1905-05-19

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164)) to incorporate the Monarch Bank of Canada.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill (No. 165) respecting the Canadian Yukon Western Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 166) respecting certain patents of the Ideal Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 167) for the relief of Arthur Howe Hersey.-Mr. Johnston (Lambton).

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I beg to lay on the table the report of His Honour Judge Winchester on the investigation respecting the alleged employment of aliens by the Pere Marquette Railway Company.


Mr. INGRAM.: Will the hon. gentleman explain shortly what the result of the report is ?
Sir WILLIAM 'MULOCK. The report finds that in a number of cases the Pere Marquette Railway Company has imported aliens contrary to the Alien Labour Act. I think it would be advisable to have the report printed, and I would make a motion to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. HAGGART.: Is it the intention of the government to introduce any amendments to the Alien Labour law this year ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No conclusion has been come to. That is under consideration.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. SPROULE.: Before the Orders of the Day are taken up, I would like to inquire if there is any probability of my getting a return which I moved for some time ago, showing the number of permanent appointments made in the civil service since 1896 ?


Wilfrid Laurier: As the session threatens to be a long one, I think my hon. friend will have an opportunity of getting his return.	a



THESSALON, ONT., POSTMASTER.

William Mulock: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition asked me yesterday whether there would toe any objection to my laying on the table copies of the papers m connection with the Thessalon post office matter, which was under discussion yesterday. I told him I would think over the matter. I have done so ; I see no

objection, and I will have copies of the papers prepared and laid on the fable at the earliest possible moment.



THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. H. LENNOX.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. On the 22nd of February the matter to which I wish to refer was under discussion, and after it had been pointed out that there was no provision in the Railway Act, the right hon. gentleman said :
I must say that I have a confession to make to the House, and a confession that is not pleasant to me. I did not know '.hat the commission was not only not empowered hut not obliged to make a report. I have always understood that it was part of the duty of the commission to make a yearly report of their operations ; not only of the money which we gave them to spend as to how they have expended it-and for this we are responsible to parliament-but also of their operations, what they have done, what cases they have decided, so that the public could know exactly what has taken place. We have a right to that information, and if it is found after a conference with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways, who is more familiar than I am with the Act, that the commission is not bound to make such a report,
I think we should enact legislation this very session to have such a report from the commission. I shall at once call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this. If the commission is not under obligation to make such a report it is due to parliament that it should be at once put under such an obligation.
I wisb to ask the right bou. gentleman if that conference with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways has taken place and with what result ? I ask this question as I do not see that any legislation has been introduced.
Sir WILFRID LAUR'IER. I understand that a report will be ready in a very short time.


Haughton Lennox: What I asked more particularly was whether the Minister of Justice is of the opinion that there is a necessity for au amendment to the Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot give an answer to-day. I do not know that he has expressed an opinion.



SUPPLY-THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.

['I suppose the hon. gentleman thinks it is all right for a member to vote for or against a Bill and not give his reasons. There are gentlemen on the other side of the House who may think that good policy, but on this side even so much of a back bencher as the member for Lincoln thinks it right to state the reasons why he opposes a measure. It may be supposed that I oppose this Bill because I am not in favour of divorces, but, Sir, I recog-\n\nraze that the statutes of Canada require us to grant divorces in proper eases, and, so long as that is the law of the land, I will vote for divorces in proper cases. But this is not a proper case, in my opinion, because the preamble of the Bill states that about the month of April, 1901, this man did certain things, and it declares that the petitioner has proved the allegations in her petition. In my judgment, that preamble is not borne out by the evidence.\nThe hour for private Bills having expired, the House resumed in Committee of Supply.']
Hon.   W.@: iS. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Haughton Lennox: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to a matter which came up on Wednesday. In reply to a question from me regarding the report of the Railway Commission, that lion, minister said :
I would say to my hon. friend that the report has not been laid before the House and the department is not in a position to lay such a report on the table, but as soon as I am in a position to do so I will submit It to the House.
Further on, when I called attention to the fact that a promise had been made, and that it was difficult to understand why the hon. minister did not carry out his promise, he said :
I think my hon. friend must be under some misapprehension as to any assurance that I gave him in respect to the placing of such a report upon the table of the House. I said that I would exercise due diligence in endeavouring to get that report and that I had been assured by the railway commissioners that such a report would be prepared. I have not received such a complete report. I was mixing up the two commissions. You are asking in respect to the Railway Commission ?


