the little strip of land adjoining the present building cannot be of much use to the city of Montreal. It cannot be of much use to anybody, so far as I can see, except the government. If the government secures that site and puts



up a building costing $100,000-I think it -must spend that much before that work is -ended-it seems to me the city of Montreal will get good value for what it has given.


Daniel Gallery: I understood the minister to say that if the city would not give the site, no building would be put up.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not want to make it so strong as that.


Daniel Gallery: I understood the minister at the beginning to say that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what is meant by (hat condition.


Daniel Gallery: I think the city of Montreal cannot afford to lose such a fine building as that. If the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames) will help me ihere to-night, we ought to be good for this *small piece of land.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We have to consider that this building must be in a certain place. It is at present near the custom house in the business centre, surrounded by wholesale stores and warehouses. If the city of Montreal gave a piece of land too far away, it could not be accepted, because the building has to be in the centre of the city. The present building is a small one, *on a small square. There has been a tendency in Montreal the last few years, as the members of the city council know very well, to enlarge the squares.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It cannot be done at that place.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Unless it is all taken up, and even if it were all taken up, it would still be objectionable. My impression is that the only way to solve the question would be, if the foundations of the present building are not solid enough to support two or three stories-because we are having some skyscrapers now in Montreal-if the foundations are not strong enough, it would be better to take down the old building and put up another very high one where the present one stands. That is the only way that we can have the Inland Revenue offices in the most proper place in the city, and if we went anywhere else they would not be convenient for the public. It is of no use talking about getting a piece of land from the city ; the government had better make up their minds immediately to put up a building which will be a credit to themselves and to the city.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like an answer from the minister whether he would object to striking out that clause in the estimate.
Mr. PREFONTAINE, It is clear from the estimate itself that the government has made up its mind to have a new building ; but if there is to be an addition to the building the city will have to furnish the *site. I know the site very well. The building is an eyesore, everybody admits that, Mr. MONK.
it must be demolished and rebuilt, and it can be rebuilt five, six or ten stories high, as need may require. But if it is thought proper to enlarge the building, and the city of Montreal is not willing to give us the extra ground, then we will have to build on the same ground. The city must understand that if they want more accommodation they must furnish the site. The place which it is in contemplation to use for an extension of the building, is perfectly useless at the present moment; it is only a place where a lot of idle people congregate, there are no trees on it. So if the city does not think proper in its own interest to give a little piece of that ground in order to have a larger building, then we shall have to renew the building as it exists. There are many precedents for cities furnishing sites for public buildings. There is an item in the estimates for a military school at Three Rivers, the site to be furnished by the city. It rests with the city council of Montreal to say whether they will take interest enough in the city to furnish the land for a larger building.


Herbert Brown Ames: I find it necessary in discussing this question to speak not only as a member of parliament, but as an aider-man of the city of Montreal. As an aider-man, I have been cognizant that certain negotiations have been going on with the government from time to time to settle a number of matters in dispute. We are anx-* ious to secure certain favours from the government, we are anxious to secure certain privileges on St. Helen's Island, also on Lafontaine Park, also on the ancient burial ground on Papineau Avenue ; we are anxious to secure these from the government. Now it is a matter more or less of barter, in which we have some things the government wants, and we are prepared to make reasonable exchanges with the government. We have this piece of property which the government desires in order to extend one of its necessary public buildings, we are probably prepared to grant that ; but we want it to be considered as one of the commodities which we have in our barter and sale with the government. Now I want to point out that you are bringing to bear undue pressure on the city council to make them part with one of their assets, which is a valuable one when we come to the matter of settling up these difficulties with you, because you are in the position of saying that unless the city council gives you this land for nothing, the Inland Revenue Department shall continue in its present congested condition, and the citizens of Montreal shall continue to cry out, and you will say, It is not our fault, the city owns the land, and unless the city gives the land we cannot put up the building. You are therefore bringing pressure to bear upon the city council to part with one of its assets, which they are holding in view of making eventually a fair settlement with you of the various questions at issue. Further*

