1905-05-26

Mr. W. S. CALVERT (West Middlesex) moved :: That the petition of C. A. Masten, .^^.fore
r CseP t^edti^ S^rt*0-1 ^mack
2* for'their^eU^hi Respect ^ for improvements in centrifugal liquid separatorsNotwithstanding the expiration of the time fnr presenting petitions for private Bills, be read5 now a^d received, and referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


William Samuel Calvert: I understand that this is a firm of Americans whose patents were issued in 1902, and who wish to manufac-

tui'e cream separators in Canada. They *were not until recently aware of the fact that a law was passed in 1903 amending the Patent Act. Their patents have not expired, but I believe they wish to come under the Patent Act of 1903. This has been submitted to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and I believe he has no objection. The only objection there can be is that the time has expired for presenting petitions, but X think it would be no injury to the House or to the country to allow this petition to be presented.



PAYMENT OF DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called,
Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: 
William Samuel Calvert: I have no objection to withdraw the motion.


Mr. D. HENDERSON.: I was under the impression that two or three years ago a Bill was put through the House by which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) took power to deal with all these matters. Am I mistaken in that ? Has the hon. Minister of Agriculture any power to deal with these matters exclusively of an Act of par liament ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The Act in question gave me power up to a certain date. These people did not make their application before that date, and consequently I cannot deal with their patents. That is the law in regard to old patents already issued. In regard to new patents being issued, there is a certain delay within which this section of the law could be applied, but in regard to old patents issued before the passing of the Act I had only up to a certain date in which to deal with them. That date was allowed to pass without these people making any application. I would say in regard to this particular Bill that I do not In any way commit mjself to its passage. I reserve my opinion in regard to it until I see the provisions of me


Mr. INGRAM.: Do we understand that the patents have lapsed ?


William Samuel Calvert: 
Mr. CALVERT  .@: 


Mr.   R.@: Dear Sir, Can you inform me if there is any legal reason for the delay of payment to deputy returning officers of their claims in respect to last general election, in November, now six months past ? Not only my own fees as deputy returning officer, but those of poll clerk, school rent and travelling expenses out of pocket, are still unpaid for this polling district of Millwood and I presume of other districts also.
Your obedient servant,	.
(Sgd.) EDWARD WALKER,
D. R. O. and P. M.
I think this is an unwarrantable delay. Iliese officials are out of pocket personally and have been for six months, although this is au old settled portion of the country. I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if there have been many cases of that kind, and if so, what is the reason ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) will send me that letter, I will try to give him the information on Monday. I will make inquiry. If the facts are as stated, I agree with him that the delay seems to be an unwarranted oue, and it is one for which I do not know what reason can exist.



SUPPLY-HALF-BREED SCRIP.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. y\. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['The amendment I find consists in the striking out of a clause in the Bill. This, I >may say, is a Bill to extend the time for the organization of a bank. During the interim certain proceedings\nhave taken place, and a clause was inserted in the Bill as passed by this House validating anything that may have been done in the way of organization in the meantime. The Senate has moved to strike that clause out, and the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is satisfied, I believe, to have the Bill go in its amended form.']
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, before going into supply, I want to say just a word in continuation of the subject which we had up yesterday concerning land scrip. Since that I have been looking into the papers somewhat, and have received other communications and information, and if I had to go over the matter again to-day that I went over yesterday, I am certain that my language would not be any milder than that which I used yesterday ; and in my view of the case, it seems to be much more grave than it did under my pievious information. I find I will require some more information, and particularly what I want to ask the minister is this : Have the certificates for scrip of these halfbreeds, which we have had under discussion, been already issued, or are they now in process of issuing, and is land being located and patents being granted, or are they under
process, as a result of Mr. Cote's investigation ?


Mr. OLIVER.: I am not able to answer off-liand, but I shall be able to give the information to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: tuuity of seeing all the papers and coming to our conclusion.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: Might I add a request to the minister to also look into the question of the sale or purchase of some Indian reserves in the Northwest. I understand the reserve at Fort ft, la Come and another reserve near Prince Albert are abandoned by the Indians or rather taken back by the Indian Department and that these reserves have been sold, I presume possibly on public notice, but I want to know on what notice and in what papers the notice was inserted, and how many times it was inserted for the sale of these Indian reserves. I also want to know if there are any reservations being made by the department for societies or bodies or companies, church organizations, in regard to lands,' in the Northwest any more. I understand this has been the custom in the past and I want to know if there are any reservations being made for the future. Are homestead lands being withheld from settlement by agreement with certain companies or certain bodies of men representing land companies or representing themselves in order that they may thereby offer greater inducements in the sale of their lands by having an agreement with the department that these lands are reserved from homestead, and that no squatters are allowed on them for a certain time. I would be glad if the minister would look into another matter that has been currently rumoured as to the manner in which scrip has been secured. I shall give a detailed case. A half-breed sells his scrip, no matter what price he obtains, and it is possibly a very inconvenient matter t6 bring that halfbreed 200 or 300 or even 500 or 600 miles and get him to enter for his scrip at the land office at that distance from where he lives. I understand the Indian agents are not always very particular whether they recognize the gentleman who presents himself as representing the owner of the scrip or not. The point I want to bring out to the minister is not the misrepresentation of some half-breed for another half-breed, but to suggest that a convenient way is to have the lands located anywhere.
I am told that there are areas in various places in the Northwest where the halfbreeds have located tlie land quite conveniently in a muskeg. This is done by collusion with the land agent, and application is made for this area for settlement. Forthwith the holder of the land through the purchase of the scrip from the half-breed regretfully yields to the urgent wish of the department and surrenders his land, receiving in return the certificate of the department for so many acres of land. This certificate he can present at the land office at any time without bringing along his half-breed and the land office has to recognize it I would like the minister to kindly look into Mr. FOSTER.
that, aud see what lands have been alienated on certificates of that kind, and to what extent that practice has been carried on in recent years, and whether it is going to be recognized in the future ?


Frank Oliver: My hou. friends from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) are certainly asking for mountains of information, aud I hope they will not be impatient if it takes some little time to give the information. I-received a memorandum of his inquiries from the hon. member for North Toronto, and I would ask the hon. member for Victoria to be kind enough to put his inquiries in brief written shape, that I may be able to better guide the officers of the department in collecting the information. In regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for North Toronto that the procedure for the issue of a title in connection with the scrip issues under discussion should be delayed, I think it would be fair to draw a distinction between the question of the policy and administration of the department, and the question of the propriety of action on the part of those who are interested in securing the scrip. The department, I take it. is bound to carry on its affairs, and if the orders for scrip are in, and they seem to be legitimate and according to the rules of the department, it is scarcely in order to ask that delay should be made simply because the policy of the administration of the department is called in question. If there is a definite allegation of fraud in connection with this scrip, then certainly I would say it was necessary that the issue should be delayed ; but I would like to have the distinction sharply drawn between a definite allegation of fraud on the part of some person or persons more or less known, and a calling in question of the policy and administration of the department.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) is a little in error yet. No assignments have been accepted on tbe letter authorizing agents to accept. Nor are they authorized, if I followed tbe papers correctly when they were in my possession, to accept entry in the name of any other than the half-breed to whom the scrip was issued. All the difference is that he is not required to be there in bodily presence, but there is no change of ownership as between tbe scrip and tbe land. It has always been the rule, as stated in the papers, and, as I believe is the fact, that the scrip is issued to the half-breed who is entitled to it. It is issued in his name, and entry is made in his

name, and, until the patent is issued for the land no transfer can be made and no assignment is recognized under any of the Orders in Council, departmental letters or system of administration.


Hon.   H.@: I submit to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and to hon. gentlemen on the other side, that this discussion is altogether premature. It is impossible to discuss the matter intelligently in all its bearings until all the papers have been brought down. In proof of this I would call the attention of the hon. member for North Toronto to the statement he made a moment ago with regard to the provision in the Order in Council of August, 1904, which he says-and says truly-allowed assignments to be made. But I would say to my hon. friend that, if my memory serves me well, this provision of the Order in Council of August, 1904, was rescinded in' the Order in Council of December 17, 1904.


George Eulas Foster: No, that was a mere matter of priority of assignment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think not- that is the impression I have of it. If I am wrong it only goes to justify what I have already said, that it is not' .possible to discuss this question until all the papers have been brought down. There was one point spoken of by my hon. friend, and I am not prepared to say what is the condition of affairs with regard to it, and that is the dispensing with the order which made it obligatory upon the half-breed to go and locate his own scrip. As to that, I do not know the reason which has led the department to change the policy, and cannot, at the moment, discuss the matter. But I have no doubt that there is some good and valid reason for it, and that this will appear when the papers are brought before the House. I would make one observation on the main point-and the only point made by my hon. friend from North Toronto, if I understood him correctly, the only one he sought to make to-day. This was to persuade the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to stay his hand aud stop at once the issue of these patents. Well, I think the reason given by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior for the position he takes is a very good one. He stated that if the object of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is to traverse the policy of the department, he has not shown that the suggestion should be adopted ; on the other hand if there is evidence or even allegation of fraud, that would be a very good reason why the issuing of patents should be stopped. But my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) would not take the responsibility of saying absolutely that there is evidence of fraud. He says there is a presumption of fraud. That may be. I have no doubt that if my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), on looking at the papers, finds pre-209
sumptive evidence of fraud, he will act accordingly. I believe the hon. member for North Toronto is quite sure that if the minister finds any evidence or even presumption of fraud he will act accordingly. To my mind, from the evidence we have and from the information available, the only fact which gives evidence of fraud, or upon which even a presumption of fraud can be based, is that the scrip will not be very profitable to the half-breeds. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) stated a moment ago that probably not more than one-tenth of the scrip will avail to the halfbreeds and that nine-tenths will be squandered. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will have this answer to the leader of the opposition-that ever since scrip was first issued to the half-breeds, that is since the year 1870 or thereabouts, there has not been a single issue of scrip to these people that has not been squandered by them. Whenever there was an issue of scrip there was always a following of sharks after these people to get their scrip from them for a mere song-the half-breed got nothing for it. But we had this satisfaction, that, even if the half-breeds did not profit by it, at least, when we had given them the scrip they had no grievance. Blit until the scrip was given them they had a grievance-and we know the consequence of that kind of thing. I remember very well that Archbishop Taehe, and Father La-combe, and Lord Strathcona when his assistance was sought on these matters, took the ground that the scrip should be nontransferable. Well, we acted upon this policy in 1899, when we made the last previous issue of scrip. We issued a commission, of which Mr. Laird was a member, as also were Father Lacombe and Mr. McKenna and one or two others. They were to negotiate a treaty in Athabaska with the Indians. They were to collect the Indians and half-breeds and give scrip to those who had not participated in the distribution of 1885. My hon. friend remembers the result, for he alluded to it yesterday. We gave special instructions to make this scrip-land scrip-non-transferable. And what took place? Why, the Indians would not participate in the treaty, and the halfbreeds would not take their scrip, unless the scrip were made transferable. And we have the report-a report sent under emergency by the commissioners-that the half-breeds would use their influence with the Indians to prevent the signing of the treaty, and the half-breeds themselves would not take the scrip, unless it was made transferable. And the members of the commission who were there, Father Lacombe himself among them, then and there, to satisfy the half-breeds, asked that the scrip should be made transferable. Most of that scrip was squandered, no doubt. At the same time, by doing what we did. by adopting this policy which results in little benefit to
i



The half-breeds, we satisfied them as a class. [DOT]My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that he did not think that there were any more half-breeds who had claims. He said that after the report had been made by the commission in 1899-1900, the halfbreeds who had been in the United States could not participate in this scrip and that they had forgotten everything about it. Well, he was given an answer by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) who called the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that there are certain half-breeds in his own riding who claim that they did not receive the satisfaction to which thev were entitled


George Eulas Foster: I do not understand that they were half-breeds who had crossed to the United States and gone on reservations.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know about that. I only am trying to show that when the hon. gentleman says the halfbreeds had forgotten about this matter, he is mistaken. I am sure of one thing- though without having looked into the mat-ter-that there is good reason to believe that the half-breeds in the United States were claiming their scrip. I know that there is a close connection between the halfbreeds on one side of the line and the halfbreeds on the other side, and we have found it good policy, and I think it is good policy when we pay the half-breeds, even though they will get but a mere pittance of what is given out of the public treasury, still we find it good policy to give this scrip so as to prevent them from having a grievance which they can proclaim and parade in the Territories. As I said a moment ago, the policy is all right, and I believe we will be able to vindicate it triumphantly when the discussion comes on. My hon. friend has made the point that the halfbreeds allow other parties to locate land scrip for them. When the time comes we will give an explanation of that also, as of everything else.



Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON.: Before we go into supply I desire to make an explanation. The other day I was explaining that in a discussion which had taken place the day before on a divorce question and in which I had taken part, I had in mind another case than the one before the House. I explained the next day that it was for that reason I had spoken in the way I did, and the ' Hansard ' makes me say that if I voted as I did it was on account of another case. That is not correct. I said I would have voted in the same way I did vote, but I would not have said what I did say.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


TENDERS FOR PUBLIC DOCK AT COLLINGWOOD.
[Stage Direction]
^ Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe). This morning I communicated with the Department of Public Works my intention to ask this afternoon a question relative to tenders for the government dock in the town of Collingwood. Lately so many matters are brought up ini the House, which perhaps may be characterized as scandals, that one seems to get inundated with letters from different parts, particularly I speak of the province of Ontario, in reference to matters in which the general public apparently think there is not exactly fair dealing. Perhaps the minister who may be acting to-day for the Minister of Public Works in his absence, may be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the matter to which I wish to draw attention. In the Collingwood ' Bulletin ' of Thursday, May 25, I find the following :
Tendering too low for public works is evidently an unsatisfactory way of doing business, and judging by late developments Messrs. Conroy Brothers, whose tender here for the proposed wharf here was accepted by the Department of Public Works at Ottawa, have found this to be too true to their sorrow. Their tender is said to have been $25,000, but upon investigation they discovered that there would be no money in the contract at that figure, but what could be done ? The department had accepted their figure, but above this it had the firm's marked cheque for $4,000 which would be forfeited were they to get out. They considered and hesitated, but evidently got from under, a letter from L. G. McCarthy to the chairman of harbour and frontages stating that they had declined to sign the necessary documents. Mr. McCarthy also stated that it was expected that the contract would go to the Battle Estate of Thorold, the next lowest tenderers, and that he hoped to see the matter definitely settled within a few days. This firm's tender is in the neighbourhood of $30,000.
May I ask the member of the cabinet who js acting on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, as to who Conroy Bros, are, where they reside, and if the statement I have read is true, and the suggestion thrown out here that owing to their being the lowest tenderers, their $4,000 cheque was returned. I may have some further remarks to make after the minister has answered these questions.
Mr. FIELDING.: I would rather hear the hon. gentleman's remarks first.


Mr. BENNETT.: Who are Conroy Bros. ?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not tell my hon. friend who they are, I hare no means of knowing.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where do they reside ? -Because I understand there are* different firms. I do not wish to make any remarks that might confound one with another.


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Humphrey Bennett: If it is the one I am informed it is, there may be a reason why he should be dropped.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no knowledge of any firm of Conroy Bros, in the matter. There" is an individual named Conroy, I know nothing of any firm.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where does he live ?


William Stevens Fielding: In Peterboro.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister if that S1.000 cheque has been returned to Mr. Conroy ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then may I ask the further question,-has the contract been awarded to the Battle estate ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will have to wait and see wrhat the minister has to say in regard to the whole transaction, but it does seem extraordinary that Conroy Bros., having tendered as they did and being the lowest tenderers as they were, have not received the contract.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. They were awarded the contract, but the contract was not executed-the individual, not the firm. The contract was awarded to Mr. Conroy, but it has not been executed.


William Humphrey Bennett: This paper is one that supports hon. gentlemen opjiosite, and 1 think that the facts stated in this article must have been communicated from some official source. The Mr. McCarthy referred to here is the member for the riding, and Mr. McCarthy has sent word to the people in the town of Collingwood who have the matter in charge, that this firm of Conroy Bros, as they are termed, are apparently to be released ifrom their contract, and that on the other hand the contract is to go to the Battle estate. If, however, the minister will say to-day that the department propose to hold Mr. Conroy to his contract, and that they will not surrender to him his cheque or make a forfeiture of it, and that they do not propose to give the contract to Battle Bros, at an increased figure, that will be the end of the matter, and no one will have cause for complaint. But if, on the other hand, the department should hand over this contract to Battle Bros, at this increase, as stated in the paper, I shall have something to say about it. I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that these circumstances are communicated apparently from the department itself. I can understand that under certain circumstances a cheque may be returned. For instance, if the contractor made a mistake in his calculation, or rather in his additions, in such a case an Order in Council might be passed returning the cheque to him. I 209J
will wait now with some interest to hear the minister's statement of what is to be the action of the department in reference to this contract.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not propose to make any statement as to what will be the action of the department in any matter until the moment for that action shall arise. I understood my hon. friend to ask as to whether this contract had been awarded, and I answered that it had been awarded to Mr. Conroy. The contract has not been executed, because Mr. Conroy has failed to execute it. There the matter ends. That is the whole of it, nothing scandalous. The only thing scandalous I see in the matter is the two great proneness of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) to suspect that things are wrong when there is nothing at all wrong in them. There is the transaction. Tenders were invited, and the contract was awarded.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the date of the award ?


William Stevens Fielding: There were two sets of tenders. The first tenders were invited in October last. Two were received. The lowest was considered in excess of the engineer's estimate, and the minister of the department refused to accept either of these tenders and sent back the cheques telling the parties that the tenders would not be accepted. Then he proceeded to ask for new tenders, and thereupon new tenders were received. The tender of Edward Conroy-the firm is not known in the record as Conroy Bros., though there may be other parties connected with it for aught I know-but a gentleman by the name of Edward Conroy tendered, and his tender was the lowest, and the contract was awarded to him.


William Humphrey Bennett: The date, please ?


William Stevens Fielding: He was notified on the 7th of April that the contract was awarded to him. Mr. Conroy, as stated, communicated with the officials of the department claiming that he made a mistake, that his tender was too low, and that he could not afford to do the work. As a matter of fact his tender is below the engineer's estimate. He went to the engineer, the late Mr. Gray, who died a day or two ago in Toronto, and discussed the matter _ with him, and the engineer said that if he had made any mistake that it was his own fault, that he had no knowledge of the matter, and could give him no explanation. He tendered on the specification. He claims that his tender was too low, owing to a mistake. The department has taken no further action. No contract has been awarded to anybody and no cheque has I been returned to any body except the che-I ques in the first instance where the parties l were notified that neither tender would be

accepted. Since taking the second tenders and awarding the contract to Mr. Conroy nothing has been done, and the matter stands in that position at this moment. The next lowest tenderer's name has been mentioned by my hon. friend, but the contract has not been awarded to him or to anybody else.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was Mr. Battle's cheque returned ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think nobody's cheque has been returned except the two cheques in the first instance. I have not had Mr. Battle's cheque partieularlybefore me. therefore I would not be positive about that. Mr. Battle's name has not been in the matter so much as Mr. Conroy's. The contract has not been awarded to Mr. Battle. I do not think it is likely the cheque has been returned to him, although that may be possible. I will have to make further inquiries on that point.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the hon. minister to say that the cheques other than that of Mr. Conroy were returned. Was the Battle cheque returned ?


