1905-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway, Company.-Mr. Geoff-rion. .


Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the stables on the officers' barrack grounds at Fredericton, N.B., referred to on page V-62 of the Auditor General's Report' ?
2.	If so, what publication was made of the call, what tenders were received, and what were their respective amounts ?
3.	Were tenders called for the construction of the sergeant-major's Quarters at Fredericton, N.B., referred to on the same page of the Auditor General's Report ?
4.	If so, w'hat publication was made of the call, what tenders were received, and what were their respective amounts ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.

2.	The call for tenders was published in five newspapers. One tender only was received, that of C. J. B. Simmons for $2,210.
3.	Yes.
4.	The call for tenders was published in five newspapers. One tender only was received, that of O. J. B. Simmons for $2,118.


Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	When was the contract let for the rebuilding of the drill hall at Fredericton, N.B.; to whom was it let ; and at what price ?
2.	Were tenders called for ? If so, what publication was made of the call, what tenders were received, and what were their respective amounts ?
3.	What date does the contract fix for the completion of the work ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Contract signed on the 7th December, 1904. Awarded to C. J. B. Simmons. Amount of contract, $12,955.
2.	Yes. the call for tenders was published in fifteen newspapers. Four tenders were .received, namely :-C. J. B. Simmons, $12,955 ; Willard Kitchen, $13,387.74; John Maxwell and Chas. A. Hall, $14,000 ; J. D. McLaughlin. $15,300.
3.	November 15th, 1905.


FREE MAIL DELIVERS'.
Mr. URIAH WILSON asked :: 1.	What is the total cost of free mail delivery in towns and cities of Canada where such system is utilized ?
2.	Does the Post Office Department keep any record of the number of letters, newspapers, parcels, &c., so delivered ?
3.	If so, how many of each such were delivered ?
4.	If not, -what is the estimated number of each, the estimate to be taken from the usual process of enumeration by the Post Office Department ?
5.	What is the estimated cost per letter, per paper, per parcel, &c., delivered in the above towns and cities ?


Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Salaries of letter carriers. . $415,241 42
Cost of uniforms, &c. . . .	17,253	f>9
Conveyance of letter car-	_
riers by street railway.. 10,253 14
Total	$432,748	25
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4 and 5. The department is not in a position to furnish an estimate in reply to these inquiries.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC ROUTE.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1. Has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company proposed or submitted to the government any plan of the route of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway west of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba ?
2.	If so, has such plan been approved by the government, or disproved, wholly or in part ?
If disproved, for what reason ?
3.	Does the line proposed or submitted as aforesaid run to the north or to the south of the Canadian Northern Railway, in the province of Manitoba ; and within what distance of said railway ?


Hou. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


SCHOOL LANDS SOLD.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	How many acres of school lands have been sold at public auction in the provisional districts of Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, respectively, by the government, from the 1st January, 1900, to the 31st December, 1905 ?
2.	What were the highest and lowest prices obtained per acre ?
3.	What was the average price per acre obtained in each provisional district ?


Rt. Hou. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Alberta, 304 acres (1 sale).
Assiniboia. 143,431 "65 acres. Saskatchewan, 237:53 acres.



ALBERTA.

[Stage Direction]
2.	1 sale, $19 per acre.

[Stage Direction]
Highest price, $37.50.
Lowest price, $7.20.

[Stage Direction]
Highest price, $107.
Lowest price, $40.
3.	Alberta, $19.
Assiniboia, $9.69.
Saskatchewan, $S6.54.

Mr. LAKE asked :: t
1.	Have any steps been taken by the government, in pursance of the resolution of April 2nd, 1901, to obtain an authoritative interpretation of the meaning of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract in relation to the exemption of the lands of that company from taxation in the Northwest Territories ?
2.	If so, what is the present state of any legal proceedings that may have been entered upon ?
3.	Has any decision been given as to the' right of boards of school trustees and of municipalities to collect taxes on these lands from the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) :: By arrangement, three test cases were brought-two by municipalities and one by the school district of Spring-dale-against the Canadian Pacific Railway in a Manitoba court. These were decided in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals in Manitoba. Two of the appeals were successful, and one unsuceess-I ful, and the cases were taken to the Supreme

Court of Canada where they are now pending. If my hon. friend wishes to pursue his inquiry further, I have with me the printed factums of the appeals to the Supreme Court which he may look over if he desires.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When is it expected the appeals will be heard ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They were heard at the last sitting of the court, and I expect judgment in about a fortnight.



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Public Works for the year ending 30th .Tune, 1904.-Mr. Hyman.

Mr. DANIEL.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, would the Rt. hon. First Minister tell us when we shall have the preliminary report of the Transportation Committee ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It will be brought down very shortly.



SAFETY OF SHIPS.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend the Act respecting the safety of ships-Mr. Sinclair.
On section 1,
1. Subsection 1 of section 7 of chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes, intituled An Act respecting the safety of ships and the prevention of accidents on board thereof, as amended by section 1 of chapter 63 of the statutes of 1903, is amended by striking out the words ' or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the registered tonnage ' in lines 11 and 12 of the said subsection.
Mr. SINCLAIR.: The purpose of the Bill is to enable sheltered deck vessels or steamers to carry timber between the main and the sheltered deck. At present they are prohibited doing so between the 12th October and 16th March. They are allowed to do so in the summer season, and I can see no good reason why they should not be permitted to fill in this space with lumber in the winter season also. The law requires of course that a ship shall not be overloaded, but the Plimsoll mark regulates that. Other descriptions of cargo are allowed between the main and the sheltered deck, but not timber, and my object is to allow the same privilege to shippers of lumber. This space consists of about eight or nine feet according to the construction of the vessel, and under the law vessels are allowed to carry only three feet of tim-her so that there are five feet not occupied at all. It would not in any way interfere with the navigation of the vessel or increase the danger to the crew if the whole space were filled up.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a little difficult to hear what the hon. gentleman has said. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
I did not gather exactly what is the space to which he referred. And before he concludes his explanation, I would like to know what was the reason of the legislation in the first instance-whether or not the amendment which the hon. gentleman now proposes is in any way inconsistent with any provisions of the Imperial statutes applying to ships generally throughout the empire. I would also remark that it seems to me desirable, when a Bill of this character is proceeded with, that we should have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in his place to give the subject his consideration. I know there has been a good deal of discussion of matters of this kind in the maritime provinces ; and while, I do not profess to have very much knowledge of the reasons pro and con. I know that there has been a difference of opinion in some quarters.


John Howard Sinclair: The leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) was not in his place when I introduced the Bill. I explained that it was necessary to get the consent of the Board of Trade of England in order to have this Bill become law in Canada. I understand that the policy of the government is not to make any changes in this law unless concurred in by the Board of Trade. I laid the matter before the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and communication is now being had with the Board of Trade, to see if the proposal is satisfactory to them. I do not propose to push the Bill through its final stages until word has been received on the subject, but I would ask the House to put it through the preliminary stages, so that if the consent of the Board of Trade is obtained it can be pushed through this session. The shelter deck is a growth. It was first a roof over the deck to carry cattle. Then the roof was extended the whole length of the deck, and finally the sides were built up with the ordinary steel frame and plank, and the whole became part of the ship as much as any other part. But the law remained the same, prohibiting the carrying of timber, except to the height of three feet on the main deck. What I propose is to permit that timber be carried between the main and shelter decks, that is, eight feet above the main deck. There is no reason why it should not be allowed, especially as we permit the ship to carry cattle and other things during the winter season. There is nothing about deals or lumber to make them dangerous to carry during the winter season. We allow the ship to be filled with apples or cheese or other products, but we do not allow it to carry deals or boards except under these restrictions. It pays a certain class of ships out of business in Canada for part of the year. These vessels in the North Atlantic trade, when October 12 comes, have to go out of business because they are not allowed to carry deals in this space.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any Imperial statute with the terms of which this inactment is inconsistent ?


John Howard Sinclair: The Imperial statute is the same as our own which we are attempting to amend. If the amendment carried here, I presume the amendment will be made, in England similar to this.
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER (Prime Minister). In the absence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pre-fontaine) I may explain that this matter has engaged his attention. But, as stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) it is not intended to push this Bill to a finish unless we know whether or not it is approved by the Board of Trade of England. I believe the Bill will meet with universal favour and will be a help to navigation. Still, my hon. friend only proposes to take it through committee and then let it stand until we have an answer from England.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think it would be better to let the Bill remain in committee until we receive the Information from England. I do not think that will delay it at all.
Progress reported.



CERTIFICATES TO MASTERS AND MATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Second reading ot Bill (No. 3) to amend the Act respecting Certificates to Masters and Mates ot Ships.-Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. LANCASTER.: I am willing to drop that order, because I introduced a Bill yesterday to take its place.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Dropped.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Second reading ot Bill (No. 23) to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code, 1892, with respect to common bawdy houses.-Mr. Bole.
Mr. HATJGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this amendment, if he has not already considered the subject. I presume that all the members of the House wish to confine the amendments of Acts to as narrow limits as possible. I do not wish to enter into a long discussion of the legal aspect of this matter, but I have collected authorities bearing upon it, and I think that it would be better to allow the Bill to stand. I would be very glad to submit to the Minister of Justice the authorities to which my attention has been directed, that he may see whether the amendment is necessary. My own opinion is that it is not necessary. Our Act differs from the English Act in that it defines what constitutes this class of offence. This is not
a convenient time to go into the discussion. If the minister agrees with me this Bill might be allowed to stand.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Stands.



EARNINGS OF THE CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.) moved:
For copies of all correspondence had between the government, or any department or member thereof, and the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, or any other corporation or corporations, or person or persons, not included in the return brought down on the twenty-ninth day of July, 1904, in reference to the purchase and taking over by the government of the Canada Eastern Railway ; and of all other papers in the possession of the government, or any department thereof, not included in the said return of July, 1904, in reference to the purchase and taking over of the said railway, and the cost thereof. And also for a return showing, (1) the number of officials and employees in the service of the said railway at the time of its transfer to the government, with their names and their respective salaries or wages ;	(2) the number of officials and employees now in the service of the said railway, with their names and their respective salaries or wages ;	(3) the cost of the operation of the
said railway from the date of its transfer to the government until the first day of February, 1905, and the gross earnings of the said railway" during the same period.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: There is no objection to the motion, but the information asked for in the last line with respect to the gross earnings of that railway during the past year it would be impossible to give, because it is all part of one system. The motion should be amended.


Mr. CROCKET.: Do I understand the minister to say that it is impossible to give the House a statement of the gross earnings of the road from the time it was taken over until February 1?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is impossible for this reason, that the separate earnings of that portion of the Intercolonial are not made the subject matter of bookkeeping, any more than the earnings of that portion of the road between Newcastle and Camp-bellton is kept separate. The earnings of any portion are included in the earnings of the whole, and it would be difficult, as I understand the bookkeeping of the Intercolonial. to make such a return. ,


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Then they have a system of bookkeeping on the Intercolonial if the statement of the minister is correct, which is entirely different from that of any other railway in the world.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was the one established by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart), I think.


John Graham Haggart: No. I have not the slightest doubt that the information could

be obtained, notwithstanding the statement of the minister. There is no railroad having a proper system of bookkeeping with respect to which he cannot get information concerning a part of it, whether of a station or of any other portion of the road ; the minister can get all the earnings if he takes the trouble and orders it to be done. It is absurd to say that on an important line of railway which was taken over by the Intercolonial, a branch line virtually of the Intercolonial, there is no separate account kept of the receipts and expenditures of that branch line. There ought to be in the first place a separate account kept of that portion of the road; if such separate account is not kept its bookkeeping is different from that of any other railroad in the country. On the Intercolonial you can find out the receipts and expenditures of any portion of it.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I think the minister is surely in error iu stating that these earnings cannot be returned. Surely that branch line must make returns to the Audit Department every few days, although they may be included in the total returns of the Intercolonial. Then let him ask his Audit Department to furnish him separate returns for this branch line, and it can be done in twenty minutes, returns from every station on that road. All he would have to do would be to take the through-freight and the local freight, by collecting the mileage on the through-freight he could apportion in a very short time the earnings derived from the branch.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be an easy matter to give the freights collected at any particular station on that portion of the Intercolonial, as it would -be easy to give the amounts collected on either incoming or outgoing freights at any station on the Intercolonial. But while it might be possible to do that, and figure out on the mileage basis as compared with the whole, the proportionate amount that would be due, that would take some time. I do not think the accounts are kept separate. Of course there is no objection to the return, but it would be a work of time to get that done. This matter I think has been before the House before in connection with that portion of the Intercolonial between Levis and Ste. Rosalie, or Montreal, and it has been stated time and again that under the bookkeeping on the Intercolonial, which is similar, as I understand it, to the bookkeeping on the other Canadian systems, there is no separate account kept of the earnings on any single portion.


Mr. SAM. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) can do this, he can give absolutely the earnings on the purely local traffic. It would not be a matter of great labour to the department to take the through-traffic for this very small business Mr. HAGGART.
that has been going on, apparently, on this road, and divide it upon the mileage basis upon the main line of the Intercolonial. I think he will find that the Audit Department of his road will do that in a very short time. As it is important that we should know at this stage of the history of the road acquired by the government just what it is doing, I think the House ought to require this return.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the minister (Mr. Emmerson), though he did state at first that it was impossible to collect the information, he afterwards qualified it. I think perhaps he is inclined to exaggerate the difficulty a little, and that it would be better that the motion should be passed in its present form.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am quite willing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing the number of box and flat cars added to the equipment of the Intercolonial Railway for each year from 1900 to 1904, inclusive ; the total number on January 1, 1900, and on January 1, 1904, respectively ; and the number in use on roads off the Intercolonial Railway on January 1, 1900 and 1904, respectively.-Mr. Foster.
Return showing the number of inspectors or other persons employed to attend to the enforcement of the Fruit Marks Act of 1901. The names of the said inspectors or other persons, and the salaries paid to each, respectively. The total amount paid to said persons on account of salaries up to the 1st of January, 1905. Also the amount paid to said persons for travelling and other expenses up to 1st January, 1905.-Mr. Taylor.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the packing and sale of apples.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: This resolution was before the Committee of the Whole a few days ago, and I think the principle was fully accepted by the House. There was, however, a doubt expressed as to whether the size of the apple box herein defined should apply only to the export trade or to internal commerce as well. I asked the committee to rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again, for the purpose of finding out exactly what was the desire of the fruit men in this respect, and also how other parts of the Act were likely to affect them. I find that the size described for the barrels, which is already defined in the Act, is for export, and I also find that while a large number of the fruit men would be very glad to have this box defined for the internal trade also, the majority of them I think desire to take only one step at a time.

and to define the size only for the export trade. My own view is that if it is applied to the export trade, practically, the boxes made will be made for the interior trade also and they may be adopted if they wish. If anybody chooses for his own purposes to use boxes for the internal trade he can do so. Under these circumstances I wish, to amend the resolution so as to make it perfectly and absolutely clear that it applies only to the export trade, and I think that can be done by making some slight amendment in the first line of subsection 2 which reads thus :
Every person who offers or exposes for sale, or who packs for export, &c.
I think by striking out the comma after the word ' sale,' striking out the word 1 who 1 and inserting a comma after the word 'packs,' the object will be accomplished. It will then read thus :
Every person who offers or exposes for sale or packs, for export, apples, &c.
I think that will make it perfectly clear that it applies only to the export trade. The rest of the resolution indicates that it applies to the export trade only. I am informed that another amendment would be desirable. A good many people have already ordered boxes and they are being made to-day by the box-makers for the current season. The contracts have been entered into and I think under these circumstances it would be well to add a clause to this resolution saying that it shall only come into effect on, say, the first of July, 1906 instead of coming into effect on the passage of the Act. That would give full warning and give an opportunity botli to the packers and to the box-makers to adapt themselves and the conditions of their trade to the provisions of the Act as thus amended. I would therefore propose that a new clause should be added as follows :
The provisions herein contained shall come into force on the 1st July, 1906.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the hon. minister if boxes of the dimensions mentioned in the bon. gentleman's resolution are used by other countries exporting apples to England and to what extent ?
Mr. FISHEIt. In reply to my hon. friend I would say that there are other countries which define the size of their boxes. I might say that Tasmanian apples, which are very largely used in England and which come into competition with our own apples, are packed in boxes of this size, and that this size has been found the most convenient for the trade in England. Our people have thought that by adopting the same size their apples would appeal more to the market in England than if they had a different size. This size has been found acceptable to the British trade. It is a size which has been used in British Columbia for many years and to-day a great many of the packers in 24
Ontario, at least, are using it. The fruit growers' associations of Ontario, the maritime provinces and Quebec have passed resolutions in favour of this size.
%
. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would not think that the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture to subsection 2 of section 4a would alter the clause very much. I would like to have the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice as to the effect of striking out the comma. It is proposed to amend this section by striking out a comma in one place, inserting it in another and eliminating the word ' who.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture showed me his suggestion immediately before the resolution wras called and I did not have time to consider it very carefully, but so far as a resolution of this kind is concerned I must confess that I like to have time to think what I am going to do. 1 would not like to commit myself.
Mr. SPItOULE. D does not seem to differ very much from that which was originally proposed. It certainly is confusing. It would not be easily understood by the common people. Surely if we can use the English language in a manner to be understood we had better do so rather than to leave the section in this ambiguous form.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to ask my hon. friends opposite whether they consider that the section as proposed with this amendment is not clearly understood.


Mr. SPEOULE.: I think it is not.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think there is a great doubt about it. I think there would be exactly the same doubt as there is at present. I do not think the proposed amendment alters the legal sense at ail. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture that punctuation according to most legal authorities is not regarded at all in the interpretation of statutes. There may be some few cases in which it has been taken into consideration as a final resort, but it is very easy to make this plain without resorting to any such expedient. You can simply add a clause stating that it is not intended to apply to apples offered for sale in Canada. It is perfectly easy to make it plain and there is no reason why it should remain ambiguous.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It was at one time considered unwise to use any punctuation at all, the idea being to begin a document and go right through without any punctuation whatever, but if my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture desires to restrict the application of that clause to sales for export we might allowr the resolution to pass with the understanding that the committee shall consider an amendment to that effect.


Samuel Barker: I am not quite sure whether I know what the hon. minister is trying to do, but I would suggest these words instep, of commas :
Every person who packs and offers or exposes for sale and export, &c.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Why do you want the word ' sale ' in at all ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see myself the slightest doubt as to the meaning of the words proposed. What my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) proposes is simply a different form of saying the same thing, as I understand it. I cannot see that there can be the slightest doubt as to the meaning of the words I have proposed. Sec. 4a says:
When apples are packed in Canada for export for sale by the box, &c.
The words are not exactly the same but they mean distinctly that it is only for export, and the words that I have suggested in clause b would indicate clearly that the clause as amended should only apply to the export trade. If there is any doubt about the matter or any doubt as to the wording then certainly the clause had better stand entirely as it is and we will have the law clerk of the House, or some person who is authorized to draw such clauses, draw a clause to carry out our meaning.