Haughton Lennox: The Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I have not received that complete report yet, but I am expecting it.
As the hon. minister seemed to be under the impression that no definite promise had been made, il took occasion on Wednesday, to show that such a promise had been made at least two months previous. On the 3rd March the hon. minister then said :
I had a conference with the chairman of the Railway Commission, and he stated that the secretary of the commission was now preparing such a report. As soon as it is placed in my hands I will lay it on the table of the House.


Haughton Lennox: Can the hon. minister state any definite time when it will be ready ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not ask the exact date. Only to-day the chairman assured me that It was being prepared, but I did not ask whether it would be ready in a day or two. I assumed it would be ready in the near future.
Again speaking definitely on the 17th March, exactly two months ago, he said :
A report has been promised, and I hope to have it within a few days.
Not only on the two occasions I have referred to, but also on the 22nd February we were definitely given to understand that a report would be brought down without delay. In view of all these promises, it was rather extraordinary that two days ago the minister said he never did make any definite promise and was not in a position to make one. In fact the matter seemed to have slipped from his mind altogether. Not only is that the unfortunate position of things, but we have not yet had the amendment to the statute which the First Minister promised us on the 22nd February nor can we get any definite information about it. It is very unfortunate that this omission should have occurred in the Railway Act, but apart altogether from that Act, we would have expected the Railway Commission to have had a specific report ready before parliament met. Not only should we have from this Railway Commission a general report on that branch of the service which is costing the people so much money, but we should have a special

report from the late chairman of the commission (Mr. Blair) who made a special toui-in the United States in order to acquire some expert knowledge of the working of commissions of this kind. The report of the Railway Commission itself as to all its doings and all its expenditure should have been in the hands of the Minister of Railways before parliament assembled and that report should have been embodied in the report of the minister. Yet we have the unfortunate condition of things that the minister was bound to admit two days ago that he knows practically nothing about the matter yet, that he has taken no definite action to procure definite information which the House required and as far as he is concerned it had practically slipped from his mind. Now having called the attention of the minister to it in this way I trust that some effort will be made to have this report laid upon the table of the House at once so that we may know what this commission is doing, particularly as it is a new departure, and we should be able to judge whether it is carrying out the expectations which those who framed the Act had in view at the time the Railway Act, 1903, was introduced.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On Wednesday I stated that I codld not give any definite assurance as to the time when the report from the Railway Commission could be expected. I had at that time in mind the fact that I had on a former occasion expressed to the House my hope that I would soon be in a position to lay on the table of the House the report of that board for the reason that I had been told by the chairman that such a report was in course of preparation. I have not yet received that report although I have looked for it on more than one occasion. I have however some assurance and hope that I will be able to place it on the table by Monday next at the latest. I of course am dependent upon the Railway Commissioners in the matter. It is not something under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals ; I cannot force the commission to make a report, as it does not emanate from my department, and therefore I cannot be held responsible for its non-production, but I shall hope that it may be forthcoming at least by Monday next.


Andrew B. Ingram: On March 3rd this question was first asked, something over two and a half months ago, and now the minister admits that he cannot force the commissioners to submit a report to him. That is one very good, strong reason why an amendment to the Railway Act should have been introduced compelling the Railway Commission to make a report to this House. The people of this country are expending large sums of money for the purpose of having a Railway Commission, and that parliament is to be deprived of all control over that Itail-Mr. LENNOX.
way Commission is something I cannot understand, and I think in view of the statement made by the First Minister the government are a little lax in introducing their amendment to the Railway Bill. In this particular instance, I think parliament is entitled to a report and that steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to have the Act amended in that direction.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to his words on February 22. He says now that he has no control over these gentlemen, but on page 1532 of the Revised ' Hansard ' he says:
I am only endeavouring to point out wliat I consider to be the law. I am quite free to admit that there should be a report from the commission. I am quite in accord with what has been stated in that regard, and I think that the commissioners should make a report from time to time to the Governor in Council through the Department of Railways and Canals, for as my hon. friend from Simooe (Mr. Lennox) says, if this commission is not in any way connected with the government through the Department of Railways and Canals, he cannot see any other department by which it would be thus connected. I quite agree with him that the natural avenue and channel between that board and the government is through the Department of Railways and Canals, but it does not seem to me that the Act makes proper provision for that.
The minister on that occasion admitted that there should be a provision for a report and that immediate steps should be taken to force the commission If they would not act, and that such a provision should be introduced at once if it was not already in the Railway Act. We have had no intimation that any step has been taken towards a remedy of that very peculiar omission which occurs in the Railway Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite adhere to my expressions of a former date in connection with a report from that commission. I might state to my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that he need not become suddenly impatient. There seems to be some weeks, at least some days before us, before the close of this session, and we must remember that there are quite a number of amendments under consideration ; a Bill is now on the order paper making amendments to the Railway Act, and before that Bill goes through and is considered by the committee I think that it will be my duty and privilege to submit to the House some amendments and among these there may be found one that will cure the defect in the Act in connection with the report. We have been pretty well occupied during this session with work ; at least there have been Bills that have received a little consideration, and I would not wish to interfere in any way with the progress of matters of that kind with any legislation affecting railways, but the Railway Department will have its turn in connection with legislation