William Stevens Fielding: Before being too positive I shall have to make further inquiry regarding the Battle eheque. As the contract has not been awarded to him his name has not been in the matter so prominently as that of Mr. Conroy. It was about the case of Mr. Conroy particularly that I made inquiries.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the file shew any correspondence between the department and Mr. Battle relative to the return of his cheque?


William Stevens Fielding: The notice of the hon. gentleman, which, by the way, was addressed to Mr. Hyman, who, he must have known, was not in town, and who, in addition, is not even a member of this House at this moment, was only shown to me between twelve and one o'clock and I made a very hurried inquiry. I have not had time to go through the file and therefore cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question on that point.


William Humphrey Bennett: The envelope was addressed to the Deputy Minister of Public Works, because I did not know that the hon. Minister of Finance was acting for the Minister of Public Works. It was addressed to Mr. Gobeil, for Mr. Hyman, Minister of Public Works. I do not know how I addressed it inside. However, that is immaterial. What we want is the information. There are certain things that are not shown by the documents at all and which are evidently known to my informant, and the certain things known to my informant are that Mr. Conroy and Mr. Battle are not unknown to each other by any means, that they would probably be quite (Mr. FIELDING.
able to recognize each other if they met on the street, that Mr. Conroy had a low tender in, that Mr. Battle had a higher tender in, and that if there was no intervening tender and it could be arranged for Mr. Conroy to drop out and for Mr. Battle to drop in it would be a very nice arrangement for these two gentlemen. As these two gentlemen are very strong political allies of hon. gentlemen opposite it was thought that such an arrangement might be worked out. These tenders were called for on the 7th April. The people of Colling-wood are insisting upon this dock being built, yet,, although the hon. Minister of Public Works has had their cheques for two months and has had the contract ready for two months-it will be two months on the 7th of next month-the contract has not yet been signed. It is not alleged on the part of these people that they made any mistake in their additions or anything of that kind at all, but they went to Major Gray, who was the engineer of the department and who is now deceased, and alleged that their tender was too low. Has it come to this that anybody can get out of his tender by going to the engineer of the department and saying:	I will not make any
money out of it ? Although two months have elapsed the department has not yet called for new tenders. Does the hon. minister think that is reasonable?


William Stevens Fielding: That did not happen to be the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a very serious question. The people want the dock. You have called for tenders and nearly two months have now elapsed.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They called for tenders last October.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, the second tenders were called for last April. Here is another item in this same paper relative to this same dock which did yeoman service in the last election:
Mr. McCarthy's success in securing another grant for the improvement of the harbour cannot but be gratifying to.the people of Colling-wood. Without any fuss or feathers he has been steadily and persistently presenting our claims and always with good results. This time the grant is an even fifty thousand dollars, a sufficient sum to provide the new wharf and to continue the dredging which has been going on almost continuously for six or seven years. The people of Collingwood stood by McCarthy wThen the opportunity offered, and he is now returning the compliment.
That is more than the hon. member (Mr. McCarthy) has done for the government. He had a chance to return the compliment the other day but he did not vote for them.


William Stevens Fielding: He had quite enough substitutes on the other side to make it good.


William Humphrey Bennett: That may be. but if the hon. gentleman acted on principle


William Stevens Fielding: I thought hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House acted on principle.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman acted from the motive of profit, and if it does not profit him he apparently does not support the government. This matter is not new in the department at all. It was pending before the elections last fall and two tenders were put in.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend think one of these tenders should have been accepted?


William Humphrey Bennett: I know nothing about that.


William Stevens Fielding: Then why say so?


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know why it was not. I have not the figures before me, but it was expected, according to my information, that the dock was to be gone on with long ago, and that was the reason that tenders were called for. Tenders were received nearly two months ago and the department had these tenders in their hands until this Mr. Conroy came and asked to be relieved. I am going to tell the hon. minister something now that perhaps he will admit engenders a little suspicion. I had Bradstreet's hunted up to-day. It was intimated that Mr. Conroy might be a Peterborough man. This contractor who has had a $30,000 work offered to him does not figure in Bradstreet's as having any financial rating at all. That is an additional reason for returning him his cheque for $4,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the hon. gentleman referring to Mr. Conroy?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, he has no financial rating in Bradstreet's.


William Stevens Fielding: Why does my hon. friend repeatedly talk of returning his cheque. I have told him that Mr. Conroy's cheque has not been returned. Why repeat again and again about returning his cheque?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am simply saying that Mr. Conroy is praying for the return of his cheque.


William Stevens Fielding: We cannot deny him the privilege of praying.


William Humphrey Bennett: The department knew two months ago that he was the lowest tenderer and yet the department have not even notified him and the file will not bear it out to-day that his cheque will not be returned and that he will have to go on with this work.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no need of telling him that his cheque will not be returned.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, but somebody in the department tells the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that the contract with Mr. Conroy is to be at an end and that the contract is to be given to Battle Brothers for $30,000 or $5,000 higher than the figure of the other man. We will await and my informant will await with interest to see whether this work is given to Battle Brothers and there will be no excuse for not calling for tenders again if the department intend to take the work away from Mr. Conroy who is a political friend of theirs and give him back his cheque for $4,000. I understand that Mr. Battle cuts a very small figure. You cannot take up a little local paper published in any part of the province of Ontario with a circulation of 200 or 300 that does not contain an advertisement calling for tenders for something. This very paper has an advertisement calling for tenders for supplies for Kingston penitentiary, as if anybody in Collingwood would be supplying Kingston penitentiary.


William Stevens Fielding: They only send inmates.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is rather hard on Collingwood. I am going to await with interest, and I think the people of Collingwood and my informant and others who think they smell a rat, will await with interest to see what is going to be done, whether Mr. Conroy is going to be held to his contract, his cheque retained and he obliged to go on with the work, or whether it is to be handed over to Battle Brothers, and whether they are to have a $30,000 contract without new tenders being called for. If they get that extra $5,000 it will be a handsome profit on a comparatively small work. Battle Brothers are not unknown to the department. I think that one of the brothers has been a candidate in one of these ridings in either a local or Dominion election-I do not at this moment remember which. But, they are very prominent Liberals in that district, and if Mr. Conroy is to have this cheque returned by the department instead of being obliged to forfeit his cheque, and if Mr. McCarthy sends word to the newspaper-for presumably it must be from him-that they are done with Mr. Conroy and are now going to deal with Mr. Battle at the advanced rate, I think we should keep our eye on this and see what the outcome will be.


Mr FIELDING.: We shall be glad to have my hon. friend keep his eye on the affair, but I think it is a pity that he did not wait until there was some substantial ground to bring the matter up. I am at a loss to find what his ground for complaint is. What is wrong ?


William Humphrey Bennett: You were most anxious to show your good faith with the people of Collingwood eight months ago to show them

that you intended to build a dock there- that was during the election-and I think the government did intend to build the dock. Here to-day what are you doing ? You have had the cheque of this gentleman for two months and you are not forcing him on with his contract, but are holding the cheque in abeyance and your representative Mr. McCarthy comes up there presumably and through the local Liberal paper makes the announcement that the man who put in the low tender is to be released from his contract. That means that his cheque will be returned and the other men who had the higher tender by $5,000 are given the contract and that they need not worry at all that the work is to go on at once. We will wait and see whether the work does go on, whether the Battles are given the contract at $5,000 advance without any tender or competition and whether a return is made of the $4,000 to Mr. Conroy.


William Stevens Fielding: I am still at a loss to find out what is my hon. friend's grievance ; every part of this business is absolutely straight and businesslike.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. member for North Simcoe were here-
~

must absolutely be some corruption somewhere. What is the fact ? The lowest tender happened to be by thousands of dollars in excess of the engineer's estimate and therefore the minister says : I shall not accept that. Anything wrong about that ? Anything corrupt about that ? That suspicion is set at rest at once by that very simple explanation, of what my hon. friend would try to make out is some dreadfully bad part of the transaction.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is the second set of tenders I referred to.
Mi'- FIELDING. My hon. friend dealt v ith the first. He said it was very strange that a contract was not awarded on the first and gives as a reason that the contract would not go to the right man. We pass from the first and come to the second.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What was the amount of the lowest tender in the first lot ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think perhaps the leader of the opposition will agree with me that where the transaction is not yet completed and the contracts signed, it would not be prudent to quote the tenders.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not dealing with the hon. member for North Simcoe.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my hon. friend should not make any reference to them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Once before you were calling for tenders, and now you have accepted the lowest tender and held it for two months, you do not force the contract- or to go on or make him estreat his cheque. That is the complaint of the people of Collingwood to-day, that you are playing fast and loose with them and there is a suspicion there that you are going to let the lowest tenderer drop out.


William Stevens Fielding: Suspicion haunts the guilty mind ; so says a famous philosopher.


George Eulas Foster: Who says that ? Give your authority.


William Stevens Fielding: I made a reference but I did not give the figures ; I have not given the amount of any tender.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister must remember this that he is very extravagant often in his speech and what may be only a trifling sum may to him be thousands and thousands.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say ' thousands and thousands,' I said ' thousands/


Mr.   I@: Why is silence with regard to that more important than silence with regard to the one under consideration?


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: As respects both I do not think it wise to give the figures.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the estimate of the engineer ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I should give that. Here is a transaction which is not completed. We are having difficulty with the contractor, he wants to get out of the contract and be rid of it. I think under such circumstances it would not be wise to give all the figures of the contract, but when we are accused of not accepting the first tender, because there is some job and suspicion and corruption in it, I think lam justified in giving the reasons why the first tender was not acept-ed, because it was thousands of dollars in excess of the figures of the engineer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has my hon. friend seen the figures or is he repeating what he has been told ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not seen the figures, but I have no reason to believe that the officers of the department would put figures before me that are fraudulent.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It might be ; it has been done before.


William Stevens Fielding: I am bound to say that from all the transactions I have had with the officers of the government of Canada, I do not think that a deputy minister or an engineer would put figures before me which were not correct.
engineer replied that the estimate was carefully made, that his price was reasonable and that the work should be done tor that price. Thereupon the minister on that: advice decided that he would not award the contract at a price which he believed to be excessive. I think the hou. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) will admit that that is a fair, businesslike transaction.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not think the public service will suffer by stating who the lowest man is. That is the suspicious point in Collingwood.


Mr.   I@: These figures seem to have got into the columns of a journal friendly to the government in some way.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps so.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman can see here that this tender was for $25,000 and the other in the vicinity of $30,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend will agree that it is not wise that I should either confirm or deny the figures that are given. It sometimes happens that information of this kind is obtained by the newspapers in a partial and inaccurate form.
I have given the reason in answer to the hon. member for Simcoe why the first tender was not accepted. The reason was that the value of the work according to the estimates of the engineers was materially below the tender price and after consultation with the engineer as to whether there was not a mistake and whether the estimates were carefully prepared the minister was advised that the engineer's estimates were quite reasonable and safe, that the tender price was too high and for that reason and. for no other the minister declined to accept the tender.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the low tender on the first occasion the tender of Battle Bros., or was it in Conroy's name ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I should answer my hon. friend's question. I am not so sure that I should answer that, but rather than have any doubt I shall say that it was not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister state who it was ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think I had better not at the present time. At the same time it did not make any difference.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is a lot of suspicion in Collingwood about it.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. member for Simcoe will accept this reasonable explanation, that after the tenders had been received the first tender was found to be materially in excess of the engineer's estimate. Thereupon the engineer was asked whether he had made any mistake, whether he bad revised his estimates and was satisfied that this was a reasonable price. The


William Stevens Fielding: It will not make any difference and by and by when the transaction is completed the papers will be brought down and it will be seen that the low tender was several thousand dollars in excess of the engineer's estimate. That I say, was a sufficient reason why the mm-ister should refuse to accept it after he had consulted the engineer again to see it the estimate had been carefully prepared. That disposes of the first tender.


William Humphrey Bennett: Not unless I know his name.


William Stevens Fielding: I assure my hon. friend if he knew the name it would make no difference.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps not.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it satisfy him if I gave the name


William Humphrey Bennett: It might satisfy the people of Collingwood.


William Stevens Fielding: I have such faith in the people of Collingwood that I believe when they hear the explanation on that point they will be satisfied.


George Eulas Foster: They will know the figures.


Mr FIELDING.: They will not from anything I said. Now as to the second tenders they were invited in the usual way, the contract was awarded to the contractor whose tender was lowest. His name was Edward Conroy. He was notified that the contract was awarded to him as he was re-nuested to sign his contract. Mr. Conroy refused to sign it. He communicated
ege of withdrawing his tender. There is where the matter stands at this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: How long ago was that 1


Mr FIELDING.: The notice was sent to Mr Conroy on the 7th of April to execute the contract immediately, and giving him till the loth of April to execute it. He did not execute it. On the 19th of April .he communicated with the department, asking

that the matter be deferred, and he would come and see the minister with a view to presenting a statement showing why he could not go on. I -presume he did see the minister. At all events, he saw the engineer in Toronto, the 'late Mr. Gray, and discussed the matter with him. Mr. Gray told him that he could not interfere, that if a man had made a mistake that was his own business. Mr. Conroy refused to sign the contract, and we have his cheque in our hands. Will any lion, gentleman sav what is wrong in all that ?


Mr. STOCKTON.: How long are vou going to allow that to continue ?


Mn FIELDING.: That i-s opening another question. The hou. gentleman is not finding any corruption, or suspicion, or smelling a lat, lie is simply asking : When are you going to .push the work on ? I can appreciate that. But that is not the line taken by the hon. member for E-ast Sirncoe ; it is the rat he is after. If any hon. gentleman says : You had better accept some tender and get the work done, that is another matter ; but, as the matter stands, we have not been able to get Mr. Conroy to sign the contract, and we have his cheque. The hon. gentleman says : Why don't you make him sign the contract ? -How are you going to do that ?


Mr. BEINNETT.: Forfeit his cheque.


William Stevens Fielding: We have his cheque.


William Humphrey Bennett: You have not cashed it.


William Stevens Fielding: But the hon. gentleman said he had authority for the statement that the cheque would be given back.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not. I said that Mr McCarthy was authority for the fact, as stated in the paper, that Mr. Conroy would be dropped and the other man would be substituted at $5,000 advance, and I think he will be.
'Mr. FIELDING. I am not dealing with the would-be's ; I am dealing with the facts as they exist up to the present time ; and when the transaction is completed and the papers are brought down, I think they will be found to toe exactly as I have now placed them before the House.


Mr. FINLAY.: For the satisfaction of the hon. member for East Sirncoe, I may say that I was present when Mr. Conroy asked for his cheque to be returned to him, and I heard the minister refuse to give it! The hon. member for East Sirncoe says that Mr. Conroy has no financial standing. I can say, of my own knowledge, that Mr. Lonroy is worth $30,000.
BENNETT; I Simply stated that he had no financial rating in Bradstreet.
wmfh	i There are many men
worth $30 000 whose names are not mentioned ni Bradstreet at all.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Mr.   R.@: l. BORDEN. The matter is brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from East Sirncoe (Mr. Bennett) by reason of a statement made in a public journal, which I understand is a warm supporter of the administration. Tliat journal states the amount of the tenders now under the consideration of the department-one $25,000 and the other $30,000 ; that the man who made the tender of $25,000 does not propose to carry it out; and that the representative of the county has practically undertaken to have his cheque returned. My hou. friend the Minister of Finance says there is no danger of his cheque being returned.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say anything of the sort.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. frieud suggested that; he is more given to suggestion than to actual statement. We heard a great deal about -a certain cheque that was put up by a firm in England which was going to establish a fast Atlantic service ; we beard a great deal about a guarantee of that firm, and we were assured by the Finance Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other ministers, that there was no doubt that we should have a fast Atlantic service within two or three years, because we had this cheque and this guarantee, and the coffers of this country would be enriched to that extent if those gentlemen did not carry out their engagement. The result of it all was that the guarantee was cancelled and the amount of the cheque was handed back, and banded back with interest four or five years afterwards. 'So that perhaps there is room for suspicion in the mind of my hon. friend from East Sirncoe, when he states that there may be a good deal in -what is suggested in the columns of this newspaper. What is mentioned by the Minister of Finance is not the only ground that there is for suspicion at the present time. It arises out of the very circumstance mentioned toy my hon. friend from East Sirncoe and my hon. friend from the city and county of St. John, namely, that the government was in a hurry to push this matter eight months ago, when there was a general election on hand, and that they are taking the situation very leisurely at the present -time ? This man was ordered to sign his contract before the loth of April, but we are now near the 1st of June, and no action has been taken either with regard to the forfeiture of his cheque or the assignment of the contract to any one else. Has there not been time to deal'with the situation since that date ? I would think theie has 'been ample time. It is true, you cannot compel this man -to sign these documents except by -a -long procedure in the courts ; it is true, you cannot compel him to carry out the work ; but you can make up your mind within two or three days after be has refused to carry out his engage-

ment wliat you will do with him. If the situation was urgent enough to call for tenders in the midst of an election campaign last autumn, one would think it was urgent enough to justify the government in taking action within four or five weeks after this man had refused to sign the contract. You may deal with him in several ways. You may come to the conclusion that he was misled in some way, that therefore it would not be right to compel him to go on with the contract, and that his cheque should be given back to him ; or you may consider that it would be right for the government to exact from him the performance of the engagement that he has undertaken. If you adopt that conclusion, you have before you the necessity of considering whether you will accept the next tender or advertise for new tenders. But it should not take five or six weeks to come to some conclusion, and for that reason I think my hon. friend from East Simcoe is amply justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the cheque which was returned in connection with the proposed fast Atlantic service, that was returned toy a vote of the House several years afterwards and after full consideration. There is no comparison between a matter in which the money was in our possession for years and a matter which is only a few weeks old. As my hon. friend thinks things of this kind can be done in such a hurry, perhaps he will find some day that there are reasons for delays, and that government business cannot be transacted as quickly as some hon. gentlemen think.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY RATES.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: On the 17th of May the Minister of Railways and Canals occupied two or three hours of the valuable time of the House in trying to make the House and the country believe that I had made a statement in reference to the rates between Gananoque and Fredericton which was not correct. He stated on that occasion, on page 6335 of Unrevised ' Hansard ' :
Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to make an explanation with respect to a question raised by my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in connection with the freight rates on the Intercolonial.
On the 27th of April my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) spoke of the alleged increase of these Tates. I quote from the hon. gentleman's remarks as they appear at page 4997, revised [DOT]* Hansard.'
The minister then quoted what I stated, and in reply to the question raised by the toon, member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) he said :
Mr. EMjMERSON. If my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) will! pardon jne, I will point out that the change was with regard to Fredericton
alone-there is no change in freight^ rates on the Canada Eastern or any other portion of the Intercolonial. The change is only with respect to Fredericton, and there it is because the Canadian Pacific Railway controlled this situation and had secured that rate. The result is that the Intercolonial does not get the traffic to Fredericton.
At page 6354 * Hausard,' the Minister of Railways said further :


Mr. EMMERSON.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshubt) allow me. The increase affects the city of Fredericton alone. Right opposite, at Gibson, or at Marysville, on the line of the Canada Eastern, there is no increase on the Intercolonial.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the hon. minister say that this applies only to the city of Fredericton and that there is no increase at Marysville ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no increase at Marysville or at any point on the Intercolonial, except at Fredericton, where there has been an increase by the two railways, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific which made this arrangement
The Minister of Railways had read circulars from the officers of his road, and he made statements himself trying to prove that my statement was not correct when I said ; That we had been shipping to Fredericton at 58 cents under the old tariff and that since they acquired the Canada Eastern we were paying 66 cents. I now hold in my hand the tariff of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the Grand Trunk Railway. Here is Canadian Pacific Railway tariff E. U. No. 28. issued 27th of .Tune, 1902, and here is the new one issued 1st May, 1905, effective on the 6th. of March, I quote :
Canada Eastern Railway, Chatham and Fredericton branches of the Intercolonial Railway, arbitraries on page 4 of tariff ' ED,' 28, will be cancelled and the following substituted : To make through rates to Fredericton, Marysville and Gibson, New Brunswick, add to the St. John, New Brunswick, rates the following cents per 100 pounds on first-class goods : 8 cents.
The rate to St. John was 58 cents, add i cents and you have 66 cents. The minister stated that this tariff only applied to Fred

ricton, but here the Canadian Pacific Railway tariff states that it applies to Frederic-on, Marysville and Gibson, and yet the minster contradicted the hon. member from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and the bon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) and said it only applied to Fredericton. The Grand Trunk Railway tariff proves it more effectively. 1 have in my hand the Grand Trunk Railway tariff GM 10, taking effect 14th December, 1903 The tariff is given in groups to all the different points : group E to Newcastle, .,-roun F to Chatham Junction, group G to It John, group H to Halifax, group J to Mulgrave, group K to Point Tupper, group L to Sydney, and group M to West St. John. The tariff says that from stations in the following groups (No. 8 group takes in Mallory-town, Lansdowne, Thousand Island Junction and Rideau). the rate from any of these sta-

65S8
tions to St. John was 58 cents on first-class, and that covered Fredericton. The Grand Trunk Railway did not put on an arbitrary there, but they formed a new group and in their tariff of the 10th of November, 1904. effective 15th November, 1904, they issued a statement saying that the following stations will take group N. Group N was a new group that was formed. Up to this time group M was the last group they had, but they specially got up a group to cover Fredericton, Marysville and Gibson and it says :
The following stations will take group ' N,' Fredericton rates : Fredericton, Gibson and Marysville, New Brunswick. First-class rate 66 cents.
Here we have the Grand Trunk Railway tariff showing that the increased rate applies to Fredericton, Gibson and Marysville. And jet in the face of that, the minister occupied the time of the House for a couple of hours on the 17th of May stating emphatically out of the mouths of his officers, that there was no change in tariff to any point but Fredericton while in this very tariff which I will send over to the minister he will find that the rate to Fredericton, Gibson and Marysville is 66 cents as compared with 58 cents prior to the acquisition of the Canada Eastern. I want to put myself right befbre the House and the country for I never make a statement that I do not feel satisfied is correct. I was absolutely correct and the Minister of Railways was absolutely wrong, and he made a statement that he and his officers ought to have known was not correct when he made it.