than that, I think you are discriminating against us, because you are voting a sum of money, the expenditure of which depends upon concurrent legislation on the part of another body over which you have no control. Unless the city council practically ratifies your decision, why, the building cannot go up. I think therefore it would be far better to strike that line from the estimates and allow that matter to be dealt with in an amicable spirit along with the other questions which are at issue between the government and the city. I am sure you will find on the part of the citizens of Montreal no desire to get the last pound of flesh, no disposition to mete out Shylock treatment to the government. But we do not wish to part with one of our assets absolutely, aside from a settlement of other outstanding questions.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are wasting a lot of valuable time in discussing this question. The item must pass in its present shape or not at all, because the committee has no authority to add anything to the item that is brought down, and it will add to the burdens of the country if you take that rider out, because it would add to the item the value of the site. If we pay for the site we add to the vote. You cannot do that constitutionally.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is not a matter of payment for the site, it is a matter of exchange for the site.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman forgets the most important part of the whole question. If we get the site we will extend the building; if we do not get the site rather than pay for- the site, we might possibly prefer to make the building higher. That is the gist of the whole question, and must be taken into consideration by the department.
Montreal military, buildings-new stores building, $10,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is one of several military buildings that are being erected at the headquarters of the different military centres. There is one to be erected in Montreal, one in Winnipeg and one in London. They are for the purpose of storing military equipments of all kinds, and have nothing to do with armouries. At present, buildings are being rented for that purpose in certain places, and at large rents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many years has this item been in the estimates ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Only last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I object to that principle, as I did last year. To my mind it is a very bad principle for the government to follow. The government either require that money for expenditure or they do not; if they do not require it they should not have it. If it is not intended to expend it, but to keep it on the estimates dangling before the 36i	<
people, it is always available when elections come on, though it may never be used-I say that is an unsound principle. The government should not ask for anything they do not intend to spend.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has anything been done to that building yet ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. I think there are somej negotiations going on with the permanent corps in Montreal. I have no objection to let the matter stand.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not know anything about it.


Charles Smith Hyman: This item is for erecting a stone building in the city of Montreal for the purpose of receiving the militia stores. Ten thousand dollars was put in the estimates last year but we have been unable to obtain a site. We have not started negotiations for a site for the building. If the committee desire me I am satisfied to let it stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to the expenditure of the money. If the government desire to spend the money and are prepared to spend it, all right. I am not objecting to the item at all but I am objecting to the principle of voting money year after year for three or four years as we have been doing in this case and not a dollar of the money spent.


William Mulock: We are so economical. Why should you be pressing us to spend money ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not pressing you to spend money but I am objecting to the improper course of asking for money that you do not intend to spend. The government ought first to make up their minds that they intend to spend so much money on a public building, ask parliament for it and, if it is granted, expend it. But, if there is no definite object in view to have an item in the estimates dangling before the public it is wrong.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no doubt that would be wrong, but this item was put in the estimates only last year and it is being revoted now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked if it were put in before last year and the answer was ' yes.'


Charles Smith Hyman: No, the answer was not ' yes.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pre-fontaine) to say ' yes.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I said that it was put in last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was passed last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand that you might pass over a single year without

te *expending the money, but we have many items that are voted two or three years when no expenditures are made.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is in connection with the Montreal barracks, and no site has been chosen because this building is to be put near the barracks for the permanent force.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When the matter of the barracks is decided this will follow ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not necessarily. I would not like to say that.
Montreal post office-improvements, $25,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is for the purpose of improving the front of the Montreal post office and giving more accommodation. This vote is asked for by the Post Office Department for the extension of the front of the building to make more accommodation downstairs.	-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is very serious ground of complaint as to the size of the post office.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is foi the purpose of extending it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How can you extend it unless you add another story V


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a certain area between the front walk and the door which it is intended to take into the building, so that it may be used for post office purposes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the plan of the building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The plan is not yet completed although nearly so.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And that will cost $5,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will cost $25,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not understand without having seen the plan how you can make an enlargement of the building there?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is an open vestibule in front of the building. It is intended to move the main wall out in front and include the open space which now forms the vestibule in the building so as to increase the accommodation.
Mr. BERGEkON. It will be down on the steps then.


William Mulock: No, there is a lot of space in front. There will be just double the floor space.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the hon. minister give us the additional floor space that will be created ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Charles Smith Hyman: The lobby at present is 85 x 15. It will give about 85 x 15 feet extra space.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This will be the proper time to find out whether there is going to be a new post office in the city of Montreal. Instead of spending $25,000 to do something which I think will not improve the appearance of the present building and which will not give much additional accommodation would it not be better to adopt the view which has prevailed in Montreal for a long time that a new post office should be erected in the eastern part of Montreal ? My hon. friend the Postmaster General will perhaps remember that the other night we had a very long talk about that. His answers to me showed that he was not very well posted because I had the honour to receive a note from him afterwards explaining that some of the answers were not quite correct. I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing in these estimates for a new post office. The item for the new postal station has nothing to do with the question I am putting to the government as to whether a new post office building will be erected in the eastern part of Montreal. I stated the other night that there has long been talk of such a building in St. James division of Montreal. It has been very truly said that the present post office is entirely inadequate to the demands of the service in Montreal and we were led to understand in some little political meetings we had in St. James division during the last two or three years that such a building would be erected. I believe there was some correspondence between the government and the representative of St. James division (Mr. Gervais) to that effect, although, of course, he can speak more authoritatively on that subject than I can. This is the proper time to find out whether the government intend to have such a building erected in the eastern part of Montreal, either in St. James, or in St. Mary's division, or anywhere in the eastern part of Montreal.


William Mulock: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) takes exception to the accommodation furnished by the present building on St. James Street, Montreal. It is quite true that the building to-day is not adequate to the demands upon it owing to the growth and prosperity of the city and to the increased volume of mail matter, but the congestion at the central office will be relieved and entirely done away with when we carry out the policy we have in view of erecting a postal station near the Bonaventure station and enlarging the vestibule of the present building on St. James street. My hon. friend, if he has a plan of that building in his mind, will remember that when you seek to enter the building you first of all ascend a flight of stairs and then there is a space

*between the street line and the entrance of the building of perhaps 12 or 15 feet.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Ten feet, I think.