Mr. MONK.: Who has asked for this legislation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been asked for by the fruit growers' associations throughout the whole of Canada practically.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I object for my part to legislation of this kind as being altogether too paternal, and I have no doubt whatever that it will cause serious inconvenience, at any rate, in the province of Quebec and on the island of Montreal where there is an immense production of apples.
The committee will remark that this Bill comes into force only on July 1, 1906. Who knows but that the conditions of trade will be completely altered then, and so that boxes two or three inches larger will be better suited for the British trade ? I believe it is much better for a matter of this kind to be settled entirely by the usages and by the requirements of trade which are of a continually changing character. We are not going to export apples to* England only ; we may export apples to other countries where such a box as that defined in this resolution may not he a suitable box at all, and in that case the exporter will be absolutely bound by these regulations respecting the export to England. What certainty have we that within a year, apples packed differently in boxes of a different design, will not have a better sale than those packed in the box clearly defined in this resolution. I do not think this is a matter for legislation, with all due respect Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to the Fruit Growers' Association, and I think it would cause serious inconvenience to a large number of people who pack apples for export on the Island of Montreal and who will find it difficult to conform to these regulations. One of the causes given by Edwin Williams in his book on the degeneration of British trade, for that misfortune is that the English manufacturer would not conform to the requirements of the markets in the different countries with which he traded, either in the packing of goods, the making out of accounts or in the different usages of trade in the different countries. It strikes me that my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) is here laying down a hard and fast rule for the export of apples to England. The matter would be regulated by the requirements of the trade; if the apple exporter knows that a box of the dimensions mentioned is the most suitable for the export of apples to England, he will conform to that legislation without the Dominion legislature interfering in these details.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has said, but I must tell him and tell the committee that the idea which he has promulgated here is directly contrary to what has been the growing and strong opinion of the trade. The trade, not only the apple growers but the men who pack the apples, have found it necessary to define as clearly as may be the dimensions of the pacltages'which they use. The Act that we propose to amend already contains a provision which defines the smallest barrel of apples which will be allowed in the trade. That Act w^is passed by this House deliberately after discussion, and on the demand of the apple trade, so that no smaller barrel than that particularly defined could be used. The same demand has occurred in regard to the boxes, because to-day and for some years past the box has been growing in favour as a measure or receptacle for the export trade of apples. The same requirement is needed in regard to boxes as has been adopted in regard to barrels. My hon. friend says that he wishes the usage to control the size of the box. Usage has in days gone by controlled it in regard to the barrel. Canadian apples were shipped in barrels of all sizes, and the result was that the trade in England when they ordered a thousand or
2,000	barrels of Canadian apples did not at all know how many pounds or bushels of apples they were going to get. That was one of the difficulties they had to contend with in handling Canadian apples. They expressed their dissatisfaction with that condition of affairs, and the people engaged in the trade here recognized that it was to the advantage of the Canadian trade to have a defined package so that the purchaser would know as nearly as possible what he was getting, or at any rate would know

that he was not getting less than a defined amount, and they asked that the size of the barrels should be defined. I wish to point out here that this is not an exact size but a minimum size. That is the case in regard to barrels in the Act of 1901, sec. 4, which we are about to amend. The trade has been labouring under great disadvantages by reason of the varied sizes of packages, and the trade has the minimum size defined with regard to the barrel. In the last few years the trade has found that the box is a more profitable package to use than the barrel, but the box has varying sizes. The people of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia who have been sending apples in boxes have been using different sizes of boxes. They found that the particular box here defined was the one that was closest to the general use and that it was the best average of all those that were in use. It was also the box that was already in use in British Columbia and largely in use in Ontario. It was the box that was already in use by our chief rivals in the English apple trade, the Tasmanian shippers. The trade therefore decided, after careful consideration and discussion, and recommended by formal resolution, that this particular size of box should be adopted, and that resolution has been embodied in the proposed legislation.
I am only proposing this at the formal request of the people concerned and I think it is well that parliament should try to carry out that request. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says that this may interfere with some people in the Island of Montreal. I may say that the fruit growers of the Island of Montreal are largely members of the Fruit Growers' Association of the province of Quebec. I could name a number of men there who are members of that association, and I have no reason to suppose that they were not quite in sympathy with the resolution passed by the Fruit Growers' Association of Quebec, asking that this should be done. Certainly if they were not in sympathy they did not go far enough to challenge the resolution because it was passed, as I understand, unanimously. Under these circumstances I feel that I am not only justified but called upon in the interests of the trade to propose a definition of the size of the box, the definition herein contained as the result of a long and full discussion. It has been adopted in the nature of a compromise, as being the box that comes nearest to all the different varieties of boxes that have been used in the past. My reason for postponing the coming into force of this amendment is simply because I am told that certain box manufacturers have already made a considerable number of the boxes for next year and a considerable number of packers have on hand boxes which they ordered for last year's crop, but which in consequence of the 24^
crop not being so large as was expected they now have on hand, and they would like to use these boxes for their next year's crop, whereas if this amendment came into force, they would not be able to use those boxes. I think that is a concession to the condition of the trade which we ought to make. But my hon. friend evidently does not understand the situation when he expresses the view that we should not to-day legislate for a box for a year hence. One of the most important things in the trade is that the packers, box-makers and fruit growers should know some little time before hand the kind of boxes they are going to use.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is this box intended to approximate in size to the bushed measure ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is believed by those who have measured it carefully that three of these boxes will contain exactly the same amount of fruit as the barrel which is defined in the other part of this Act.


David Henderson: I would' say to the minister that I do not intend to enter into a discussion as to whether this is the proper size for a box or not; but I would remind him that only the day before yesterday he told us that we would have time to communicate with our constituents on this matter, and now he has suddenly and, I think, rather unfairly sprung this on the committee. I wrote immediately to a party from whom I knew I would get reliable information, but no opportunity has been given me to get that information. I think the hon. gentleman should not press this matter so hastily. He tells us that the fruit-growers have approved of this. Well, I would like to have the opinion of the fruit-growers in the county which I have the honour to represent. I know that they have an association to deal with all matters of this kind. I do not propose to oppose the measure as it stands, because I might make a mistake ; but I would like to know that their views are fully represented in it, or they may differ from other associations from whom the minister has received information. I trust that he will not press the matter to a final issue until we have had an opportunity of hearing from those whom we represent.


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. minister is doing in this box legislation exactly what he did in the barrel legislation. In the barrel legislation he specified a minimum size, and it works like this. The cartage and the freight are exactly the same for the larger as for the smaller barrel, and when the apples are placed on the market the larger barrel has an advantage over the smaller. The reason the minimum barrel was adopted was that the manufacturers of barrels made that size and did not wish to change their machinery. The hon. gentleman is



COMMONS '44

[Stage Direction]
pursuing a similar course with respect to the boxes. There will be two or three sizes, and the same difficulty will be experienced. Why should there not be uniform barrels and uniform boxes, so that all parties would be placed on the same footing when entering the British market ?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I beg to thank the hon. member for Haiton (Mr. Henderson) for reminding me that he desired the other night to have this matter left over until he could communicate with his constituents. I had forgotten that for the moment, and I have no hesitation at all in acceding to the request that the resolutions should not be proceeded with now, and that abundant opportunity be given to all to hear from their constituents or from any others interested in the matter. At the same time, if any one wishes to make any further suggestions. I shall only be too glad to hear them before the committee rises.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to make this suggestion. It is possible that the Fruit-Growers' Association may have passed a resolution recommending that boxes of this size be used, and I understand that it is a matter of importance to my hon. friend to communicate the views of the association, which can be done easily through the newspapers or otherwise, to parties engaged in the export of apples. But has the association actually gone so far as to demand that a law should be passed defining the size of these boxes ? Since my hon. friend has consented to put off the consideration of this measure, I would ask him if he would have any objection to lay on the table of the House the communications of the Fruit Growers' Association ?


Mr. OSLER.: Are all the apples shipped in the same sized boxes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. At the present time there is no standard box. The consequence is that there is some variety in the sizes of the boxes used. The fruit-growers and the shippers have asked that we should, as far as possible, define a minimum box, so that they would not be getting smaller boxes.
Mr. OSLERt That would mean that there would be boxes of different sizes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We expect, and it has been the result in the case of the barrel, that when a minimum is fixed, the box or barrel makers will take that as their standard, so that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred that will be the size used. At the same time, if anybody chooses to use a larger box or barrel, he can do so.


Richard Blain: I would like to draw the minister's attention to a statement that was made by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) when this matter was under consideration before. He said that the question whether barrels or boxes were the best


Andrew B. Ingram: *
had been considered by a commission which had been appointed in the United States, and that the report of the commission was in favour of barrels for export rather than boxes. Might I ask the hon. minister if he would be good enough to look into that, and bring before the House whatever information he can obtain on that point ?


Mr. CHISHOLM.: In the county which I have the honour to represent a great many apples go to waste every year, because the growers pick the apples and leave them on the ground in piles awaiting the buyers who are to classify them and put them into barrels. It has been very difficult to get barrels, and the result has been that many apples have been frozen on the ground. The farmers could make the boxes themselves and avoid delay and loss caused by waiting for barrels. It is important that this question of boxes should be settled as soon as possible. I am satisfied that many thouands of dollars' worth of apples were lost in the county I represent last year, because the farmers were not able to take care of them themselves. And I would suggest that more fruit inspectors be sent out to instruct the farmers in this matter. I would further like to suggest that some arrangement be made as soon as possible to avoid such an enormous loss. If our farmers had an idea of the size and the kind of boxes required, they would jpp doubt be in a position shortly to make the boxes themselves, and it would be well to have a standard box, not merely for export, but also for our internal trade, for we have [DOT] a great market in our own country, especially in the Northwest.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. gentleman. The difficulty of getting boxes and barrels in certain seasons depends largely upon the size of the crop. When there is a very large crop, the box and barrel makers are not always able to meet the demand. Unfortunately the apple crop varies very much from year to year. In some years we have an enormous crop and in other years a much smaller crop, and our box and barrel makers are at a loss to know what stock "to prepare in advance, as of course they do not care to have a large quantity left on their hands at the end of the season. As regards what my hon. friend says about teaching the farmers how to pack, my department has already taken steps in that direction. For two or three years back we have had at the exhibitions, where we could reach the fruit growing sections, an expert actually doing the work of packing apples so as to illustrate the best method. That was done in connection with the demonstration of the Fruit Marks Act, so as to teach the people how to pack the apples themselves under that Act and the best way of handling their fruit. As regards the packing

by the farmers themselves instead of selling to packers, that is a matter of trade and commerce with which I do not think the department ought to interfere. All we can do is give the people information and let them judge for themselves how they should conduct their own business.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I would like to point out that when there is a large stock you can easily make boxes, but not barrels. The last year or two, the packers could not get barrels on account of the difficulty of splitting staves and drying them, but boxes can be made almost while the apples are being handled.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All the more reason for the change.



RAILWAY ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 36) to amend the Railway Act, 1903-Mr. Fitzpatrick-read the second time.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: When shall the House go into committee ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am quite willing that we should go into committee now provided that the Minister of Justice will give one or two days' notice of the third reading, as I have two or three amendments to propose.


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


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


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


William Findlay Maclean: I am not quite ready to go on now, but will be on Tuesday.



REVISION OF THE STATUTES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice what the present position is of the revision of the statutes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is nearing completion, and there is an item in the estimates which I have kept over so as to be in a position to give some explanation to the House. I am waiting to get a report from the commissioners and my expectation is that the work will be practically completed this session.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: What statutes are comprised in the revision ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: All the statutes to the present year, and it is intended to ask leave to include the statutes of this session.



DRAWBACKS ON RAW MATERIALS IN THE UNITED STATES TARIFF-SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Certainly.\nSome resolutions reported.']
William Findlay Maclean: I wish to draw the attention of the government to an economic revolution, as it is described in ' Le Canada,' which has taken place in the United States and greatly affects our country. That revolution is in connection with the recent change made in the United States regarding drawbacks. In the ' New York Tribune ' of Sunday, February 5, there is a special from Washington dated February 4, which says :
Free hides, wool, lumber, In a word free raw and partially manufactured materials of every sort and description are now at the disposal of American manufacturers engaged in the export trade, as the result of the far-reaching drawback decision of Attorney General Moody, the text of which was published in the * Tribune ' of February 3rd.
I want to read one or two clauses from the decision. The Attorney General of the United States has given this opinion :
In my opinion, where it is proposed to export a product manufactured in the United States from a combination of domestic material and foreign material which has paid duty, and the customs officials can identify the foreign material and can ascertain to their satisfaction, by the evidence of books of account or otherwise, the quantity or measure of the foreign material actually present in the completed article, the exporter is entitled to receive a drawback of ninety-nine per cent of the duties paid upon the imported material thus ascertained to be actually present in the completed article.
And, as I have read, this is now held in-Washington to apply to every article imported into the United States for use in the production of goods to be exported. In othei words, a great revolution has taken place in the trade of that country, which vitally concerns the people of Canada. And to make still clearer what the American government is aiming* at, I wish to read a speech of the late Mr. McKinley that was quoted by the Attorney General of the United Slates and on which this recent order is based. I may say, also, that this is a reversal of two previous decisions, and is now considered to be final. The speech of Mr. McKinley in 1890 was, in part, as follows :
The Bill proposes that the American citizen may import any product he desires, manufacture it into the finished article, using in part, If necessary, in such manufacture, domestic materials, and when the completed product is entered for export, refunds to him within one per cent of all the duty he paid upon his imported materials. That is, we give to the capital and the labour of this country substantial free trade in all foreign materials for use in the

markets of the world. We do not require that the product shall be made wholly of the foreign material. Already under special provisions of laws and regulations of the Treasury Department', parts of the finished product made here and attached to the finished article does not deprive the exporter of his drawback. We have extended this provision, and in every way possible liberalized it, so that the domestic and foreign product can be combined, and still allow to the exporter ninety-nine per cent upon the duty he pays upon his foreign material intended for export ; which is, in effect, what free traders, and our political opponents are clamouring for, namely free raw material for the foreign trade. And if you are desirous of seeing what you can do in the way of entering the foreign market, here is the opportunity for you.
It completely, if the provision be adopted, disposes of what has sometimes seemed to be an almost unanswerable argument that has been presented by our friends on the other side -that if we only had free raw material we could go out and capture the markets of the world. We give them now within one per cent of free raw material, and invite them to go and capture the markets of the world.
Mr. Springer-Will the gentleman permit me to ask if that also applies to wool ?
Mr. McKinley-Yes ; it applies to anything which they choose to import for purposes of manufacture.
Here, then, is the completion of the policy as outlined by Mr. McKinley in 1890, when the tariff was revised. And it has now been sustained by the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States and put in execution by the Secretary of the Treasury. He has issued an order, dated February 4, addressed to all collectors of customs instructing them that the opinion of the Attorney General is authorized by the Treasury, and that this drawback of 99 per cent is to go into effect immediately. As I have just said this is a great revolution. The, object, as Mr. McKinley pointed out, is to capture all the foreign trade of the world. That this is a matter immediately affecting Canada is proven by the fact that the decision was given in connection with the drawback on an article imported into the United States from Canada-our wheat known as No. 1 hard. The object of the legislation as applied to that article is to allow the American millers to bring in Canadian wheat from our Northwest on the payment of a duty of 25 per cent per bushel, use it in their mills, mix it with the wheat of the United States and export the product, receiving a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty that had been paid. And what Secretary Shaw, of the Roosevelt cabinet said on that point is as follows :
It is, of course, impossible to say now just what effect this drawback ruling will have, but it will probably result in the consumption of several thousand, or perhaps several hundred thousand bushels of our domestic wheat in foreign markets that would otherwise have been thrown upon our own markets at a reduced price or not sold at all. I think it is safe to say that more than $100,000,000 worth of our Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
foreign trade to-day depends upon drawbacks for its being.
He gives an illustration bearing out this idea by showing that by reason of a drawback the American manufacturers are in a position to capture the locomotive trade of the world and that as a matter of fact, they are capturing it to-day. The correspondent of the ' Tribune ' who is very well informed-and he is evidently inspired because the ' Tribune ' is the official organ of the administration-goes on to say :
The officials of the Treasury Department do not believe that the drawback allowed on Canadian hard -wheat will cause any reduction of the customs revenue. None of that cereal is being imported now-, they say-

1 dispute that, by the' way



and the only effect that can be brought
about will be the increased sale of American soft wheat, which goes into the manufacture of exported flour. The best of the domestic wheat remains in this country and will stay here, drawback or no drawback. The cheaper grades are used with the Canadian wheat to make the flour that is demanded by the foreign trade. Heretofore these grades have not found a ready market in this country, for unless they ar* mixed with hard wheat they do not make a good bread-making flour.
The wheat raisers of the Northwest are raising some objection to a reduction in the price of the better grades of grain, and it is conceded that they have some grounds for this apprehension. But the amount of hard wheat raised on this side of the border is small, when compared with the output of the soft grain fields, and the interests benefited by the allowance are believed to be tremendously larger than those injured. The most strenuous objectors to the drawback ruling will be the millers of the Dominion of Canada. Their flour, which is now shipped to Liverpool, London, Glasgow and the other great markets of the United Kingdom, will soon meet a vigorous rival in the product that will be ground by the mills of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis and other cities. If the American millers take away a good proportion of the trade now held by the Canadian manufacturers through the operation of the drawback concession, it may have a serious effect on the labour problem of the Dominion. If these labour interests are strong enough, it is suggested by the Treasury Department officials an effort may be made to pass an export tax law for Canada. Nothing short of such a drastic measure could interfere with the new flour trade American mills hope to acquire across the Atlantic.
Now, the trend of opinion in the United States is all in the direction of taking away from Canada the export market that we now have for our hard wheat. Our hard wheat is the best in the world. The Americans on the contrary produce any amount of wheat of lower grade. They are not in a position to export that wheat unless they can get the Canadian wheat to mix with it. But, getting the Canadian wheat, as they now propose to get it, they intend to take away the market we now have. We have a splendid and growing trade in our hard wheat and