and I hope my hon. friend will not be too impatieHt.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER.: I do not think it is quite fair for the hon. Minister of Railways to suggest that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is impatient in this matter. We have been here four or five months waiting for legislation from the government and have had only one piece of legislation which my hon. friend properly says has taken up a good deal of time. But that is not the fault of the opposition but the fault of the legislation which the government has introduced. It is legislation which is very controversial and very peculiar. This Railway Commission was appointed two years ago and for two years the Dominion of Canada has had that commission, but the people have had not a tittle of official evidence or information as to what that commission is doing, not one particle of information have the people of Canada as to whether that commission is doing anything like what was expected when it was appointed. I have a good deal of respect for the commission as a whole and for the individual members of it, but this is an instance where all public servants will do as they like if there is not some restraining or guiding hand in the shape of legislation or rules to govern them to which they must submit. Instead of lecturing the House and the hon. member who spoke in the interests of the people, I think the Minister of Railways or some member of the government should apologize to the House and the country for their laxity in this matter. It is not a matter that should be treated with levity. We have a large expenditure connected with this Railway Commission, and they were appointed to do work that is most important to the country. We do not know nor do the people of the country know at all except in cases where they have hunted up information for themselves,-sometimes at a good deal of expense, and always with a good deal of trouble,-what that commission is doing. They are not responsible apparently to the Minister of Railways or to the government in the matter of making a report. I do not see why there was not legislation introduced last session in this connection for this matter was known last session. On February 22 of this year as has been said, attention was drawn to it and the hon. member for South Simcoe then brought the matter up. The Prime Minister on that occasion said :
I shall at once call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this. If the commission is not under obligation to make such a report it is due to parliament that it should be at once put under such an obligation.
That was on the 22nd of February of this year, and here we are practically three months later and nothing has been done. Now ' at once ' might mean, I should think less than three months' time. Parliament
is in session and I do think we ought to have a little more speed in this matter. To-day we were promised in a very cursory, almost off-handed way by the minister. that there will be some other measure in regard to the amendment of the Railway Act which is supposed to be dealt with this session and which is now on the order paper. It is certainly as important as any legislation that has been introduced by the government, or promised by the government. I do not think that the manner in which the Minister of Railways treats this House would inspire the public with much hope that the government are going to do any better in the future than they have been doing the last few years ; and if not, I think the censure of the people should be visited upon this government. I would urge upon the government, so far as I have any influence, at least I would request the government as representing my constituency in this House, to take immediate action. I do not wish to allow this occasion to go by without putting on record my protest and the protest of my constituents against the dilatoriness with which the government has treated this matter, the want of care, the lack of appreciation of the importance of the matter, which I think the government has evinced. This' matter is one which demands a remedy at once, and we ought to have better assurance than we have yet had from the Minister of Railways that it will be attended to, and that the Railway Commission will be charged with the duty of making this report, either quarterly, half yearly or yearly, at all events at some set time, when these reports will become public documents and open to inspection by the public, so that the people can learn what is going on with regard to this matter, and all those other numerous matters that the commission has to deal with. The House desires to learn how the commission is working, and whether any other amendments are required in order to make it fulfil the intention of its appointment.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to a condition of affairs that I think requires his attention and the attention of the commission. I refer to rates that are charged by American roads entering Canada and passing through this country What we ask is that the same rates, the same conditions and the same privileges be demanded of them as they are obliged to grant to the people of the United States. I think this proposition is reasonable and fair, and I know it is one of great moment to the people of Ontario. The American roads entering Canada name what rates they like on commodities originating in the states for people in Canada, but when they enter Canadian territory they do not give proportionate rates. We ask that this matter be taken into consideration, and if the facts