William Mulock: I cannot say how many, but it is quite a substantial space. It is proposed, I think, to include that space in the lobby ; that is the part of the post office which is available for the general public to enter there to transact postal business. When that improvement is made it will afford very great advantage and accommodation to the people. Then, when the Bonaventure postal station is established there will be a large amount of mail that comes in and leaves Montreal that will never pass through the main post office on St. James street at all. That will get the go-by. For example, newspapers and parcels will practically all be handled at the postal station opposite Bonaventure station. Moreover, a large quantity of the ordinary mail matter which comes in to be distributed throughout the city of Montreal, instead of being sent up to the main office to be there rehandled and sorted and given to the mail carriers, will be dealt with at the postal station, and from that point the letter-carriers will serve a considerable part of the district immediately around Bonaventure station. This will very greatly relieve the condition of affairs at the main post office.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will that be a building ?


William Mulock: It will, of course, be a building in which whatever post office work is transacted at any post office will be transacted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What will be the size?


William Mulock: I could not say. I do not know if the lot has been secured, there has been some trouble. The minister says that the lot has been secured on Cathedral Street opposite the Grand Trunk station.


Daniel Gallery: I may state that the lot has been secured, because I know that the owner has been paid for it.


Haughton Lennox: I would ask the Postmaster General to explain the situation here. When this new postal station is established- which will, I understand, relieve to a large extent the central post office-and the contemplated improvements are made at an expenditure of $25,000, does the Postmaster General think that that will relieve the con gestion for a number of years? I do not re-1 gard the expenditure of $25,000 as being very large in this connection at all, but still it would be a pity to expend that $25,000 to make improvements which might prove insufficient within a few years.


William Mulock: If it was only patchwork that was proposed such a proposition would be open to question, but today in the advanced and progressive postoffice world-and we claim to be a part of that world-the old system of having a
grand pile for post office work is being abandoned; instead of having all the work
of distributing the mail matter concentrated at one point, the policy now is to have substations at different points and aS a city grows to multiply your substations and to despatch the mail matter from the incoming trains to those substations for distribution to the district immediately around, and, of course, in like manner to collect out-going mail matter from different points and deliver it from the substations to the railways without its ever passing through the main post office. I have no doubt in the world that the day of large post offices, great architectural piles, is a thing of the past so far as Canada is concerned. This will be a good and wise expenditure, and if in time the progress of the city demands more postal accommodation, it would not be to the interest of the mail service to supply that accommodation by erecting a larger building in one spot, rather by erecting substations throughout the city.


Haughton Lennox: I have had the advantage of hearing the Postmaster General before dealing with this question of decentralization. I quite approve of it and I thought that when the Postmaster General began he was going to answer the question I asked, but, unfortunately, like many hon. gentlemen he has mystified himself in a multitude of words and has not answered the question which I asked ; he has not done what I think he intended to do when he got up. I asked the Postmaster General to tell the committee whether, when that expenditure of $25,000 is made upon the central post office in Montreal, having regard to the tact that there is a policy of decentralization, and that another substation is to be established to relieve the congestion, we would have all that Montreal would require at that particular point for several years to come or whether this small addition to the Montreal central post office would be found adequate only for a short season of time. I was not talking about ' great monumental piles ' or anything elaborate. I was speaking about what I understand the city of Montreal as a great commercial centre would require. I want to know from the Postmaster General, and I think we should know that distinctly, is this to be a wise expenditure in this sense that it will meet the requirements of Montreal at that point for some years to come ?


William Mulock: I think it will.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not share the opinion of the Postmaster General on this point. I really- believe it would be a great deal better not to vote $25,000 for that purpose. In view of what the Postmaster General said before about the policy of decentralizing post offices, I would think it would

be better to spend a little more in different parts of the city. We are going to build a station near the Bonaventure railway station, I understand from the Postmaster General, and I think that is a very good idea ; I believe it will be money well spent. We have many railway stations in Montreal. Montreal is a terminal. We have not one railway that goes through Montreal, properly speaking. If we are to have one station at Bonaventure which will serve both Windsor station, the terminus of the C.P.R. and Bonaventure station, the terminus of the G.T.R. and the I.O.R., why not have one post office station at the Place Viger station in the eastern portion of the city of Montreal. When I speak of the eastern portion I am not, speaking of that part of Montreal in a particular way. I join with my hon. friend in his idea of enlarging the facilities for the distributing of mail in Montreal, but we are here going to spend $25,000 that in my mind will not be well spent. I am afraid we are going to disfigure the present post! office, which is a handsome building, and it will not attain the results the minister hopes to obtain.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. What do you mean?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Because it will not give you increased room commensurate with the amount of money you will spend on it, and if you would only spend a little more and put a substation near the Place Viger station you would have three distributing centres, the central office and the two railway stations at the two ends of Montreal. I believe that was the idea the hon. member for East Simcoe had in his mind when he put that famous question to the Postmaster General.