the flour produced from it. Canadian mills 1 are doing a large and growing trade. Cam- i adian railways are carrying the product of * this wheat for export, and Canadian transportation interests get the benefit of all i freight and other charges. And Canadian workmen get all the work in connection with it. And yet we read that the policy of the American government and the American millers is to take our wheat into their country, grind it there and export it, thus depriving us of the export trade we have, depriving our railways of the business of i transporting it and our men of the wages to be earned in grinding and handling it. And they say that there is but one thing that will stop them from doing this, and that is what they call a drastic measure, namely that Canada may put on an export duty in the case of such wheat.
The other day in Montreal, at a meeting of the Board of Trade, Mr. Meighen, who is president of that body, made a statement dealing with this very question. He said there was a danger of Canada losing this trade, and he went so far as to say that he was in favour of an export duty on Canadian wheat-not so wide as had been proposed, but certainly an export duty on Canadian wheat that was to be used to be mixed with American wheat in order that a market might be found for low grade American wheat. Now is it not a matter ot national policy, a matter of extreme national peril that the government ought to consider-and it is for this reason that I direct to it the attention of the House.
Sow I am not afraid to say-I am speaking altogether for myself-that X am ready to declare myself in favour of an export duty on wheat going out of this country to be ground in the United States. X think I can give good reasons for it. First of all, the work ought to be kept in this country. In the next place, I contend that if you grind Canadian wheat in Canadian mills you get the offal, as it is called, for use in Canada for feeding cattle. Xf the wheat is exported the offal goes abroad and never comes back, but when you grind the grain in the country and sell the bran and shorts to Canadian farmers, it is used in our own country for feed and manure, and add to the productiveness of the land, and in every way the Canadian is benefited. But if you send the raw product away the country is being depleted of its natural wealth, the productiveness of the land is being reduced, and the Canadian Northwest will be brought to i the condition in which we find many of the northwestern states of the United States to-day, they are unable to produce hard wheat, and I contend that is largely due to the fact that the raw products have been sent out of that country, and no return has been made to the land to maintain its productiveness. A minister of the present government who was in the Northwest recently said, not long ago when he came
back, that the impression made upon him by his visit was that an enormous effort will have to be made by the people there if they wish to maintain the fertility of their soil, and to control the wheat market. It, has been found now that the wheat belt keeps moving north, keeps moving backwards, and the day may come when we will not have enough hard wheat of our own to mix with our own cheaper varieties. Therefore, not only is it in the interest of the Canadian workingmen and Canadian capital invested in mills, but it is in the interest of the farmer in our Northwest, that something should be done to secure the grinding of our own wheat in our own mills. I say now, notwithstanding what has been argued by some, that the Canadian farmer in the Northwest will benefit by this drawback. Perhaps for a time he will get a higher price for his product, but I contend that in the long run it will be found to be an injury. That western country is for the benefit of all Canada, and every wheat raiser in the Northwest must desire to see eastern Canada built up by these mills, and eastern workingmen kept busy, and that business may be found for our railways.
But the principle of an export duty is not confined to wheat, it touches upon and concerns a large number of other articles. Kor instance, we have in the province of Ontario the greatest supply of nickle ore in the world. To-day a large number of men are employed in developing those ores; but by reason of our present laws, and in line with the policy of the American government, we are allowing that nickle matte, that is to say, the article which has undergone the first process to be exported to the United States and refined in that country, so that for one dollar that we pay in wages here to Canadian workmen, twenty dollars are paid in wages to the United States workmen. I do not think that is in the interest of this country, and if an export duty on that nickle matte going out of this country would keep it here so that it should be refined in Canada, I think it ought to be done. Then with regard to our pulp wood, we are exporting to-day enormous quantities to the United States to be used in paper mills there, and enormous quantities are sent to the old country. Now an export duty on pulp wood would keep that industry in this country.
The Minister of Agriculture said the other day that he desired to see the cattle embargo removed from our cattle in the old country. I disagree with him there, because his policy is to have the lean cattle of Canada go into the British market. But farming is taking a new turn in these days. A good farmer does not seek simply to raise grain and sell it, but if he is wise he will raise grain and feed it to his cattle and sell only the finished product. If he is wise, the farmer, instead of selling the milk

from liis cows, will use separators and make the butter himself and use the skim-milk for feeding pigs and hens, and thereby increase his profit. The same principle runs through many other industries ; and the whole tendency is to produce the finished products in this country, even on the farm. If we in Canada can produce some finished product on a farm which will bring a higher price and furnish more labour for Can-dians, we ought to do it.
Now we come to another thing. I was reading this morning a little pamphlet of Mr. Nicholl's, of Toronto, who deals with the great development of the water-powers of Niagara. Under the law of the province of Ontario, those who are about to turn out this enormous development of electrical energy at the falls, are free to export fifty per cent of their product to the United States; so that power generated on the Canadian side of the falls, is by law, as it stands to-day, to be exjiorted into the United States, there to be used to build up immense industrial concerns. An export duty on electrical energy would prevent that. This is another instance of the new policy of encouraging commerce that has been adopted by the United States government. I say the time has come when we as Canadians, especially since we have embarked upon the national policy, ought to keep our owu markets for our own manufacturers, and our own work for our own work people. We may be forced by reason of this new policy in the United States to adopt, and extensively to adopt, the principle of export duties. It has been applied with marvellous success in the province of Ontario witli regard to saw-logs. Not long ago we exported all our saw-logs, we rafted them across the lake to mills in Michigan, where they were cut up and where American workmen, and American machinery and American capital found large profits.' But by reason of an agitation carried on in that province a change was made, and a law was passed that all the saw-logs cut off the Crown lands must be manufactured into lumber in Canadian mills.
Proposals of that kind are being made from day to day. The people are thinking about these things and to give the government some idea of what is going on and_to enable the people of the country who are interested in this new legislation in the United States to express their views I am directing attention to it to-day. The government have told the country that they are about to appoint a commission on tariff questions. I hope the powers of that commission will be wide enough to enable them to investigate matters of this kind and to go into the question of how far this new doctrine of drawbacks in the United States will affect Canadian trade. I think when they find out how extensive it is they will be very much interested. Even the shoe trade will be interested because the Arner-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
icans have made this rule so wide that not only the leather but the shoes made from the leather of imported hides are entitled to this drawback. Woollens made in the United States from imported wool are entitled to this drawback and will come into competition with Canadian woollens. This goes all through the export trade, and therefore when the government go into this question they will find that they will not only have to take up the question of tariff revision having regard to the duties imposed under the Customs Act, but they will have to take up the question in connection with drawbacks and probably the only way to meet this new system of drawbacks in the United States is to have recourse to an export duty. One argument I have read during the last few days against the imposition of an export duty is this. In London, England, they are putting up the largest mills in the world for the grinding of flour out of Canadian wheat, and I have been asked: Would you put an export duty on wheat that goes over to the old country to be ground in London ? I would. Large mills would be worth just as much to the mother country and to Canada if they were located i on the Lake of the Woods. If we can grind i our own wheat in our own country and give work to Canadian workmen retaining the shorts and the bran for feeding Canadian cattle we ought to do so. We can do that without injuring the farmers in the Northwest Territories a single bit. I know that the great cry will be that you are going to injure the Canadian farmer in the Northwest. But, in bringing 115 the question as I do here to-day, those who represent that country and that interest will have an opportunity either now or later on to discuss the question and to present their views. I believe that the Canadian public will demand that in order to preserve our export trade and to hold our own against this new and revolutionizing policy of the United States we shall do something in this country and do it very shortly. It is simply to bring the question before the government and before the people that I take this opportunity of introducing it to the House. I would have given notice of it but I only got hold of the Montreal paper a few minutes ago with that heading on it. I am speaking altogether from my own point of view, but from a close study of the way trade is moving in this country and in other directions it is constantly coming home to us that the people of the United States, the millers, and manufacturers of the United States, assisted by a most active and progressive government and a government that is protectionist up to the hilt, have brought about a revolution in trade matters that is of the most vital interest to the people of this country.


Mr.  G. H.@: PE It LEY (Argenteuil). Mr. Speaker, without going into the merits of

the question raised by my hou. friend for South York (Mr. Maclean), I wish to correct one statement which he made and which I would not like to have appear on ' Hansard.' That is that the province of Ontario put an export duty on saw-logs. That was not a correct statement of the facts, as the province of Ontario has no power to impose an export duty. What the province of Ontario did was to put into its regulations that saw-logs cut on the Crown domain must be manufactured in the province of Ontario. Of course, a private individual who has some timber on his own land can cut that timber and export it if he sees fit. I would like to make this explanation because in the TTnited States the question was raised as to whether this was an export duty within the meaning of the law over there.


William Findlay Maclean: It must have been a slip of the tongue because my own understanding of the matter is exactly in accordance with the statement of my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley). It was an Act of the Ontario legislature in connection with the licensing of the cutting of timber on Crown lands, but it had the desired effect.



Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD (Laval).: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: Forsooth, my hon. friend understands how desirous I would he to satisfy his curiosity. Unfortunately, Hon. Mr. Brodeur is now absent from the House. I have every reason to believe that be will be here tonight. Should my hon. friend be willing to repeat his question, I think the Minister of Inland Revenue would be in a position to give him an answer.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Has he been charged to go to Quebec and deliver a message of peace ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will get an answer directly from the minister who is concerned in this, and not through the newspaper fuss, which he deems so important.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) is agreeable we will take up the Trade and Commerce estimates-steamship subsidies.


Mr. FOSTER.: I thought it was understood that we should go on with the estimates of the Public Works Department. It is very inconvenient, as the hon. minister will see, when we have an idea that he is going on with certain estimates to be launched into something else.


William Paterson: If you are ready to go on with the Public Works estimates all right. I thought you were waiting for the report


George Eulas Foster: We are ready to go on, as I intimated, on the same conditions as those under which we proceeded before if it is quite agreeable to the hon. Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman). His report came down to-day.


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: So that relieves the situation as his report is down.
Victoria Memorial Museum and other buildings, $250,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This vote of $250,000 is to make provision towards the erection of the Victoria Memorial Museum. The contract has been let; the building is being erected on what is known in Ottawa as the Stewart property, which was acquired about two years ago for the purpose of this memorial. The building is intended to lie used for the Geological, Natural History ami Fishery Exhibits which are in

the possession of the government and for the Art Gallery. These different collections are now stored in different places entirely unsuitable and inadequate for the purpose. The contract has been let to Mr. George Goodwin, Ottawa, for $950,000. The estimated cost in addition to that of the building is for heating, $50,000 ; electric wiring and fixtures, $60,000; fittings and furnishings, about $100,000, with the usual allowance for contingencies bringing up the total estimate made by the architect to about $1,250,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Before we proceed with the discussion of a Public Works item, I would ask the minister if there is no report of his department later than the one which I hold which is only up to June 30, 1903 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have here a report which was laid on the table of the House this afternoon which is up to June 30, 1901. I shall be happy to send it to the hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: When will this building be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The time given for the completion of the building is four years.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman not regard this as a large amount of money ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no doubt about it.


Richard Blain: I mean to be expended in this way ; it is a much larger amount than was proposed when the plans were first prepared. Were the plans completed altogether by the architect of the department ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The plans were made by the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many tenders were there, and will the minister give us the different tenders ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There were five tenders for the building running from $950,000 to $.1,349,500. The tenders were as follows :
Geo. Goodwin, $950,000 (accepted).
M. Connolly, $1,157,955.
Holbrook & Sutherland, J. C. Low, $1,239,000.
Stuart & O'Leary, $1,319,314.
Sullivan & Langdon, $1,349,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was awarded to the lowest tenderer then ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Was there not some delay or difficulty as to the signing of the contract with Mr. Goodwin ? How was that finally arranged ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was delay in the signing of the contract, but there was no arrangement made. Mr. Goodwin was notified by the department immediately that the contract had been awarded to him by Order in Council, and for some time he did


Charles Smith Hyman: not sign the contract. No arrangement was come to and no change wa's made in the contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: When this item was brought up on the 24th of March, 1904, it was stated that a part of the vote was for the purpose of a fireproof office and other buildings. How have they progressed, these offices and other buildings that the item of $170,000 was supposed to partly cover ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I presume that was for the archives building which was passed the other day and which I explained fully then. It is being built on the property owned by the government just in rear of the Printing Bureau.


Andrew B. Ingram: Of this vote of $170,000 of which $73,500 was paid for the Stewart estate, the balance was said to be for the fireproof office. There was no explanation as to where it was to be located and we have heard nothing of that since. Now there is no part of this money that hon. gentleman speaks of, this $950,000, to go for offices, it is simply for the Victoria Memorial Museum.


Charles Smith Hyman: The first item in this vote, Dominion Archives Building, is for a fireproof building. It is in another part of the same vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: What connection had it with this vote in 1904 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is all in one item, item 115.


Andrew B. Ingram: So that item, 115, covers them both ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, this is only a part of the item.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of a building
is this to be, what material, &c. I think that with a building of that size and costing this amount we should have the plans before us so that we might understand something of the proposed building. It seems a little blind really to go into an expenditure of over a million without seeing the plans. Although I am not an expert and although many others on this side may not be experts, still it is always a fair thing to ask that the profile of the building or something that will give an idea of what it is proposed to build, should be before the House.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall be very glad to lay a plan on the table. I think I have a picture of the building that possibly would give more information than anything else that could be laid before the House. I shall place it on the table to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: Now as to the material and the general character of the building.


Charles Smith Hyman: The building is designed to be 420 feet long. The main building will

be 219 feet long by 53 feet deep, and there will be a. wing at either end 54 feet by 143 feet 6 inches. There will be a tower rising 58 feet. The building is to be four stories with a basement and subbasement except the tower which of course has an additional story and an additional elevation. The general height from the ground line will be 106 feet, and from the ground line to the top of the tower, 220 feet. The walls are to be of stone. The intention is to use Nepean stone, like that in the Parliament buildings, with brown stone facings. The roof is to be of non-combustible materials.


John Graham Haggart: Is the building to be fire proof ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Practically fire-proof. The floors will all be of cement.


Andrew B. Ingram: How does it come that the hon. gentleman has made a change in the size of the building ? When the item was first brought in, the statement made by the minister was that the main building was to be 208 feet long and the wings 126 feet.


Charles Smith Hyman: At that time I presume the whole plan of the building was not prepared.


Mr.   POSTER@: What is the general plan of the inside ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is very hard to describe it.


Charles Smith Hyman: The geological survey. I will bring down to-morrow an outline of the building, which will give practically all the information desired.


George Eulas Foster: Is provision made for storing everything that we have in the old museum ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I imagine that the amount we have stored now, however large it is, is not all that we shall have to provide for in the future years. The collections are every year being added to, so that I should imagine that the provision for extra store room ought to be very considerable.


Charles Smith Hyman: The department in considering that question took this into cofasid-eration, that having the new building, and having all the specimens properly stored, the increase would possibly be larger than it is at present, and therefore we have allowed room for storing everything that we possess at the present time and room for practically as much more.


George Eulas Foster: What floor space would be taken by the present collections, distributed on the new plan ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not exactly the number of square feet of floor space of the building.


George Eulas Foster: How was the purchase of this land made-through an agent ?


George Eulas Foster: That illustrates why we should have the plans and profiles here at the time the vote is going through.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman understands that it is impossible to bring all the plans of the building here.


George Eulas Foster: We ought to have something. The House does not know anything about it. It is all right in the noddle of the architect and in the mind of the minister, but neither should expect the House to vote such a large sum of money without seeing any plan or profile. Useful suggestions might sometimes be made by members of the House. At any rate, the House is voting the money, and we would like to see, as nearly as we can, an outline of what is proposed by the government.


Charles Smith Hyman: The eastern wing from basement to attic is to be occupied by the fisheries museum and the art gallery ; the amphitheatre by the furnace room in the basement, the lecture hall and gallery above, and the geological survey library at the top. Exclusive of the tower, main hall and amphitheatre, the building is to be divided as follows :	The basement and second floor
into offices, and the ground, first and third floors each into four large museum rooms.


George Eulas Foster: The offices are for what ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that it was purchased at auction, at a Master in Chancery sale.


George Eulas Foster: Then there was no commission to be paid ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was one commission to Taggart.


George Eulas Foster: Why was there a commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He was to be paid a commission for obtaining a site.


George Eulas Foster: Who paid the commission? Did it come out of the purchase price, or was it in addition to the purchase price ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose to all intents and purposes we paid it, although when the property was put into Chancery the price placed upon it was $75,000, and the department bought the property for enough less, to pay the commission.


George Eulas Foster: Is it the general practice of the department in getting sites for public buildings to employ a broker and pay him a commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is, in a great many instances, and the sites have to be got in that way, During the short time I have been in the department I have found great dif-

fieulty in obtaining sites. The very moment that it is known that the government are after a site, an attempt is made to advance the price. So that we must of necessity employ an agent to obtain options. 1 acknowledge that in certain instances which have come before me the commisison has appeared to be large ; but it must be remembered that by using the services of an agent the department has purchased the property at considerably less than it would probably otherwise have done. I have endeavoured in these matters to deal with an agent as an ordinary business man would.


George Eulas Foster: I think that is reasonable in most cases, and probably the minister gets the properties much cheaper by employing an agedt, provided he does not let it be known before his agent gets to work that he is after the property. I imagine that information of that kind soon filters out in a city like Ottawa, and that those who have properties that are eligible, soon find out that the government are in the market and look upon the agents as emissaries of the government. What other sites were under consideration and were other options got ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that we went to the extent of getting any other options but there were several sites discussed. One is the property which the government have since acquired for the mint- the proposed extension .down Mackenzie avenue. There was also a property of Bronsons' facing on the driveway, under consideration.


George Eulas Foster: The face of the building will be right at the foot of the street ?
Mr. I-IYMAN. Yes, the building is being placed so that Metcalfe street will strike the front of it.


Richard Blain: Here is a contract for $950000 and the total cost, when completeu. will be $1,250,000. That means that the minister will deal with six or seven contractors before he is through with the building. The electric lighting is estimated to cost about $50,000, and he will receive tenders for that. Would it not be much better for him to have a plan made out comprising everything and call tenders for the building and equipment complete rather than deal with a number of separate contractors ? One advertisement could be sent throughout the country to cover the whole matter. Such an advertisement would reach more people and bring out more tenders, and the sub-contractors would have to deal with the original contractors [DOT] instead of with the government.


Charles Smith Hyman: That would not be possible. The heating and electric lighting work may not be proceeded with for several years. It is not the policy of the department to call for tenders for the heating until the building is practically roofed in, and I do not think that any one would care to tender for


Charles Smith Hyman: t the electric lighting contract when the work 3 could not be begun for at least two years 3 from the date of the tender. No one would 7 care to discount the labour market and the - market for material so far ahead.
' Mr. BLAIN. When my hon. friend estimated that the lighting would cost about " $50,000, he must have made some calcula-1 tions on which to base that estimate. And ' as regards looking into the future, he must ^ realize that if the building will be four or , five years in construction, the contractor will have to look considerably ahead just as ' would the contractor for the lighting. If a , contractor can look ahead in the case of a i contract reaching to the amount of $9:>0.00U, surely he can look ahead in the case of a contract amounting to only $50,000. The ; usual way of letting contracts for buildings generally throughout the country is to ask one man or firm to contract for the whole thing and let the party putting up the building deal with only one contractor. It would be a saving to the public treasury if the hon. gentleman would adopt the up-to-date policy rather than the antiquated policy in the erection of public buildings.


Haughton Lennox: In saying that it is not advisable to commit the (government to prices as regards the electric lighting. Has the hon. minister regard to the possibility that there may be a change in the conditions within two years ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I said it would be almost impossible, when it would take four years to complete the building, to enter now into contracts in detail for the heating, lighting and electric work. 'There is a vast difference between entering into a contract for the construction of a building and into corn-tracts for heating and lighting. The contractor for the construction will buy immediately all the material he requires and can fix immediately his prices for almost everything, but he would not care to lay in to-day a stock in hand for heating and electric lighting which he would only require to use four years hence. I have had considerable experience in my own private business in the construction of buildings, and I cannot recall one single instance in which I called for a tender for everything in the one contract. The usual course is to ask for tenders for the building and then, when the building is nearing completion, to call for tenders for the equipment.


Haughton Lennox: There may be a good deal m what the minister says but the department should be consistent. I understood him to say that owing to possibly changed conditions, it would be inadvisable for the department to commit itself' to fixed prices now.


Charles Smith Hyman: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that a contractor would hesitate making a contract two years ahead at fixed prices.


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. gentleman means anything, he must mean that by committing ourselves at this time we would have to pay higher prices because in four years hence the conditions may be changed and the contractor, if called upon to fix prices to-day, and take chances on the future, he would make them higher than he otherwise would. So, by delaying and by watching the position and taking advantage of the improvements in electrical appliances in the meantime, we should get more satisfactory conditions and lower prices. That may be true ; ic very likely is true. But, if it is true, I call the attention of the minister to the position taken by some other members of the cabinet, notably in the M. P. Davis contract. In that case, though electricity was more in its infancy-if we may use that term

than it is to-day, and though changing conditions were likely to lower prices, the government gave a contract to run for eighty-four years. What was good in one case ought to be good in another. And if the government is right in the present instance, they must have been far wrong in the case of the Davis contract. I will not go into that, but merely cite it as an illustration. I may have occasion to give the government the pleasure, as I did last session, of hearing me on that subject.