Hon.   H.@: It. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals). I am afraid my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is somewhat extravagant m his- remarks this afternoon. He started out with saying that I occupied the time of the House recently for three hours in trying to prove that he was wrong, but he qualified that statement later on by bringing it down to two hours.


George Taylor: * Hansard ' will not show that I said three hours ; I said from two to three hours.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now that my hon. friend has got it down to two hours, perhaps he might throw a little off that.


George Taylor: No ; I think the discussion, lasted that long.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Be that as it may, what are the facts ? During the course of a debate some weeks ago the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) made certain statements in connection with freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway, and after expressing some surprise at his statements I promised to give him the information later-not to prove that lie v as not correct but to give the explanation ot the officials of the railroad. I communicated "with the traffic manager and he wrote me in reply a letter which I asked the Mr. TAYLOR.
permission of the House to read. In that reply the traffic manager stated in effect, that all points between Fredericton and Chatham Junction were on the same basis as they had originally been ; that is, they were put in the Moncton zone of freight rates. On that authority I made the statement.
Mr. TAY'LOR. Not Moncton but St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Moncton and St. John are on a par ; and things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.


David Henderson: Correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I had remembered it correctly. The point I was making is :-and my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) proves it-that it was by the action of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway-


George Taylor: With the consent and approval-


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, not with the consent, hut as against the protest of the Inter-colonal Railway traffic official, they had arbitrarily fixed the rate to Fredericton ; and they were enabled to do so by reason of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway reached Fredericton. I assume that the traffic manager, in writing to me, did not take into consideration the fact that Gibson is connected directly with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and therefore the Canadian Pacific can control the Gibson rates in the same way they can control the Fredericton rates. And Marysville


George Taylor: May I ask the minister why he was so emphatic in reply to the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) saying that it did not apply to Marysville and Gibson ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I made that statement because of the statement in the letter of the traffic manager to the effect that the points between Fredericton and Chatham Junction were not affected.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it because the Canadian Pacific Railway directly touches Fredericton and Gibson that they are able to control Intercolonial rates at these points ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is because the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as I understand it, have entered into an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway as to freight originating west of Montreal. Marysville is not directly on the Canadian Pacific Railway, but is distant a mile or thereabouts-it is within cartage distance.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is three miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not from where their station is ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, it is certainly three miles to Fredericton.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not as familiar with it as my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket), but it is within cartage distance. In Fredericton there are factories to which freight would have to be carted almost the same distance as to Gibson or Marysville. But it is because of this position that the freight rates are made the same as for Fredericton- that the Canadian Pacific Railway controls the situation and they can by arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway change these rates. But from the points which the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot touch, that is points on the Intercolonial Railway which are not affected by compact with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the rates are precisely the same. Take Bolestown for instance or Cross Creek, or Stanley


George Taylor: The tariff gives all these.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. All these points which are not controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway and cannot in any sense be the subject of contract between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, have the same rates as before. Therefore, substantially what I stated is proved by the explanation of my hon. friend.


George Taylor: And so is the statement I made. But what I want to ask is whether the Railway Commission approved of these two new tariffs issued by these companies, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway on November 16, taking effect next day and one of the Grand Trunk Railway on March 17 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware whether they were approved by the Railway Commission or even considered by them. I know that the railways have the right to file with the Railway Commission joint tariffs ; and until that commission takes action, either amending or revising that tariff1, it would be effective. Whether they did file these tariffs, as provided by the law, or not, I am not personally informed.


George Taylor: Will he ascertain whether they have been filed and approved and how long the government is going to allow them to run until they are approved of ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The government has no right to affect that.


George Taylor: The government can control the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The government does not control the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission is an independent body ; it stands independent of the government, the railways and the patrons of these railways. Any shipper on the line of any of these roads has the right to ask the commission to revise the tariffs. It is true that the Minister of Railways can ask the Railway Commission to take action and decide matters to which his attention is called. But the government has no control of the decisions of the commission, nor does it decide
the time when such matters should be taken up. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has not in any way maintained his original position. He undertook to say that the freight rates from Trenton and Sydney . to Brockville and Gananoque were greater than they were from Gananoque or Brockville to Pittsburg.


George Taylor: At 37 cents.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not take um-barge at my hon. friend making such a statement. Of course I should have been surprised to find the hon. gentleman's information correct. I made inquiry and found that the distance between Trenton and Brockville was very much greater than the distance between Pittsburg and Brockville.


George Taylor: I did not complain of that; what I complained of rvas the 37 cents to Gananoque-25 cents and 12 cents.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But he undertook to east reproach in some way upon the Intercolonial by reason of that.


George Taylor: Upon the combine. Because, I consider you are all in an arrangement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But the facts show that my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is not looking at it in the right spirit.
Mr. TAYLOR, I am one of the sufferers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend knows that this carload to which he refers wras billed from Trenton to Brockville. The car reached Brockville, and the Intercolonial had nothing to do with it.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) cannot expect the rate to Gananoque to be the same as the rates to Brockville. An important point like Brockville of course, must have a different rate from a place like Gananoque.


Henry Robert Emmerson: After the car had reached Brockville the consignee, I understand, desired to have it sent on to Brockville. It was subject to local rates over the Grand Trunk Railway from Brockville to Gananoque. No reproach can be cast on the Intercolonial for discrimination on the part of the Intercolonial in such a case.


George Taylor: I brought it up in order that the Railway Oommission_ might consider the grievance-a rate of 25 cents from Trenton to Brockville and 12 cents for the thirty miles to Gananoque.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) knows that there is a great distinction between the through rate and the local rate. He must have known indeed that if these statements were not true he was doing a great injustice to the management of the Intercolonial in bringing the name of that railway into question at all. The way he

placed the matter before the House would lead one to conclude that the Intercolonial was at fault, that the officers of the Intercolonial were discriminating unfairly in the application of freight rates. I so understood him, and I asked for an explanation, because it is my desire, so far as I am responsible for the administration of that railway, that the rates shall not be discriminatory, that they shall be fair and equitable to all sections of country so far as it is possible to make them so. I am glad my hon. friend has made this explanation, he has clearly proved that the Intercolonial is not at fault, that the Intercolonial is not responsible for-increased rates to and from Fredericton, or to and from points that are included within the Fredericton zone, and which are controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I thank him for bringing it to the attention of the House, and for emphasizing the fact that the Intercolonial is in no sense responsible for that increased rate on traffic originating west of Montreal.


Oswald Smith Crocket: During the discussion of this matter the other day I asked the Minister of Railways if the increase applied only to Fredericton, and he informed me then that it did, and that there was no increase to Marysville or to Gibson. Now the statement of the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) indicates that the minister was mistaken in the answer he gave to my question. I may say in connection with this matter, that the council of the Fredericton Board of Tr-ade had a meeting on Wednesday night, and I have here a copy of the Fredericton ' Gleaner ' of last night, containing _an account of that meeting. It was stated in the course of the discussion here that the merchants of Fredericton had agreed to this increase in the Fredericton rates. At the time I was at a loss to know why they should have done so, because the letter which the minister read from the general traffic manager of the Intercolonial stated that the Intercolonial authorities themselves considered that the discrimination against Fredericton was most unfair. In the report of the meeting to which I refer, I find this :
Mr. Hodge stated that Messrs. Randolph, Sterling, himself and other men had complained at the differential of three cents per hundred weight over the rate on all freight from Montreal and points west of Montreal to St John, Moncton and other places with which they had always enjoyed the same rate. They later met the Canadian Pacific Railway officials, and after a conference decided to accept the differential on all other classes of goods providing that they got the same rate on grain produce that St. John, Moncton and other places enjoyed.
Mr. Randolph explained that the Canadian Pacific Railway had claimed that -they had changed their rates from Fredericton north and that that justified them in raising the rate on freight coming in. The merchants claimed that this was not fair and the changes did not bring it down as far as a mileage basis. When the Mr. EMMERSON.
Canadian Pacific Railway officials offered to put the rates on grain back the merchants felt that it was better to take that offer than nothing at all. A month or so later Mr. Randolph's firm wrote complaining of the arrangement to the general freight agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Mr. Randolph pointed out that for a long haul to Sydney the rate was the same as to Fredericton.
So it seems that the wholesale grocers of Fredericton did assent to the rate being maintained, to the increase being maintained, on other classes of goods than on grain products, because they could do no better. But the board of trade, at a meeting, ou Wednesday, passed a strong resolution protesting against this discrimination. I may say that the people of Fredericton feel that the discrimination is most unfair and unjust. It is not only the merchants of the city of Fredericton who are interested in this matter, but it is the people who purchase the goods ; the farmers, the mechanics and the labourers of the city of Fredericton and the county of York are paying this increase, and the whole community is very much opposed to this discrimination, and very much disappointed that it has resulted from the acquisition by the government of the Canada Eastern Railway. The great argument, I may say, that was made iu the county of York with reference to the acquisition of the Canada Eastern Railway by the government was that if the government did not acquire it the Canadian Pacific Railway would, and that we would be entirely in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to freight rates. It is rather disappointing then to say the least, to hear the admission made upon the floor of this House by the Minister of Railways that the Canadian Pacific Railway now controls the freight rates of the Intercolonial to Fredericton-that is the admission which I understand the minister to make that at Fredericton and all points that are touched directly by the Canadian Pacific Railway, that road determines the rate. That is a matter of great disappointment to the people of Fredericton. Now the correspondence which the minister referred to the other day shows that, as I said before, the Intercolonial authorities themselves recognize the injustice of the discrimination, and I do hope that the Minister of Railways will exert his influence to have that discrimination removed as speedily as possibly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Debates-amount required to cover expenditure for session of 1904 paid during present financial year, $31,503.74.
George Eulas Foster: What was the main vote ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is largely owing to the fact that the session of 1904 was so long. The session was estimated at 130 days, but it exceeded that by 41 days. These 41 days had to be taken into con-

sideration this year. The items are as follows : Amanuenses for ' Debates ' reporters during the extra period, $1,291.50; printing and binding, printing paper, $29,066.01. This represents the accounts of the Printing Bureau for work done after the first of July, 1904. to the end of the session. Seven hundred dollars is for the preparation of the analytical index. The Debates Committee ordered this index to be prepared last year.


George Eulas Foster: That is the index of the ' Hansard ? '


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is it being carried out this year as I think it was last year, namely, that the whole index is not in each volume of the ' Hansard.' I want to call the attention of the speaker and the committee to this, because it seems to me to be a very inconvenient way. I send for the ' Hansard,' quickly or not in order to look for a certain thing. I do not know how many volumes of the ' Hansard ' I may be obliged to get before I get the particular volume that I want. It used to be always so that no matter what volume of the 'Hansard ' you got you had the complete index of all the volumes.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that is still so.


George Eulas Foster: No, as I understand it now, you do not have a complete index in every volume of the ' Hansard.' You have an index for each volume, and consequently you may have to send for and look up all the volumes before you get the one you want. That is very inconvenient and I do not think the little amount of expense that would cover the paper, because that would be about what it would be, is a sufficient reason why we should not have a complete index in every volume.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. member is in error about that, although I speak with some hesitation about it, but my recollection, being then a member of the Debates Committee, was that the intention was that each volume, consisting of approximately 2,000 columns and being of a uniform size, should have an index of the contents of that volume, the complete index of all the volumes to be in the last volume.


George Eulas Foster: That is what I mean ; you only get the complete index in the last volume.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Oh, yes, I see. You want the index in all ?


George Eulas Foster: I want it in all. It is now very inconvenient.
Mr. SPEAKER, The idea of the committee at that time, as I well recollect, was that it would be a very convenient thing to have the bound volumes of the * Hansard ' put into the hands of the members at the earliest possible date. If that is done it is manifestly impossible to have a complete index in each because the complete index cannot be ready until all the volumes are out. The idea of the committee was that, instead of having these loose volumes prepared by the pages, a volume of
2,000	columns should be printed and bound and placed in the hands of members, rather than, as has been the custom, that they receive these volumes two or three months after the session was over. That was what the committee had in view and the change was made for that reason. If it is not considered wise to take that course it would be a proper thing to refer the matter back to the Debates Committee to consider it further. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who is a member of the committee, will probably remember the reasons which actuated the committee in making the change.


George Taylor: We have our hands full of trouble on the Debates Committee every session. Last session a change was made. The government appeared to have had a gentleman that they had to find a job for in the person of Mr. McGillicuddy, and it was suggested to change the system of indexing the ' Hansard.' It was proposed that we should get up an analytical index, he was engaged to do it and the whole system was changed. But, the members found It was so inconvenient that at the first meeting of the Debates Committee this year we changed the system and went back to the old system, and in every volume of ' Hansard ' for this year and future sessions, until the government have another gentleman that they want to find a job for, there will he found a complete index. The Debates Committee recommended and the House has approved of it, that we should revert to the old system of having a complete index in every volume of 'Hansard.' That will go into operation this session.
Committees-additional amount required, $2,-
000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the explanation of that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is in connection with reporting and the payment of witness fees for the Telephone Committee and the Agriculture and Colonization Committee.
Stationery-additional amount required, $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the main vote for stationery?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have not that at hand.
The reason that this additional vote is asked is owing to the length of the last two sessions. The stock was very much reduced, and then the Toronto fire prevented the stationer from securing from local people the necessary supply with the result that quite a lot had to be imported
<5595

from Massachusetts and heavy express charges had to be paid upon it. But, the principal reason why this additional vote was required, was because of the length of the last two sessions, one of five months and the other of seven. The main estimate I find now was $15,300.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: I would call the attention of the committee to the quality of some of the note paper which is supplied to members of the House. I have made application for paper over and over again and I have been supplied with paper of a very poor quality. I have been supplied with paper which was not worth more than two or three cents or at the most five cents a quire. On one occasion when I sent for note paper I was told that all the note paper was in our boxes. I think there is a great deal of favouritism and partiality shown in the stationery office.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will call the attention of the stationer to the hon. gentleman's remarks.
Sessional clerks, $11,700.


George Eulas Foster: What was the original vote for that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


George Eulas Foster: What Is the cause of that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The same remark I made a little while ago in connection with another item, that is the extra length of the session of 41 days to be provided for this year, applies to this.


George Eulas Foster: How many sessional clerks have we ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are 30.


George Eulas Foster: Now will the Speaker tell us what is the duty of those clerks, whom do they serve and at whose wishes do they do their work ? I would like to know and I do not know what the position is, whether the members are to get any use of them or have they special duties or how is it ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: These clerks are strictly under the direction of the clerk of the House and their first duty is to serve requests from the House, to prepare papers, copy papers, or do any departmental work of that character.


George Eulas Foster: That is from the clerk of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: From the clerk of the House, which is called for by reason of the action of the House. Then if they have any extra time, as they frequently have, it litis been the custom, us far as I can gather, for them to serve members. Any statements or copies in connection with departmental documents that are asked of it is their duty if they have the leisure The SPEAKER.
time to prepare at the request of the members. They are liable of course to be called upon to attend on the select committees and to prepare statements, documents, or serve them in any way. These are in a general way the duties of the sessional clerks.


George Eulas Foster: These sessional clerks are all clerks. They do not do the work of messengers or anything like that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No.


George Eulas Foster: What is the legal number provided for ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am informed by the clerk that there are 30 sessional clerks.


George Eulas Foster: And you have now ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: We have a full list of 30.


George Eulas Foster: I think the statement was made that the sessional clerks were 52.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The messengers alone are 52.


George Eulas Foster: I am not speaking of the messengers. We are on the vote for sessional clerks and I asked how many sessional clerks there were and the answer I got was 52.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is wrong, there are 30.	28 permanent sessional clerks and 2
extra sessional clerks.


George Eulas Foster: How many sessional clerks are being paid out of this vote ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: These 30.


George Eulas Foster: And are there not more than 30 ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No. There are no more sessional clerks than these.


George Eulas Foster: This vote that is now being taken is simply to pay for the 30 sessional clerks and for no other service ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: For no other service for the extra 41 days.


George Eulas Foster: For the extra 41 days and for the 41 days you want a vote of $11,700 for clerk hire ? And for an ordinary session you take a vote of $13,810. That does not seem to quite fit in. Forty-one days as compared with the ordinary session ought not to give an increase of $11,700. That would give for 30 clerks a large amount of money.


Mr. BELCOURT.: As I make it the total vote of the main estimates with the vote now asked of $11,700 will make a total of about $24,000. The session lasted about 180 days and the sessional clerks are paid $4 a day. That would make $120 a day and if you multiply 120 by 180 you have a total of the two estimates about $21,000.