William Mulock: If it were the case that this expenditure would not add to the accommodation furnished the public I would agree with what my hon. friend says, but the architect informs me at this moment that this expenditure will give a floor space available to the public of 2,000 feet, as against the present floor space of 1,200 feet. The present space available for the public is 80 feet by 15 feet, and my hon. friend can multiply and determine that amount himself.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is no use multiplying ; I do not believe the figures are correct.


William Mulock: I give the figures of the architect, who must know what he is talking about. The present space is 1,200 square feet and this will give 2,000 square feet.
Montreal post office-installation of pneumatic tube system for post office purposes, $55,000.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Before this item is passed, I would like to make a few remarks.
I would like to acquaint the House with Mr. BERGERON.
this fact, that the condition of affairs in Montreal, as far as postal facilities in the constituency of St. James are concerned, has become unbearable. I represent the constituency of St. James, and in this electoral division you will find 43,000 inhabitants. Adjoining that constituency you find the electoral district of St. Mary and that of St. Louis, and if you add together the inhabitants of these three wards, you will find that they contain over 117,000 inhabitants. Do you know how much is spent each year for postal facilities in Montreal east? A few hundred dollars, for the maintenance of two little stamp-selling establishments, whereas in St. Antoine division, where there are just 47,000 inhabitants, $5,000 is spent annually for postal facilities. I think this is unfair treatment to the east of Montreal, and it cannot be suffered to continue. I know quite well that the Postmaster General of Canada, under section 36 of chapter 35 of the Revised Statutes, has to decide whether or not it would be useful to establish a sub post office in Montreal east; I know quite well also that it is the duty of the Minister of Public Works to build such a post office; and this is the reason I am bringing this question forward tonight; because I want to know, in the first place, from the hon. Postmaster General whether he has made up his mind that this is the proper time to give adequate postal facilities to the east of Montreal, and whether it is the intention of the Minister of Public Works to build a sub-post office there. You must bear in mind that the east of Montreal has built up a trade larger than that of Montreal west. On this point I refer the hon. Postmaster General to the letter which has been sent to him by Mr. Jones, the cashier of the Quebec Bank; I refer him also to the resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Montreal city council, recommending the erection of a subpost office in the east of Montreal. I may say, too, that one may find there about one thousand wholesale and retail merchants. In St. James division one may find about eight banking houses. You will find either in or close to that constituency one branch of the Bank of Montreal, two branches of the Bank of Hochelaga, one branch of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, one branch of the Quebec Bank, one branch of the Moisons Bank, and two branches of the Provincial Bank of Canada. I may remind the hon. Postmaster General that most of the newspapers in Montreal have recommended the expenditure. I may say too that it will be highly beneficial to the inhabitants of the eastern part of the city. Do you know that the business men of the east of Montreal have to take the street car or drive or walk one mile and a half to buy five or six stamps? We want in Montreal east the postal facilities which every good post office to-day affords to the people. We want a good sub-post office in which

money orders will be issued at which our letters will be received, from which our letters will be distributed, in which a savings bank business will be done, in which a letter may be insured, in which we shall be able to secure a service of late mailable matter, and from which we could enjoy a special delivery service. We want for the electors of St. James division, as well as those of St. Mary's and part of the St. Lawrence division, these postal facilities. We do not wish to suffer any longer the conditions of affairs which I have described. We want the government to spend in the east of Montreal at least as much as it is spending in Montreal west. I am not complaining of tlie favours which have been shown to the good people of St. Antoine.


Herbert Brown Ames: St. Anne's.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No. You have two post offices on St. Catharines street, one near Metcalfe street, and one near Mountain street. For the building of these post offices over $10,000 was spent last year. This government is spending in that constituency over $5,000 yearly. I believe in the expenditure of money for the establishment of good postal facilities. I am satisfied with the expenditure which has been incurred by the government for the establishment of sub-post offices in the division of St. Antoine; but, on the other hand, I want equally adequate treatment for the constituency which I represent. This is the reason why I ask the government to build a sub-post office in St. James division, on St. Catherines street, and to connect it with the central post office by means of the pneumatic tube system which is referred to in the item under discussion.
M. CAMILLE PICHE (St. Mary's, Montreal). (Translation). Before the hon. Postmaster General makes the statements which my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Gervais) may reasonably expect from him, I think it is incumbent on me to join hands with my hon. colleague and to raise my voice in support of the just claims of the east end. It cannot be gainsaid that this very important part of the metropolis is not provided with adequate postal facilities under present conditions, and I entirely agree with what has just been said in this connection. However, I would not give to my few remarks the aggressive tone which my hon. friend seemed intent on giving to his, as I have no complaint to make regarding what has been done for the west end. In fact, the improvements which have been enacted there are of recent date, and it would not be fair, to my mind, to suppose that the government do not intend effecting similar improvements in the east end. As regards the remarks made by my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Gervais), I am not ready to follow him when he brings forward the name of my electoral division to strengthen his contentions regarding the necessity of putting up a building in St. James division andi in St. James division only. I think the east end is entitled to such expenditure as the public service requires. I am inclined to believe that the government is very favourable to this view owing to representations which I have made personally and others which have been forwarded by numerous electors and especially through a petition bearing a great many signatures of electors in my division, business men, bank managers, &c. In order that the favourable disposition of the hon. Postmaser General may not be doubtful for any one, I am pleased to state-and in passing that may also restore the confidence of my hon. friend from St. James-that this very day I have received from the hon. minister a letter stating that he will be glad to discuss that important question with the parties interested or their representatives. I await with confidence the explanations which the hon. gentleman is to give on that subject, and I trust that he will not fail to listen attentively to any suggestions which will be made to him on behalf of the east end, which, I believe, is entitled to as much consideration as the west end of Montreal.