justify it, that the matter be laid before the commission to be dealt with 'by them. Let me say a word with reference to the commission and its acts during the past year. If there is any one who is not familiar with the decisions that have been rendered by that commission I think he has himself to blame. I do not think there is a farmer in Canada to-day but knows of the sweeping decisions that have been made with regard to rates on cattle and rates on graiD. The decisions given in favour of manufacturers in regard to rates, so far as those decisions are obligatory, have been of such importance that to-day the commission is swamped with appeals ; no less than 1,450 complaints have been placed before the commission since it was appointed, and tne great bulk of them I think have been disposed of. The position of American roads running through Canada has been so well discussed that it is not necessary for me to refer to it at any length now. I hope, however, that the tariffs, the minimums, and also the classifications affecting shippers, will be looked into, and that they will be made applicable to conditions existing in this country, and we firmly believe that a solution will be found to the present difficulties aud complaints that require to be remedied.
_Mr. EMM EH SON. In reply to my hon. friend, I may say that the question he has raised is one of very great importance so much so, indeed that it demands earnest and prompt consideration. The particular point to which he has invited attention has re^ei"le<^ 011	than one occasion
within recent weeks. I think there was some discussion with respect to it in this House. I can give my hon. friend assurance that the Department of Railways has had the matter under consideration, and has invited the consideration of the government to action in the direction which he has indicated. I trust that before the session closes, in connection with the amendments that are to be introduced to the Railway Act, there will be found a remedy for the grievance which he alleges to exist. I may say that^my own view was that there was a provision in certain sections of the Act, notably section 273; but if it is found S0JCar enouSb>
1 think it is the desire -ot this House to make a remedy complete and beyond question.



Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: 
David Alexander Gordon: the postmaster on account of salary up to the 19th of May, 1904, be ineludetKin the papers laid on the table of the House for the information of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House went into Committee of Supply.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We will take up the supplementary estimates for the current year, these being balances that are required to wind up the affairs of the current year.
Civil government-'Post Office Department- further amount required for contingencies, $1,000.


John Graham Haggart: Has the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) any account of that ?


Hon.   S@: I do not know anything about the item. I have no doubt that $1,000 is a small item in the department.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to inquire
if any portion of this sum is required to pay the salary of this postmaster ? Just for the information of the hon. Postmaster General I will read a portion of a letter that has been sent to me. It is as follows :
Now, Mr. Taylor, I beg your kind indulgence . for a few moments while I call your attention to the way in which the deputy returning officer and his poll clerk conducted the election proceedings at polling division No. 3, Kitley, where I was agent in your behalf. The deputy returning officer was George Milton Leverette, the village postmaster, and his polling clerk was Benjamin Franklin Stewart, a carriage maker. From the opening to the closing of the poll the deputy returning officer ran things with a high hand. Everything was trampled under foot. Oaths of office, the statutes and myself, not physically but officially, were trampled under foot and completely ignored. Never did I see such brazen defiance of law and right. It was plainly manifest that 'he Grit machine was doing business at the old stand as brisk as ever and had established a local branch at Frank-ville under management of the deputy returning officer and his poll clerk. To enumerate some of the violations of the law committed by these two election officials, I wish to say that the deputy returning officer in defiance of a protest from me placed the ballot box on the floor to the right of his chair ; when so placed it was behind the table and entirely out of the view of those present. I read the law to him, but he emphatically told me it was on the floor and was going to stay there and I might help myself if I could. All that was left for me to do was to seat myself on a chair beside it, which I did. Another thing, he said he did not have the required statutory dates to be inserted in the oath to voters, but I really did not believe him. Fortunately, however, I supplied this want by having them myself under certificate of the township clerk, otherwise I do not believe I should have been able to have sworn a voter at all that day. Again, he allowed his poll clerk to act as agent for your opponent, Gibson, in the absence of duly appointed agents.
I protested, but was powerless. The poll clerk told a voter, one Frank Livingston, whom I

challenged, that I .vas doing dirty work, and was only tryiag to bluff him out of his good vote. Through these encouraging words of the poll clerk the voter took the oath and voted. To-day he stands a perjured man. Something more yet. The deputy returning officer put some private mark or number on the stub of the ballots besides the number he was entitled by law to put on the counterfoil. Here again,
I protested, but was told that he was doing so and would continue to do so and 1 might help myself if I could. I asked to see that private mark or number, but was refused. Now, Mr. Taylor, if I could afford the expense I would go to Gananoque to see you personally about these matters. -Something should be done. An example should be made of these two election officials because if not they will be bolder than ever the next time. The matter, however, will be left entirely in your hands. Many Conservatives here say that the matter should be attended to and that prosecutions should follow. As for the deputy returning officer, you can do what you like with him. You can bring his case up on the floor of the House next session or deal with him otherwise as you think best.
I would like to inquire of the hon. Postmaster General if any portion of this sum is to pay that man's salary. I draw these facts to the hon. minister's attention. There is his officer, a postmaster, drawing probably $1,000 a year salary, and yet he goes and acts as a partisan, ignores the law and conducts an election in the manner here described.