Richard Blain: As to the question whether Ihe policy the minister adopts is the up-to-date one or not, I would simply call his attention to the fact that in the most recent !,nd up-to-date buildings in Montreal the contract was let, not only for the building, but for the lighting and heating at one time.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Which was that ?


Richard Blain: The Board of Trade building.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are all that way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. What about the Canadian Pacific station ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Exactly the same way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all. I know something about that.


Richard Blain: I understand that the government erected some steel sheds in the city of Montreal at a cost of some $3,000,000. May I ask if these were not let under one contract to be completed for occupation ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course ; to Mr. Peter Lyall.


Richard Blain: *As to the time to arrange tot the lighting and heating equipment for ? building costing a million and a quarter of dollars, every one knows that the proper time is when the building is being constructed-that is the cheapest way to do it, and it is the way followed by those who are up-to-date. It is all very well for lion.
gentlemen opposite to let a contract for a building at $950,000, and say : After that is done we will put in further advertise-1 ments and call in other friends and give them a contract for the electric lighting. When that is done they will call in other supporters and give them a contract for the heating. And so on. I suppose that is very good political policy, but I do not think it is a policy that will commend itself to the people of this country, nor do I think it a policy that will protect the public treasury.


Charles Smith Hyman: As to the contract for the sheds, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) knows as well as I do that that contract was let by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. I presume the hon. gentleman desires to be fair, and, that being the case, he will admit that the question of providing electric light for a lot of iron sheds is entirely different from the lighting of a building of the character of that we are now discussing. As to what the hon. gentleman says about calling in a lot of friends of the government, he knows perfectly well that, in items such as this, the whole thing is done by tender. He knows it is all open to public competition, tencters being called for by advertisement in the public press. The whole question is one in which I must be guided by the opinion of the chief architect of the department. He has had experience, and he tells me that the plan we have adopted of calling for the main tenders first and the others afterwards is distinctly in the public interest. It is clear I could not refuse to follow the advice of the chief architect in such matters unless I had very strong evidence that he was wrong.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not the point that we want to get at-or that I want to get at, at least. Session after session we are asked to vote sums on the strength of statements which afterwards turn out to be incorrect, and the House is led to vote sums which, if hon. members were made aware of all that was involved, probably would not be voted. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland), whom the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) succeeded, pledged himself and the department that in all cases of new work he would place before the House the estimated cost, so that the House might know the total of the sums it would be called upon to vote for the service. But I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) to say that he does not intend to carry out that underraking, but will leave the matter open, so that he can come down year after year and ask for any sums he may think well in order to carry on works that have been begun. I object to that way of doing business, and I think we have good reason to object. This is the first session of a new parliar ment, and we should understand what the course of the government is going to be in

this matter. During the recent Dominion election a really alarming state of affairs developed. We found Liberal candidates declaring that they had secured large sums of money to be expended in the constituencies for *which they sought to he elected. I think the hon. gentleman (Hr. Hyman) himself was a sinner in that respect. My opponent was able to tell me and the people that he had secured several thousands of dollars for public works in the constituency. Having the estimates before me, and having studied them pretty carefully, I found no mention of such votes. Yet this candidate could have the presumption to say that he had secured thousands to be expended in that constituency. We want that all stopped. When a public work is proposed, we want to know what is the estimated cost, in order that we may vote the money intelligently, and in order that the public may Judge intelligently the votes we give. I see some hon. gentlemen on the other side who, when they sat on this side and when we were in power, condemned in the strongest language the very things that they approve of to-day. The hon. minister has competent engineers and other officials to advise him and to give^liim information. He should give us estimates that will guide us in judging of the reasonableness of the votes he asks us to give. The course that is now followed has been pursued for years, and it is time that it should be changed.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no fault to find with a good many of the remarks which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has made. But he is entirely wrong-though I am sure he does not wish to be unfair-when he suggests that I have refused information or have failed to give estimates of the expected cost of any public work. When the vote was first called for I gave the estimate of the total cost of this building when completed. I gave it in detail. I am carrying out-I remember well the complaint that he refers to made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland)-and I am endeavouring to carry out that very principle. I told the House that the contract for the building was $950,000. I gave the House, in the first place, the detailed estimate of the cost prepared by the architect of the department. It is estimated the heating will cost $50,000. What more information can I give the House ? The plans and details for heating have not been made at the present time, but the estimate has been made t>y an experienced officer of the department. It is estimated that the electric wiring and fixtures will cost $60,000 ; fittings and furniture, $100,000 ; which, together with the usual contingencies, will make the total cost of the building $1,275,000. I am sure the hon. member for Bast Elgin (Mr. Ingram) does not wish to be unfair, he cannot charge me with keeping back any information I have. This infor-Mr. INGRAM.
mation has been handed to me by the officers of the department. The contract is made in the regular way, and what more can be expected ? In regard to the hon. gentleman's remarks as to what may have been stated by candidates in the election contest, I do not suppose that he means to hold the government responsible for all the remarks made in the heat of the election contest, either in the press or on the platform.


Andrew B. Ingram: The titular minister deliberately told the House last year that in performing any new work, he would place an estimate before this House of the cost of the work, that is, what he pledged himself to do. Do I understand the acting minister pledges himself that he will continue that policy?


Charles Smith Hyman: As long as I am permitted to remain in the Public Works Department I shall always be glad to give the House the fullest information I possess in regard to any,work that is proposed. The hon. gentleman will understand that these things are to a large extent in the hands of the officers of the department. But I do not propose to ask the House to vote any money without giving to the fullest extent the estimates of the necessary work as made by officers of the department. If it is afterwards found that an estimate has to be exceeded, I shall give an explanation of the reasons. The hon. gentleman will understand that it frequently happens that when an estimate has been made as carefully as possible, it has been found necessary afterwards to change the work in some manner which may affect the original estimate. That occurs in the Public Works Department almost daily, that we have found it impossible to carry out a work for an amount which the officers estimated in the first place.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the statement made by the absent minister had been borne out today by the acting minister, we would have no reason to complain. When the titular minister introduced this item in the first place, he said that there would be a frontage of 280 feet, and that the two wings would be 126 feet in length. He said that he had not charged his memory with all the plans, but he intended to lay the plans on the table, but he did not do it. That showed that the plans were in existence at the time, and he knew what the measurements were. So we find that before dhe department has decided upon what they really intend to build they come down here and make a loose statement that is not borne out by the actual facts in the contract submitted to the House.


Charles Smith Hyman: There may be some misapprehension. As a matter of fact this building, as shown by the plans which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)

has in his hands, is one main and two wings. The main part of the building is 219 feet, and the two wings are to be added to that length. I have no doubt the Minister of Public Works, in giving the dimensions of the building, possibly gave only the width of the main building.


Mr. BERGERON.: What is to be done with the building which is presently known as the Geological Survey building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We will not require to decide that question for three or four years.


George Eulas Foster: On the question of contingencies and superintendence, for which there is an estimate of $40,000, how much of that is for contingencies and how much for superintendence? Could he give a little more detailed statement as to the expenditure of that $40,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I have not those details. But it has been the custom in the department for many years to add to the cost a certain percentage for contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: What division is made of that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no division made of that. In this case there is an officer of the department who has general supervision of the work. It is a very large building, and his time will be charged to that particular work, to contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: That system is still kept up?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What was the purchase price realized at auction for the property?


Charles Smith Hyman: 

* Mr, FOSTER. I see by the Auditor General's Report that a commission of two and a half per cent was paid by the government.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: So there was no deduction from the price paid to the vendor, but the commission was paid by the government ?
Western departmental block-addition, $85,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a vote for the purpose of erecting a building to connect the Department of Customs in the western block with the Department of Inland Revenue. I think most of the members of the committee know the situation of the Customs wing, and it is intended to create offices by connecting these two wings, and it will also add materially to the appearance of the block. There is now a courtyard there used for storage purposes, but when the connection is made it will leave this store room and add materially to the
appearance of the building. It will make practically four sides to the building instead of three. The plans are being prepared but they are not ready yet. I hope to be able to advertise for tenders at an early date. The estimated cost of the buildings proper is $90,000, heating, $8,000; electric wiring and fixtures, $5,000; fittings, furniture and contingencies, $12,000, about $115,000 altogether. The building will be used for general government ' offices. The Department of Inland Revenue has been complaining for a long time that many of their valuable instruments are not properly housed. Instead of renting other buildings the intention of the government is to endeavour to complete this in time so that it can be used by that department. And, the Department of Public Works will also avail themselves of a portion of this building. There has never been any proper draughting room for the officers in the department and it was thought better to provide sufficient accommodation for these two departments.


Robert Laird Borden: How many offices will this give ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The intention is to extend the present wing and the dimensions of the extension will be S3 x 36. There has l-een no decision arrived at as to the exact division of these offices.


George Eulas Foster: How many stories will there be ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Three stories available for offices. The intention is to use the whole of the top flat as a draughting room for the Public Works Department. At the present time a part of the staff is on the top flat and a part in the cellar. The light is very bad and it is almost impossible for the staff to properly do the work they are called upon to do. The intention is to have one draughting room covering the whole area of this building.
Mi>. FOSTER. I infer from what the hon. minister says that after that $115,000 is expended-and it is a large amount of money-the new space that is created in that building will be all taken up by the present officers of two of the departments and the work which they are carrying on.


Charles Smith Hyman: Practically, I said that.


George Eulas Foster: That is what practically will be the case. Then it will not relieve the congestion and it will not make any less the rentals necessary for the work of the departments as they are now being carried on in rented buildings in Ottawa. The point I wish to get at is that after you expend $115,000 you do not seem to relieve any of the congestion that is now attempted to be relieved by the renting of buildings outside, but immediately the two older departments simply swarm and fill up all this

76S
new space. Of course, the officers of the department ought to have sufficient room in which to fairly carry out their work, but it seems to me that an expenditure of $115,000 ought to do something more than merely enable more conveniences to be given to the work of two departments. One of these departments is not a very largely growing department. The Inland Revenue Department is a routine department very largely, and I do not suppose that it is increasing its staff or requires to increase its space very much. The Department of Public Works is employing a large number of people, there is no doubt about that, but the hon. minister knows-if he does not know it now he will find it out-that whenever new space is allowed there is a scramble in the department for every man to get double room or treble room or more if he can get it. That is going to absorb all this space. I hope the hon. minister will see that a sufficient amount of pressure is brought to bear to prevent the number of offices from expanding unnecessarily and to get out of this large expenditure some relief for the congestion outside. It is a matter that almost startles a man who has been out of the House for four or five years. When we were here we used to do some renting and a certain amount of money was paid outside for rented buildings. To-day one can hardly walk about any street without stumbling upon some place which bears upon it the impress of a public department, and we are paying an immense amount of money for the rent of these buildings. If these departments are permanent, then it would be much better for the government to incur the initial expense of building for the permanent work of these departments than to pay through the nose expensive rentals in different parts of the city. Besides that you would get your people more closely together, more under your supervision and their work would go on better under these circumstances than when they are distributed all through the city. While you use a certain amount of the space in this way It seems to me that with three or four stories and an expenditure of $115,000 you ought to take care of some of the men who are now dispersed in rented buildings throughout different parts of the city. Have the Department of Public Works and the Department of Inland Revenue any outside rentals ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I do not mean outside warehouses, but I mean buildings for departmental or staff work.


Charles Smith Hyman: The Georgian Bay canal survey work is not being done in the department.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, that is rather special work.


George Eulas Foster: 


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know if the Department of Public Works has anything else outside except the workhouse.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How about the Department of Inland Revenue ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the Inland Rev-, enue Department have.


George Eulas Foster: Will this extension allow of these offices being brought in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am afraid I cannot promise the whole. The main difficulty in connection with the Department of Inland Revenue, is that they have a large number of instruments which are supposed to be in use in the department, but they have not been able to use them up to the present time because of the congested quarters in whicli these instruments are placed. The expenditure is a large one,^ I am prepared to admit, for the small amount of room that is being provided, but unfortunately in making this expenditure we have to take into consideration the order of things which at present exists. We must use the same material, we must follow the same method of construction as that which was followed In the old building, and that is a very expensive piece of construction. In addition to the two departments I named I forgot to mention that it is intended to provide some extra room for the Customs Department. I would ask the committee to bear in mind that while we are not really housing any of the outside departments, we are preventing the renting of any other outside buildings by providing for the officials of these three departments. I know, as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, that in their present crowded state it is almost impossible for the officials of the department to properly perform their work. They are crowded in every nook and corner of the building and I am in hopes that when we get the draughting room away we will be able to give some part of the department room in which they can perform their work properly.


George Eulas Foster: In providing this new building will the improved system be carried out there of having your officers not working in separate rooms but working in large rooms where they can work with the greatest economy of space and where they are under supervision ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In this particular case those going into the top flat of this building will all be in one room and it is our desire to carry out that practice as far as possible. The way in which the old buildings are laid out. I think, is ridiculous. We find branches of departments in which men who are doing the same work are housed in some corner or in separate rooms. My own idea is that large rooms should be provided so that proper supervision may be had over the clerks and more businesslike methods may

prevail in the departments. As to the wider question of housing the whole of the public service and providing for the departments that are in outside buildings X hope to be able to lay a good deal of information on that subject before the House at a later date. As far as I am concerned if I have anything to do with the construction of a new building for that purpose the very plan which the hon. gentleman suggests will certainly be carried out in its entirety. I feel that better work could be got from the officers of the departments and that better supervision could be maintained if they were housed in the way that the hon. gentleman suggests instead of men being stowed away in every nook and corner of the buildings.


George Eulas Foster: One more suggestion and I shall have finished my criticism on this point. There are two methods of procedure, one is to build larger and perhaps add at the same time to your force, but space could also be greatly economized by dispensing with the supernumerary and useless workers. Has the minister really put his business mind to a thorough revision of the working economy of the staff, officers and workers in the Public Works department ? I do not want to make any rash assertion, but I venture to say that if the minister were conducting a business of his own and if he had to live on the margin of his profit and went into the matter in a business way he would so arrange the work there that it could be effectually carried on with a far less number of staff and workers than it is now carried on in the department. That may be true in regard to most of the departments. The old system of having them cooped up in separate rooms lends itself to a poor method of work, so far as results are concerned, but along with his extension of space I hope the minister will put some of his business energy into a revision of the staff to see that none but those who are actually necessary are there and that every man who is there is doing his fair share of work. I do not say that slightingly of the civil service, but at the same time where you have hundreds and thousands of men employed it sometimes happens that you have more labour than can be wisely or economically employed, so that by a little pruning the space may be economized.


Charles Smith Hyman: I must remind my hon. friend (Mr. Poster) that the work of the Public Works Department is very onerous, and that the increase in the number of clerks does not at ail correspond with the increase in the work. I am endeavouring to exercise whatever supervision is possible.


John Graham Haggart: It is not possible for me to be here to-night, and as we are within two items of the vote for the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Ship Canal, on which there will be considerable discussion, 25
I would ask if the minister would fix a day on which we can discuss it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I would be glad to adopt the suggestion. Would Tuesday do ?


John Graham Haggart: Any day as long as we understand it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose that any day will do so long as I give a day's notice 1


John Graham Haggart: Certainly.
At iSix o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Quebec harbour improvements, $157,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How does the Quebec Harbour Commission stand with the government now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is not being done by the Harbour Commission, but by the department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it not about time that the government took hold of all these works ? I see by the orders before us that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wants to put a stop to the existing conditions in the harbour of Montreal, so that the works will be carried on by the minister who is directly responsible to parliament. I understand that in Quebec the commission is completely behind, and I think there should also be a change there. It is entirely wrong for us to spend money with nobody responsible for it. Where is the line of demarcation between what the government spends and what the Quebec Harbour Commisison spends in the same harbour ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am unable to draw the exact line of demarcation. I see no reason why the harbours of Montreal and Quebec should be singled out and dealt with in a different way from other harbours. It may be in the interest of the public that another policy should be adopted. That is a pretty large question, on which there might be a profitable discussion ; but I do not suppose there is any desire to discuss it in this particular item.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the particular work for which we are voting this money '!


Charles Smith Hyman: This is for an enlargement of the Louise embankment at Quebee. It is a work that has been going on for two or three years. It is intended more particularly to increase the accommodation for the landing of ocean steamers, and we are waiting for the completion of this work in order to put up proper sheds to provide the necessary accommodation. If the hon. gentleman saw the condition of affairs that I saw at Quebec at the time I visited the harbour, he would realize the necessity for this work. There



were landed no less than three large boat loads of immigrants, some of whom were practically without accommodation, and it was impossible for the officers of the department to handle them properly. 1 am sure this work is an absolute necessity.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that it is a work which under ordinary circumstances should be done by the Quebec Harbour Commission.


Charles Smith Hyman: I presume that the government undertook to do the work themselves instead of advancing the money to the Harbour Commission.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When this work is completed, will the government collect the dues, or will the Harbour Commission collect them ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: WThat will the whole work cost when it is finished ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $400,000 odd.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We are spending practically half a million dollars on this work when we have at Quebec a commission which is supposed to collect dues and which is not paying interest on the money which the government has lent it. We have two masters in the harbour of Quebec, and all the money comes from the treasury of Canada. This is a state of things which I am sure cannot last very long. We cannot discuss the principle of the matter on this item, but I want to raise my voice against such a state of things.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister a copy of the Order in Council changing the attributions of the Department of Public W'orks and passing a portion of them over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ? Is not the harbour of Quebec included in the works which have been handed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The harbour of Quebec has always been under the Marine and Fisheries Department. But the contract for the actual building of the wharf comes under the Public Works Department. Notwithstanding that these works are in the harbour, they have not been transferred from the Public Works Department to the Marine and Fisheries Department. The contracts having been let under the Public Works Department the work has continued under their charge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But there are works executed by the government and there are works executed by the Harbour Board. In Montreal we have a large wharf at the Mr. HYMAN.
end of St. Mary's current within the jurisdiction of the Montreal Harbour Board. Under the changes recently made those works are under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is in error. Those works are still under the control of the Public Works Department. When the transfer was made, existing works-that is, works under contract, including this work and the work in Montreal to which he refers-were left with the Public Works Department until completion, when they will be placed under the Marine and Fisheries Department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The River St. Lawrence channel was transferred ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When this work in Quebec is handed over by the Public Works Department, will it be under control of the Marine and Fisheries Department, or under the control of the Quebec Harbour Board?


Charles Smith Hyman: That, I presume would be a matter of policy with the Marine and Fisheries Department. We transfer it to that department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister does not happen to have any copy of the Order in Council ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, but I remember the terms very well. 1 am sure these works were especially excepted under the transfer.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been expended on this work and during what years?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total is $195,000 for the years 1902-3, 1903-4 and 1904-5.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister a plan of the Quebec harbour with the works under the Harbour Commissioner and showing the work now being carried on?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the plan here, but I shall be glad to lay it on the table, if the hon. gentleman desires it. He will understand that it is practically impossible to bring the plans for all these works; they are too bulky.


George Eulas Foster: I know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) is kindness itself in telling us what he will do at some time in the future. But this is a very peculiar-what shall I call it?-mix up. We have a Harbour Commission in Quebec with_ its jurisdiction and its duties. We have given it advances of money which have been expended by that commission under its powers. Those advances amount to some three millions, I think.