William Mulock: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: . (Translation), Speak French.


William Mulock: My hon. friend from St. James division (Mr. Gervais) addressed the committee in English, and I will respond to him in the same language. After that we will see. My hon. friend from St. James division, with proper pride, has announced to this House the growth and development of that great centre of commerce which has done him the honour of choosing him as its representative in this House. I appreciate extremely the zeal which he has manifested on behalf of his constituents, and I can take no exception whatever to the force with which he represents their interests in this House. However, if I may be permitted to debate the-subject, he rests his demand for an additional building upon the fact that there are two in the west, on St. Catherines street. Perhaps that is hardly a reason that will commend itself to our hon. friends opposite at least. They might ask me to justify in-, each case the expenditure of public money by showing that it was serving a public purpose ; and I am sure that my hon. friend would expect that I should not ask for a building in one place simply because we had erected one elsewhere, but that in each case I should be able to defend the expenditure by showing that it was wise and in. the public interest. With reference to St, James division, I would say, without promising anything whatever, that as my hon, friend is aware, the subject is engaging the consideration of the government. More than that, my hon. friend is aware that, with the
1135 -

object of trying to inform myself better than I could by remaining in Ottawa, X went to Montreal to study the question ; and my investigations there have not yet been completed. I hope to be able to reach a conclusion before a very long time ; and if that conclusion should enable me to say to my colleagues in the government that I thought the erection of a substation or postal building in St. James division would be in the interest of the people there, if it were necessary or wise in order to improve their mail service, I would have great pleasure in making the necessary recommendation under the statute to which my hon. friend has referred. But I would ask him to be kind enough to let me have an opportunity, with his assistance, of visiting the place and studying with him the merits of the question, that I may reach a fair conclusion.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Let me declare at once, Mr. Chairman, that I shall be entirely at the disposal of the Postmaster General for his visit to my district. If the hon. gentleman is ready to go next week, I shall be glad. I should like to have a decision reached by his department before the supplementary estimates are brought down.


Mr. PICHE.: How about St. Mary's ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Speak French.


William Mulock: Well, I shall make the same request to the hon. member from St. Mary's, that is to wait until I have the opportunity of visiting St. Mary's division with him.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Whereabouts is this new post office that is to be opposite the Bonaventure station ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The installation of pneumatic tubes will require the construction of a building, which building is to be on Cathedral street, immediately opposite thq front of the station. The new postal station is to be on St. Catherine street west.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And where will the pneumatic station be on Cathedral street ?


Daniel Gallery: Between St. James street and Chaboillez square.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend from St. Anne's (Mr. Gallery) says that the land has been bought and paid for. From whom was it bought, and how much did it cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was bought from Mrs. McGrory and Mrs. Myler, and the total cost was $37,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What are the dimensions of the property bought ?


Charles Smith Hyman: One lot is 130 feet 3 inches by 75 feet in depth, and has a superficial Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
area of 9,769 square feet. The second lot is 98 feet by 33 feet.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That will run from the private property of the Grand Trunk Railway to Cathedral street ?


Daniel Gallery: Yes ; it will go from Depot square to Cathedral street.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who bought that property for the government ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. U. H. Dandurand.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there any arbitration, or did he simply go and buy the property ?


Charles Smith Hyman: One parcel, that of Mrs. Myler, was bought from the court, and the other was bought by private sale.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much did the part bought from the court cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It cost $12,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And the other cost how much ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It cost $25,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: And on that Mr. Dandurand got 5 per cent ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. The information on that subject was given the other day in answer to a question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames).


Herbert Brown Ames: Have tenders been called for the pneumatic tubes ?


William Mulock: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: I will save the time of the minister by taking certain information for granted and will ask for some that I want. In the installation of the pneumatic tube system, has it been deemed advisable to call for three tenders-the first for digging and filling the trenches-


Charles Smith Hyman: That has not been considered-no tenders have been called for.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have tenders been called for for laying the pipes and supplying the machinery at either end ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, that has been called for.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have tenders been asked for the supply of the pipe ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; tenders have been called for, and one has been accepted.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the hon. minister tell us where the plans were that contractors
were expected to see in this matter.