George Eulas Foster: What I was getting at was that if it requires $11,700 for 41 days,

if the original vote contemplating the usual session, called for $13,810 it ought not to take $11,700 to cover the extra 41 days.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman will see at once that $13,000 would not cover a session to which would be added 41 days. In other words the original estimate of $13,000 was not sufficient for the session lasting as the one we had last year lasted.


George Eulas Foster: Who made the estimate for last year ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I forgot ; the Speaker or probably the clerk.


George Eulas Foster: Why does the Speaker bring before the House an estimate which he knows is not sufficient for the ordinary session ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Because the estimate has always been based for years and years on a session of a certain number of months. The session last year not only was 41 days .onger than usual, but more than twice 41 days, so that the original estimate was found to be far out, owing to the extra time.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the intention of the government was to have a very short session when they brought that in. They did not intend to inflict that iniquity on the Northwest. Now they realize that the snow is likely to fly before they get away.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: This is last year.


Samuel Hughes: It will take possibly until next Christmas to explain to the people of the country-


Wilfrid Laurier: What is very clear.	i


Samuel Hughes: What is very clear that a great iniquity is being perpetrated on the Northwest.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Better make the estimate for a year now to be sure for the future. Where are these sessional clerks to be found; have they a room in the building here ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are they for the use of members for anything connected with the House ? If we have any translation to make or anything of the sort can we get that work done by them instead of paying out of our own pockets to have it done ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I explained a few moments ago in the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) that the first duty of these clerks is to serve the House and to serve any committee of the House in the preparation of information or documents and if they have time, as they frequently have, beyond that it is their duty to attend upon requests of members of the House, prepare
documents or statements for them or anything of the kind they can do.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Those for the committees as far as I can remember are old permanent clerks who are clerks of the Committees. They are to be found in the committee rooms where they act as secretaries.


George Eulas Foster: Are they sessional clerks?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, I would call them permanent employees, the clerk of the Agricultural, Railway, Standing Order or other committee would lie a permanent employee.
I am talking more especially of the sessional clerks. I may say I do not know where they are and I very seldom see them. I am asking this because very often we have some translation to do. To-day I have some translation to do and I have either to pay for it or do it myself if I have time.
I ask that as a matter of information.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think they could be called on to do that. It depends altogether on how much of their time Is taken up in the direct service of the House for which they are procured.


George Eulas Foster: What I would like to know is, what is this direct service which requires the employment of thirty-two sessional clerks ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If papers are called for by the House, they make copies of these.


George Eulas Foster: Not returns from the departments ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, copies of these. The department makes one copy, and further copies are made by the sessional writers ; perhaps half a dozen copies are called for. A great deal of their time is taken up in that way. I do not think that they could be called on to do any work that members might wish them to do ; but if they have leisure, they might accede to the request of members who want them to prepare matters of that kind. They occupy a room near the entrance to the gallery, where they are provided with desks and typewriters.


George Eulas Foster: We have had these thirty-two men employed for a long time, and the House has never yet had any return showing the services they have rendered. Could we not he informed just how many copies of reports they have turned off in the course of a session ? For instance, we ask for a return ; the minister lays it on the table of the House, and the clerk may ask me if I would like a copy of it. If I said I would, that is the work of a sessional clerk. When a return is brought down to the House, it is either printed or not printed. If it is not printed, I undertake to say that very few copies are required by the members during a session. 1 do not know that in the years that I have sat in the House I have ever asked for a copy of any of these papers to be made for me by the sessional clerks, and

I think that is true of most of the members. The conclusion I have come to-it may be wrong-is that for thirty-two clerks the amount of work taken out of them in preparing duplicates for the use of members is comparatively very little, and I would like to have a return of the work that is really turned out by them. We should not have thirty clerks and not keep any tab over them so as to know what they are doing. When you take away that work, what other work is there for these men to do ? In the twenty years that I have been in the House I have never had any sessional clerk do any work for me. If other members are in the same position, what are these clerks doing ? But if some members have work done by them, and know how it is done, could we not have a director of sessional clerks to whom any member could apply when he wanted the services of a clerk ? For instance, if I want a piece of work done, I do not want to go to the rooms and hunt up a clerk for that purpose. If there were a director of the clerks, I could go to him. As it is, if we pay clerks we ought not to have to waste our own brain and nerve energy in preparing statements, so Jong as they have leisure to do it. Is there any method, and if so, what is the method that is adopted in that respect ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As I said a little while ago, they are, in the first instance, under the Clerk of the House, to whom application can be made by members at any time for copies of documents ; and I am told by the clerk that application is frequently made to him and also direct to members of the staff of sessional clerks. There is a chief of that staff, Mr. Stewart, and applications can be made to him at any time in the same way. I should have said also that eight members of this staff are assigned to the post office in the House, and are there practically all the time sorting. I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member has said, that the House ought perhaps be better apprised as to what the duties of the sessional clerks are, and what reports and documents they have prepared, and I will ask the clerk to procure a statement to that effect and lay it before the House.


George Eulas Foster: Is care taken to see that the sessional clerks are really men who are capable and can be trusted to prepare, for instance, a statement which I might want for use in the debate on the budget ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: So far as I can leam, they are all pretty reliable men. It may be that in the future more attention should be paid to their being stenographers or typewriters ; but, so far as I can learn, they ajegood, reliable, trustworthy men, capable of doing any reasonable work which a member might ask to have done by them. Of course, they are answerable for their conduct to their chief, and particularly to the Clerk of the House.


George Eulas Foster: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How can we know when they are at leisure ? There is no way of finding that out unless we ask every day.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the only way would be to apply to the chief.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I believe that they are available 'mostly to members on the government side. We do not have much benefit from them. With such a number of clerks, we should have our share of them whenever it Is necessary in the public service. I am told that in the Ontario legislature there are thirty clerks who are, I imagine, like these, paid by the House, and who are at the service of the members. If I am well informed, each of these clerks is at the disposal of three members. They are very good clerks, and the members utilize them. I would also call Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that we are at a great disadvantage so far as accommodation is concerned. As to the messengers, I must say that they are really very attentive, but we have a good many round the House who seem to be assigned to some kind of special work. I have remarked during this session that the doors of the House are very badly kept. I have seen strangers ou the floor of the House, and it seems to me that should not occur when we have so many doorkeepers. I have seen men coming through those doors behind the Speaker's chair, and I have even seen a man sketching the House through the open doors. Indeed I have seen men at the back of the chamber, and on one occasion a man was smoking there. It seems to me that we have enough messengers to take care that the precincts of the chamber are kept sacred, and I would ask the Speaker to look into the matter.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The attention of the sergeant-at-arms has been called to the matter and I do not think my bon. friend will have cause to complain in future. It is proper that the chamber should be kept for the members, and that the corners should not be a loafing place for officials of the House or auy one else. There Is nu doubt that the accommodation for the sessional clerks is most miserable at present. These twrenty-two men are crowded into a room where they cannot live in comfort and health. 1 believe that question is receiving the consideration of the Department of Public Works together with the general question of better accommodation for the members of the House. As the business of the House has increased and the staff has been enlarged, there is a manifest lack of accommodation for the members, who have not at their disposal the facilities they should have for their comfort and convenience in the discharge of their duties. That whole question is at present engaging the attention of the Internal Economy Committee, and particularly the Minister of Public Works. I am in hopes that at some early day he will be able to make a statement to

the House which will be satisfactory to bon. gentlemen.


Andrew B. Ingram: The sessional clerks have never refused to typewrite and give a copy of the returns laid on the table of the House, but as I understand it the hon. member for North Toronto was asking the Speaker whether the sessional clerks are competent to secure data for the budget speech for instance, or for a reply to the budget speech. Ho I understand Mr. Speaker to say they would be competent, and prepared to do that class of work ? Suppose a member wanted to make a search in the Library for some particular information, do we understand that it would be part of the duties of a sessional clerk to procure that information ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would not think that all of them would be competent to do that work, although I am perfectly satisfied that some of them are quite competent. It has come to my notice in previous years that they have done work of that class, but I cannot say at this moment how many of them would be capable of doing it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it part of their duties to do that; and if it is a circular should be issued to every member of this House informing him of that fact, so that each member of the House should know exactly where he stands in regard to it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Their first duty is to the House, and one could only know definitely whether they could do that work by applying to the chief. If any members of the staff were at leisure at the particular time a member applied, I think their duty would be to serve that member and I think they would be willing to do so. If, however, it is to be a generally recognized rule that members may apply to these officials to do such work, the present staff would not be at all adequate and it would have to be largely increased.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think these men should be allowed to do that sort of work for an instant. Last session, I do not know what it is this session, we had the respected Admiral from Goderich who was utilized by some members of this House to pick up data for them. It is all right for the First Minister to have Mr. Farrer to prepare his speeches and get data and that sort of thing, but I do not think this House should pay members of the Library staff or members of the sessional staff to procure information which may be used in speeches.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The gentleman you refer to was not a sessional clerk.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He was employed to do work he did not do ; he was employed by the Debates Committee and he did not do anything last year.


Samuel Hughes: I have in my hands a note sent into the chamber last session drawing * Dear Sir William's ' attention to 210
a certain column in the ' Globe ' where he would find an item with which he could ' slug Sam.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who wrote that ?


Samuel Hughes: Mr. McGillic-uddy.


William Stevens Fielding: How did you get the note ?


Samuel Hughes: The note was brought to me.


William Stevens Fielding: Did he send it to you by mistake ?


Samuel Hughes: You may be sure that he did not intend it to be sent to me, at all events the note is in my possession and 1 want the Minister of Finance to understand that.


William Stevens Fielding: I presume you sent it to the proper person ?*


Samuel Hughes: That would cut no ice.


William Stevens Fielding: Did he send it to you by another man's note.


Samuel Hughes: I want these gentlemen to understand that they are not here to do work for members on the government side of the House, and I object to these sessional clerks being employed for any such purpose as hunting up data for the speeches of gentlemen opposite. If one member has a right to have that done, every member of the House has a similar right.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The statement I made was that every member in the House should have the same right in the matter.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: In justice to the gentleman referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) I should say that he was not on the staff of the sessional clerks, and he is not now.


Samuel Hughes: What was he doing in the name of goodness ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Last session the Debates Committtee recommended that he should be employed for the purpose of preparing an index of all sessional papers from the year 1894 to the present time. The last index of that kind was brought up to 1894 and on the recommendation of the Debates Committee this gentleman was employed to continue it. The index is prepared and is being printed now.


George Eulas Foster: What is he doing now ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not know. I am told he is employed by the Debates Committee.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is not the information I have. I understand that this gentleman, together with a French gentleman, was employed last year to make an analytical index of ' Hansard,' which was a new idea. I may say that we have altered that a



little and gone back to the old system of having the index attached to each volume of * Hansard,' as the members desired and as X think is the better way. The French gentleman has done his work thoroughly, but the English gentleman of whom I spoke had mot done anything. The Debates Committee received a letter from that gentleman explaining that the reason why he had not done anything was that he had been sick, and we accepted that explanation. I have been told that during the time that he was supposed to be sick he was doing something else. X imagine that is what my hon. friend refers to.
Mr. BEX,COURT. The work he was required to do was undertaken because of a report in favour of it by the Debates Committee last session. The gentleman was here a part of the session and he was not receiving any salary or indemnity from the House or the government. Towards the close of the session the report of the committee was made to the House, and adopted in favour of having this index prepared. I was mistaken when I said a moment ago that it covered ten years. It covered fourteen years-from 1890 to 1904. The work has been completed and is being printed.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is it ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: An idex of the sessional papers from 1890 to 1904-really an index of the journals of the House including the sessional papers and the Votes and Proceedings.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there no index of that ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Up to 1890, yes ; but the last fourteen years had not been indexed.


David Henderson: Returning to the question of the sessional clerks, I would like to ask the Speaker if all these 32 men are employed in the sessional clerks' room ? I have gone in there frequently, but had no idea there were such a large number on the staff. Are any of them employed by the members in the different rooms ? Or, of course, they may work in relays, some in the early part of the day and some later, which would account for one not seeing so many in the room at once.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: A couple of these men are employed by the whips, one on either side. One of them is employed partly in attendance upon the deputy speaker's room and there are eight in the post office. Allowing for such cases, the number working in the sessional clerks' room would be about from eighteen to tweny-two.


David Henderson: I must say that I have always had a good deal of delicacy in ' asking any help of the sessional clerks, not knowing exactly what I had a right to expect. But it is only due to Mr. Stewart the chief of that staff, to say that I have always I Mr. BERGERON.
received the utmost courtesy and have never been refused anything I asked. At the same time I have avoided asking for the copying of documents in a good many cases not knowing what was my strict right. But, if we as members of the House are entitled to more privileges than I have hitherto claimed, I would be glad to be informed, for I would avail myself of them, being one of those who believe in taking all they can get. I have often wondered if the sessional clerks were available to assist in the private correspondence of members. We are called upon to WTite a great many letters, yet not in such fashion that we have continuous employment for a typewriter. To have the assistance of a clerk for one or two days in the week would be a great help.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If, on application to Mr. Stewart, the chief of the staff, it were found that members of that staff were available, I do not know why they should not be used for that class of work.


Andrew B. Ingram: So far as the whips secretaries are concerned, they are overworked now!. Owing to their position they are called upon to work long hours, and a lot of work is imposed upon them. I think a great deal of this is due to the fact that members do not think they have a right to ask the ordinary sessional clerks to typewrite documents, and so the whips' secretaries are called uj>on to do the work. If it were better understood that sessional clerks generally could be called upon for that class of work, it would relieve these other officers of much of the work they are now called upon to do.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: While I indicated that it is probably the right of members to avail themselves of the services of these officers, it must be apparent that with perhaps twenty clerks available, if 215 members exercise that right to any great extent, it would be impossible for these men to do much else than serve the members of the House. Of course, such work could only be expected of them when they have time to do it, and that can be ascertained by application to the chief of the staff. But where these clerks have the time, I do not see why their services should not be availed of in that way. The chief of the staff will see to it, I suppose, that they are not required to work too many hours in the discharge of their duties.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that Mr. Speaker went a long way when he authorized the use of sessional clerks to assist in the private correspondence of members. I do not know where we should end if we began that. It seems to me that either we have too many clerks, or we have not enough, or we have not the right kind. The work of a working member of this House is very arduous. He has a large private correspondence that he is bound to take care

of. Then he has a large correspondence of a public nature that he has to take care of. Then, there is the work of the House. My own experience is that, as compared witli what it was fifteen or twenty years ago, the work of this House is very much increased. The multiplicity of things that claim our attention, the rapid succession in which new questions are forced upon us, make it arduous drudgery for even the best man to keep even with the work of the House. One almost feels like giving it up in despair and deciding to run the chance of making what show he can in the House with as small a modicum of work as possible. In some legislative assemblies they give every member a clerk or amanuensis. That seems extravagant at first blush, and it is certainly expensive. But to give each member a clerk or secretary may not in some respects be any more than the public man who gives his work to the House and country is entitled to. But we have not yet come to that, and it must be a good while before we will come to it.
But I think it is possible that if we had a staff of sessional clerks, the right men, competent, varied in their ability to work, stenographers, quick at summaries, calculating definitely and well, and doing their work so that it can be thoroughly relied on-I think there is a class of work that a moderately large number of clerks of the right kind could do for members, under the direction even of the clerk of the House, or of a director of the staff, divided so that it will be perfectly fair and even for both sides of the House, and all members of the House, a class of work that they might do with advantage to public business. Now something like this for instance : There was laid on my desk to-day six different returns with reference to certain subjects. Now, when I saw them my heart sank; I said to myself : How ever am I going to get through with that, analyse it and bring it here in the course of ten days or so, ready for the discussion which we have invited upon it ? For instance, it is relating to a matter which we were discussing to-day and yesterday. Now it would not be a partisan thing, I think, and it would be a public benefit, and would do a great deal to help the working members of the House, if, when a return like that comes down, they knowing what kind of information they want to get from it, a tabulation, were just to write a little memorandum of the tabulation they wanted in that return, and hand it over to a competent sessional clerk and have him make that tabulation. It would not be a partisan piece of work, you are not directing him as to what he shall say against the government or for the government, you are after a certain tabulation out of all these returns. I do not know whether I will ever get that done myself, if I have to do it. But there is a species of work which I
2104	/
should think a competent staff of sessional clerks could do, and do fairly well, and could alleviate the members of this House, for the public good and the public service. But if you come to say that we will have clerks here who will take up the private correspondence of members, I am afraid that we will go so far in that direction that it will simply become an impossibility, and will end in a worse state of affairs than we have to-day. But I would like, Mr. Speaker, and the clerk of the House to think it over, and see whether we can have, say, 25 or 30, or more if necessary, thoroughly good, first-class men, typewriters, stenographers, summarists, men who know just how to take hold of papers and give you a summary that you require out of them, and have them under competent direction and distribution to do work of that kind for the working members of the House. That is a thing which I think we might improve upon, because otherwise it comes to this, that even the best workers of the House, appalled by the tremendous amount of labour they have put upon them in order to get through the work, will fall behind hand in their work, and the public interests will suffer in that respect.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It will be apparent that the class of men the hon. gentleman refers to would have to be a superior class of men, and probably we would require to pay them a little more than we pay the present staff. Any one can see at once with what great utility they would serve various members of the House. The clerk of the House and myself will take the matter up and see if we can make some suggestion, at all events, to the House to be dealt with at some future day.
Leather trunks, 240 at $25 each, $6,000.


George Eulas Foster: How is that thing carried out ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: According to a report of the Joint Committee on printing.


George Eulas Foster: Who makes the trunks ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The contract is on tender, I understand, given out by the Printing Committee.


George Eulas Foster: Is value got for these trunks ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They seem to be very good.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Tenders were invited, and two houses tendered. They brought in some samples which were examined by a special committee of the Printing Committee and were found satisfactory. The contracts were given to two houses, and the members were invited to go and choose for themselves which house they should get their trunks from.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.


FESSENDEN WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Fessenden Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada.-Mr. Geof-frion.
On sections 11 and 12,
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When we last had this Bill under discussion clauses 11 and 12 were allowed to stand because there was a proposal made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to add a word. I did not take upon myself at that time to accept the suggestion, because I was only acting for the promoter of the Bill, but since then I have been authorized by the hon. member for Chambly and * Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion), who is in charge of this Bill, to accept the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Finance. Section 11 reads like this :	The company may enter into any
agreements with any government, and if I remember well the proposal of the Minister of Finance was to add the word ' Canadian ' so that it would have nothing to do with any foreign government. I therefore beg to move :
That the word ' Canadian ' be inserted before the word ' government' in the second line of section 11.


Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.: Is that word going to qualify * corporation ' and ' person ? '


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The difficulty the other day was that in not mentioning which government was intended it might mean a foreign government, although I understand it means either this government or a provincial government, and the hon. Minister of Finance proposed, so that there should be no doubt about it, to put in the word ' Canadian ' before the word ' government.' 1 move to insert the same word in section 12.


William Mulock: Would it not be better to say ' any government in Canada ? '


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is only a matter of phraseology ; that is the meaning of it. By putting in the word ' Canadian government ' it serves also the purpose of qualifying the word ' corporation ' or ' person.'


Robert Laird Borden: If it is intended to give the company power to enter into agreements with the governments of any of the provinces, I think the expression ' Canadian government ' is not very appropriate.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How would it do to say ' with any Canadian government ?'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


Robert Laird Borden: No, I would think that you might say, ' any government in Canada, or any provincial government/ Provincial governments are Canadian governments in a certain sense but they are not Canadian governments in the ordinary-sense.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Well, put it in good English.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the intention to restrict the words ' corporation ' or 1 person ' in the same way ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Not persons, but corporations.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Would you make it read ' any government or corpo-ation in Canada ? '


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: All right. I will therefore move that sections 11 and 12 be amended by inserting in the second line of each after the word ' corporation ' the words ' in Canada.'