William Mulock: No portion of this item will go to pay the salary of any postmaster. There is in the estimates always an item for salaries. If my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) will turn to the estimates he will find that that is so. Having made an explanation and as this matter is not connected with this item I have nothing further to say, but if it is proposed to continue the discussion perhaps there may be some further question that would occur to my hon. friend.


George Taylor: I want to know if the hon. gentleman approves of this conduct on the part of one of his postmasters, and if any portion of this amount is to pay his salary will he spend some of it in conducting an investigation into the actions of one of his officers who has conducted himself in this way ? I should further like to ask the hon. gentleman, if the investigation shows that these statements are correct, will he dismiss his official ?


William Mulock: I should think this is not the tribunal to deal with the conduct of men who are engaged in conducting an election. There is a way of reaching them under the election law. If I correctly heard my hon. friend reading that letter it was written prior to the meeting of the House and he has had it for many months in his possession. The law gives him a remedy. Every person who undertakes to act as an officer of the Crown in conducting an election is bound to conform to the law,
and if he fails to conform to the law the law is within the reach of every person, my hon. friend and all others, and there are officers whose duty it is to prosecute persons who violate the Election Act It is not the duty of the Postmaster General. It is the duty of the officers who are engaged in the administration of criminal justice to prosecute. I know nothing about the matter. I do not even know the name of the person, and it would be an extraordinary thing if I had to inquire into the conduct of officers as to the manner in which they might or might not have conducted themselves when they were appointed to positions having nothing whatever to do with their positions connected with this department.


George Taylor: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that this letter was written some time ago, but this is the first opportunity I have had of dealing with the matter. When the estimates of the Post Office Department were taken up I embraced the first opportunity I had.


William Mulock: We passed sup-plementaries months ago.


George Taylor: I was not present when the items of the Post Office Department came up or I certainly should have referred to this matter then. Will the hon. Postmaster General allow one of his paid servants, drawing a salary of probably $1,000 a year, to accept a position as deputy returning officer at an election and violate the Election Act in a partisan manner as this postmaster has done ? I gave the hon. Postmaster General his name. It is Mr. Leverette, postmaster at Frankville. If public officials are at liberty to run post offices and to act as partisan agents the country ought to know it. The country authorizes him to employ these officials but he says he is not responsible for their conduct. He says that the hon. member can take proceedings under the law. There are the courts of law, but I want to take the proper course. I bring it to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General, and I ask him to deal with it, or let the country know that postmasters and all other officials under this government are at liberty to do as they please, that while being paid for their services by the country they may at the same time conduct themselves as offensive partisans.


William Mulock: I think it is no part of my duty as Postmaster General to inquire into the manner in which officials of my department may have conducted themselves, should they be appointed to such positions as those of deputy returning officers. I have not heard of this man's existence until this minute, and I do believe it has been the practice throughout Canada under all governments from time to time to make use of various officials for the proper conduct of

elections. If these officials in the discharge of their duties as election clerks, or poll clerks, or returning officers do not comply with the election laws they are amenable to these laws. It is not my duty to follow them in all their other spheres of life ; my duty is confined to seeing that they perform their duties as postmasters, and if they undertake other duties they become answerable to some other tribunal, and that is the tribunal to which my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) should appeal. This is not the place to try that question, and I think my hon. friend would be more in order by referring the conduct of this gentleman as returning officer, to his superior in that capacity who would be interested in maintaining the proper management of elections.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General knows that he has dismissed a great many postmasters throughout Canada for alleged political interference, and only yesterday we had the case of a postmaster with a salary of $25 who was dismissed simply because he exercised the right of franchise. Here is a man with a salary of probably $1,000, and he can be as offensive a partisan as he likes, and when I ask the Postmaster General to investigate and have him dismissed if the charge is correct, the Postmaster General says he will not interfere;


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) asked me if I would investigate the manner in which this gentleman acted as returning officer.