Charles Smith Hyman: In the post office building in Montreal. The usual methods were I adopted-advertisement inserted in the

usual way calling for tenders and stating where the plans had been deposited.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the hon. gentleman sure that the plans and specifications were deposited in Montreal where they could be seen by Montreal contractors ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am advised that they wTere in the department here, and the advertisement so stated. In the case of voluminous plans, it is quite the custom for the department to have the plans here.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that in the specification it was intimated that the contractor would have to see the machinery in operation somewhere in order to ascertain its nature. Where was it possible for a would-be contractor to see that machinery ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman asks me a good many technical questions. As I understand, the only place to see this machinery would be in England or in two or three of the large cities in the United States, where the system has been inaugurated.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that the department did not supply working drawings, from which the contractor could see what was to be done ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Oh, yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Plans of the machinery ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The department furnished full plans and specifications on which a tender could be made. Of course, it was impossible to show the machinery in actual operation.


Herbert Brown Ames: The point I am endeavouring to make is this. For work to be done in Montreal it was necessary for Montreal contractors to come to Ottawa or Toronto to see the plans, and -then to go to Buffalo dr some other American city to see the machinery in operation. Would it not have been possible to have suitable plans left in the city of Montreal where contractors desiring to bid might have studied them ?


Charles Smith Hyman: If any Montreal contractor had desired to see the plans, he had only to drop a post card to the minister or deputy minister, and every facility would have been given him.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was it not necessary for the would-be contractor to go to Buffalo ?


William Mulock: He could go to Buffalo or some other city.


Charles Smith Hyman: The work was advertised fully. There was no desire to keep any Montreal contractor out of the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: As a matter of fact, the method pursued did keep the Montreal con tractors from tendering.


Charles Smith Hyman: If any Montreal contractor was prevented from tendering by the conditions, it can hardly be said that he was pushing business very hard. All he had to do was to drop a line to the department to say that it was inconvenient for him to come to Ottawa.


Haughton Lennox: The minister at first said that the plans and specifications were deposited in Montreal as usual.


Charles Smith Hyman: I was so informed by the officer of the department.


Haughton Lennox: In regard to the machinery, I think it would be a proper thing for the minister to have in future a working model of that kind of thing, which is new in Canada, so that parties wanting to contract would not have to go to the United States.
Quebec immigration buildings-new landing sheds on Point a Carey breakwater, and additions and alterations to present buildings, including covered passage to those on Louise embankment, $45,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This vote is for the purpose of furnishing a suitable landing place on the embankment. The reason there was no expenditure last year was because the department were in consultation with large shippers, and were most desirable of selecting the best place for the landing station.
Quebec hospital for treatment of immigrants suffering from trachoma and kindred diseases, $10,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I notice we are building hospitals for the treatment of trachoma, one down in the maritime provinces this year, and we are also proposing a building in Montreal for the treatment of the same disease. Of course I am aware that a matter like this can only be exhaustibly treated! when the estimates of the Department of the Interior are under consideration. But I wish to protest strongly against this expenditure. It is altogether the result of the careless policy we have adopted in regard to immigration. The spread of trachoma throughout Canada is so great as to constitute a national danger. If my hon. friend will inquire in Montreal from the specialists for eye diseases at the Royal Victoria hospital, he will find that that disease is now implanted in Canada. I have here the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for the United States, for last year, and it points out, with! details, liow diseased persons are now entering the United States, and describes the measures that have been taken to prevent them from entering from Canada. During the year 1903, they refused, in all American ports, 1,700 immigrants affected with contagious diseases, of whom 1,400 came from! Canada, and were therefore sent back intol Canada. The number of diseased persons suffering from trachoma examined in Mont-

113S
real and who must have remained in Canada, was oyer 400. There were 171 refused by the immigration inspector in Winnipeg who wanted to cross into the United States, but who had to remain in Canada. The matter is one of very great importance to this country, a matter of urgency.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. gentleman would pardon me for interrupting him- would it not be better to bring this matter up on the estimates of the Interior Department?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what I intend to do, but the urgency of the case is my excuse for mentioning it at present, because we are going to be involved in an immense expenditure for the treatment of immigrants who have arrived here affected with contagious diseases, and particularly trachoma. Another point to which I wish to call attention is this: I believe that at the present moment Mr. Preston is travelling in that part of Europe where this disease originates and where we get it from. I put a question upon the order paper the other day, and was informed that Mr. Preston is not in London, but we learn from newspaper despatches that at the present time he is in Austria, and is seeking to obtain immigrants in that part of Austria and Hungary where the disease is a national plague. Ifi my information is correct, I think the govi eminent cannot too soon warn Mr. Preston against that kind of immigration. The matter is treated at length in this report of the American commissioner, who took the trouble to send over to Austria and make a special investigation to find out what were the conditions prevailing there in regard to trachoma. There are 60,000 people in that part of Europe anxious to come here, who are under government surveillance on ac-) count of this terrible disease. At the present moment the government, at large exi penditure, is seeking to promote immigration from that country. The result is that we have to provide protection for these people when they arrive here, and we have to protect ourselves against a disease that was unknown here before this kind of immigration began. It is a matter deserving of the immediate attention of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the last few years this matter has been discussed in this House, and the government nearly always took the ground that little or no trachoma was imported. Now we are asking for money to build hospitals to treat those afflicted with it.
Sherbrooke drill hall, $10,000.