Robert Laird Borden: How will it read then ?


Charles Marcil: The company may enter into agreements with any government or corporation in 'Canada or person. &c.


William Mulock: I do not think that is a very good way of wording it. The words ' in Canada ' might be held to apply to the verb enter into ' and not to ' government.' Why not say that they may enter into agreements with the government of the Dominion, or with any province or with any corporation or person ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The clause as it stands is the very same clause that was in the Marconi Act. The other evening when it was suggested that these words be added I did not take it upon myself to accept them, but since I have been authorized to do so. It is the same clause that they have in the Marconi Bill. The Minister of Finance will remember that the other day when discussing the Fessenden Wireless Telegraph Company we left two clauses aside in order to consider the insertion of the word * Canadian ' before ' government,' to be sure that the company would not be dealing with a foreign government and we are moving to add these words now.


William Stevens Fielding: The member who has charge of the Bill and who, in his absence, has handed it over to my hon. friend, mentioned this to me to-day. I think that from any point of view we need not object on behalf of the government. Whether the amendment carries out as fully the intention of my hon. friend as he desires I do not know, but I do not see any objection to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to insert the word ' Canadian ' before ' government.'


Mr. BARKER.: I would have preferred to have seen the whole power subject to the approval of the Governor in Gouncil, and then the powers could be made as wide as you like.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill already contains a clause with respect to the erecting of stations, and in the practical working out of the scheme they have to come to the Governor in Council, but this particular clause relates to agreements, and I do not think this is especially subject to the Governor in Council.


Samuel Barker: If the agreement clause is made subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, I see no objection to making it as wide as you please.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Clause 19, which has been added, makes the whole Bill subject to the Governor in Council. You might put it this way :
The government of Canada or of any province in Canada or with any corporation or any persons, &c.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker suggests to me that it might read :
The company may enter into agreements with any government, corporation or person in Canada or any province thereof.
' In Canada ' might cover it without any reference to the provinces. The expression ' in Canada ' would apply not only to ' government,' but to the persons and corporations as well.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think the intention would be very well carried out by putting in the word ' Canada ' before ' government.' You do not want to restrict the corporations or persons.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the company are content to have it in the form my hon. friend suggests.


Charles Marcil: The section will then read :
The company may enter into agreements with any government in Canada or with any corporation or person for the purpose, &c.
The same amendment will be made in section 12.
Sections, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported and read the third time, and passed.


FARMERS' BANK OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 124) respecting the Farmers' Bank of Canada-Mr. Martin (Wellington)-be concurred in.
William Stevens Fielding: The amendment I find consists in the striking out of a clause in the Bill. This, I >may say, is a Bill to extend the time for the organization of a bank. During the interim certain proceedings
have taken place, and a clause was inserted in the Bill as passed by this House validating anything that may have been done in the way of organization in the meantime. The Senate has moved to strike that clause out, and the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is satisfied, I believe, to have the Bill go in its amended form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendment read the second time, and agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Mantoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 116) respecting the Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Dyment.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
;Sergeant-at-arms-House of Commons-Sessional messengers, $13,-200.
[u"We will proceed in supply and I would like if possible to dispose of the supplementary estimates. The largest of the items are in the Public Works Department, and I hope with the assistance of the deputy minister to be able to give the House all the information necessary so that we may get a supply Bill through as early as possible.\nHa\u2122- R0,Y<:1E' ,Witb regard to the oth papers, if the hon. gentleman reads t Mr. BOYCE."]
Samuel Barker: In regard to these items under the heading ' sergeant-at-arms,' I desire to ask Mr. Speaker what the present position of the sergeant-at-arms is in regard to purchases for the House of Commons. It will be recollected that (last year a discussion occurred upon this subject, and as I understand, the position taken then was that up to a very recent period the sergeant-at-arms had been accustomed to make purchases, but that a year or two ago the Committee on Internal Economy had changed the position of the sergeant-at-arms in that respect, and while they left to him the care and custody of all property in the House, they made some change with regard to purchasing ; but there was some difference of opinion as to what the change really meant. It was said that the purchases in the future would have to be made under the direction of the committee and either the Speaker or the clerk. I am not sure which. But it was assumed by the then Speaker that that did not at all alter the duty or right or privilege of the sergeant-at-arms to make the purchases. That is, as I understood it, the sergeant-at-arms might still be considered to be the proper person to make the purchases, though lie might only make them under the immediate direction of the committee or Mr. Speaker or the clerk of the House. I would like to know exactly what the present position is, and what the intention for the future is in regard to such purchases ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think there is no very radical change in the matter. A resolution was passed to the effect, I believe, that before any purchases are made there must he a requisition from the sergeant-at-arms, who in the first place has to pass upon the propriety or impropriety of the

purchase ; and before he can purchase outright, this requisition must be passed upon by the Speaker or the Internal Economy Committee. As far as the act of purchasing is concerned, that is now as it has been always, done by the sergeant-at-arms, with this one qualification which was made a short time ago : There have been requisitions made to the department of the sergeant-at-arms for furniture by various members in connection with their rooms, and from time to time it appears that applications which either were or were not refused by the sergeant-at-arms branch were made to the Public Works Department in an indirect way-at all events not through the sergeant-at-arms-and were granted in some cases where they had not been granted by the sergeant-at-arms branch. This manifestly led to difficulty in keeping books and to the inconvenience of having applications made to one department after refusal by another. On consideration the Internal Economy Committee came to the conclusion that in the case of furniture, the requisition should first come from the sergeant-at-arms and be passed by the Speaker to the Department of Public Works. The purchase of furniture is now made entirely by the department of Public Works, but a written requisition must first be made by the sergeant-at-arms branch. All other supplies that have heretofore been purchased are still purchased by this branch and on the initiation of the sergeant-at-arms.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand that everything except furniture for rooms in the House of Commons is purchased by the sergeant-at-arms ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that is true.


Samuel Barker: Upon the requisition being approved the sergeant has absolute power to make the purchase and is the only-person authorized.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The requisition is made by him in the first instance and is passed upon by the Speaker, or, in case of a considerable amount, by the Internal Economy Committee. But in all cases except furniture the purchase is still made by the sergeant-at-arms.


George Eulas Foster: What does Mr. Speaker mean by furniture for the House of Commons ? Does it include furniture for the members rooms and the furniture necessary for the work rooms of the offices and servants ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think it includes all wooden furniture.


George Eulas Foster: Does it take in furniture for the Speaker's rooms?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It would take in what would come in under the term furniture.


George Eulas Foster: Just wooden furniture ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, I think that is as far as the resolution goes.


George Eulas Foster: Has Mr. Speaker a copy of the resolution ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think I can get it in a few moments.


Robert Laird Borden: It is desirable that these regulations and orders made by the Internal Economy Committee should be laid before the House. I have been in the House nine years and I do not know anything about this committee, what it does or what its functions are, or what it is supposed to do. I never before heard of it doing anything, and I am much surprised to learn now that it has actually made an order about something. That fact might be regarded as so unusual anl almost unconstitutional, that a copy of anything this commission has done for the last nine years should be laid on the table at the earliest possible moment. I do not even know whom I should call upon to undertake that, but in case there is any one within the sound of my voice who has anything to do with it- apart from the Speaker who I presume may be ex-officio a member-I would ask him to have a copy of the regulations laid on the table. We want to know how we are governed ; that is true as regards the whole country and it should be true also of the House of Commons.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Last year a report of that sort was, I think, laid before the House.
Mr. FOSTER, How many sessional messengers are there ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Thirteen permanent and fifty-two temporary. At the beginning of the session there were fifty-five temporary but some have been dropped from the list for one reason or other so that there are three less now.


George Eulas Foster: How are these messengers distributed ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Some of these permanent messengers are in the galleries, at the doors, and in the rooms. The temporary messengers are pretty well distributed all over the House.


George Eulas Foster: Are the messengers that we see on the different landings and near the telephones included in this ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: By what system do you know whether fifty or fifty-five messengers are necessary ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the actual authorized number is fifty but it has grown a little beyond that. I do not know how it came to be fixed at fifty, but an effort will be made to get it down to that number.


George Eulas Foster: There appear to be ' servants ' as well as ' messengers ' ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are twenty-five charwomen and eight servants.


George Eulas Foster: Where are the servants located 1


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They are employed in different parts of the building looking after the coal and ice and telephones.


George Eulas Foster: What is the legal number of these ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Five.


George Eulas Foster: These exceed the legal number as in the other case.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The authorized number of charwomen is twenty.
Mr. FOSTER, And you have how many ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Twenty-five, including two attendants in the ladies' cloak room, established this year for the wives of members.


George Eulas Foster: The Speaker seems to have a large number beyond the authorized number. Whose province is it to make sure that the duties call for that many servants ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The sergeant-at-arms, of course, is the head of this department. There is at present a little excess. We are looking into that, and have been for some time, to see if we cannot reduce the staff to the exact limits.


George Eulas Foster: Did the excess come over


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is for a messenger put on permanently, and the sum voted is to pay the balance of the year since the date of appointment. He was previously employed, but is now made permanent.


George Eulas Foster: That is an addition to the permanent list ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, that is the condition I found.
Mr. FOSTER, Has the Speaker the resolution from the Internal Economy Commission ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, this was a resolution passed on March 24th, 1905.
That owing to the fact that contusion is likely to arise from the practice that has been growing up of a portion of the furniture procured for the House of Commons being purchased by the Department of Public Works and a portion by the sergeant-at-arms, in future all such furniture as may be necessary, be purchased by and through the Public Works Department on requisition signed by the Speaker.


George Eulas Foster: That does not put it) entirely in the hands of the Public Works Department ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: So far as the purchase is concerned. But they make purchases on requisition from the sergeant-at-arms.


George Eulas Foster: The resolution does not say that it is on requisition of the sergeant-at-arms.
from last year ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes. There has been no increase this year except the two attendants in the ladies' cloak room.


George Eulas Foster: I notice that last year the excess amounted to sixteen above the authorized number. Mr. Speaker tells us that this has beeu reduced by three and that he purposes to reduce the number to that authorized.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, just as soon as we can without undue hardship to any servant.
Legislation-House of Commons-Sergeant at Arms-pages, $3,645.
Mr. FOSTER, What is the number of pages ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Nineteen.


George Eulas Foster: And the authorized number ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Sixteen.
Mr. FOSTER, Is there any probability of the number being reduced ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, we will see what we can do about it.
Legislation-House of Commons-Sergeant-at-Arms-one additional messenger, 10S months at $500 per annum, $444.44.


George Eulas Foster: Is this an additional employee ?
Mr. SPEAKER, In practice that is how it is done. The sergeant-at-arms inquires into the advisability of tbe purchase. If he decides in favour of It he makes a written requisition. These requisitions are numbered. The requisition is submitted to the Speaker, who initials it and it is then forwarded to the Public Works Department, who attend to the purchase.


George Eulas Foster: I understand this to be the course :	Where furniture is considered
necessary for the House of Commons, the requisition originates with the sergeant-at-arms. He makesJiis inspection and decides what is necessary. He makes up his list, which is in the form of a requisition. There is a conference with the Speaker, who, if he approves, initials the requisition. Then the matter is entirely out of the hands of the sergeant-at-arms and of the Speaker , the Public Works Department purchase as it pleases and delivers the purchase Then that is paid for by the Public Works Department ?
*vfi* st*FAKER. Yes.


George Eulas Foster: There is no appropriation in the House voted for that furniture. The requisition originates here, but the money vote is with the Public Works Department.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It will have to he.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether that is the best form in which to have it or not. Certainly, the sergeant-at-arms is responsible for the custody and care of all this furniture. It seems to me that it ought to be clear beyond doubt that he has to requisition for it and has to be the judge of what is necessary. Of course, I do not wish to cut the Speaker out from his proper place, which is to supervise and, in the end I suppose, to say what he thinks is necessary. But one thing I wanted to make sure about is that it is not the Public Works Department that is to judge what furniture is necessary for the House of Commons. The Minister of Public Works is a political head. The sergeant-at-arms, as is well known, has no politics, he is not a political head, but an officer of the House. If the initiative were left to the Minister of Public Works there would be everlasting pressure upon him to order things not really necessary. I understand that it is clear that the initiative does not rest there but with the sergeant-at-arms, who has the responsibility for the care of the furniture.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is not the intention. In the past purchases were made through these two channels, and there seemed danger of abuse arising. It may be a debatable question whether it should be left with the sergeant-at-arms or with the Public Works Department. So far as the actual purchase is concerned, it would seem that, purchasing so many things as they do, including large quantities of furniture for all the departments, the department of Public Works would have facilities for the purchase of goods of this kind. In any event the intention was to make it plain that the initiative should be with the sergeant-at-arms' branch, the purchasing only being left with the Public Works Department.


George Eulas Foster: Now, with reference to prices, which would depend on the quality of the furniture. I might think that if I had the courtesy of a room in company with others and wanted some furniture, I should have very excellent furniture, and I might pitch my demand pretty high. I should think that in such case it would be the sergeant-at-arms who would be the judge of the kind of furniture that should ibe used, both as to quality and price.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that is the intention, that the sergeant shall pass upon the articles, and state about wliat kind and "'hat price they shall be, as a certain desk, for example, or something of that character.


Samuel Barker: 
Robert Franklin Sutherland: and the purchases are made through the Public Works Department. There are at least one or two other branches who make purchases. But where is the initiative of those purchases ? By whom are they made and certified ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: When I took office I found that certain things were being purchased without apparently any requisition to start with, though I did not find this to any great extent, and I am not going to make any complaint about it. But I decided that in each case there should be a written requisition to start with, something which could be placed on file. That written requisition will now be made by the sergeant-at-arms, after investigating the need of the purchase ; in every ease that will be the duty of the sergeant. I do not exactly know what the hon. member meant as to the other branches. He may refer to certain purchases made by the clerk ; for example, books for the use of the clerk in his library, or certain publications of utility which may be distributed among the leading officials to assist them in their work. Matters at that character will ibe dealt with in the same way by the clerk ; he will make a requisition, and the purchase will be carried out in the same way.


Samuel Barker: Where the sergeant-at-arms makes a requisition, and I presume it has to be approved by the Speaker, which seems to be reasonable, who makes the purchase then ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is passed at once to the Speaker, and after he looks it over and initials' it, he sends it back to the sergeant. After that no-body has anything to do with it but the sergeant-at-arms, he makes the purchase himself, he certifies the accouut, then the account comes regularly back to tbe Internal Economy Committee at its next meeting. This committee consists of four members of the government and the Speaker, and they pass upon all accounts before they are paid.


Samuel Barker: In explanation of these accounts, I may say that last year, although the then Speaker seemed to have a very clear notion, practically the -same as the Speaker now has, that the sergeant-at-arms made all the purchases, that was not the fact. On page S991 of the ' Hansard ' of 1904, the then Speaker said :
He

That is the sergeant-at-arms.
is responsible for the purchase and custody of the goods purchased not only in connection with the Speaker's department, but the whole House.
Now, that was not the interpretation of this order that had been made in May, 1902, by the Internal Economy Committee :
The question of the puchase of supplies by the sergeant at arm's branch having come up for

consideration, the commissioners record their opinion that in future all such expenditures shall be made under the direction of the Speaker and the Internal Economy Committee.
Now, the interpretation of that by the then Speaker was that while the Speaker and the committee directed the sergeant-at-arms, still the sergeant-at-arms made the	purchases,	and presumably certifiedthem. But, as a	fact,	that was notthe	procedure, because	we found inthe Auditor General's Reports that accounts were passed and paid without the	certificate	of	the	sergeant-at-arms.
Now, I think I clearly understand what Mr. Speaker tells us, and what he says is perfectly satisfactory, so far as I am concerned, it appears to be a perfectly proper arrangement. But although that was the understanding of the late Speaker, it was not the practice, having regard to what appeared in the Auditor General's Report ; and 1 think it was not the practice as understood by the Clerk of the House, because in a letter of his, dated October 7, 1903, reported at page 9001 of 1 Hansard ' of last year, he answered the Auditor General to the effect that the account had been passed by the Board of Internal Economy, and that he, the Clerk, had certified it. So that under that order of 1902, which was interpreted by the then Speaker and the committee to mean that the Sergeant had control, the Clerk of the House had a different view of it, and accounts were being sent in to the Auditor General without any certificate from the sergeant-at-arms. I simply mention this as a reason for making these inquiries in rather a particular manner. 1 can only add that I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangement as it is now stated.
Mr. FOSTER, I would like to ask a question with reference to the audit. If I understood the discussion which took place last year, in reading it over, it seemed to be the contention of the late Speaker-whether it was the opinion of the Internal Economy Committee I do not know-that the House of Commons expenditure should not be audited, and it was not necessary that it should be audited by the Auditor General, that it was exempt from the Audit Act. But the fact remains that a large payment was made not to the satisfaction of the Auditor General, and, so far as I know, it has never been certified according to the demands of the Auditor General. Now, the present Speaker, if he has looked into it, knows quite well that the Auditor General was asked to audit the House of Commons expenditure, and that there was a resolution of the House, I think in 18S0, which affirmed that, and I should hope there would be no more of the contention that it was not necessary and proper, and a wise thing, to have this expenditure audited by the Audit Department. I do not think that even the House of Commons wishes to take itself out from
under the most stringent audit of the Auditor General's Department.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I cannot say at the moment what the position is, but I will look into it.


George Eulas Foster: Are inventories taken yearly or at stated periods, and how is track kept in reference to our purchases and what becomes of them in the general run of things ? Looking at some of these expenditures one would think that there must be stacks of this stuff somewhere. It seems almost impossible to have worn out with fair usage all these things which have been got within the last few years. Take the Speaker's apartments. The past Speaker does not seem to have shown himself to be a master of economy ; either that or there must have been a tremendous falling out of supplies, furniture and that kind of thing in the Speaker's apartments in preceding years. I find that the expenses made by the past Speaker in the two or three years of his official life came up to a large amount. In two years they went up to about $8,000.
I never had the idea that the Speaker's apartments were so poorly furnished and so badly depleted that it would require all that amount of money to refit them, and I think there was a little bit of a reign of extravagance during the regime of my hon. friend the late Speaker, which was not emulated by his predecessors and I hope will not be emulated by his successor. In fact, I think, taking into account the enormous purchases that were made, the present Speaker must find that there is an embarrassment of ruches rather than anything else and that he will need very little for the next two or three years.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I quite agree on the question of the utility of having these inventories ; in fact, I have already written expressly asking that there shall be inventories at stated periods so as to check purchases and compare them with previous purchases. I think that will be attended to with fair [DOT] strictness.


David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I came in perhaps a little late to hear all this discussion, but I would like to know from Mr. Speaker, or whoever is in charge, how a member has to proceed to get what I may regard as a share of the furniture that is provided for members of parliament. Ibis is the seventeenth session I have attended this House. I never had a desk such as is furnished to many members, I think I can fairly say, except a desk in the House of Commons and even that is at times tampered with. I have had from my seat trinkets that I placed here thinking they were safe, stolen during the present session. I do not know any reason why I should not have these advantages as well as others. Perhaps I have been too modest in not asking for them, but I never became acquainted

with the procedure of how to get anything of that kind. I go about a great many rooms, I see beautiful desks and ample provision made for locking up anything of a private character, papers as well as other matters and I wonder how these are obtained, whether it is through favouritism, or whether I am not supplied simply because I have been too modest to ask for anything of that kind.