Charles Smith Hyman: Five millions in round numbers.


George Eulas Foster: Five millions of money has been advanced to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners on which, if I am correctly informed, not a cent of interest has ever been paid. And after all this money has been spent, the government jumps into the puddle and commences work within the area covered by the Harbour Commission's jurisdiction, constructs a work there and hands it over to the Marine and Fisheries Department. Who has the administration of Quebec harbour now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The commissioners.


George Eulas Foster: The commissioners make the rules, take care of the shipping, collect the dues, and with the money, pay their officials and their help. Then-for what reason I do not know-but probably the government stood aghast at the amount of the advances that had been made to the Quebec Harbour Commission and did not wish to make another advance of half a million to be spent by their commissioners- the government makes an appropriation and carries out an enlargement of the harbour with the public funds but with no charge against the Harbour Commission. It seems to me that before this was decided upon, the time had come for the government to consider its whole policy with regard to the harbour and the commission. Is this a bankrupt commission? Though it has paid nothing, is there no hope that it can pay anything. Sometimes it is good business policy to make advances to complete a work with the hope that out of the trade it de-velopes you may get not only interest on the last advance but interest on previous advances as well. There may have been reasons why this money should have been advanced, but one would naturally suppose that it ought to be expended under the Harbour Commissioners, who had made the expenditures so far, and ought to know better than any one else what parts of the harbour needed improvement and how the money should be applied. In that way the work would have been carried on with continuity and uniformity. But this course that has been followed is evidently an expedient to relieve the Harbour Commission-or the conscience of the government I do not know which. Instead of making any decision they defer even an examination of the question and carry out a policy which is mere patch-work. It is not a uniform and consistent policy by any means. Its lack of uniformity and consistency is all the greater when contrasted with the treatment of the harbour of Montreal, the harbour of Toronto, the harbour of St. John, the harbour of Halifax or any other harbour that I know of in the Dominion. Half a million is being expended and we are now asked to vote a couple of hundred thousand. I think the minister should have had plans here so that we might understand what is being done in its
25 J
relation to previous improvements of the harbour. I confess I cannot from memory understand the geographical situation, nor can I understand how it joins with or will affect previous works in the harbour. But the minister ought to have those things here. We have been very lenient with him in allowing those things to go on without the plans. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I think in these cases the minister should be supplied with them and have them ready for us. Evidently the House cannot tell what it is doing.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have told the House that it is an extension of the deep water landing. I cannot give all the plans, nor do I desire to withhold any information from the House.


George Eulas Foster: A department like the Department of Public Works ought to have the profiles at least all ready to be spread on the table. These things are not costly, neither are they hard to carry around. When Sir Hector Langevin was administering that department fifteen years ago, he never came down to this House without the most perfect information, everything he had you could get from his book, or you could see his plans on the table. My hon. friend comes down here now with a few scraps of paper and large votes. He ought to have more scraps of information and smaller votes.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: It is entirely reasonable that all the information asked for should be given. I think we cannot give too full information as to the manner in which the people's taxes are being spent. But I can hardly agree with my hon. friend in his statement that Sir Hector Langevin was always prepared to give here all the information that the hon. gentleman is now asking for. Whilst I quite approve of what the hon. gentleman wishes to get, I cannot recollect that we ever had a Minister of Public Works who laid upon the table plans of proposed buildings. Occasionally it occurs, but I think my hon. friend will remember that it was rather the exception than the rule.


George Eulas Foster: I do not mean that all the voluminous drawings necessary for the work proposed should be brought here, but what we call the profiles we should have.


William Mulock: Sir Hector never brought down the elevations.


George Eulas Foster: In justice to my old colleague, Sir Hector, there have been Ministers of Public Works on both sides, but I never knew a Minister of Public Works in this House who was so explicit in details, and who in his book had so many of these little plans ready, so that you could see by his putting the book on the table exactly every line upon which he was spending money. 1 do not mean that all the working plans and things like that should be brought

down, but a superficial view, so that we can tell exactly where it joins on to the present works and how far it goes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many gentlemen are there in the Harbour Commission of Quebec ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand there are eight.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Harbour Commission, I think, is dependent on the Department of Public Works.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it never has been.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course it was until lately, at least so far as Montreal is concerned.


Charles Smith Hyman: The approval of plans and advancing the money belonging to the Public Works Department, but the actual control of the Harbour Commission is vested in the Marine and Fisheries Department, both in Quebec and Montreal, and everywhere else,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We are entitled to get some information about these commissioners, either from the hon. gentleman or from some officer in his department. I remember the criticism made in this parliament many years ago to the effect that it was an extraordinary state of things that this commission should be allowed to spend money without being responsible for it. I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will insist in liis proposed Bill that they shall be responsible. I would like to know the names of the Harbour Commissioners there, and the names and number of the employees who are in receipt of a salary, or hold an office in the Harbour Commission of Quebec.


Mr. STOCKTON.: I have listened with much interest to the information that was given by' the minister and elicited by my hon friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Now it appears that this very large amount of money is to be given to the Quebec harbour board, which is not responsible to the government of Canada at all, and that the money is given without any control by the government as to the management of the harbour. It does seem to me that the time has come when the government should have some well defined policy with respect to all the harbours of our country-Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, and all other harbours requiring aid from the government. In St. John the people have spent $800,000 of their own money for the purpose of providing terminal facilities for the export trade of Canada, and I think the minister will admit that very slight encouragement thus far has been given to that port, in view of the expenditure the people have made of their own money. We are needing certain improvements, as the minister knows, in the Mr. FOSTER.
harbour and port of St. John. There are certain reasons which have been given to me by the minister why certain work has not been done before, and which reasons are satisfactory. But it does seem to me that when we expend money in one port without having any control over its expenditure, or rather over the commission having charge of the harbour, we should extend some greater consideration to a port where the people have expended $800,000 of their own money to make it suitable for the export trade of this country.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course the discussion has broadened a good deal from the question before the chair, although I admit the hon. gentleman is quite in oi'der in discussing it in connection with this vote. But I think possibly he might do better to discuss the general question of harbours on some estimate of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, at which time he will be able to get all the information.


George Eulas Foster: It is such a Siamese twins business that we never know where we are. The House should insist on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries being seated alongside the Minister of Public Works whenever these estimates are going through, so that what one does not know the other could tell, and not have them throwing the responsibility from the one to the other. Has the ligature been entirely cut between the two, or do there still exist certain tendons which keep the two corporate bodies joined together ? What authority does one of them have wThich the other has not ?
I see in the estimates of Public Works some items opposite which there are dashes followed by the designation ' Marine.' Is my hon. friend going to take up these items or refer them to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ? In fact, these two departments are so dovetailed, the one with the other, that each of the twins should be here at the same time whenever the estimates of either department are going through. This is just a good illustration of the business methods of this government. They appoint a transportation committee, declaring that they themselves know nothing about the difficulties and technicalities and science of transportation, and that they must be instructed. Then, before that commission gets to work, they rush into an expenditure upon the Transcontinental Railway in which hundreds of millions of dollars are involved, and which, in one way or the other, affects transportation more than probably any other act of the government could do. ' Then they just treat the dilferent ports of the country as political or other necessity7 dictates. There does not seem to be any element of fairness in their methods of treating the different ports. Take the great trade harbours of the country. If one presses for expenditure, they giy e it something. If the other presses for similar

expenditure, but does not press sufficiently strong, they do not give it anything. Take, for instance, the harbour of St. John. That is one of the great export harbours of ,lhis continent, ready to handle the export trade equally to the harbour of Quebec, if you will only improve it. Yet they have allowed the people of St. John, through their municipal taxation and the loans they have had to make, to do almost everything that has to be done in that harbour and do not give them a dollar of contribution towards that work. But go to the harbour of Quebec and see what is being done there. After spending five million dollars in that harbour- and the Lord only knows what has become of it-after that expenditure, which one (would think ought to make it a harbour capable of taking in all the sea-going vessels that could get to it, the minister cannot find sufficient place in it in which ships can lay up, and he has to come back to his colleagues and say : I want to spend a half a million dollars more in order to get some adequate facilities. The time will come-[DOT] and I hope it will come soon-wluln we shall have an accounting for all these things. This government came into office in 1896, yet it has not had time to take up these most important questions and settle them on some basis of what is consistent, right and just, as regards the different ports of the country. They have no confidence evidently in the Harbour Commission at Quebec, or they would let that commission have the spending of the money in its own waters. If the government had full confidence in it, they would have given it this money to spend, as that commission ought to know best what is necessary. There is no principle, [DOT] no consistency, no method in their expenditure, and that is a good illustration of the lack of. business methods which characterizes the present administration. I am sure that my hon. friend would not justify in his own business the course of procedure which is followed with regard to our different ports. Instead of devising some general, reasonable plan which would be uniformly and consistently carried out, we have these hap-hazard methods followed, and followed apparently to suit some political or other caprice or exigencies.


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Alfred Augustus Stockton: Not for the western export part.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot draw the distinction quite as fine as my hon. friend does, who is possibly more acquainted with the details as to where the western and eastern export trade take place, but we all know that large expenditures have been made in the port. The hon. gentleman appeals to me as a business man. Speaking frankly as such, I would be glad if at the proper time we had a discussion in this House on the whole question of jurisdiction and the methods in which our harbours are managed. No doubt, in such a discussion, a great deal of information might be elicited. The government may have been somewhat dilatory in taking the question up. It is a large question which might be properly discussed, but I submit that that discussion would much more properly take place on some item in connection with the Marine Department, which has control of those harbours.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In view of the discussion which my hon. friend promises us later on, it would be well to get from him now such information as we can. The information I have asked for with regard to the number of harbour commissioners and the number of employees we ought to have. My hon. friend can get all that from the officers of his department. They know all about it.


Charles Smith Hyman: This department has nothing in the world to do with the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. I can obtain the information for my hon. friend, not from the officers of my department but from the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


George Eulas Foster: Since when had it not ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It never had.

779


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who is responsible in parliament to the people for all the moneys that have been spent in the harbour of Montreal or the harbour of Quebec ? Five millions of public money have been spent in Quebec and 83,000,000 in Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: Five millions.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are $3,000,000 owing to the government. Who is responsible in the House ? This is a democratic country.


William Findlay Maclean: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes. Every cent that is spent must be accounted for in parliament. It may not be entirely under the control of the department of the hon. gentleman, but he is a business man. He is doing a great deal of work at a great sacrifice and I hope he will help us in this direction. We want to know who is responsible for all these moneys which have been spent during past years and which are being spent to-day. We are here as the representatives of the people. We are responsible to the people for what we are doing. We have been called upon to vote an amount which will form a portion of about half a million dollars to be spent in Quebec harbour. We are entitled to know who is responsible for the moneys that have been spent in the past. My hon. friend says that when finished these works will be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries according to the law passed last session. Then the Department of Marine and Fisheries will probably give them back to the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec unless there is a change in the Bill now before the House. In the meantime we are entitled to all the information necessary to help us in the discussion of this question. When my hon. friend says that the Department of Public Works have nothing to do with that surely it places matters in a worse position than ever. If my hon. friend will say here : I do not know anything about it and my officers know nothing at all about it, there would be some excuse in that and we would postpone the matter until later on, but when we are told that the Department of Public Works is not responsible I am sure that if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries were here he would say that he was not responsible for it. Well then, who is responsible ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The position is exactly the same as it was previous to 1896.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is no excuse.


Charles Smith Hyman: It may not be an excuse, but I think that my hon. friend, being an old parliamentarian, will understand the position. It is a very simple one. As far as the actual expenditure on the harbour is concerned, the Department of Public Works have always had charge of that expenditure.


Charles Smith Hyman: The Harbour Commissioners are there, they expend the public money, the Department of Public Works advances the money and the Department of Public Works have up to this time exercised a supervision over the plans. That has always been the method pursued. As far as the management of the harbour is concerned it is -within the purview and under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The line of cleavage is exactly the same as that which has always existed.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the statement of the hon. Minister of.Public Works to pass that a large amount of money has been expended by the government of Canada in fitting the port of St. John for export trade. The expenditure on the part of the government was really for the purpose of perfecting the terminal facilities of the government railway and nothing beyond that.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think I said very plainly that I did not undertake to say that it was for the export trade. I said on the harbour of St. John. I do not know whether it was tor that purpose or not.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I assure my hon. friend that I do not wish to misrepresent or misinterpret his language.


Charles Smith Hyman: I know you do not.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: But I say that the expenditure that has been made has been made for the purpose of building the terminal facilities of that railway. It is true that in doing that two extra berths have been provided for ocean steamships on the east side of the harbour. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if, in consequence of advancing money or making expenditures on the harbour of Quebec, there is any exemption or reduction of port dues on export trade from the west ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry again that I am not exactly in the same position as I was before. As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned this is a matter of which we have no knowledge at all. I am sure there would be no difficulty in getting the information for the hon. gentleman. But, the committee must understand that we have got into a discussion which is aside from the item under consideration. It is rather stretching the rules of discussion althogether, I have no desire to take any exception to the fact. It would seem though, that we might confine the discussion a little more closely to the item under discussion. As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, whenever there is an item up in regard to the harbour of St. John, I shall be very glad to give the hon. gentleman the fullest opportunity for the discussion of that question.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I quite appreciate tlie courtesy of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and I accept his statement fully and in the terms in which he has presented it, but he cannot blame me if I would like to see an appropriation side by side in there for the important harbour of St. John. I think I am correct in saying that although the government of Canada has spent large sums of money for the benefit of the port of Quebec, yet there is no reduction of port dues, while in the harbour of St. John none of'the export trade from the west is charged a single cent for port dues.


George Eulas Foster: A difficulty arises in this; if you are bringing in a vote for improvements in Quebec harbour it is almost impossible to confine the discussion just simply to the expenditure of the $157,000. A member wants to know why this is being expended and what will be the result for trade just as my hon. friend asked and it would conduce to the smoothness and dispatch of business if we could see the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries more frequently in his place when these estimates are going through. X dare say there is some important business that keeps him out to-night but when these estimates are going on in which he is intimately interested it would be a great advantage to the committee to Pave the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries-the other part of this Siamese arrangement-in the House at the same time so that we could refer him for information. How-t ever, it is a saving clause that we have an opportunity of going back in order to get [DOT]information, upon this question and the minister cannot do anything more than he can do and, I suppose, defend his own department. But, there is one question that I do not quite understand. Is it true that after the advance of the $5,000,000, these sums have been expended on the initiative of the Harbour Commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: They were expended on the initiative of and by the Harbour Commission under the control of the department.
Mr. FOSTER, Under their jurisdiction?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: But this is not expended in that way ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.
Mr. FOSTER, Why was that ? Did you distrust the commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course I cannot speak of my own knowledge as this expenditure was started long before I was in the department. I understand from the deputy-and I speak from the knowledge I get from the deputy-that possibly when this contract was made not through the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal or Quebec, but directly by the department, the minister had in
his mind some such idea as has been suggested in regard to the nationalization of these harbours. It may have been an initial step which did not go any further, but I am given to understand by'the deputy that the minister probably had that idea at the time, however hazy it might be, hoping that it might take some more definite form in the future.


Samuel Hughes: Has the government a Bill before the House to nationalize the harbours of Montreal and Quebec ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I understand not.


Samuel Hughes: I understood there was a Bill to that effect.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there is no such Bill.


Samuel Hughes: I am aware that there is no Bill but is it not the intention of the government to bring in a Bill ? Has not notice been given of such a Bill ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot say what the intention of the government is in regard to the matter, but there is no Bill before the House.


Samuel Hughes: If there were, it might be well to hold this over until we see the nature of the Bill. Why should the government spend money directly on Quebec harbour and also have money expended through the Harbour Commission ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the plans here.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister will permit me to remind him, last year when the harbour of Seven Islands was under discussion the minister promised that he would bring down plans of all works in his department for the future.


Charles Smith Hyman: If the hon. member will pardon me I made no such promise. The hon. gentleman must know that the estim-mates of the Public Works Department have become very voluminous and that it would be a practical impossibility to bring down plans for all works. I shall be glad to bring down plans of any one work and furnish the fullest possible information in reference to all items, but it is hardly possible to bring down the plans for all works. This is not the intention of this work ; if we were commencing the work then possibly, in a large work like this, I might have thought of bringing down the plans.


Samuel Hughes: What is the nature of the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the hon. gentleman's absence from the House I gave a full explanation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it expected that we will have an announcement of some policy from the government during the present session in regard to the principal harbours, Quebec, Montreal, St. John and Halifax ? I say this in order to better define our position, because

when we ask some question about any particular harbour, our experience has been that the next day the local press accuses us of being against all improvement in that particular harbour. X have no doubt that to-morrow we will see in the Quebec papers that with extraordinary narrow-mindedness the opposition were, anxious to prevent any improvements being carried out in Quebec. That is not at all the object. For my own part X think that the four principal harbours interest me all in an equal degree, but I do not notice that there has been the slightest change, the slightest announcement of policy since 1886. Take the harbour of Montreal. In 1806 the Department of Public Works had almost completed its plans of improvement. These plans with some very small modifications have been completed and have taken an extraordinary long time in being carried out, largely on account of difficulties that have arisen between the government and the Harbour Board, between the Harbour Commissioners and the Department of X'ublic Works during the incumbency of my hon. friend's predecessor, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries since. I mention this because for my own part-and I think it is the feeling expressed on this side of the House-we are all anxious to see the harbours improved. X believe the government ought to nationalize our principal ports. We are all the time advancing money and in some instances we do not get back the interest while in other instances the harbours x>ay the interest on the advances or guarantees. I think it would be fairer to these ports, fairer to Montreal at any rate, if we were not always kept in a state of uncertainty, and if we knew that the government did not intend assuming the harbours. We ought, I think, after eight years to have a declared policy. I ask this not to embarrass my hon. friend in his estimates, but because I think this third parliament ought to bring us a declaration of what I said that not more -than two or three days ago the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. ITe-fontaine) announced in the House that lie was going to bring in a Bill entirely modifying the relations between the government and the Harbour Board of Montreal. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) has just asked the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) and has been informed that he has never heard of such a thing. We have been in that state of uncertainty since 1896, and the passing of these estimates would hasten if we were permitted to know what the government's policy is. My hon. friend reminds me that a Bill stands for second reading in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioner's Act.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is not the question my hon. friend asked me. The' question he asked me was whether the government proposed bringing down a policy affecting all the harbours.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All or any of them.


Charles Smith Hyman: The words * all or any or them ' were not mentioned. I am sure that Hansard will bear me out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, all of them.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no such Bill before the House affecting all the harbours. I think, with all due respect, that it will be only fair that this discussion which has broadened so much, ought to take place upon the Bill when the whole matter can be discussed. So far as I am concerned all the information from the Public Works Department that can be furnished I shall be glad to give my hon. friend. I have no objection in the world to the question he asked me about the Harbour Commissioners in Quebec, but I have not the information. We have nothing to do in the Public Works Department with the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec and in the memoranda which are furnished me by the officers of my department I have no reference to the personnel of the commission.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My real intention was not to embarrass or delay but to define what we on this side were anxious to know. Take these estimates ; we are voting ?207,000 for the harbour of Quebec and for Port Arthur a lid Fort William 8195,000,	8600,000 in
lound figures for the River St. Lawrence channel improvements, and for Montreal harbour, the lower division where we have been spending very considerable sums every year that is on the wharfs below St. Mary's current, 890,000, and at Port Col borne harbour, improvements including the eastern breakwater 8180,000. We have been spending money within measurable distance of these figures every year since 1896, and X say that we have no declared policy from the government as to what it intends doing for these ports, whether leaving them under the control of the Harbour Commission or assuming the responsibility for these ports and making them national harbours.