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: I would like to ask the minister what he thinks the building will cost, and when it will be ready for occupation?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not got the full information from the Militia Department of Mr. MONK.
the requirements of this building. The dimensions are 224 feet by 115 feet. I have not got a memorandum from the Militia Department. The Militia Department^ when it wants a building, sends to the Department of Public Works a memorandum of the floor space required, and the kind of structure. As I have not got the full requirements here, I am unable to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I would like to ask if there are any reasons other than political why the drill shed is to be placed on the site that has been selected. There was a very good site offered to the Militia Department but which was not considered. I would like to know in what way the pre-t sent site was selected, whether somebody was sent down to Sherbrooke who obtained! the cadastral plans and merely shut his eyes and put his finger on a certain spot, or was there some other reason for the selection? I can tell the minster, and can give him the proof, that at a certain council meeting in the city of Sherbrooke a motion was made and seconded condemning this site as unhealthy. A part of this property consists of an old canal and an old clay pit which was left from a brick yard, and which is being gradually filled in with refuse from the upper part of the town and with sawdust from the mills. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can give me some idea how this particular site came to be selectel for this purpose. On whose recommendation was it selected?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course, the site was purchased before I had anything to do witii the Department of Public Works, and I have no memorandum here as to the infor-t mation upon which the department acted.; The initial information upon which the department generally act of course comes from the Department of Militia. In the selection of these sites the Militia Department are consulted and then an officer of the Department of Public Works is sent to look into the question of cost, and if his report is favourable the site is purchased and paid for.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I suppose the hon. minister would not put up a handsome public building upon a site which was not a proper one even if it were recommended by the Department of Militia and Defence.
I see that the first estimate for this drill shed was made at the same time as the appropriations were made for drill sheds at St. Hyacinthe and Three Rivers, but I see that in this short space of time these other two places have outstripped Sherbrooke and that there has been an expenditure in these places of $30,000 or $35,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: That would not affect the question of the building. If we were making a contract we would ask for another sum in the supplementary estimates. Of

course this sum is available ; we can go on and prepare the plans of the building and call for tenders.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In making a few remarks about the site selected I do not condemn the part of the city in which the building is to be erected. We would be very glad to have the drill shed in any ward of the city. The question is not whether it is to be in one particular ward or in another. It is the site itself which is objectionable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the site is objectionable and no money has been spent surely this is a good time to remedy it.
(Mr. HYMAN. There has been no money spent on the building but there has been money spent on the site. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Worthington) will allow the vote to pass I will be very glad to discuss it with him.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I should be very glad to have the hon. minister do so.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did the recommendation of the site come from the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This matter has been discussed in the House before but this is not the initiation of the vote. If it were the initiation of the vote we would have prepared fuller particulars in regard to the matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: But the hon. gentleman was a member of the House at the time this was discussed and as he has his deputy here perhaps he will be able to answer that question.


Mr. TOBIN.: I believe the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) is aware that a majority of the citizens of Sherbrooke are in favour of the present site for the proposed drill shed.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) I may say that if that is the view of the citizens of Sherbrooke I cannot understand why they sent two deputations to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence objecting to the site. I may say in regard to the composition of these deputations that they were selected not entirely from military men but from men of both political complexions, and that they waited upon the hon. minister, and asked that this site be reconsidered and if possible changed. I am not objecting to the locality in which this drill shed is being built nor to the ward but to the particular site on which it is to be placed. It is an old disused brickyard and it is not a suitable site for a drill shed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I notice in the memorandum which I have here that the council of Sherbrooke made a contribution to this site.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The council made a contribution in this way that there was some exchange between the government and the council in regard to the old site.


Charles Smith Hyman: They were accepting the new site. They were parties to the negotiations that took place between themselves and the department. The council that were in charge of the matter would be parties to the negotiation with the Department of Public Works in regard to the question and they accepted this site.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: They voted a certain amount for a drill shed site before the site was selected, not after.


Charles Smith Hyman: But, there is no protest from them and being contributors they would naturally have an interest in the site.