Mr.   POSTER@: That is the reason.


David Henderson: 
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Not even the ministers.


David Henderson: Not the ministers certainly. I am not accusing the Speaker, oi the sergeant-at-arms ; I am not accusing Mr. HENDERSON.
even the pages, but somebody does it. That is a well known fact. To my mind some steps should be taken to protect the House of Commons. I think this country is big enough and rich enough to afford a salary to two policemen to stay in this chamber all hours of the night, every hour while the House is not in session to keep their eyes constantly on every desk or on every part of this chamber and see that no one is permitted to come into the House to remove nnything that does not belong to him. I have been told that this was attempted, but that the very men who were employed were the men who did the work. All we can say is that we will get two more to watch these two. It seems that something will have to be done. I think it is necessary even to set a good example to the country. I draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to this matter and I hope and trust that steps will be taken to sacredly guard everything that is left in the House by members and that it will not be possible to say that the Criminal Code of which we are the authors is more frequently violated in the House of Commons than in any other place in the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. SPEAKER, There appear to be two reasons why the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) has not a desk. One is undoubtedly his modesty and the other is that he has no place to put it. I can assure my hon. friend that if toe will apply to some of the new members he will very quickly get on to the way of getting a desk. The new members are very much more assertive in that direction than old members ; at least, they have been the last three or four years.


Mr.   POSTER@: How was it with yourself ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The usual way in which members are in the habit of getting desks is by applying for them, and if my hon. friend is not too modest there may be hope for him in that direction. I can assure him there will be no discrimination, there has been no discrimination. The desks are allotted as they are applied for and as we can get them for the members on either side of the House. I quite agree with something that the hon. member said just at the end. My attention has been called repeatedly to petty thefts around the House and some that are not very petty, and I believe that there is an absolute necessity for us to secure efficient police or detective service around this House. I believe a couple of detectives could earn their salaries well in the saving of the theft of articles that are stolen from time to time around this House. That is another matter that has recently been engaging the attention of the sergeant-at-arms and myself.
Legislation

Senate-further amount required for contingencies, $15,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is that? Who can answer for the Senate ?


William Stevens Fielding: Nobody. I really think ife will have to take these items as being self-explanatory for I am not able to give any explanation that is not set forth there. The further amount required for contingencies arises from the length of the session no doubt. The leather trunks are due to the fact that it is the privilege of senators to have trunks as well as members of this House.


Mr. W. JACKSON.: What about the extra $25 for leather trunks ? The amount of this vote would provide for more trunks than are required.


William Stevens Fielding: There is enough for 90 trunks ? Then we will have to reduce it by $25 and pass the item.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend cannot give any explanation of the $15,000 ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is doubtless owing to the length of the session. My hon. friend is doubtless aware that these items are sent to us by the officers of the Senate and we can hardly do anything more than accept them. The Senate is rather sensitive about our inquiring about what it does with its leather trunks.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is the amount required for contingencies. Considering that the Senate has sat about 15 days they should hardly want about $15,000 more.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps if they sat more frequently they would not want so much for contingencies.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: This is required for the last session because parliament sat into this fiscal year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did the Senate sit much more last year than this ?


William Stevens Fielding: The session was longer; whether the Senate sat or not is another question.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was the original amount ?


William Stevens Fielding: The amount voted for salaries and contingencies which, I presume, corresponds to the same item, was $75,576 in the main estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that I do not see any particular reason why they should not come any nearer to it than $15,000. The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue suggests that it may be due to the circumstances that the session of parliament extended into August but I do not see how that would affect this.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Because I suppose last year the amount which was voted for the current year was $75,000. Of this amount they must have spent a certain sum for the two months or nearly two months in which
we were in session during the present fiscal year and so of the sum appropriate for this fiscal year a certain amount has been taken for the payment of expenses incurred during the months of July and August 1904. I do not know whether it is because of that.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case we would expect that the appropriation for the previous year would be very much cut down, that would be the logical result of that argument, but I have not heard of that. But they do not allow any appeal from this I suppose.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe there is no appeal.


Robert Laird Borden: Next year they may ask $150,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Such is our system. I have not the full particulars of the items for voters' lists with me.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see here there is some new edition of an electoral atlas.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall state in general terms the object of this vote and then if any hon. members desire any further information the item may stand. Generally speaking the increased cost of the franchise lists is due to the large amount of work that had to be done and the King's Printer reports that the amount is not sufficient under the previous appropriation. The electoral atlas is a book published from time to time containing maps of every constitutency in Canada. As there has been some readjustment of the constituencies, a new edition is necessary, and this vote is for that purpose.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It will be distributed to members ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, as usual.


David Henderson: Is that issued yet ?


William Stevens Fielding: No. It is in course of preparation. The other item is a general one owing to the larger amount of work caused by the printing of the voters' lists for the general election. I would like hon. gentlemen to intimate the points on which information is wanted, and I will have it when the item comes again.


Robert Laird Borden: The only point on which I would like information in connection with this is as to the preparation of the voters' list for the recent election in Edmonton. I made some inquiry with regard to this list from the King's Printer. I received an answer, the exact purport of which I forgot, but I could not very well understand what it meant. He said they were not strictly speaking voters' lists, but lists of electors, prepared, I think, for the information of the enumerators. I want to ask some

questions with reference to that when the matters comes up again.


William Stevens Fielding: I will see that information and explanation on that point are prepared.
Further amount required for hydrographic surveys for the River St. Lawrence helow Quebec and Pacific coast, $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the amount originally voted, how was it expended, and why do you want this amount more ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: There was no vote for this service, because it is a new service undertaken by the department because of the British government having withdrawn their service from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These surveys used to be made by the British government, with their own officers and steamers, and they notified us last year that they had ceased that service. Therefore we are obliged to undertake it.


Robert Laird Borden: How much did you have voted for it last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year $40,000 was voted for hydrographic surveys, but not for these. What was provided for was the lakes and part of the St. Lawrence. The upper part of the St. Lawrence is almost finished. Two months' work will complete the surveys between Montreal and Quebec, and Lake St. Louis will be finished this season. The surveys on Lake Superior and the other upper lakes will take two or three seasons. On the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast nothing has been done yet.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to understand this. The bon. gentleman says the British government has abandoned the work which it was doing. What work was it doing, through whom was it doing it, and why does it abandon it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The work that has been done by the British government went to a certain point of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I think only as far as Belle Isle. So we have all the Atlantic coast to survey and to prepare charts for navigation. The present charts are quite unreliable in many ' respects. For instance, the chart of the River St. Lawrence was so unreliable that it was reported to the department for a couple of years that steamers had touched in the centre of the channel opposite Murray bay. Surveys were made, and for one season we could not discover anything, because the surveys were made not continuously but only occasionally. But towards the end of last season, after a thorough search we discovered a shoal about three-quarters of a mile long where there was only twenty feet of water at low tide. Fortunately the channel is about a mile wide at that point so that it was only once in a while that steamers would touch. Nobody knew anything about Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
[DOT] it; it was not marked on the charts. This shows the importance of the service and the importance of having these charts prepared with great care. The British government have abandoned doing this work, as they have abandoned doing many things for Canada, because, they said, we have gone far enough, and this work belongs to Canada. The service falls on our shoulders, and we are obliged to take it up. This $30,000 will provide for the organization of the service until the 1st of July, including boats, provisions, and so on. Every member of the commission will appreciate the importance of having these surveys made with all possible diligence. There are two pr three important lines on the Atlantic, especially the Canadian Pacific Railway line, and the navigation is developing very fast. In a couple of years there will probably be large steamers plying between Vancouver and Port Simpson, carrying provisions, materials, &c. There is such a deficiency of charts for the Pacific coast that when the boat which carried the expedition which visited Port Simpson and the North Pacific coast last fall ran on a rock which was never suspected. Fortunately, the captain of the government boat was very careful, and the boat not going very fast at the moment, there was no loss of life and no serious damage to the boat. These surveys are very important in the interest of navigation.


Robert Laird Borden: How did the British government carry on their surveys ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On the Pacific coast they rented a boat, an old one, but a very good one ; and they had engineers and all the necessary organization to take the soundings, and make a general survey of the bottom of the sea, showing the gulfs, bays, &c., around the coast. They did very good work, which will help us in carrying on our work ; but it will serve only as an indication. The work they have done on the Atlantic coast dates back forty or sixty years. That coast will all have to be resurveyed, and for that purpose we are going to use a boat which we used to have for the tidal service. This year we were short of a boat and we suspended the tidal sur' veys on the Atlantic coast. We will use the ' Gulnare ' which will save the renting of another steamer, and we will try to execute that work regularly and properly. I took over the work last from the Department of Railways and the Department of Public Works. The survey between Montreal and Quebec is almost completed and the work is very nicely done. The charts are being engraved and will be distributed to mariners as is done in every other country.


Robert Laird Borden: What portions of the coast are these charts for ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The charts which are being engraved are from Montreal to Quebec, except a small portion near Que-

bee -which will be completed in about two months. Between Montreal and Kingston will be completed this summer. The work on the Great Lakes commenced two years ago is now well advanced, but it will take at least one year more before we can publish the charts.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: By whom is this work done ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is done under the supervision of Mr. Stewart a highly qualified engineer who has been at the head of the department for the last ten or twelve years.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is he an officer of the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. He is a graduate of Kingston, and is aided by certain permanent officers as well as by temporary engineers.


Robert Laird Borden: Has he charge of the work on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. Unfortunately one of our best young officers, Mr. Tyr-whitt, died a few days ago. and we must get some one to replace him. It is very peculiar and important work requiring engineers of high qualification.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you propose to re-survey and re-chart the whole of the Atlantic coast ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: So much as concerns the navigation of the St. Lawrence. We do not propose to go further than Belle Isle ; we will take up what has not been done by the British government.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I understand from the minister that the work done by the imperial government fifty years ago along the Atlantic coast required to be resurveyed. Do you include the southern coast of Nova Scotia, the Bay of Fundy, the en-trace to St. John Harbour ; do you propose to resurvey and re-chart that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, everything.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the Marconi station at the entrance to the Gulf in operation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are at present six stations in operation and they are rendering the most valuable service. The Glace Bay station was the first established in 1902, in order to test the system and now it is running perfectly. Six stations have been established since I came to the department at an average cost of .$8,000 a station, and there are six more to be established.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then a vessel coming up the gulf will be reported from station to
station.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There will be a complete chain of stations until they get to the St. Lawrence.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the distance between each station ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The average distance is 200 miles and they communicate between themselves and the steamers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where will the other six stations be built ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Fame Point, Cape Race, Cape Ray, Heath Point, Point Amour, Cape Rich, Whittle Rocks. Of course the stations are not in a straight line because they are situated both on the Belle Isle route and on the Newfoundland route. When the other stations are erected both of the routes to the St. Lawrence will be fully equipped. I can say without boasting that when this station shall have been established, we will have a most perfect Marconi system.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then these stations are not all in line ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; there is a map showing where they are established.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That might be laid on the table.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will bring it down with pleasure.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will my hon. friend please let us know how he is satisfied with last winter's experiments with the ' Montcalm ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can only give that information generally, and from memory. We are perfectly satisfied with the boat's work. It is acknowledged by every one connected with navigation that, with the severe winter, had it not been for the ' Montcalm ' breaking the ice at Cape Rouge from early winter, the ice would not had left the channel until the 15th of May, on account of the vast accumulation. It will be . remembered that the ice in the gulf delayed steamers for five or six days. The ice was so thick and solid that, had it not been for the work of the ' Montcalm,' the route would not have been cleared until the 10th of-May. The ' Montcalm ' kept the river clear of ice from Cape Rouge for two or three miles to the piers of the Quebec bridge. It did not prevent the ice from forming at certain points where the river is very narrow, but the keeping of the channel clear alone helped the departure of the ice so much that the ' Montcalm ' herself was nearly caught in the spring movement. No accident took place, because the ice-shove was ahead of the steamer and she was following it. The

boat has proved very solid and very effective in every way. I went myself with some of imy officers and some people connected with navigation at different times to be present at the work while the - steamer was breaking her way through the ice. The last time I was there there were several members of parliament from the west in the party, and they were really astonished at the work done. The boat broke a channel in ice that was twenty-five or thirty feet thick

ice that was stuck to the bottom in some places. I would not say that if X had not witnesses, members of parliament, who saw it as I did. The boat would break as much as 600 feet in a day over a width of 200 feet. Of course, this work was done at a time when the ebb-tide would carry down the ice. The effectiveness of the boat was interfered with by one thing that could not have well been foreseen. She was brought out from Scotland late in the season, arriving in Quebec about the beginning of December. ' She had two sets of blades. That is, she had two propellers, and she had six extra blades for her propellers. These blades were broken at different times, and, although we ordered a new set, only one set arrived in time to enable her to continue effective work. The day when the members of parliament were aboard she had only one complete propeller, the other one having only one blade. But even with this disadvantage she did the work I have mentioned. After she had got through this work she was ordered to go down and meet the steamers that were supposed to be kept back by the ice. She went down almost to Newfoundland, and there came face to face with an immense field of ice about ten miles long. The ' Montcalm ' is fitted with the Marconi system. But, unfortunately, the boats that first arrived were not fitted wih the system, so she could not communicate with and could not give the help they expected from her. Therefore, she returned to Quebec. We wished also to send her down to Seven Islands, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to make ail experiment in maintaing navigation during the winter, but, owing to the circumstances I have explained, this could not be done. The other ice-breaker, the ' Champlain,' though a very much smaller boat, kept navigation open on the ferry route between Murray bay and St. Denis wharf throughout the winter, except for a few hours during particularly stormy days. Altogether our experiments show that navigation throughout the winter is perfectly feasible, even under the most unfavourable circumstances, because last winter was, as everybody knows, a season of extreme severity.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The ' Montcalm ' was in service all winter ?
Mr. PREiFONTAINE. Yes, except for a few days when her propellers were being fitted with new blades.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many has she in her crew, and what is the expense per day ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The crew numbers forty, and the expense is $150 a day.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is done with the steamer in the summer ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She is on the lighthouse service in the gulf.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And the minister intends to continue this steamer in this icebreaking service next winter ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Steamboat inspection-to pay the widow of Douglas Stevens, late inspector of Dominion steamers and fog alarms, a gratuity equal to two months' salary, $250.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must ask that this item be dropped, to be renewed in the supplementary estimates for 1905-6. There has been a mistake in a calculation, the amount necessary to cover two months' salary of this late officer being $283. The item will be struck out in the meantime.
Marine hospitals-further grant to St. John, New Brunswick, Fernhill cemetery, to provide for the putting in order and for the perpetual care of the seamen's lots, $1,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this something new ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Parliament voted $1,000 for a lot to be known as the 'Seamen's lot ' in Fernhill cemetery. It is used for the interment of seamen dying in the marine hospital. The grant was insufficient, and the cemetery is in bad condition. We have made an arrangement with the authorities of the cemetery that this $1,000 will be paid, and they will for ever maintain the cemetery in good condition.
Post Office-compassionate allowance for the family of the late Mr. Patrick Callery, letter-carrier at Montreal, who was accidentally killed w'hilst on duty, January 25, 1905, the amount to be applied for the benefit of his widow and children in such manner as may be determined by the Treasury Board, $1,000.


Hon.   S@: Patrick Callery, letter-carrier at Montreal, was knocked down and run over by a horse and sleigh while returning home after work. The injuries he received resulted in his death about half an hour after the accident. Mr. Callery was appointed letter-carrier on the 19th of May, 1873. At the time of his death he was in his 61st year, and had been in the service 31 years and 7 months. During that time he was a contributor to the Civil Service Superannuation Fund. He left a widow and two children.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I know that case well, and I think the government never asked

for a more commendable vote. He was an old servant and a very faithful one.
To complete payments for mail service for year ending June 30, 1905, $100,000.


William Mulock: About .$85,000 of this amount is for the ordinary land service, the increase being due to the general expansion of the service, the increased prices asked for nearly all contracts put up for tender. During the last calendar year 409 new post offices were opened, forty per cent of them in Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia. Nearly all those new post offices necessitated new services. Of this amount $15,000 is required for railway mail service, the increase being due to the establishment of new services and greater frequency, placing postal cars on trains where baggage cars had been in use.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the amount of money voted in the main estimates last year ?


William Mulock: $2,561,700. We require about $100,000 more to complete the payments for the current year. It is entirely the same service, but we are expanding every day now.
To provide for the salary of A. W. Cairns, post office inspector, moved from Winnipeg to the Northwest Territories, at the rate of $2,000 a year from April 1, 1905, $500.


William Mulock: Mr. Cairns, who was assistant post office inspector at Winnipeg, has been appointed post office inspector in the Northwest Territories from the 1st of April last, at a salary of $2,000. That is the minimum salary of the appointment, and the amount of $500 is asked to provide for his salary for the balance of the current year. He has been in the service since March, 1882, and has been assistant post office inspector since the 1st of July, 1885.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When he was deputy inspector his salary was $1,500, I suppose ?


William Mulock: No matter what his salary was in some other office, if he is taken from that and put into another office, the vote made for the first office ceases. This is a vote to the office, not to the man. In his new appointment he is given $2,000 a year.
I wanted to lay upon the table some papers I promised to the bon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce). I told him I would do so, and I will do so now. But I am afraid I cannot do so, according to the rules of the House, until Mr. Speaker takes the chair.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They might be laid on the table by any member of the government when the House rises.


William Mulock: I will do it then.
Fisheries protection service-further amount required to provide new boilers and repairs to the hull of fishery protection cruiser ' Petrel,' $17,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ' Petrel ' was taken away from the service of the lakes and was replaced by the ' Vigilant.' The ' Petrel ' was too slow a boat, because the American poachers got away from her, and she could not do the service that was necessary. We have sent her to New Brunswick where there was need of a boat for the service of the department. Before sending her down we had her inspected, and it was discovered that her hull was in bad condition, and that new boilers were required.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where were these repairs made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Poison's in Toronto, after tenders were asked. She has gone to New Brunswick now.
To pay honorarium to R. N. Venning, chief clerk of the fisheries, for special services in connection with the Russian seizures, as per Order in Council, December 28, 1904, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Venning is an old employee of the department, who has been sent out as a special officer in connection with investigations of this character. He was in Paris when the Behring Sea investigation took place and when these commissions have taken place during the last twenty years Mr. Venning has been sent out from the department. He is a very .competent officer and we generaly allow him a certain amount.
Further amount required for salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $20,000.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if the government have given a license to any party or parties to fish in Moose Lake, or if any application has been received by the department for the exclusive privilege.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think there has been an application received for fishing rights in Moose Lake but it has not been entertained.


William James Roche: In other words the department do not mean to grant the application ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


William James Roche: The reason I ask that is that I am informed that an application has been made and that the parties have stated that they are going to receive the exclusive privilege. I am glad to hear such a license is not to be granted. I might ask the hon. minister if he is in receipt of any protest from parties in regard to the closing of Lake Manitoba ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, I liave received quite a number of protests against the closing of Lake Manitoba but after going into the question thoroughly I have considered that I acted rightly and in accordance with the wishes of the people in deciding that this lake should be closed to summer fishing for a few seasons.