George Taylor: Certainly, I asked the Postmaster General to investigate the charge that this postmaster has been an offensive partisan in not discharging his duty faithfully and in doing it in an offensive partisan manner. If that is true the postmaster should be dismissed.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is evidently mixing up his grievances, and he does not make clear what he really desifes. I understand from his letter and from his remarks that this officer is charged with two offences, but I thought the gravamen of the hon. gentleman's charge was that this postmaster had not properly conducted an election, and not that he was an offensive partisan in the discharge of his post office duties. The hon. gentleman referred to this man having placed a ballot box in some place contrary to law, and he seemed to dwell upon that feature of the charge. My remarks were directed to that, and I say that as to the manner in which he may have acted as an officer for the proper conduct of elections it is not for me to interfere. If there is a charge that he has contravened any of the rules of conduct for a postmaster it is my duty to investigate.


George Taylor: That is all I ask.


William Mulock: 


William Mulock: If the hon. gentleman will send me a charge against this postmaster in that respect I will have it investigated, but I would not feel at liberty to inquire into his alleged misconduct as a returning officer.


George Taylor: I have made my charge here and the Postmaster General will see it written down verbatim in ' Hansard ' to-morrow, and every word that appears in ' Hansard ' will be substantiated. This man has acted illegally, and I ask if it is the policy of the government to let their postmasters act as deputy returning officers in an offensive partisan manner ?


William Mulock: Let us not misunderstand. My hon. friend mixes up his grievances.


George Taylor: I mixed up nothing ; I read the letter.


William Mulock: He asks whether or not it is the policy of the government to allow postmasters to act as deputy returning officers in an offensive manner. It is not the policy of the department to allow postmasters to assist in an offensive manner under any circumstances, either as deputy returning officers or in any other capacity, and I am quite willing to investigate that branch of my hon. friend's complaint. If there is a complaint that as a deputy returning officer this man contravened the election law, I do not think my hon. friend will expect me to inquire into that phase of his conduct. I am quite prepared to take my hon. friend's speech and the letter, in the light that I interpret it and so far as this man's conduct as postmaster is concerned I am quite prepared to investigate that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the Postmaster General tell us what he thinks about allowing postmasters to act as deputy returning officers at all ? The Postmaster General says that this. House is not a tribunal for trying election cases, but I would remind him that it is a tribunal for trying the conduct of the Post Office Department. Does the Postmaster General want us to understand that he has no objection whatever of opportunity for money being embezzled cers ? I will leave out of the question for the moment whether this postmaster acted in an offensive way or not; I will not consider whether it may be another case of opportunity for money being embezzled) while the postmaster is not in charge of his office ; but I would ask the Postmaster Gem eral if he thinks that a postmaster should act as a deputy returning officer when in the discharge of his duties as such he must of necessity be away from his post office from about half-past eight in the morning until six o'clock on the evening of election day ? Does the Postmaster General think that is right ? The Postmaster relies upon the technicality, that he cannot investigate

this man's conduct as deputy returning officer but that he can investigate it as postmaster, and that being so does he believe that the postmaster should tor an entire day be absent from the post office. We all know that the party in power selects these deputy returning officers from amongst men of their own political persuasion, but I will not press that particular phase of the question for the moment. I wish to know now from the Postmaster General if he approves of postmasters acting in a capacity which must keep them away from their post offices for an entire day ?


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: I am prepared to state here that the postmaster in question, Mr. Leverette, is a first-class man, and I say further that he is a man who would transact any business he has to do in a proper way. If he is a returning officer he is a man who will discharge his duties in a legal manner, and as postmaster or in any other capacity he will be found to be a faithful officer. But, to expect that a man who only gets a couple of hundred dollars per year for running a post office shall devote all his time to that office is perfect nonsense. Such a man must undertake any business that comes in his way. I have no doubt that Mr. Leverette when he does vote will vote Liberal, and vote against the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), but I am satisfied that he will be found to be honest and faithful in the discharge of any duties that are entrusted to him.


Mr. FINLAY.: I can tell my hon. friends opposite that I have a case in my county of a somewhat similar kind to that which we are now discussing. In the town in which I live the postmaster is Mr. J. B. Pearce, a Conservative who has been twenty years in the post office, and I can prove that he went out and canvassed against me, and canvassed strongly against me too.