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Charles Smith Hyman: This vote is for the purpose of continuing the work of dredging which has been in progress for a number of years. The harbour is being deepened to 22 feet.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Charles Smith Hyman: The work progressing there at present is, as I have said, the deepening of the harbour within the breakwater to 22 feet. The total estimate for the whole work of dredging is $815,000.


Samuel Hughes: How much a yard ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate is based on the nature of the soil.


George Eulas Foster: How much of that has been spent up to the present ?


Charles Smith Hyman: About $330,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the nature of the stuff taken out ?


Charles Smith Hyman: All kinds-clay, sand, rock, hard-pan. It depends entirely on the depth at different parts of the harbour.


George Eulas Foster: Does the material which has been taken out silt back or fill up in any way ?
Mr. HYMAN". I am informed by the engineer of the department that we are very fortunate in that respect-that there has been no silting except at the mouth of the Kaministiquia river.


Samuel Hughes: Has it struck the minister that the breakwater of Port Arthur harbour is altogether too near shore for a great harbour ? It should be at least one-third of a mile further out. Then the minister would not need to go to so much expense in dredging, and a part of the money now expended in that way could be utilized for docks. He can go on dredging for a hundred years, and he will not make a good harbour so long as the breakwater is kept where it is.


Charles Smith Hyman: The time may come, perhaps is fast approaching, when such an extension of the harbour will become necessary. The distance from the breakwater to the shore is not perhaps as great as it ought to be. but, at the same time, the dredging operations which are being carried on are very largely increasing the advantages of the' harbour within the breakwater. I have no doubt that the time is not far distant when the largely increased tonnage at Port Arthur and Fort William will render necessary a largely increased expenditure there. I hope to be able, at no very distant date, if I am in the Public Works Department, to
work out a more comprehensive scheme with regard to those harbours, and I intend to visit them personally along with the chief engineer of the department. Whatever plan may be determined on, this expenditure is necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am assured by the officers of the department that a large part of this work is being done immediately inside of the present breakwater, and that we are gradually increasing the area of deep water In time to come the larger scheme suggested by my hon. friend may be carried out.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. minister understands the point I made. The present breakwater was built when no one ever expected that vessels drawing more than 16 feet of water would enter Port Arthur harbour, but to-day it is frequented by vessels drawing 20 feet of water.	That breakwater is very close in
shore.	If this million of dollars is to be
expended in the erection of a new breakwater, at each side of the present one but much further out, undoubtedly some dredging will have to be done, but the minister cannot spend $2,000,000 honestly in dredging that harbour. What he should do is let those who are going to construct docks build them out and then a large part of the dredging could be used to fill up the eribwork and concrete work of these docks. What we want is some comprehensive scheme of building up Port Arthur and Fort William harbours. Is the hon. gentleman going to take into consideration the dredging of one of the mouths of the delta to which the leader of the opposition has referred? There are three mouths. In the middle one, dredging could be made effective for the purposes of the harbour, and if he is going to dredge the middle mouth of the delta is he going to take into consideration the fact that the value of the property in proximity to it will be greatly enhanced.


Charles Smith Hyman: Does my hon. friend mean the Mission river? There is nothing in this appropriation for the Mission river. I quite appreciate what the hon. gentleman says but it is easy in the House, when discussing harbour improvements, to speak of an expenditure of a million dollars. I would not like, however, to undertake the responsibility of any such expenditure until I had the report of the government engineers and visited the harbour personally with them. In the opinion of our engineers, the dredging we are doing will be necessary in any ease. Whether in the future we would be justified in making a large expenditure of a million or more can only be decided when we have laid out a general scheme and have ascertained whether the necessities of the harbour demand that that scheme should be carried out.


Samuel Hughes: The matter has been before the House two or three times, but there have been so many changes in the hon. gentleman's department that the acting minister himself evidently does not know what has transpired.


Charles Smith Hyman: It has been up every year since I have been in the House.


Samuel Hughes: What I say is this, that my hon. friend cannot expend a million of dollars in dredging behind the present little breakwater in that harbour to any proper advantage.


Charles Smith Hyman: I did not say it was my intention to spend any such sum there. This work covers the work in the Kaminis-tiquia river as well. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me for the estimated expenditure in dredging the two harbours and I gave him the sum of $816,000 as the figure estimated by our engineers after carefully ascertaining the different classes of soil found on the bottom.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. minister lias been misrepresented, he himself is to blame because he certainly stated this sum was to be expended for the purpose of dredging. I drew attention to the fact that there is no breakwater at Fort William and he does not intend the expenditure to be limited to Port Arthur. I do not see where there can be any more dredging done m Kaministiquia river.


Mr.  R. .L. BORDEN@: Is the work done directly by the department by their own dredges or under contract?


Charles Smith Hyman: Under contract. We pay for some by the yard and some by the hour but the result is practically the same. When we pay by the hour it is for the minimum amount of work they are obliged to do.


Robert Laird Borden: Who are the contractors?


Charles Smith Hyman: Dredge No. 6, Mr. A. F. Bowman ; dredge No. 1, the Great Lakes Dredging Company ; dredge ' Kingsford,' C. S. Boone.


Samuel Hughes: Is this the Mr. Bowman who is a member of the local House and to whom the government gave a guarantee of a million dollars?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, he is a brother of that gentleman.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the principle upon which the department acts in this dredging business? Some dredges are paid by the hour and some by the yard and when paid by the yard the prices are not the same. This man Bowman must be a great friend of the government. Does the dredge ' Kingsford ' belong to Mr. Boone?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Evidently the plan of the late Minister of Public Works, Mr. Tarte, of having dredges owned by the government operating all over the Dominion, and which, he claimed, would cost less than hiring dredges, is not being carried out. Mr. Boone got $10 an hour for dredging 869 hours in July and September. Yet some years ago we were told by hon. gentlemen opposite that $8 an hour was too much. Then the Great Lake Dredging Company are paid on a different principle. They were paid 8,323 yards at 90 cents; 481 yards at 45 cents ; 7,959 yards at 23 cents and 13.122 yards at 15 cents. And all this dredging was done at the same place. I notice that any number of engineers and inspectors were employed on this work, no doubt, to inspect one another. Who is the man who decides whether a dredge will be paid by the hour or the yard and what prices shall be paid by the yard. Here is another dredge, Dredge No. 5, which I suppose belongs to the Great Lakes Dredging Company. This one was paid 7,224 yards at 90 cents; 8,777 yards at 40 cents; 47,022 yards at 23 cents ; 22,623 yards at 15 cents and 444 yards at $1.25, and all done at the same place. Mr. Bowman, who is mentioned here must be a great friend of the government.


An hon. MEMBER.: He was in the Local House.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is likely to be a row in the future. Because the two governments will not work on the same dredges. He has dredge No. 6 which is employed from August 13 to October 13, 339,596 yards at 15 cents. Another one not far from the same spot, $1.25. Then I find Bowman again at 20 cents a yard. Then there is Mr. Boone with the dredge Kingsford. It is employed for 168 hours at $12-the rate seems to be increasing. Then there is a charge of 496 hours and 50 minutes-that is getting it down fine-at $10.


Charles Smith Hyman: That shows that we watch them closely.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There seems to be a great deal of watching judging from the number of inspectors and engineers, but I am afraid there is a combination amongst the crowd. For the purposes of this work,
I suppose, Fort William and Port Arthur are considered together, because they almost join. I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) is the minister in charge of those works. I would like to know who is the man representing the government who is above all these sub-engineers and inspectors and on whom the government relies. Then I would like to know on what principle the men are paid. I do not know their political leanings, but I find some labourers are paid $2.50 a day, some $2 a day and some $1.50 a day. There seems

to be no principle in the working of the department of these matters.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman is asking a question and answering it too.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is very clever, but I do not see it. Perhaps the minister can tell me whether there is any rule or principle that he follows in these matters. There is another question I should like to ask. I see here a charge for a quantity of timber bought from the Pigeon River Lumber Company. In such a case are tenders called for, or does the engineer or inspector in charge go to the Pigeon River Company and say : We want to get so much timber-


Charles Smith Hyman: That does not come under this vote. That is for repairs to the breakwater.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It must be all the same thing. There is only one Port Arthur.


Charles Smith Hyman: But there may be different kinds of work at the same place.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will the hon. minister call my attention to the item under which this expenditure arises when we reach it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I will try to remember.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And will he answer my other questions now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: With pleasure.. So far as the different prices for labour is concerned, the same differences have always existed. For certain surveys we must have a better class of men, men who are a little more than labourers. These are paid $2.50 a day. As to the dredging, my hon. friend seems concerned because there were so many different kinds of material at Port Arthur. I may tell him that the plans show, in places, as many as four different kinds of material at the same spot-mud and sand on top, then clay, then hard-pan and then rock. There are different prices for these different kinds of work. The department have an engineer there, a Mr. Temple. He has been in charge there for some four years. Of course, we hold him responsible. He does not fix the prices for the dredging, but he makes reports that come to the chief engineer and the deputy. As to the different prices for dredges, $10 and $12 an hour, the price Is based upon the quantity of work the several dredges can do. It is all done to a standard. As to the general policy, speaking for myself, I think it would be well if the department had a larger fleet of dredges. But the hon. gentleman must knoy^ that these dredges are very costly. A first-class dredge to-day will cost at least a quarter of a million dollars. The department have been for years asking for votes and supplying themselves with dredges of the latest pattern and able to do work at the lowest cost. But the department could not very well ask a vote
to supply dredges for all the harbours, because in some harbours a certain kind of dredge will do the best work, while others require a different dredge. I do not think the department can ever hope to be equipped with enough dredges of its own to cover all the harbours. But it is the policy of the department to increase its dredging fleet.


Robert Laird Borden: How many dredges are employed at Port Arthur and Fort William ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Four.


Robert Laird Borden: Were they constructed especially for this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Where were they constructed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Those dredges do not belong to the department. Still I am sorry I have not the information the hon. gentleman desires. We deal simply with the contractor, and, so long as the dredge comes up to the requirements of the department we are satisfied.


Robert Laird Borden: I was asking with a view to understanding the practicability of the department acquiring dredges. I thought that as that was the policy of the minister he would have considered that point, and would be able to tell us whether these dredges were made in this country or elsewhere.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not that information.


Samuel Hughes: What are the names of the other two dredges ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. 5, the 'Arthur,' and No. 6 the ' ICingsford.' No. 5 is the Great Lakes Dredging -Company's.
Mr. FOSTER, Who is the contract made with ?


Charles Smith Hyman: My deputy tells me that it is with Mr. A. F. Bowman.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The same man ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The same man.


Samuel Hughes: We have here for dredging the ICaministiquia river, $20,939, that is to F. A. Bowman. Then we have the Great Lakes Dredging Company, $2,119. Dredging in Kaminisquia river near elevator D, $4,036 ; Great Lakes Dredging Company, $1,333. Who owns the dredge ' Kings-ford ' ?


Mr. HYMAN C. S.@: Boone.


Samuel Hughes: Dredging in Port Arthur harbour at new Canadian Northern Railway elevator, $14,484 ; Great Lakes Dredging Company, $18,917, making a total amount of $73,679 for dredging Port Arthur last year. This year the minister comes

[DOT]down with another estimate of $195,000 for dredging. I have no hesitation in telling the minister that he is carrying out a wrong policy, and the public is not getting service for the money expended.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman has n right to his opinion, and possibly I have a right to mine. My opinion is that the country is getting service for the money. The expenditure comes directly under the Department of the Chief Engineer, who is watching it very closely. Since I have been in charge of the department no contract has been made or arrangement of any kind [DOT]except after a report of the chief engineer.


Samuel Hughes: From what depth to what depth is the hon. gentleman dredging, both in Port Arthur and Kaministi-quia ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The average present depth varies. The intention is to give twenty-two feet of water, gradually extending it along the docks to twenty-two feet.


Robert Laird Borden: Could the minister give the committee an idea of the size, capacity and value of each of these dredges ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the value of the dredges, because we are dealing with contractors who do the dredging. We take into consideration the amount of work a dredge can perform in a given time. When a dredge is paid $10 an hour it is supposed to be for ordinary work. If it is in mud or sand, it is 15 cents a yard, that is considered to be a fair price.


Samuel Hughes: A modern dredge -can do the mud dredging for an infinitely less price than that.


Charles Smith Hyman: Perhaps so. The department is now looking at a new dredge that can do the work for less price ; but there is not a dredge of that kind available in Canada.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Does that include scow-age ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. While a dredge is being paid $10 an hour it is working in different kiuds of material all the while, which varies in price from lOf cents per yard up to 40 cents, depending altogether upon the character of the work the dredge is [DOT]engaged in.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason I asked the question as to the value is this. It was stated to us in committee several years ago by a predecessor of the minister, that the department was, as stated by my hon. friend fiom Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), considering a proposition to construct dredges to do this work, for the reason that it could thus be more economically performed. Several years have since elapsed, and I would have thought, if that is the opinion of the department still, that the deaprtment would have made itself acquainted with the par-


Samuel Hughes: ticulars to which I have referred respecting these dredges, because I assume they are proper dredges for undertaking this work. If they are proper dredges for this work, then it would seem that an inquiry might have been made long ago as to the value of these dredges, and the cost of acquiring dredges of a similar character, in order that the saving spoken of by the hon. gentleman's predecessor might lie effected. The minister will agree that in that aspect of the question it would have been proper for the government to obtain some information along that line. He has spoken to us of a dredge costing $250,000. I want to find out whether any one of these dredges cost anything like that sum.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think any of them did, of that character.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister will find that for the same purpose he could have bought the whole of these dredges for one-half or one-fourth of that sum. The inquiry seems to be pertinent for that reason, because if you can dredge out the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur for 5 cents a cubic yard, there is no reason why you should be paying 15, 20 and 25 cents per cubic yard. I hope, therefore, that the minister, during the present session or at some early date, will give us some information along these lines ; because while it may be profitable to some of these gentlemen to be dredging these harbours at these rates, there is no reason in the interests of the people why that system should be pursued if it be true, as stated by the hon. gentleman's predecessor, that the work can well be done for one-third or one-fourth of the price now paid.


Charles Smith Hyman: The department can do no work at Port Arthur or at Kaministiquia until such time, as we get up-to-date dredges. If we were to attempt to do so with the present dredges, I think the hon. gentleman would say that we were not doing our full duty. If we were to acquire these dredges, I do not believe that we could do tlie work a single bit cheaper than we are doing it under the system we are pursuing at the present time. If we pursued that policy we would require immediately to spend a large amount of money on capital account for the purpose of doing the work in Port Arthur. What is to be done with the dredges afterwards ? I understand it to be a rule in dredging contracts that a certain amount has to be charged up to the price for dredging to provide for the plant. If the department simply say :	we will
do no work, or we will ask parliament for $400,000 or $500,000 to get these dredges to do the work in two or three years, and at the end of that time possibly the dredges may not be placed where they can be used, the result will be that a large price must be charged up against the work. But we are gradually adopting a new policy. At the

present time we are building a new dredge on the most approved plans and we hope to be able to accomplish some results with that dredge.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where is that being built ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is being built under contract at the Poison Works in Toronto.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it a big dredge ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a 24-inch hydraulic dredge.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Like the 'J. Israel Tarte ' ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Practically on the same principle, except that it has the latest up-to-date improvements in every possible way. The department are gradually trying to get themselves into that position, but I hardly think this House will be prepared to say in the meantime that we should stop all work at Port Arthur.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that my hon. friend is not disposed to be unfair ordinarily, but he has given a construction to my remarks which is not in the slightest degree borne out by anything I said. How long have we been dredging in this river ? For several years, have we not ?


William Mulock: For at least thirty years.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, we had the announcement made by a responsible minister of the Crown that this work could be done in a very much cheaper way by acquiring dredges and doing the work directly by the department. I do not know whether that can be borne out or not. I was not suggesting that the hon. minister should wait, but I was suggesting that if the policy of the department had at any time been what was thus stated, some inquiry should be made, so that the lion. Minister of Public Works could give some necessary information. The hon. minister says it will not be cheaper, but when I ask him the very questions which are pertinent to the consideration of the subject he is not able to give me any information. He does not know what the cost is of a dredge capable of doing that work. Is not that the first thing to consider in order to come to a conclusion as to whether or not we can do the work more cheaply ourselves ? Would you not have to consider the cost of the dredge and the cost of operation afterwards ?, Would you not have to consider that the dredge during a portion of the time might not be employed after this work has been done ? All these things are proper subjects for consideration, but the hon. minister did not seem to be able to give very much information to the committee. One consideration is, of course, the cost of dredges whicli will be capable of performing this work, and whether or not such dredges can be obtained within a reasonable time. It might turn out, if we had the information, that the hon. minister is exactly right in his conjecture, but the committee should be furnished with the necessary information to enable it to come to a conclusion on the subject, and to offer any suggestions which may seem pertinent before voting the money.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sure the hon. gentleman will acquit me of in any possible way desiring to put any unfair construction upon his words. As far as the cost of a dredge is concerned, the committee will quite understand that for in the neighbourhood of $250,000 a first-class suction dredge could be built. That dredge would not do all the work there ; we would require a dredge for hard-pan and rock work, so that we would have to build, in addition to that class of dredge, a dredge which would do hard-pan and rock work.


Robert Laird Borden: These dredges are of more than one class ?


Charles Smith Hyman: These four dredges are all of one class ;-they are all of the class which is known as the ' dipper ' dredge. I do not think it would be the policy of the department to acquire these dredges. If the government were to acquire and man these dredges themselves, I question very much if the work could be done cheaper than by paying so much for each dredge per hour, or so much per yard for the work under contract. I just wish to say that this dredge question is in Canada a very important and serious one. There are practically no dredges available. I do not know of a single dredge of any capacity which is available in Canada for the works of the department that we are not using. It is a very difficult matter to get dredges, and for that reason I feel convinced that the department must gradually extend this system of buying and manning its own dredges, but I do not believe that the House would agree with the opinion that it would be a proper thing that we should do so in one year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I sympathize very much with my hon. friend the acting Minister of Public Works. I believe he did not quite catch what the chief of the opposition 1 said. He was not here some years ago, when one of. his predecessors asked parliament for a very large amount of money to equip government works at Sorel. These works were designed for the building of the dredges which will be necessary in Canada. This question was very much discussed here. It was a very large amount of money that was required. Some lion, gentlemen expressed an opinion very much in line with that of my hon. friend, but the majority of the House and the government, who were responsible for it, sustained the opinion of the then Minister of Public Works. The money was spent. I believe

that over half a million dollars was spent at Sorel for the building of a shop there. Am I right in regard to the figure 1


Charles Smith Hyman: It was a large amount, as the hon. gentleman says.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: A good deal of work, in accordance with the intentions of the then minister, was commenced there, but it was not continued. I think this is an evidence of the unfortunate results that follow from the government having no stated policy. If that had been the policy of the government on that subject, whether the Minister of Public Works disappeared or not, that policy should have been continued. It has not been continued. The works at Sorel are not to-day operated to as great an extent as was intended when they were built. I know it may be answered that they are used for repairs for the fleet that is employed in the St. Lawrence channel. That work is not being properly done, if I can judge by what was done last summer, when the boiler on the largest dredge-the ' J. Israel Tarte '-burst, with the result that the dredge could do nothing at all.