William James Roche: What they complain of particularly is that there was no notice given to the smaller fishermen in advance. And that they have therefore suffered a hardship.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think they could plead ignorance. The matter was before the department for quite a while. As far back as last fall there was an agitation to close the lake for summer fishing. There were petitions in favour of it and counter petitions. Of course, we did not know what position we would take, and it was not until January that I had an opportunity of taking up the question of considering it and deciding it on its merits. At that time, of course, we all supposed that the people round there would know about it. The only serious complaint we received was from a gentleman named Macauley, I think. X do not remember the name now. He complained that he had filled his ice house and was prepared to go on with fishing in the spring. We looked into that case, but we did not consider that the gentleman was Justified in doing what lie had done. He only had a one-year's license, because these licenses were issued every year, and a man with only a license for one year is scarcely justified in going to a large expense without inquiring whether the lake is going to be kept open or closed.


William James Roche: I understand that there were some protests received from citizens of Portage la Prairie. When I visited the province of Manitoba two or three weeks ago I heard that citizens of Portage la Prairie had sent in strong protests to the minister against the closing of the lake. It appears that there is a short line of railway from Portage la Prairie to this lake which is largely used for excursion purposes and as a resort for the people of Portage la Prairie ; they intend deepening the harbour there, and I think the government were about to grant, if it is not already granted, a sum for dredging to be done for that purpose. They claim that if fishing is done away with it will practically render the harbour useless to them and will result very detrimentally to the citizens there as well as to this railway. That is the principal reason advanced, but besides that a great many people take issue with those who claim that it is necessary for the protection of the fish to have a close season. As to that point I am not in a position to judge. But many people who live in Portage la Prairie claim that there is no likelihood of the lake being Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
depleted of fish by keeping it open at the present time.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I wTent thoroughly into the question. I do not say that I am an expert, but from the officials I gather that there was only one salvation for the lake and it was to close it to summer fishing for two or three years. The lake is being depleted very fast. If these gentlemen that my hon. friend mentions have gone into an enterprise which depends on this class of fishing in that lake during the summer we could not render them a better service than by closing it for two or three summers so as to put the lake in the fcondition it was in former years. It is in a very bad condition at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it necessary to have this additional sum placed in the supplementary estimates ? Why was it not placed in the original estimates ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is found that $85,000 for salaries is not adequate to meet the expenditure. In 1896 and 1897 the appropriation was reduced from $100,000 to $85,000. At the time negotiations were between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the Dominion government as to certain jurisdiction an amount was placed in the estimates without being in a position to determine as to the amount required. Last year a similar amount of $20,000 was placed in the supplementary estimates, bringing the total up to $105,000. Since 1896 it has been the practice to vote in the main estimates only $85,000 leaving always a further sum to be voted in the supplementary estimates. I think that is bad policy. We should ask for what is necessary and my intention in future is to ask for exactly the amount that is necessary and not leave any back account. We will place the right amount in the main estimates in the next financial year.


Mr.   I@: I should like to make an observation as to the work done by many of these overseers, although as I am informed, a great many of them do no work at all. These men are supposed to prevent poaching, but in a great many cases, as men who are familiar with the facts inform me, they really do nothing. They do not pretend to do anything. It is a mere sinecure from which they enjoy a small salary and travelling expenses. One of these overseers, for instance, simply takes his own horse and wagon, drives around and charges up his alleged travelling expenses. That is the explanation which was given to me in this House about three years ago. That is not desirable. There is work that these men ought to be doing throughout the country. The laws regarding the observance of the fishery regulations are not observed. Public opinion is against their observance in some localities.

The men who ought to he protecting the fisheries and enforcing the observance of the law are looking on, practically conniving and paying no attention to their duties, taking good care never to be on hand when the laws are being broken. Representations have been made to me from various parts of the maritime provinces in regard to this, and I think the minister should take the matter up and see that men are appointed who will, whether it be popular or not, enforce the law. One man in my late constituency of Halifax, a most excellent officer, who went about on all occasions in the performance of his duty and did his duty fearlessly and well was dismissed and after his dismissal offered to continue in office without any salary, travelling expenses or indemnity whatever, Simply because he took an interest in the preservation of the fish. I am sure he was supported in the position he took by every one who knew him in the country and who had any interest whatever in the preservation of the law. However, he happened to be in the habit of voting for the Conservative candidate, and it was thought better to put him to one side, although he was an excellent and fearless officer and to appoint some one who simply shut his eyes and winked at violations of the law. In some localities in the maritime provinces, the law is being violated by the friends and neighbours of the Officers, they know it is being violated and take no steps to prevent it. Public money paid out under these circumstances for this purpose is worse than absolutely wasted and I would like to know from the minister whether or not he has heard anything of these circumstances, whether he is cognizant of them. There is no doubt about the accuracy of the information. The whole administration of this law seems to be a farce. Men are paid a small salary and very considerable sums for supposed travelling expenses which simply means remuneration to them for the employment of their own horse and carriage. Then they wink at the violation of the law. I have not time for sport of this kind myself and I do not know these things personally, but I am told by men who take an interest in the matter that the law is openly violated. We should not proceed in that way, but either give up any appearance of attempting to enforce the law or put men in these positions at a reasonable salary who will see that the law is carried out. One or the other course ought to be adopted. I am sure the minister will agree.
Mr. PitF.FONTAINE. I agree as to the breach of the law and regulation but we have such a vast territory that with all the good will in the world it is almost impossible under the present circumstances to have these regulations and laws followed up to the letter. I have had complaints and have tried as much as possible to remedy the complaints in every case. As regards the 211
special case mentioned by the hon. gentle-| man I may tell him he may rest assured that 1 I would never discharge a good officer for such a reason as he has mentioned.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 hope not ; this was long before the hon. gentleman's time. [DOT]


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Good officers are too difficult to secure and maintain in office. When they do their duty I certainly would not countenance any complaint made against officers who would follow the letter of the law and be rather severe. If the hon. gentleman were in my place he would find it very difficult to have the regulations followed as they should be followed. People will try to evade the regulations. We have the lobster regulations vrhich provide that lobsters of a certain size must not be taken. Well, unless we had an overseer or inspector on .every fishing boat it is almost impossible to detect frauds or the offences that are committed. In order to avoid the taking of seed lobsters what had we to do last year ? We made an experiment which has proved very satisfactory. We offered to establish ponds where the seed lobsters would be deposited and we would purchase them. We succeeded in that wray last year in saving over 500,000 seed lobsters. Probably out of this 500,000, 250,000, a Quarter of a million, would have been sacrificed. This goes to show' howr difficult it is to have these laws followed, but I am sure that the service is not worse, than it wras before and I should think that it was better. We have tried to organize it on the best footing possible and I am not going to give up the work until I am satisfied that proper protection is given to such a great industry as our fisheries. If any suggestions are made as regards improvements in inspecting and better protecting the fisheries I am ready to accept them from whatever side they come ; it makes no difference to me, I am ready to do what is in the public interest in this matter because I think there is no politics w'hatever, it is purely and simply a question of public interest that is at stake.


Robert Laird Borden: One association in the maritime provinces, I think, has made a suggestion to the minister that if he would accept their recommendation with respect to the appointment of an overseer they would undertake to assist iu every way in the enforcement of the law, and they believe the law can be enforced. The difficulty is that men are appointed in that particular locality who do not pretend to attempt to enforce the law but simply regard the appointment as a mere sinecure bringing them $25, $50 or $100 a year and who make no effort whatever, as every one knows, to enforce the law. These people who are interested in the presenva-tion of the fish say that if the minister will accept their recommendation they will endeavour to secure and recommend a



fearless man who could be expected to *carry out what he undertakes and if such a man is selected all the members of this association interested as they are in the preservation of the fisheries will join and give their support to that man and in that 'way certainly enforce the law very much better than it is enforced at present.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know of *the organization to which the hon. gentleman alludes, but I know of an organization in New Brunswick from whom X have accepted all suggestions of that kind willingly and *with the greatest pleasure and I have acted *upon them. There is a great complaint of some people who do not want these rules to be applied as they should be applied, and if such an association puts itself into communication with the department I am quite sure they will accept the suggestion. I think they have already done so. If not, X shall be glad to give the name of the president or some of the officers to the hon. gentleman or some of his officials.
Further amount required for the building and maintenance of fish-breeding establishments,
110,000.


William James Roche: I believe the hon. minister Informed the House some time ago that it was his intention to establish more fish hatcheries on lake Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman, I believe, was in receipt of a board of trade resolution or a series of resolutions from the town of Selkirk some time in the early part of this year, in which they complained of the manner in which the hatchery at the town of Selkirk was being operated, and also made some suggestions in regard to increasing the hatcheries on that lake. One of the clauses of the resolution reads :
The said hatchery has never hitherto been made use of to more than a small fraction of its capacity, due chiefly to the imperfect means used for procuring the whitefish ova, past experience having shown that attempts to procure ova for this hatchery by means of gill nets have been almost if not absolutely failures, and it is desirable >to make use of some better and more certain method of procuring the said ova.
They go on to make further suggestions : First, that tile hatchery at Selkirk be operated to its full capacity, secondly, that additional hatcheries be established' at Be-rin's river or Big Black river or at some other convenient location on the east shore of Lake Winnipeg ; and, third, that a full equipment of pound-nets be provided to procure an ample quantity of whitefish was to supply the hatcheries to their fullest capacity. I would ask the hon. minister if he has responded to this resolution by establishing additional hatcheries, improving the method of securing the ova, and making arrangements to operate the hatchery at Selkirk at its fullest capacity ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may say that X sent out Mr. Cunningham, the inspector, to Manitoba and British Columbia during the last few months, tie returned about a month ago, and has made certain recommendations in the sense which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. He has recommended the establishment of another hatchery in the lakes of Manitoba, besides the enlargement of the one at Selkirk. I think all these matters will he settled in time. Of course, I cannot go faster than the money is voted. I have exceeded the vote of last year by $10,000 owing to some pressing work in British Columbia, which was done so quickly that the money is due before the 1st of July, and it gives my officer a chance of going elsewhere. I am perfectly alive to the situation in the west as regards improvements in hatcheries, and if I had the money available, I would give speedy satisfaction to the people there.
Further amount required to pay persons employed in the Department of Marine and Fisheries fob services in connection with the distribution of the fishing bounty, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $600.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of this ?
Mr. PREI'ONTAINE. Every year there is a certain amount voted to pay those who make out the cheques for the distribution of the fishing bounty. It is never certain whether the expenditure will exceed the amount voted. This year it exceeded the amount by $600. There are about thirty girls employed doing this work in the winter.
Lighthouse and coast service-further amount required for maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $7-5,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I need not say that it is the desire of the department to efficiently maintain these aids to navigation. The appropriations which have been granted in the past have not been entirely sufficient, owing to the fact of the rapid increase in the number of aids to navigation, and the further fact that many of the lighthouses were without the required repairs. An additional amount is asked to place the system in an efficient state of repair, and when granted the ordinary vote should be sufficient to maintain it in proper shape. The department has never been able to catch up with the repairs which have been required, and it is deemed in the interests of the service to take steps at once to carry these out and to bring the different lighthouses up to a state of efficiency. In order to avoid as much as possible the heavy repairs which have been necessitated in the past, the department is more and more building permanent piers of steel and concrete rather than structures of wood as formerly. The first cost of

these is of course larger, but money is saved in the greater length of life. It is desired to minimize as much as possible the maintenance vote, and, as intimated above, the department is taking every possible step to carry this out. The introduction of steel skeleton towers has been a feature in recent construction by the department and the substitution of concrete piers for aids formerly built of timber. The total number of light stations, lightships, and fog alarms in the Dominion on June 30. 1904, was 790 and lights shown 9,996 ; the number of steam whistles, fog horns, bells and guns, 99 ; the number of lighthouses, 783. The increase in the number of aids to navigation in recent years rendered it desirable to increase the facilities for their proper inspection and operation. The large increase in the tonnage and size of the vessels on the great lakes necessitates a closer supervision and more frequent inspection than has obtained heretofore. Also the extended coast line of Canada, rivers, harbours and other navigable waters, require a large number of buoys. Annually the number of buoys have been increased, but in the past year the increase has been larger than in any previous year, causing a correspondingly larger expenditure. The cost of the buoy service alone last year, w'hich was charged to maintenance, was $125,000. I beg to refer you to the report of the department, page 3, which gives an interesting report of the lighthouse service. A large number of lighthouses were built soon after confederation and extensive repairs are now required in order to put them in good condition. A number are in such shape that practically new towers will require to be built, and, as it is important that the lighthouses should be kept up to the highest standard, this cannot be accomplished without the expenditure of money. I am per-sonnally aware of the representations that were made in years gone by as regards this service. I remember that when I belonged to the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, delegations came year after year asking for improvements in this respect. At that time the steamers navigating the St. Lawrence were not at all what they are now ; the aids to navigation which were sufficient ten years ago have now become obsolete ; and not only have they to be replaced as rapidly as possible but more quickly than we can do it, because the steamers are increasing in size in greater proportion than our improvements. Under these circumstances, I think this is money well spent in the interests of the country, and it will yield its return in proper time. I think everybody is convinced of the necessity of these improvements.


Samuel Barker: The minister has been addressing himself, I think, to several of the sub-items. As regards the vote for the maintenance and repairs of lighthouses, will he tell us what the previous amount was that was voted for that purpose for the year 1904-5.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Samuel Barker: It would be convenient if the amount voted in the main estimates for a particular service were put in a separate column alongside each supplementary item. It is most extraordinary that in a well managed department there should be $75,000 out in the estimate of money required for a year's repairs. This is not a question of building additional lighthouses; it is simply to repair existing structures.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is impossible to say in advance how much it will cost to keep these aids to navigation in proper condition for you never can know what damage will be done by ice and so on. If we were to allow three months of line weather to elapse without doing necessary repairs the steamship companies would complain bitterly and with reason that the country was not doing its duty in this respect. We have decided to maintain these aids to navigation in the best possible condition in order to satisfy the shipping federation. It might be interesting to give the committee information as regards the beneficial effect of these improvements on the commerce and navigation of the St. Lawrence route. I have information here which it is just as well should not be made public with reference to that matter, but people generally do not know that the St. Lawrence route is a more expensive route than the route to the Atlantic ports of the United States. I have a letter from Sir George E. Dx-ummond, who imports large cargoes of raw sugar every year. Every one admits the patriotism of Sir George Drummond, and we know that he would rather take his trade to the St. Lawrence than elsewhere, but sometimes as a matter of business and under certain circumstances he is obliged to import via Boston and Portland where the cost is from 25 to 30 per cent lower than via the St. Lawrence. I do not wish to dwell on this or to go into exact details which might be detrimental to the St. Lawrence route, but it is well known to all business men that the insurance rates to the St. Lawrence are from 25 to 50 per cent higher than to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Newport News, Norfolk and other United States ports. Even with the comparatively small work we have done in the last few years, I am glad to say that last year the insurance rates were reduced by 20 per cent on first-class risks and that reduction is of great advantage to Canadian trade. Mr. R. Wil-son-Smith, of Montreal, who publishes a

financial journal estimates that the total amount of marine insurance on the St. Lawrence route per year is $400,000,000, hull and cargo included, and the premium paid on that is $3,500,000 no difference being made lie tween Montreal and Quebec. The rates on the St. Lawrence are from 35 to 50 per cent higher according to the season than the rates to United States Atlantic ports. The Allan Line, Dominion Line, Reford steamers, and Canadan Pacific Railway line are all rated as first class ; the Manchester and Furness lines, second class, and tramp and outside steamers are included in the third class. The reduction of 20 per cent in the rate made in 1904 is quite a gain to the trade of the country as you will see by estimating it on the total premium paid. If we had the St. Lawrence route in such condition that it would compare with any of these United States ports I have mentioned in the rarity of accidents, and if the rates were reduced 30 per cent of 50 per cent in all-the 50 per cent excess rate only applies to tramp boats and steamers of the third class-the fifty per cent reduction would mean for one season of navigation $1,500,000 according to these figures given to me by this expert, and thus the saving effected in five years after the improved system had been completed would represent a very enormous sum of money indeed.
The boards of trade of Quebec, Montreal, Halifax and St. John have all been making representations to the department, and not only have they been making representations, but they have approved of what we have done. I will not repeat here the resolutions of congratulation to the department and the government that have been passed by these bodies. This is certainly the most important question that comes before parliament. If we spend a great deal of money'in establishing these Marconi stations, in putting in sub-marine bells and fog alarm systems, in trebling or quadrupling the capacity of the lights and adding to their number-if we do all we can to make accidents impossible, unless pilots or masters will run their boats ashore for the fun of it or through gross negligence, it stands to reason that the whole country will benefit. This is not a question of politics or of government policy, as between one party or another, for everybody agrees on this subject. The conditions must be met, and met as rapidly as possible. And even with our greatest progress, we shall not be able to keep up with the increased size of the steamers on the route. We have already two immense steamers, the ' Virginian ' and the ' Victorian.' The Canadian Pacific Railway has given a contract for two others of even larger size. The tendency is constantly to increase the size of vessels. Let us give the greatest protection to them that we jjan. Money spent in that way will receive the approbation of every one, even of those who are not in-Mr. PREFONTAINE.
terested in navigation. This is not a new idea by any means. Before I had the honour of occupying my present position I was connected with navigation in an indirect way as harbour commissioner of Montreal for four years. I took a great interest in those matters and mixed with people connected with navigation, and I knew that whatever was wisely done to improve the navigation on this route would receive the approval ot business men. whether they are directly connected with navigation or not.


Samuel Barker: I did not raise any question as to additional aids to navigation. I was not discussing that, nor did" I expect the minister to explain it. The item concerning which I asked an explanation was tile first item-'maintenance and repairs of existing lighthouses. The hon. gentleman received last year a grant of $500,000 for the year's repairs. Apparently he has expended $575,000. That was money required to repair existing structures. With any proper care on the part of the officers he ought to have been able to judge more closely than he seems able to do what he needed for repairs, for $575,000 is a considerable sum to expend in one year for repairs beyond what he called for originally.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is for maintenance also.
Mr. BARKER, Maintenance is a part of repairs. This is for maintaining existing buildings, I take it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; maintenance includes supplies for the different services.