John Graham Haggart: The Postmaster General since he came to office has established some very bad precedents which he now finds are embarrassing. The rule used to be that every postmaster except those in cities and towns had a right to be an active partisan in an election if he wished. Because he held a little post office worth $7 or $8 a year, he was not to be debarred from taking part on behalf of either the Conservative or the Reform candidate ; and I think that was the true principle. That, principle has been infringed upon by the Postmaster General, who has dismissed this postmaster without a trial and after he denied being an active partisan. It was sufficient for the hon. Postmaster General to get a note from the member of the House saying that a certain postmaster had been an active partisan in the election, and he was dismissed. I have heard the Postmaster General asked in this House if there
had been an investigation, and his reply was :	No, it was a sufficient reason for
him to receive information from the member representing the riding that a postmaster had been an active partisan. It is small politics for any representative of the government to interfere with that kind of officer. Except in cities and towns, postmasters have a right to be active partisans on either side if they wish, and there should be no interference with them by the Postmaster General or any other person as to
how they voted.
. [DOT]


Mr. TISDALE.: I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and I will tell you how this matter has been managed in the county of Norfolk up to the present time. The local member, Mr. W. A. Charlton, the late Speaker of the Ontario legislature, was the postmaster for many years at a small village called Lyndoch. He did not attend to the post office himself, but one of his clerks did so. Mr. Charlton always stumped the riding against me. I was applied to in regard to this, but I declined to interfere with him for any political act. I said that if any one had a charge to make as to the way the office was run, I would see that it would be investigated and dealt with. In two of my elections, another gentleman who was a postmaster, and is still postmaster, though his father ran the post office while he lived two miles from the village, was president of the Reform Association and an active opponent of mine. The same kind of application was made to me with regard to him ; but I declined to go further than to have an Investigation made into any charge that might be made against him in connection with the work of the post office. We have never introduced this small politics into the county on either side. So far this has been the rule followed by this government. I agree with the hon. member for South Lanark that outside of cities and towns, where postmasters are paid for giving their whole time to the .service, there should be no interference with postmasters. It is a shameful practice on either side in regard to these petty offices, and I would oppose my own party indulging in it, whatever anybody else might think about it. I would be opposed to it even in retaliation. I..L folk we have strenuous politics, but we have never found it necessary to resort to that


George Taylor: The hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Finlay) complains that a Conservative postmaster in his district took part against him in the election.


Daniel Derbyshire: He had a perfect right to.


George Taylor: Yes, he had a perfect right to, as my hon. friend from Brockville says. When I came here in 1882, when a Con-

servative government was in power, there were a great many postmasters throughout my county who had taken an active part against me. One was the father of my opponent in two elections. He helped his son all he could ; yet he continued to keep the post office and died in the service. I never raised a finger against him, because it was his right to do as he did. ' As my hon. friend from Brockville knows, the New-borough postmaster lias also been an active partisan against me in every election ; hut I never asked for his dismissal, because he had a right t* do as he did, and he is postmaster yet. But where a postmaster accepts another position, such as deputy returning officer, and carries into that his offensive, partisanship, as this postmaster did, then I think it is time to complain. But the policy adopted by the Postmaster General, when a Conservative postmaster is complained against, though he does nothing more than vote, is to dismiss him without trial.


William Mulock: There is no such case on record, as a man dismissed because he voted. Every postmaster has a right to vote as he likes, and he has never been interfered with.


Mr. BERGERON.: I want to give the case of a man who was dismissed simply for voting. The postmaster of Beauharnois, named Doutre, was dismissed because he voted. He never took any other part in the election, and there was no investigation into his case.


William Mulock: ,1 must, as far as parliamentary rules will allow me, give an emphatic contradiction to the statement of the hon. gentleman. No dismissal has ever taken place anywhere except on my authority, and I have never given authority to dismiss anybody for such a cause. The circumstances are not what my hon. friend thinks they are.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is very easy for my bon. friend to say so.


William Mulock: It is very easy for the hon. gentleman to make the other statement.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I remember the discussion here at the time. There was no investigation, it was denied that the man had done anything improper, and he was dismissed purely and simply because he had voted Conservative.


William Stevens Fielding: How is it known how he voted ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is supposed that he voted Conservative. That was not even proved, but that was the reason alleged at the time. He was getting $40 a year, and he is on the street now. When my hon. friend was talking of kind-heartedness, I thought of that case.


George Taylor: Governor General's Secretary's office-Clerical assistance, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $250; further amount required for contingencies, $2,000 ; $2,250.


William Stevens Fielding: These two items have been requested by the Governor General's secretary to enable the office to complete the transactions of the year. The first is for an additional clerk, and the latter is for the general contingent account.