George Eulas Foster: It was Prefontaine that burst.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The steamer ' Prfifon-taine ' was near the dredge ' Tarte.'


George Eulas Foster: He burst his boiler.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The then minister was" to build other dredges. This was six years ago. How many of these dredges have been built ? It was said that when they finished the work in the St. Lawrence channel they were to be used later upon the 'Georgian bay canal, a scheme which is now before parliament. It was said here by that hon. gentleman, as a minister of the Crown, and it was accepted by parliament, that it was a good policy, because dredges built and owned by the government could do the work for one-half the price the government has to pay to-day for rented dredges. My hon. friend has said what is perfectly clear, that it is hard to get dredges, and naturally the prices are going up, but had the government been building dredges of their own, then these contractors, knowing that the government were building their own dredges, would have to keep the prices as low as possible. What is being done about that famous dredge-which must have been a good one, since the government are building another of the same kind in Toronto-it is a special kind of dredge, and the first one is not at work at all ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The ' J. Israel Tarte ' was at work last season.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It did hardly any work.


Charles Smith Hyman: It worked in the fall last season. As regards the work at Sorel the


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: very policy which the hon. gentleman says was laid down by a member of the government was carried out, so far as the dredges are concerned. Every dredge on the ship canal, except the 'Laval' whose hull only was built here was built in those works, and I have always understood that these dredges were doing remarkably good work. At Sorel they are also building a dredge for the Public Works Department, the dredge ' W. S. Fielding.' The Department of Public Works in addition to that are as I said trying to equip themselves with modern dredges, but I do not think it will be.good policy on the part of the government to make all these expenditures in one year. We are gradually trying to equip ourselves with hydraulic and elevator dredges and there is no question that the work can be done at a lower cost with the kind of dredge that is best suited for it.


George Eulas Foster: How do you arrive at the rate of $10 an hour ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is based on a capacity of 800 yards a day.


George Eulas Foster: For what kind of work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is all based on sand and mud work which is 15 cents. Then there is a regular schedule price which is supposed to be an equivalent for hard-pan and for rock.


George Eulas Foster: Why fix 15 cents a yard there.


Charles Smith Hyman: Because that is considered a fair price for the work.


George Eulas Foster: And the contract is let on that ?


Samuel Hughes: There is no contract whatever.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course there is a contract between the department and the proprietors of the dredge.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman explain what a contract is ? Let him not deceive the House-I do not think he intends to deceive


Mr. HYMAN. MB.: Chairman I rise to a point of order. I have no desire to deceive the House.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Oliver).: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) will have to consider that he is out of order.


Samuel Hughes: I am not out of order. I said he did not intend to deceive the House.


Frank Oliver: I understood him to say that the hon. minister deceived the House.	.


Samuel Hughes: I understood him to say the contract with Bowman to be for

dredging, $14,484.39 and at the mouth of the ICaministiquia river $20,939.40. Was there a contract there? No there was not.


Charles Smith Hyman: I wish to say there was a contract.


Samuel Hughes: What was the contract, what were the terms ?
Mr. HYMAN, ilf the hon. gentleman wants the floor I will give him the opportunity.


Samuel Hughes: I want him to tell the terms of the contract.
know perfectly well what that equivalent is in hard-pan, rock and sand.


Samuel Hughes: Can the minister furnish the figures of that estimate, because if he does not give them now I intend moving for them. I mean the estimate of material to be removed with this $195,000 this year. How much of it is of each quality ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the details of every yard of sand, rock, or hard-pan, but there is so much dredging to he done there-


Samuel Hughes: It is a large sum-


Charles Smith Hyman: I wish to he allowed to make my statement without being interrupted. The terms of the contract are exactly as I said before. The contracts are between the proprietors of the dredges and the department to do the work at $10 per hour. That $10 per hour is based upon the capability of the dredge to do a certain amount of work, figuring at 15 cents fox-ordinary sand and mud work. There is a price which the dredge would get for rock work, a proportionate to the price of 15 cents for sand or mud. Then there is a price for hard-pan. That is the nature of the contract which is entered into between the owners of the dredge and the Department of Public Works.


Samuel Hughes: The contract was for $10 an hour.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the contract.


Samuel Hughes: That is a mere agreement. What I would call a contract is that the engineer should have estimates for the work to be done for this coming year for which we are voting $195,000. We want to know from the minister if he can tell us how much of that is sand, how much hard-pan and how much rock. On what does he base his estimate of $195,000 ? Can he say to Conmee & Bowman and the outfit generally :	Here gentlemen are certain obstructions in this harbour which you have to remove ; for what will you enter into a contract with us to remove all the sand and mud and hard-pan. What will you take to remove all of that ? I would call that a contract, but I call it no contract to go on at $10 an hour, as the minister bases his estimate, in asking for this $195,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate of $195,000 is based upon the engineer's estimate of the amount of work that we will be able to do in these harbours this year. It is based upon an estimate that there will be so many cubic yards each of sand, clay, rock, mud. or hard-pan. The contract' they entered into-or if you like to call it an agreement- the contract or agreement is based upon that basis that a dredge earns about $10 an hour, and it must do the equivalent of 300 yards a dav. It figures out at 15 cents per yard for 12 hours a day at $120. Engineers


Charles Smith Hyman: If I might be allowed to make the explanation, Mr. Chairman, there is a certain ai-ea to be removed ; we figux-e that we can remove this year a certain amount of material from this harbour and we estimate that so much of it is sand, so much hard-pan and so much rock. Taking these different items and putting them together the engineers of the department figure that we can do work to the extent of $195,000 in Port Arthur harbour and Kaministiquia river.


Samuel Hughes: On what data do you figure ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I figure on the plans which are furnished to the department and on the surveys of these waters which the department has.


Samuel Hughes: The minister can produce these figures, of course. Another point: where is the material put that is dredged out ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is dumped into deep water in the lake.


Samuel Hughes: Whereabouts ?


Charles Smith Hyman: At the closest possible point.


Samuel Hughes: So that it will be convenient to wash back again.


Mr.   I@: Why is it not better for the department to pay so much per cubic yard for the material actually removed than to pay $10 an hour for the dredge.


Charles Smith Hyman: In some cases we have done that. I do not know that there is really any great difference in the result. The payment is practically figured on the capacity of the dredge.


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: Simply a different way of arriving at what you regard as the same result. When you pay at the rate of $10 an hour, how do you know that the quantity you estimate for is actually removed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have an engineer who visits the harbour, and an inspector on every dx-edge. A report comes to the department every day, so that we can check it.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister spoke some time ago as if it were not advisable to employ dredges owned by the department because he expects this dredging to cease some time ; but the Postmaster General says that dredging has been going on there for thirty years. Is it not probable, from the nature of the river, that you will always have dredging there ?


William Mulock: Always.


Charles Smith Hyman: Then, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has brought up the question of the necessity that might arise for a considerable enlargement of the harbour.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that not an additional reason why the minister should consider what has been suggested to-night ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have received some information, and am very glad to have had the discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the new dredge now being constructed by the Poison Company of Toronto to be employed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In the maritime provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no dredge now being constructed which it is intended to employ at this point ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the dredge now being constructed by the Poison Company be suitable for work at the mouth of the Ivaministiquia V


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed by the officers of the department that it would work specially well there.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that 1 have always objected to the work that is being done at Port Arthur and Fort William, especially at Port Arthur. As the breakwater was placed too close to the shore in the first place, some dredging must be done inside of it to enable vessels to turn. But the whole policy of the department on those harbours, I conteud, is wrong. I intend asking what the total sums are that have already been expended upon them, a hydraulic dredge could very properly be worked at Port Arthur. The mud-it is principally mud-I took soundings in the harbour before the engineers of the department did-could be dumped on the shore where there would be no danger of it flowing back into the harbour. When I see the large sums of money expended by the department on dredging in this harbour, I have no hesitation in saying that at the first opportunity I will go into the accounts before the Public Accounts Committee to show that this work has not been properly done.


Richard Blain: What is the condition of the breakwater at Port Arthur ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Charles Smith Hyman: It is being repaired at present. The expenditure last year for repairs was about $15,000.


Richard Blain: The statement was made some years ago that the condition of the breakwater at Port Arthur was very serious, and that unless extensive repairs were made immediately it was in danger of being swept away altogether. When does the min ister expect to have the present breakwater thoroughly repaired and completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We are not asking for any vote for the breakwater this year. The engineer informs me that all the necessary repairs will be completed out of the vote for the present year.


Richard Blain: On the question of the material dredged out of the harbour drifting back again, what is the experience of the department ? Is there a considerable portion required to be re-dredged ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is an appreciable amount at the mouth of the Kaministiquia river, where we shall require practically continuous dredging.


Richard Blain: About how much ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is almost impossible to tell-some years less and some more. The same thing occurs in many other harbours.


Richard Blain: The harbour now under discussion is a very important harbour, not only to Ontario but to all Canada, and it seems to me that one of those up-to-date dredges which the department has been constructing should be put into that harbour. Will the hon. gentleman state what is the prospect on that point ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no decided policy at the moment in regard to that harbour, and the department has not all the details that may be necessary to decide upon a policy. There are certain contemplated changes which may postpone any large work there. Possibly new railway connections may be made there. We cannot decide upon a policy until we see exactly what the necessities of the case are.


Richard Blain: I suppose the minister would have no objection to lay on the table the contract between his department and A. F. Bowman, at the next meeting of the committee or at some other convenient time 1


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no objection. I have explained the way in which that matter is arranged between the department and the contractor. We arrived at a decision after consulting with our engineer at Port Arthur, who has charge of these works, and our chief engineer ; and the contractor has to go on and do the work at a price considered fair and reasonable by both.


Richard Blain: I suppose the hon. gentleman will have no objection to laying the contract on the table.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have explained how the prices were arrived at and that there is actually no formal contract.


Richard Blain: I am not particular as to whether it is a letter or not, but I would like the hon. minister to lay on the table what he regards as the contract existing between A. F. Bowman and the department.


Charles Smith Hyman: Certainly, any information in the department is at the disposal of the House at any time.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister anything which would show the cost of operation of the dredge ' Kingsford ' for twelve hours ? How many men are employed on it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Three. There is great difficulty in arriving at the exact figures. In all these contracts the element of chance is a considerable one. Allowance must be made for breakages and depreciation of the dredge. Every dredge has to be laid up every winter and overhauled, and sometimes the depreciations and renewals are very large. The contractor has to take all that into consideration, and that is one of the greatest difficulties the department has to deal with.


George Eulas Foster: That is quite true, but at the same time it would help us in coming to a conclusion. The way the minister has arrived at his $10 per hour is to place an arbitrary rate on mud or sand dredging. His engineers at Port Arthur say they think it is worth 15 cents per cubic yard to remove mud or sand, and it takes more for another kind of deposits, and so on. He gets at $10 per hour by fixing an arbitrary amount as the reasonable sum to be placed for sand or mud excavation, but possibly 15 cents may be too much or too little, and the only way of determining is to get at the cost of dredging aud the average of depreciation and repairs. I suppose that any one skilful in these matters can come quickly to a conclusion as to whether a dredge has earned a disproportionate amount compared with the cost of running it and the loss by depreciation and repairs and by having to lay it up during the winter. The department which has been using dredges for years ought to have pretty accurate information on these points.


Charles Smith Hyman: The department has sources of information which it has carefully considered in fixing the price at 15 cents. We have dredges of our own, and our engineers know what it costs per day to run a dredge of a certain capacity, and also what it has cost the government for repairs. But in making a comparison between the dredging done by contractors and that done by the department itself, it must be remembered that in the public accounts giving the items of dredging there is nothing added to the cost of the dredging for the cost and 26
depreciation of the plant. The contractor must take these into consideration.


George Eulas Foster: What w7ould the cost of running the 'Kingsford' be per day of 12 hours ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have not got the information concerning that particular dredge and such information might be very misleading.


George Eulas Foster: It would not be misleading. The hon. minister is very quick to see that another element comes into the calculation and is quick to put it forward in the interest of fair-play to the contractor. Other business men would be just as quick to give a fair and reasonable price, but they would have something on which to base a calculation and make up their minds as to whether 15 cents per hour was too large as a unit of expense. The House has not that knowledge and therefore has nothing on which to form a conclusion. The House will not be so unreasonable as to refuse to take into account the element of depreciation or of laying up for six months in the year ; but at the same time if those dredges are not very expensive as regards their first cost, in two or three years they -would earn enough money to enable the department, if it had that money, to build all the dredges necessary and credit them with 15 cents an hour. Were any tenders called for for the dredging at Port Arthur ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. but negotiations were had with these gentlemen because they had the dredges.
Mr. FOSTER, Would it not be possible to call for tenders and get a relative idea of the cost ? You might say that there were no others in that vicinity, but if you take in the whole extent of the lakes, you might very well get competition.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have explained the position the department took. There were practically no other dredges available and we considered that we had made as favourable an arrangement with the contractors as we could possibly have done, even had we called for tenders.


George Eulas Foster: But the hon. minister leaves himself open at every stage of the argument to be reminded that this is a negotiation between gentlemen who are not unfriendly, politically or otherwise, and consequently there might be an unfair advantage given to one side. If the minister exhausted his resources in securing public competition he would be more' strongly fortified in making an arrangement by private negotiation. I think that is always a protection to a minister. Of course, if he cannot get competition, he must fall back upon the parties and negotiate witli them. There is always the chance, that once in a while a competitor will come in and offer to do the work at cheaper rates.


Samuel Hughes: In the Auditor General's Report for 1904, page V-294, and following pages, he will find the charges for the working expenses of dredges. He will find that the dredge 'Lake Nipissing ' was run for a year for $6,400; the dredge ' Niths-dale' for $10,587; dredge No. 1, for $4,220 ; dredge No. 6, $530- I suppose she was not run for the whole year. The dredge ' Ontario' ran from May to December, and the pay of officers and other expenses amount to $8,361; the dredge ' Progress ' cost $5,962; the 1 Queen,' $12,237; the ' Richelieu,' $6,002; the dredge ' P. V. Savard,' $3,846. I presume that these are the running expenses of these dredges and I presume also that some of these dredges are as large as the dredges at Port Arthur, possibly larger. Then, at page Y-58 of this report we find that Mr. Bowman was paid for dredging hi entrance channel to the Kaministiquia river, $20,939.40. We are informed by the minister himself that Mr. Bowman is the contractor for the Great Lakes Dredging Company, and that company received on the same work, $2,119.20. Then, for dredging hi the Kaministiquia river near elevator D, Mr. Bowman received $4,036.80 and the Great Lakes Dredging Company, services of dredge No. 5, $1,333.05. Then for dredging in Port Arthur harbour, Mr. Boone received for services of dredge ' Kingsford,' $6,984.33. For dredging in Port Arthur near new Canadian Northern Railway elevator. Mr. Bowman was paid, $14,484.39, and the Great Lakes Dredging Company. $18,917.28. All this is exclusive of the cost of inspectors and various other expenses, nor is there anything for soundings and borings. The total cost of this dredging work is $73,679.54. In addition we have the charge for dredging the Kaministiquia river, $35,923. With inspectors and other services, the total for the four dredges is $109,602.81. Compare this with four of the most expensive of the government dredges, and you find that these contractors have a large margin of profit. If the minister did the work with government dredges, he would have this large sum of money to devote to procuring new dredges or to carrying on dredging elsewhere. The minister has come down from his high position about a contract for $10 an hour. He knows what the contract was-virtually a negotiation with the gentlemen and telling them, 'Go ahead and we will pay you $10 an hour.' The hon. minister has-at least, fie certainly ought to have-a report showing how much of each class of material it is expected to remove with the vote he is asking for. If he will then advertise for tenders for the specific work I believe he can save 50 per cent of this money.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no objection to the comparison the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughesl has made, but I have not had time to consider it. Of course, the hon. gentle-Mr. FOSTER.
man knows that the length of time the dredge is running affects the question of expense, and so does the question of where the work is to be done and the time of work.


Richard Blain: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the statement of one of his predecessors on this question of dredging. He will find it at page 3284 of ' Hansard ' of 1902
I hope that by next year we shall be sufficiently equipped to do our own work. The two or three new dredges which we are building now I hope will enable us to do the work ourselves, and at a cheaper rate than we have done it in the past.
This was on a discussion of an item of $619,000 for constructing new dredges, &c. With that statement before the committee I am sure the hon. minister will not think we are unduly inquisitive if we ask him how it comes in 1905 he tells us that they have not enough dredges and cannot say when they will have.


Charles Smith Hyman: Did the minister in making that statement refer to all the dredging done in the Dominion of Canada?


Richard Blain: Yes, I read his exact words. I am not responsible for them. The item is dredging, $619,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: If I mistake not. that is for dredging in some part of the Dominion.


Richard Blain: No, general dredging I take it. I will read a little further :
Dredging, $619,000.


Mr. WILSON.: We should have some explanation of this very large item. The word ' plant ' is mentioned in the estimates several times. It would seem as if we needed to build a great many dredges to require all this plant.
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The word * plant ' means a new dredge ; not plant to build a dredge.
That is his explanation of it. I am sure the minister, when he reads this statement, covering two or three pages, will see that his predecessor wished to leave the impression upon the committee that in the course of a short time, even the next year, they would have sufficient dredges to do all their own work. He goes on further and points out that the present system of hiring dredges is out of date altogether, and that it would be in the interest of the country to build these hydraulic dredges, giving an explanation why he was asking for this enormous sum of money. Now we are anxious to know what has become of this money, and how it is that the minister now says that a sufficient number of these up-to-date dredges cannot be constructed without hiring dredges from Mr. Bowman.


Charles Smith Hyman: I can only say that the department have gradually equipped themselves to a large extent since that statement was made. The vote of which the

minister was speaking then was the general vote taken for dredges. Since that date tlie department have largely added to their own plant, and largely in the interest of the public. But the demand for dredging has been growing all the time, and it has been found almost impossible to keep up witli the demand. At that time the dredging of the St. Lawrence channel was under the Department of Public Works, which I think largely accounts for the minister's statement. The department has built sew eral large dredges which are confined to that work.
ordinary custom of the country. I do not know of any other trade or employment in which people work in the middle of December twelve hours a day, especially in matters such as dredging, where light is. one would think, absolutely essential. Perhaps the minister can tell us how, in the middle of December, twelve hours of honest work can be devoted to the service of the country, no matter what the rate of wages may be. and if he can do that, it will perhaps save a good deal of time in this committee and others, where the members desire to inquire into these things.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister a statement of the horse-power of this new hydraulic dredge, this $250,000 dredge ?
iMr. HYMAN. 13,000 odd horse-power.


Samuel Hughes: Can he give us the horse-power of these four dredges at Port Arthur now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Marine Department has a record of them. I suppose they are registered.


Samuel Hughes: I give the minister notice that I shall expect the information at a later date.