Samuel Barker: Supplies in the way of oil, and so on ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Mr. BARKER, Then that seems to be rather worse. I suppose the department ought to know very closely how much will he required for supplies for existing lighthouses for the year. There seems less excuse for being- $75,000 out than if repairs were the only item. I simply point out that there must be a great deal of looseness in the estimates, when the hon. minister is $75,000 out in an item of this kind. I think it requires some explanation of how the error was made. There would have been no objection, I take it, last year to grant the hon. gentleman $575,000 or $600,000 if he had said he needed it. But he told us he only wanted $500,000, and that was given. Now, he has spent $75,000 more than the House authorized.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is an item which the hon. gentleman loses sight of. I made allusion to it in the beginning of my remarks, but I suppose that I did not make myself clear. Take, for instance, the buoys. Some of these cost a good deal of money, and they are sometimes broken, destroyed,
6641 MAY 26. 1905 6642	
or even carried away by the ice. Sometimes we are obliged to abandon some of these aids to navigation, because it is too late to take them away. There is a tendency, as hon. gentlemen are well aware, to keep navigation open as late as possible in the fall, and so it often happens that it is too late to recover the property. Mr. BARKER. Is not that sort of thing covered in the third item ? Mr. PREFONTAINE. No ; that was for a special locality, as I will explain in a moment. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What I cannot understand is why it is that, within a month of the close of the fiscal ,year, the hon. minister should be asking for $581,810 for the construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation. Is it possible to expend all that sum within five weeks ? * Mr. PRElFO-NTAINE. I may say that the progamme of improvements laid out by the department for the present fiscal year has been carried out much more quickly than we had reason to anticipate when the vote for 1904-5 was passed last session, and the department was then under the necessity of suspending urgent improvements required for the great national waterway or carrying out the same and obtaining the necessary allowance in these supplementary estimates. I have here a number of resolutions from the Shipping Federation of Montreal and the Montreal Board of Trade, in which the efforts which the department has made are approved, and stress is laid on the necessity of continuing the same. I may say that the programme is as follows : 1st. To improve our existing fog-alarms, anl bring them up to as high a standard as any :n the world. 2nd. To improve the coast lights in the Gulf and River St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic sea-board by the substitution of modern dioptric quick-flashing apparatus for the inferior apparatus installed. 3rd. To improve our buoyage system by the substitution of lighted for non-lighted buoys, on the principle that if a buoy is required for day navigation, a lighted buoy is required for service at night. On the sea coast it is our endeavour to light ' outside the danger,' which is the proper scientific principle. 4th. To improve the pilotage system of the Dominion. 5th. To install Marconi and submarine signal systems, at the same time that we are carrying out and bringing up our existing aids to navigation to a high standard second to none in the world, we are endeavouring to meet the needs of the growing trade of the country by building new lighthouses, new fog alarms, and placing * more buoys. This amount, $581,500, is in the way of being spent by 1st July and will complete the work that has been undertaken. It is impossible in advance to say what the reconstruction of a lighthouse will cost. Some of them are in very remote places, and	we have taken in hand those that are most remote, those in the gulf first. Some of them which were estimated to cost $5,000 have cost as much as $11,000, when done by days work, and under great difficulty. I have here a list of those improvements which are being executed, and which will be finished by the 1st of July, at various points in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario, amounting to $65,000, things that have to be completed. It is no use to bring back our men and leave this work half finished. All these things have to be done in order to satisfy the shipping people. Although all these expenditures were not authorized, they were all contemplated, so there is no misrepresentation. The work has been done, it is there and it renders it possible for navigation to open a little earlier than would have been the case if we had suspended the work. Mr. LENNOX. I understand that this $581,500 has been an over expenditure : and that is additional to the amount we voted last year. Mr. PREFONTAINE. It was contemplated that this amount would have been voted sooner. When we brought in the main estimates we did not suppose that we should go so far in the season with the expenditure, or that we should have to ask for supple-meiitaries now. As I have explained, expenditure has gone on faster than we anticipated, and we did not want to lose time in making these improvements. They had to be made, these works undertaken had to be completed. I think we have followed a good policy in executing these works as we have done. I must say that we have been asked to do a great deal more than we have done, and we are asked to do a great deal more in future, but that which has been done will remain of permanent advantage, and will be of great benefit to the marine interest. Mr. LENNOX. What is the amount that was voted last year ? Mr. PREFONTAINE. $852,000. Mr. LENNOX. And we have to expend in addition $581,500. Mr. PREFONTAINE. Yes. Mr. LENNOX. Now the minister has a very charming manner, and it is very hard to complain when he fails to answer exactly the questions that are put to him. He has been asked twice at least whether we are to expend this $581,000. or whether it has already been expended 1 Mr. PREFONTAINE. It has been partly expended, about fifty per cent has been expended. Mr. LENNOX. That is what we wanted to know. Last year we voted $852,000, and now we are asked to vote an additional $581,000. Already, without asking the leave

of parliament, one-half of that amount at least lias been expended. Now we are not inquiring whether there has been a wise expenditure ; but surely if we are to have parliamentary government at all, if we are to adhere to the system of voting moneys before they are expended, we must come a little closer to that condition of things than we are in the minister's estimates. I do not see how the minister can justify taking first $800,000, and then expending an additional $581,000 in advance within the current year. He should know, he should anticipate the requirements, and know how much the country can afford to expend upon this matter much more closely than he has done. I venture to say it is not a good system of parliamentary government for the minister to allow this condition of things to arise, it is not a thing that ought to be tolerated without very severe comment by an opposition. it is an extraordinary request to ask parliament to sanction an expenditure of public money if we are to have a great deal more than one-half the original amount, probably seventy-five per cent, added to the previous vote. I think the minister will see himself, the necessity of adopting a different system in the future. Let him take parliament into his confidence, let us understand what is contemplated, because it is very difficult to believe that the minister could not have foreseen a great deal of this expenditure a year ago. We want the hon. minister to promise to do better in future.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Alexander Martin: Perhaps the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries would kindly give us some information in regard to what the government propose to do in improving the communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I understand that a delegation has waited on the government within the last 'few days and another delegation was here about a month previously. I would like to know if it is proposed to add a third steamer in order to test if it is possible to fulfil the terms of confederation by building a new and more powerful steamer than they have provided at the present time and also if surveys are to be made this summer in regard to a tunnel.


Mr. LENNOX.: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I understand that at the present moment there is a delegation here making representations to the government on this question. The question as presented to these gentlemen involves an expenditure of about $10,000,000 if the scheme of the tunnel were to be accepted. As regards a temporary scheme or the addition of another boat it 'will be considered at the same time as the other question. I am not in a position as one of the members of the cabinet to make any declaration today on this matter. There is no doubt, if anything can be done to improve the service, the disposition of the government is to do it.


Alexander Martin: In 1900 the sum of $30,000 a year was granted in perpetuity in the province for the non-fulfilment of the terms of confederation. Perhaps the hon. minister can tell us whether any claim has been made by this delegation for the period between 1900 and the present time and what the government propose to do in regard to it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The matter is under consideration and I am not in a position to make a declaration now.


Alexander Martin: I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Finance. I asked for the papers in regard to this matter some time ago and it was promised that they would be brought down. The hon. Minister of Finance made a certain statement in this House. That statement is contradicted by members of the local government wrho are in sympathy with the minister and with the government which is here at the present time. I asked for the correspondence which has not been brought down and I would like to know if I will get it in the near future.	,


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember if my hon. friend's motion for the papers was passed or not. But if the papers are brought down I think they will prove the accuracy of what I said. As far as the claims made by the local government are concerned I must do these gentlemen the justice of saying that they are claiming everything in sight. There lias been no lack of claim on their part. If everything is not arranged as they wish it will not be from any want of claiming on their part.


Alexander Martin: Perhaps the hon. minister has raised their expectations a little too high previous to some election or something of that kind, and I suppose that if he has done that he will be responsible for it, but at any rate the province is only claiming what every one admits is fair and equitable. But the papers, I think, will settle the matter, and it is very important while these delegates are here that we should have these papers. I asked for them over a month ago. The statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance is completely contradicted by mem-


bers of the local government and by the premier of the province. If the hon. minister is correct then the leading member of the delegation that waited on the government a few days ago is incorrect in the statement which he made in the legislature.


William Stevens Fielding: My statement I do not think is contradicted because it was made on the basis of an Act of this parliament and the Act speaks for itself. That cannot be contradicted, the document is there and I do not think it is open to debate. Did the hon. gentleman's motion for papers pass the House?


Alexander Martin: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: If the motion has passed and the papers have not been brought down I will make it my business to inquire because if they have not been brought down they ought to be brought down.


Alexander Martin: Would it be possible for the hon. Minister of Finance to say whether a third boat is to be provided for this year and placed on the route ? Of course it is all very nice now, but another winter is coming and in view of our experience last year and many others, 1 hope the government will not leave it to the last minute but will provide the necessary amount without delay.


William Stevens Fielding: That is one of the matters which the delegation has pressed upon the government and it is now under the consideration of council. If it is to be dealt with it will have to be in the supplementary estimates for the coming year which hat e not yet been laid before the House.
To pay expenses incurred in extending navigation till December 15, 1901. maintaining all necessary lights and fog alarms in operation, keeping the harbours at Fort William and Port Arthur open, removing keepers after the above date, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Was this attempt successful ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Very successful. The quantity of wheat which was in store at Port Arthur and Fort William was larger by many millions of bushels than at the close of navigation in the previous year and by keeping navigation open in that way the grain people interested in the transportation of grain caught up to the previous year.


Haughton Lennox: When was this first thought of ? Is it a matter that can he anticipated, or has it to be provided for by a supplementary vote every year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It depends on the season. In some seasons navigation closes earlier than in others, but last year it closed earlier than in tlie former season.


Haughton Lennox: There is a certain time at which navigation closes and this was carried oil after the ordinary time ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. on account of the shortness of storage at Fort William.


Haughton Lennox: Therefore, it is a thing: that has to he thought of from time to time as necessity arises ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) moved for leave to lay on the table of the House certain papers connected with the affairs of the Thessalon post office. He said : In connection with this motion, I. would crave the privilege of the House to make a few very brief observations. When this matter was before the House some days ago I bad not the papers before me, and was not aware they would be referred to by the hon. gentleman who made the motion. I could, therefore, speak only in general terms. Since then I have perused these papers, and would state precisely my connection with the matter and the circumstances under Which I acted. In May, 1904, in the ordinary course of my duties, I found upon my taole the report of the inspector for that monthreporting irregularities at the Thessalon -post office. I considered the statements sufficient to warrant an order for the dismissal of the postmaster, and so directed ; and, in the ordinary course, the report, with my authority or direction upon it, went out to the department to be treated in the ordinary way. One or two communications came to the office during that interval. One is a letter from the postmaster himself, wherein he explains that the shortage was not caused by himself, but by his assistant. Another communication was a private communication from the daughter of the postmaster, wherein she herself states that she is responsible for the trouble that had been brought upon her father. While the matter remained in that position, the postmaster having resigned and the present member for Algoma having been called upon to make a recommendation of a successor, be did not do so, having bis reasons for it, doubtless, one of them "being, as he says in one letter to me, that he did not wish to have to fill the vacancy on the eve of a general election. That seems to be his idea, but lie had no acquiescence or authority from the department to do more than make his nomination. The matter did not come before me In anyway until in the following month of February of this year*. Then, on the opening of this parliament, the member for East Algoma stated to me that X had reached an unjust decision In dismissing the postmaster, and asked me to review the circumstances. I called upon the department to lay before me all the papers, and they then laid before me some papers, and then, for the first time, I had before me the report of tlie month of April from the same inspector. The report
upon which I acted was the report of May, 1904. In that report the inspector threw the responsibility upon the postmaster, but in the report for April, which then, for the first time, was laid before me, the inspector did not throw responsibility upon the postmaster. In the report of April the inspector found a shortage of some $500, and that forms part of the shortage no doubt that he again referred to in May. But in dealing with the shortage in April the inspector, referring to the postmaster, said :
He admitted that heretofore he had entrusted the verifying of the stamps and the postal notes wholly to his daughter and accepted the figures she gave him as correct. His supervision of the accounts being chiefly in seeing that the debit and credit accounts were correctly made up and the remittances sent to the bank as required by the regulations.
Further on, he again says, speaking of the whole matter :
I observed when in Thessalon that several members of the postmaster's family are allowed access to the office and there is not the care taken of the office that I considered necessary at an office like Thessalon. I am satisfied the postmaster's statement is absolutely correct, and that he has never used any post office funds and there is no reason to believe the daughter has done so either.
I say this report of the month of April, dealing with part of the shortage, inasmuch as it did not throw any moral blame on the ofiicers, was put on the files in the ordinary way ; I suppose the authorities of the department not considering it important, and it was not .called to my attention. Whatever be the reason, that report was not before me until I called for all the papers connected with the history of this affair, and in February last this report came to me, and when I found that the inspector, the same officer, in the month of April, in dealing with part of this shortage, had stated :
I am satisfied that the postmaster's statement is absolutely correct and that he never used any post office funds and there is no reason to believe the daughter has done so either.
I felt I could not accept his judgment in a case of this kind, and accordingly I gave *the postmaster the .benefit of whatever doubt there was and directed his re-instatement. In the next report of May, 1904. be added that the daughter was * in feeble health and suffering from some internal malady that was likely to involve some serious operation. All those circumstances weighed with me, and when I reviewed the case in February of this year I felt no good purpose would be served, and I did not think public opinion would call upon me to give further publicity to the affair, and I felt a desire to throw a veil of charity over what i supposed to be some shortage or infirmity on the part of the officer realiy responsible, and/or that reason I did not desire to give publicity to the circumstances, inasmuch as the postmaster himself bad made good the Sir WILLIAM MULOfiK.
shortage, and, so far as I knew, had borne an unblemished character, was. a man in good standing, and had been for over twenty years in the service of the government, and there never had been a charge of anything against him during his long period as a trustee of public funds. Whether I was justified or not in fact, I had ample precedent for it. If I were to enumerate to this House the many instances that I find on record wherein my predecessors-not one minister alone, but going back for years, many ministers, have taken a charitable view of cases presenting features which, on the surface, would call for apparently the severest treatment-I say if I were to recite to this House instances of this kind, it would be found that I was not the first Postmaster General that had exercised a discretion of this nature in favour of the persons in office.
I would be perfectly willing, if any one desired, to discuss the record of previous ministers. If it was considered just to postmasters to have been forgiven by previous ministers, I tbink I would have more than justification for what I have done in this particular case. I would not consider it a justification. Each case must be considered on its merits, and no person can sit in judgment satisfactorily upon another who in cases of this kind exercises a discretion which may at the time seem to him right, but which may perhaps not stand the absolute criticism of those who demand nothing but hard and harsh justice. Accordingly I recommended the reinstatement of this postmaster. He told me first of all in a letter marked confidential that the fault lay with his daughter, and the daughter said that the fault lay with herself. It may have been true ; I do not know whether it was or not. The inspector who in one month declared the postmaster guilty, had said in the previous month that he had not touched those funds. The lion, leader of the opposition thought there should be an inquiry. Perhaps he was right. I am not prepared to challenge the correctness of that view. I would not have laid these papers on the table but that the discussions which took place practically defeated the object I had when I reinstated the postmaster and did not direct any further inquiry. I thought that the trouble was in that family, and that there was no good purpose to be served after the public funds were restored, by my taking proceedings to find out whether or not the daughter was really the guilty party. Accordingly the matter rested as it did, and but for the publicity apparently given to the action of either the daughter or the father, I would not even now have taken the course which I have taken. But since my object was defeated by the discussion in this House, I decided that I would then do what the leader of the opposition said ought to have been done at an earlier date, and 1 directed that the matter be inquired into by the chief super-
0G49

intendent of the Post Office Department, Mr. Ross, and some other inspector along -with him. Mr. Ross is at present in Winnipeg, and on his way back from Winnipeg lie will with some other inspector make an investigation, and see where the fault lay.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Mr. Speaker, I was desirous of further discussing this matter with the hon. gentleman before the House, and this morning gave him notice of my intention to mention the matter in the House this afternoon. But it stood over, and I had not any idea that the hon. gentleman would bring the matter up at this late hour of the night. I would ask whether it would be possible to leave the matter open for discussion at some subsequent time ? I cannot reconcile, so far as I have heard them, the remarks which the hon. gentleman has made and the explanations which he has tendered, with the facts as they exist to my knowledge out of the reports on tile and in the reports on file; and the hon. gentleman's former statements and some of the statements he has made to-night are absolutely irreconcilable. If what remarks I have to offer to the House have to be made now, it will be at some considerable inconvenience ; and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that an arrangement be made so that this matter, which I am anxious indeed to lay before the House, can be fully discussed later on upon the papers which are brought down. While on my feet, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he has not brought down all the papers on the file. I have looked over the papers which he has brought down, and there are a number of very important letters which are not among them. There are memoranda having a very important bearing upon the financial transactions involved, which are on the file and in respect of which no privilege can be claimed, but which the hon. gentleman lias not brought down ; and there are specific documents which I asked for in the House, and of which I gave the Prime Minister a memorandum, none of which are included in the return. I refer to the very imiiortant documents called salary warrants, which must show, and I think do show, that no excuse can be made such as is offered now, that the postmaster thought he was dealing with funds due to him out of salary warrants. The statement also, for which I asked, and of which I gave a memorandum to the Prime Minister, as to the amount paid to the postmaster for six months preceding the 19th of May, 1904, is not brought down. Then I would ask that an opportunity be afforded me of further mentioning this matter when all the papers are down and when the hon. the Postmaster General is in his place ?
Sir WILLIAM MtlLOCK. The hon. gentleman wilt have every opportunity to discuss any question affecting the public service on any day that a motion is made to go into Committee of Supply. He cannot be deprived of that right. As to the hon. gentleman's statement that I have made some statements which vary from the papers produced, if he will be good enough to state what he refers to, I might address myself to that point.
Mr. BOYCE, i' was hoping that the hon. gentleman would have brought down all the papers, so that the discussion could have been directed to the subject with all the papers before the House. It will be futile for me to continue the discussion now, with only probably one-half the papers before the House. I am quite ready to discuss the matter with the papers that have been brought down. I think possibly I can point out to the hon. gentleman some defects or inconsistencies in the statements which he has made now as contrasted with those which he made when the matter was first mentioned in the House. But I should like to have an opportunity of mentioning the matter later on when the hon. gentleman is in his place in the House.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman knows quite well that there will not possibly be an opportunity of discussing the matter again for some time when I shall be here.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the hon. gentleman not be here on Tuesday ?


William Mulock: No, I am leaving town to-morrow night. I may be in town again next week, but I am not sure of my movements after to-day. I am not aware of any papers oil file which have not been brought down. I did not arrange or review the papers. The instructions were to produce the papers, and I am surprised if any of the papers on file are not produced. I do not claim any privilege ; on the contrary, I am most pleased to furnish any papers connected with the matter, and therefore I am surprised to hear that any papers having any bearing on the subject are not brought down. The other day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) stated that some payments were made to the postmaster after his dismissal. On that point he had superior knowledge, because lie had been examining the papers with a Yiew discussing them and I had not seen the for many months. I said in a general nay that I thought it impossible that moneys had been paid to the postmaster after lie ceased to render service. I asked the secretary of the department to make an explanation and I found that salary warrants had been issued until some day in \vmust The explanation of the secretary is among the papers, and I thought it was very fair.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is the explanation of three days ago.


William Mulock: 
Arthur Cyril Boyce: 
William Mulock: 
William Mulock: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman should go-over the file carefully and send to the department a list of the papers which he thinks or knows to be in existence, or which may be on file, and we will try to meet his wishes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that will be quite satisfactory, and as the Postmaster General says, the matter can be brought up on any day when the House is moved into Committee of Supply ? It is a Pity the Postmaster Genera] did not have an investigation made before the appointment as he now proposes. It would strike me that I would hardly be prepared to correct the report of May by the report of April; I would rather be inclined to correct j the report of April by the subsequent and fuller report of May.


William Mulock: It is very easy to be wise afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: Further than that, so far as putting the blame on the daughter is concerned, if there is any one consideration in the whole affair that would incline me not to reappoint the father it is the very fact that he endeavours to cast the blame of this upon his own daughter, or upon some one who stands in the relation of daughter to him. That appeals to the Postmaster General in a different way. It would be the last reason in the world why I should reappoint that man, and I do not think I will change my mind after reading the papers. However, we may look at these things from different standpoints.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What government business will be taken up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 29, 1905.