Edmund William Tobin: My hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) knows very well that the majority of the council are in favour of the present site and he is only giving expression to a kick that comes from a small portion of the citizens of Sherbrooke. I live within six miles of Sherbrooke, I am well acquainted with the citizens and I am sure that seventy-five per cent of the citizens are in favour of the present site. I have been informed by parties in Sherbrooke that eight-tenths of the council are in favour of the present site.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: In reply to the hon. gentleman I may say that quite a number of the citizens of Sherbrooke are in favour of the site that has been selected, but as I understand it, this drill shed is being built for the accommodation of the militia. It is not being built for the' accommodation of the majority of the politicians to capture votes. It is being put there for drill purposes. There was a site offered to the Militia Department which is adjacent to and fronting the parade ground, the only available place for drill puiposes in the city, and that is only distant from the rifle ranges about ,600 yards and is reached by a ferry which was put on by, and at the expense of the militia. Then, a man is sent down from Ottawa with instructions to go to somebody there and select a site for the drill shed. This he did without even going to any of the militia men in Sherbrooke and it was done entirely at the instigation of the hon. Minister of Agriculture who does not deny it.


Charles Smith Hyman: Possibly the hon. gentleman has in his mind some site in Sherbrooke that would be more suitable than the one which has been selected, and if so I will be very glad to take the matter into consideration. I am not aware of any pro1 test having been filed by the council againsU the proposed site.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The hon. gentleman is certainly aware of a protest having heen filed hy the militia. We are not building it for the council.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is the citizens' money which is going into this building. I am perfectly willing to agree that to a large extent the militia authorities should be consulted. The militia authorities are consulted in the person of the hon. the Minister of Militia and through the department here, and I am quite willing to admit that the local military authorities should be consulted also. But, I am hardly prepared to say that the residents of Sherbrooke should not have something to say about it. They are citizen soldiers. In so far as the city of London is concerned I would not be prepared to say that the regiment for whom the drill shed is being provided should have the whole say as to where the site of that building should be. I do not think the hon. gentleman himself would take such a strong position as that.
iMr. KEMP. I am very glad that the hon. acting minister admits that the citizen soldiers of Sherbrooke should have something to say about the location of the drill shed. These men give their services to the country without compensation of any kind. It seems to me that for an officer to go down to Sherbrooke and select a site there without consulting the militia is not right. He did not even call on them as my hon. friend (Mr. Worthington) says. If no money has been spent on that site


Charles Smith Hyman: The site has been bought and paid for.


Albert Edward Kemp: If no money has been spent on the building it would be a generous act for the hon. minister to take this matter into consideration and thus relieve the deplorable situation caused by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in interfering with a matter entirely out of his department.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall be very glad to give the matter full consideration before the expenditure is made.
St. John's public building, $20,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of a building is this 7 Is it A, B or C ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is neither, it is a larger building.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the population of this town 7


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a large town, the population is 4,000, the postal revenue $7,200 and the customs revenue $96,000. The lot has been purchased for $2,500 from Mrs. J. R. Boisvert.
ValteySeld public building, $12,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When will that be finished and how much will it cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will cost $42,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This was the case I had in mind particularly when I reminded my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) of the practice of building these public buildings half of stone and half of brick. My hon. friend might have put up a very good stone building there that would not have cost any more, and that would have looked a great deal better.


William Mulock: You are too extravagant altogether, too wasteful of public money.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend should not speak about extravagance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Oh, that will not do it. I want to say that my hon. friend has finished his estimates and is very happy.


Charles Smith Hyman: Oh no, I am not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We have not been criticising very much, except to do our duty. We have been reproached very often in the country with not having criticised large estimates. This government has spent three or four times as much as the late government spent, and it is the fault of my hon. friend's friends in the country that we are criticising the estimates as we how do. My hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) has been very kind and courteous in answering questions tonight and I wish to acknowledge his courtesy, because I know he has not been long in the department, and is not in the position to answer all the questions that may be put to him, as readily as if he were an old minister. All the criticism we can make will not change this amount, it is there and must go through. I am reminded of years gone by when we would sometimes spend whole nights discussing amounts of a great deal less than we voted to-night which was criticised by my hon. friend, and it shows that while the government may change, bad habits do not. We used to vote $35,000,000 to $40,000,000, and now we are asked to vote $60,000,000 or $75,000,000 and yet if we criticise any amount proposed for any county we are told immediately: You do not want that building to be put up there. If there is an election in that particular county then an opposition speaker is pointed to, as the man who had been trying to prevent the electors from having a public building. What is the inference to be drawn from that 7 It looks as if hon. gentlemen opposite thought that by putting a building or a wharf or a breakwater here or there, they are in a position either to buy that county or to show it that by voting for their candidates it is likely to obtain favours. It is immoral, purely and simply immoral. It seems to me that we should put up public buildings where they

are absolutely necessary. I am not prepared to say that the old government did very well on that line; they might also have) been carried away like the present govern-i ment by the requests of their friends for| public buildings, but when I look at all these estimates I think we were angels to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. BUREAU.: Where are the wings ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We were good, and I would like the people in the country to hear me in order that they might see what an immense difference there is between those who sat here ten years ago in opposition) and those who sit here in power now.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to inquire what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Mulock: The Minister of Agriculture will proceed with the Bill respecting the census and statistics and perhaps, he may take up the Bill respecting seeds. When the Bills are disposed of we will then proceed with the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 10, 1905.