Samuel Barker: As I have to confess that I am even more ignorant than the department on the subject, I would like to ask one or two questions of the minister. I do not desire to hold him responsible for the matters lam about to refer to. I desire to inquire into certain matters of expenditure by the Public Works Department in connection with this dredging business. I find that in certain cases certain dredges are paid $8, $10 and $12 an hour for their work ; I find that dredges are moved from place to place, and are paid something like half rates for moving. X find also that dredges employed by the government, so far as I can see, not by contract but by direct employment of the department, apparently by some method of hiring, are employed by the hour. Now I have found in the accounts dredges paid $12 an hour, which seems to be a very large sum. It may be right, I do not dispute it, but I would like to know something about it. I find also that dredges employed at $12 an hour are working in the month of November and up to the middle of December, twelve hours a day. That says a great deal for the diligence of the department, and the energy of the owners of the dredges, that they 'can work in the middle of December twelve hours a day. I think it a remarkable thing that in this country a dredge could be employed until in the middle of December for twelve hours a day. My own notion of things would make me believe that it was absolutely impossible, and I would like to know from the minister how it is that in tlie matter of dredging, hours and duration of employment exceed so enormously the 201


Charles Smith Hyman: Unfortunately, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was not in the House when I gave a great deal of information to the committee which he has just asked for. There are one or two things however, which I would like to explain, one of which is the hours the dredges work. It does not follow that they must work in daylight. In some of the dredges which we hire and even in some of our own dredges, there are two shifts of men that work the dredge day and night, so that a dredge will sometimes work 24 hours a day. In the case of some of these dredges which we hire by the hour, I explained already that the way we pay them depends altogether upon the quality of the material removed by the dredges, and upon their capacity. We have dredges which we pay $8 an hour, to others having a greater capacity we pay $10. and to others having a still greater capacity. $12 an hour. I explained fully that the payment is based upon the capacity of the dredges, and the number of hours that the dredge works. That is the method followed by the department. So far as regards a dredge working in December, I am assured by the officers of the department that they have a daily return from every one of these dredges which are under contract to the department. This daily return is furnished by our own officers, and payments are made upon that check, which the hon. member will agree is ns good as can be devised upon the work of the dredges.


Samuel Barker: The explanation of the minister leaves me just where I was before. My trouble is this: It does not appear to me that a dredge can very well work in the dark; certainly it cannot work in the dark in an economical way for the department. Now I find that in December with the sun setting before five o'clock, and the moon rising about one o'clock in the morning the department is paying for work twelve hours in the day. If they can pay for twelve hours I cannot see why they cannot pay for 24 hours. There is no reason why they should not pay for 24 hours just as well as for twelve and get the work done earlier. The peculiarity to me seems to be that the inspector who sends his report to the minister, as the minister says

80S
under this most perfect system of checking, is paid extra for every hour that he is employed to inspect. I find that a dredge is employed in the month of December and is paid for 12 hours of dredging work and this gentleman certifies that it is employed every day no matter what the weather is, whether it is stormy or the finest and fairest weather. Apparently the dredge works the same number of hours and turns out exactly the same number of yards of earth whether the weather is fair or foul. It does seem to me a little singular that the inspector charges per hour just the same number of hours for his inspection as the dredge is employed. The inspector is allowed $3 per day for looking on. I do not know exactly how he measures day by day the exact number of yards turned out by the dredge, but he does so and certifies exactly to the number of yards turned out by the dredge and that, having certified that the dredge has been working a certain number of hours, charges here just so many hours extra for his services. It strikes me that an inspector who is allowed thirty cents an hour for every extra hour he certifies in his account that the dredge is on duty is tempted by that thirty cents an hour to not look too closely into the accounts.


Charles Smith Hyman: As regards the overtime work of the inspector, of course when the dredge is working overtime the inspector is necessarily paid overtime. There is no objection to that. The hon. gentleman will agree with me that it is necessary to have an inspector. As far as the measurement is concerned it is scow measurement. The officers of the department know exactly the number of cubic yards contained in the scow that is being used and when the scow is filled up the dredge man gets credit for having removed that amount of earth.


Samuel Barker: I think nobody in this House knows more thoroughly than the hon. minister himself that in the months of November and December, about the hour of five o'clock, under the game laws, darkness comes on very quickly. Sundown is a fixed minute. We can find that in the Canadian almanac. The hon. gentleman knows that thirty minutes after sundown there is such an amount of darkness that certain shooting and other amusements that are defined by the game laws are stopped. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that between thirty and forty minutes after sundown work of that kind cannot be done and to say that a dredge can go on for hours after sundown and do dredging work is to my mind all nonsense. I do not care how many inspectors of the government certify that the work is being done and I say that when the inspector is paid thirty cents an hour for every hour beyond darkness that the work has been done it is offering him thirty cents per hour as a reward Mr. BARKER.
for over-certifying the work that is really done.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. gentleman that because an officer of the department is paid for overtime and because he certifies to the work done during that time he is dishonest. I have asked my deputy to look through the accounts, but he does not see any case of the character which my hon. friend has mentioned. If my hon. friend will give me the particulars in regard to the dredge to which he refers I will be glad to have the matter investigated.
Mr. BARKER, I can tell the hon. minister that in regard to work done on the Grand river, the accounts show charges for 12 hours per day in October, November and December for dredging. In my opinion, knowing the province of Ontario as I do and knowing the months of November and December, as I do. it is absurd to say that a dredge works 12 hours a day.


Mr HYMAN.: We have dredges capable of working 24 hours a day. These dredges are equipped for that purpose. There are a great many of these dredges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they equipped with electric light?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, a great many of them are or with other suitable light. We have departmental dredges which we can work 24 hours a day. It all depends on the number of shifts we put on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think where they charge for so much a day provided they take out a certain number of cubic yards per day they do very irregular work sometimes. It is said that when they get a nice soft place to dredge they will dredge away as much as possible until they get below the depth and when they get a hard place they will skip over it, and proceed to another place where they can scoop out the material so as to make up the number of yards that bv their contract they are required to take oi.it in a day. The result is that the bottom is often very unevenly dredged. I know from parties who took the trouble to make measurements that this is the case. As to dredges working at night, I do not see how they can work at night very well. I do not think it is the general custom in our part of the country. I have never known it to be the case. They may do so where the lights are sufficient for the purpose.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed by the chief engineer that our officers are instructed to see that nothing of the hind to which my hon. friend (.Mr. Sproule) referred is done; that is to say that dredges shall not do the easy work and skip the hard work.


Samuel Hughes: In reference to this work at Port Arthur there is no' con-

tract, as I understand it. It says $10 per hour for every hour they work no matter what they take out. That is what the Auditor General's Report shows at all events.


Charles Smith Hyman: They are paid $10 per hour which is based upon their doing 800 yards an hour.


Samuel Hughes: They have not done it every day then ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is another thing to which I drew attention once before. I am not complaining of any thing recently brought to my notice, but it has been brought to my notice that the inspector who is put there to see the amount of work done is often found around the hotel puffing away at 20 cents cigars, while the work is going on, and lie makes his return just as if he had been on the dredge. Then too, the calculation of the number of yards taken out is made by counting the number of scows. I have often seen scows taken out not by any means full, and I assume that these are counted as full scows every time, as holding so many cubic yards. That is sure to be an overcharge, and in all human probability the dredge which is supposed to be taking out 800 or 1,000 yards a dav is taking out less than that. I think there should be a very reliable man on each dredge to see that the scows are properly filled. This man cannot do his duty and be around the hotel.


Charles Smith Hyman: I quite agree that very reliable men should be engaged for this work. We are always very careful in the department in selecting the men, and I quite understand that it would be dishonest for a man to certify to what he does not know of his own knowledge. The department do the best they can to guard against it but with the large number of inspectors that we have it may sometimes happen that one of them is remiss in his duties.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it would be improper to attribute any dishonesty to any official, but speaking impersonally and with regard to the system, perhaps it is not wise to make the remuneration of the inspectors increase proportionately to the increase in the number of hours which they allow to the dredges.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand what you mean and I see the difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the point to which the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) drew attention. While we are bound to consider that the inspectors act honestly it is not desirable that the remuneration should increase proportionately to the different amounts of work done by the dredges.


Charles Smith Hyman: I see the difficulty that strikes my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), that where one man is working 10 hours a day
and another is working 12 hours a day it seems unfair that the payment should be the same. 1 would be glad if any member would suggest some means of overcoming the difficulty.


Samuel Barker: When an inspector whose duty is simply to overlook the work of a dredge and the number of hours the dredge is employed gets $3 a day that Is quite sufficient for a man doing such work, and if he has to stay longer hours he should take that as part of his duty and not be allowed more than $3. $3 a day is a very good wage for a man who lias simply to look after that kind of work. When a man gets $3 a day and get 30 cents for each additional hour of work credited to the dredge, he is tempted to certify more-I do not say that he necessarily acts dishonestly in certifying-but it is a temptation.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman says that $3 a day is quite sufficient. I do not think it is fair that with one dredge working 10 hours a day and another working 12 hours the inspector on each dredge should receive the same amount, $3.


Samuel Barker: There are many occasions when owing to storms or other causes a dredge cannot work more than perhaps 6 hours a day, but returns from these inspectors come in week after week, giving 12 hours a day for every day.


Samuel Hughes: X notice that in the Auditor General's Report 358, one of these inspectors, as I presume lie must be, Mr. Lefebvre, gets :
Services October to November and January to June, 232 days at $3, 11 days at $4 ; board, November to June, $271.
Why is this man paid his board, $271 during the winter months or during the winter and part of the spring.
Car fare, $70 ; travel, $123.80, voucher outstanding, $100.
Then also in connection with the Ixami-nistiquia work, for overlapping time, the same person receives $131.75.


Charles Smith Hyman: This as a matter of fact is an assistant engineer and while he was employed inspecting he was simply paid inspector's wages, and of course being an engineer of the department he was paid his expenses.


Samuel Hughes: Why is it charged in this way.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the way he was paid for this particular work.


Samuel Hughes: Where does he belong, in Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The fact of his belonging in Ottawa would not matter.


Samuel Hughes: The minister says he was sent out on inspection work. What inspection ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Inspecting dredges.


Samuel Hughes: The minister might have told us that.


Charles Smith Hyman: I received that information this very minute, from the deputy. I cannot be expected to know the name of every officer in the department.


Samuel Hughes: Just to show what a nice profit there is in operating one of these dredges, 1 see here the account of Mr. A. F. Bowman for dredge No. 6, August 13 to October 13, two months, and May 1G to May 31, two weeks, $20,939. That is in that two and a half months that dredge netted over $20,000. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the country has not been getting value for the money it lias paid for dredging. The same outfit has been doing dredging in the Georgian bay and along the shores of Lake Huron, and has been defrauding the country-I use the term advisedly-for a great many years by not giving good value for the money paid. And members who sat on the Liberal side of the House have received their $1,000 a year for dredges which they never saw, though they may have taken stock in them. We know that this is one of the many ways they have of getting certain profits without putting in much capital or labour. I want the minister to take this matter up seriously and to look at it on the basis of a contract. He has his engineers who know or ought to know the quantity of sand, of hard-pan, of clay, to be removed at any given place. Then he should advertise for tenders for so mucii dredging to be done, and if he gets honest tenders, he will save this country hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is something wrong about a good deal of the dredging that is being done, and I imagine, from what comes out from time to time, that that accounts for the ease and lavishness with which certain contractors can furnish money for contesting elections. This Bowman firm has been notorious, and also another gentleman who is in this House today. There is a prevailing idea that these people get a great deal of money out of the country for which they give nothing in return, and therefore they are able and willing to help the government party whenever they become needy. If money is taken out of the country improperly in that way, it should be stopped. I am not saying positively that it is, but I have a very strong suspicion that it is. because I hear about it so frequently and so circumstantially ; and when one looks over the Auditor General's Report and sees the large amount of money earned by these dredges in a short time compared with the amount of money invested in the plant, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that they get a great Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
deal more than a reasonable return for their labour.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister arrived at any conclusion yet as to the proper plan for carrying out on a large scale the works at Port Arthur and Fort William?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. member and myself have discussed the matter several times since this item has been under discussion. There have been no plans made for the larger work which the hon. member brought to my attention. Upon the necessity of that work, whether immediately or in the near future, I am not prepared to speak. I have not had an opportunity, since I have been in charge of the department, of going to Port Arthur. I hope this year to be able to visit the place with the chief engineer of the department and to form some idea of what the necessities are.


Richard Blain: Are the United States authorities doing any dredging at the present time at Port Arthur?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have never heard of any.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is one unfortunate thing that we are often confronted with when we attempt to elicit information in regard to the expenditure of public money for public works, that is, the numerous changes made in the heads of these departments. One man is away for months, and if I ask for information from the one in charge of the estimates for the time being, he tells me that he has only been in the department for a short time and does not know much about it; and perhaps before the end of the session another change is made. During the last few years especially it has been impossible to get any connected information in regard to these works. I do not know bow that condition of things can be corrected, but it ought to be, if possible. Whoever comes here and asks the House to vote money ought to be prepared to give such information to the House as to enable it to intelligently vote the money.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think the hon. member can fairly charge me with having withheld information. This matter has been under discussion for three hours, and I have given every scrap of information that has been asked for. No one in this House regrets more than I do the unfortunate circumstances under which the Minister of Public Works has been compelled to remain so long from this House. For that I do not think blame can be thrown on anybody. What the hon. gentleman refers to is an entirely new scheme which the hon. member for Victoria has laid before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister told ns that he did not know and the reason he gave was that he had but recently taken

charge of the department. But he was here last year, when the estimates were voted, and I think he told us that after the session he would take occasion to acquaint himself with these harbours so as to be able to give the House the information it desired. We all know that a very heavy expenditure is going on at Port Arthur. Surely that is not going on without the government having some definite plan for carrying out the work. The minister in charge of the estimates for the time being ought to be able to give the House the information to which it is entitled. A good minister always comes prepared to give that information.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have given the House the fullest information that it is possible to give with regard to this item. The hon. gentleman was not in the House when that information was given, and I think it is unfair for him to come in now and make a charge of that kind. I have been during the last two and a half hours, explaining the details of the work. The hon. member for Victoria spoke to me about some more extensive plan, and I stated that I hoped to be able to visit Port Arthur with the chief engineer and be able to form some idea of any additional requirements of that harbour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But a plan must have been made out years ago.


Charles Smith Hyman: The member for Victoria suggested a new plan.
Mr. SPItOULE. I understand him to ask whether the government had considered any extensive plan and the minister replied that as he had been only a short time in the department he had not had opportunity to make himself acquainted with the requirements of the hai'bour. But there must be some plan which the government have been following for years and surely they have not been making expenditure in a hap-hazard fashion.


Samuel Hughes: The plans for the harbour of Port Arthur were drawn at a time when it was not contemplated that any great Transcontinental road would be built which would reach that harbour. The expenditure of any money for dredging, except what is absolutely necessary, will be waste of money in view of_ the fact that in a short time we must liave an entirely different plan for Port Arthur and Fort William. I would ask the minister to consult his engineers and find out what Is a reasonable price for removing the sand and mud and other deposits and then call for tenders. If necessary he could let American dredges come in, but I believe that with this sum of #195,000 he could buy dredges and get more work done for less money than he is now spending. If necessary he could let ynnkee dredges come in, but I believe he
could with the money he is now voting purchase dredges io do the work.
Montreal Harbour (lower division)-improvement below St. Mary's current, $90,000.
'Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I think we ought to hold over the Quebec item until the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is here.


William Mulock: Of course l cannot speak for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier,' but on looking over the estimates with me, he said that he was not interested in discussing any of the items until we reached public buildings in the province of Quebec on page 45.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is simply to complete the payment under the contract that has been made ?


Mr. AMES.: Is that the contract with Malone & Poupore ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was not that contract to have been completed eighteen months ago ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the cause of the delay ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Five feet have been added to the height of the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Why were the five feet added ?


Charles Smith Hyman: On the report of the engineer of the department so as to bring the work up to the high water level of the harbour.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were new tenders called for?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. The work being under the control of the contractors, there was nothing for the department to do except to see that the prices paid would* be fair and reasonable. No other contactors could have possession of the work, and the additional work was given out on schedule rates. It is practically all one contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was the original work completed within the time stipulated ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was some delay with regard to that. The water kept very much higher than was anticipated, and the difficulty of working with the higher water was such that the contractor could not finish his work in the specified time.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the hon. minister believe that with this additional amount the work can be finished during the coming season and that this is the last vote which will be required for it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Another vote will be required, but not a large amount. The chief engineer states that he hopes the contract will be finished this fall.


Herbert Brown Ames: What was the amount of the original contract and what would be the total expenditure when completed ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the harbour then be finished and the desired depth of water available ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The original contract was $631,000. The total extra expenditure with contingencies will be about $250,000.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Charles Smith Hyman: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the total expenditure ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This contract is for $179,000 and the only one there at present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How long before the work will be finished ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was let on June 8, 1904 and should be completed November 30, 1905.


Samuel Hughes: How does the minister explain an expenditure of $140,000 last year and $150,000 this year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a typographical error. Part of this is a revote.


Samuel Hughes: Was this in connection with the new harbour, or the ordinary works there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The harbour, the breakwater and other works going on there.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it for the purpose of making the harbour more secure against storms ?


Charles Smith Hyman: To make the harbour perfectly secure


Charles Smith Hyman: This is simply completing the breakwater. There is work to be carried on under the Department of Railways and Canals in connection with the elevator and the piers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to my recollection, there was dredging to be done-I think some rock had to be taken away. Is that work going on at the same time ? There is little use in carrying on this work if it is not finished to be available for commerce. In view of the rapid changes which sometimes take place in the trade routes, there is danger that this work may be finished too late to be useful.


Charles Smith Hyman: There will be some additional work to be done, but, until the work under the Department of Railways and Canals is completed, we cannot say exactly where the dredging work ought to be (carried on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the other work is never done, what will be the advantage of this expenditure ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The other work is being done. The whole is practically one scheme.


William Mulock: This breakwater will be a shelter for vessels, and will be the completion of a portion of the work.


Charles Smith Hyman: In addition, there is work going on in connection with the foundations of the elevators and in other directions. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) lives near the work, and is probably aware of what is being done.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I know there is work going ou there, but I do not know to what extent.


Samuel Hughes: Is not this in connection with the two million dollar scheme ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No ; that is in the other department. This is the breakwater making the harbour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What amount of money has been spent on the work, and in what state of advancement is it 7


Charles Smith Hyman: The completion of this will end that part of the work, and it is to be finished, according to the contract, on the 30tli of November next.


Mr. FOWLER.: Who is the contractor ?


Mr. HYMAN M. J.@: Hogan, of Port Colborne.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature of the work ?
ill-. HYMAN. A breakwater 2,400 feet Ibng. which this will complete.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Samuel Hughes: Is the dredging under the same department as the building of the breakwater ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mot up to date. Both the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways and Canals have control of certain of the works in that harbour. Of course, it is not always easy to define where the jurisdiction of one ends and that of the other begins.


Samuel Hughes: Can the hon. gentleman tell whether the breakwater is filled in with stone or with concrete ?


Charles Smith Hyman: A timber foundation and a concrete superstructure.


Samuel Hughes: Would it not be a saving to use the stone taken from the bottom to fill in the breakwater, instead of hauling it for miles to get rid of it and hauling other stone for miles to fill in with?
I 1 understand that the docks at Port Arthur

are being filled with material taken from the lake.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that there is plenty of stone to be found in the vicinity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What depth of water will there be when the whole work is finished ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is contemplated to have 22 feet.


Mr.   I@: I suppose that, even though this item is carried, if any lion, member desires t.o ask questions about it, he will be at liberty to do so ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Certainly.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister tell us what business we may expect tomorrow ?


William Mulock: If there are any Bills ready, we will proceed with them. When those orders are exhausted, I suppose we shall go on with supply, taking up, until six o'clock, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, and after that the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, February 10, 1905.