John Graham Haggart: Who is the new clerk ?


William Stevens Fielding: A young lady who came out with His Excellency from England.
Department of the Geological Survey-To pay Frank J. Nicolas as editor of the publications, from December 5, 1904, to June 30, 1905, at $125 per month, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $858.87.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will explain this item, as I was in charge of the department before my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior took charge of it. Dr. Bell, the superintendent of the Geological Survey, represented to me that he was under the necessity of having further aid in order to advance the publication of the reports of the survey. Mr. Nicolas has had experience in that branch of work in England, and upon the recommendation of Dr. Bell that he was qualified and that the work was absolutely necessary, I authorized the insertion of this item in the estimates.


John Graham Haggart: He has some technical knowledge ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what I understood from Dr. Bell. I do not know Mr. Nicolas and have never seen him, and this was done on the recommendation of Dr. Bell.


John Graham Haggart: Is it a permanent appointment ?	'


Sir   WILFRID@: No ; this is only to cover his appointment to the 1st July. In the supplementary estimates for next year there will he an appropriation for him also.


John Graham Haggart: When there is a vote taken for these extra clerks in the Geological Survey, or any other department, there ought to be a report from the deputy head showing the necessity of the appointment.


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 have such a report from Dr. Beil.
Department of the Secretary of State-to pay Peter J. O'Donnell for services as messenger from July 1st, the date of his appointment, to November 8th, 1904, at the rate of $500 per annum, $176.36.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a case where the officer is being paid for a short time prior to his passing the examination. He passed the examination, but was actually in the service a short time before, and this is to cover his allowance during that period.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whose place did he take ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is not an increase in the staff. The messenger who had the position before left the service.
Board of Civil Service Examiners-to meet extra cost of examination, $100.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the cost of the whole board ?


William Stevens Fielding: The usual vote is $3,000, and this is an addition of $100.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It may increase like that every year.


William Stevens Fielding: It depends upon the amount of work to be done. It may increase a little.
Charges of management-Office of the Assistant Receiver General: Halifax, $300 ; St. John, $150 ; Winnipeg, $500; Victoria, $100; Charlottetown, $200; printing Dominion notes, $25,000 ; expenses in connection with the issue and redemption of Dominion notes, $1,800 ;	$28,050.


William Stevens Fielding: These items nearly all arise from small increases of $50 each. There is one new clerk at Winnipeg getting $300 per annum, and a new clerk at Charlottetown at $600. The greater part of this item is for the expense of printing Dominion notes.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any necessity for these receiver generals' offices at all ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes ; they supply the currency for the whole Dominion. It is necessary we should have a supply of currency on hand, and they are dealing with the banks all the time.


John Graham Haggart: Could they not be dealt with directly from Ottawa ?


William Stevens Fielding: These offices are a great convenience. Centralizing everything at Ottawa is not always popular with the mass of people. These are in a sense government banks, and they supply the currency to the other banks. It is a great convenience to the banks to obtain this currency at the different offices throughout the Dominion and not have to send to Ottawa. The system was well thought by my predecessors, and I see no reason to change it.


Mr. U. WILSON.: What is the cost at each point of these offices ?


William Stevens Fielding: The sums taken in the main estimates for these offices were as follows :-Toronto, $7,300 ; Montreal, $5,800 ; Halifax, $8,000 ; St. John, $6,900 ; Winnipeg, $6,500 ; Victoria, $4,550 ; Charlottetown, $4,900.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who gets those amounts ?


William Stevens Fielding: Various members of the staff in these offices.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are they government employees ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes ; bur in Montreal the City District Savings Bank does the duty. With that exception, they are government offices everywhere.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Could not that business be done through the banks without costing us anything ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have never known of a bank willing to do business for nothing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Could it not be done by the government bank-the Bank of Montreal ?


William Stevens Fielding: We would have to pay that bank *for doing it.
Mr, BERGERON. This amounts to $25,000 or $30,000 a year in Montreal. Would it cost that much if done by the bank ?


William Stevens Fielding: The work in Montreal . is very large and the responsibility very great, and where you have great responsibility you must pay for it.


Uriah Wilson: How many of these bank notes were printed ? I believe this is an addition to the appropriation in the main estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: In connection with the assistant receiver generals' offices, we have also the savings banks. There are two systems, and we are gradually consolidating them. There are what are called the government savings banks and the post office savings banks. Wherever the post office has a savings bank we are gradually arranging to transfer to it -the accounts of the government savings bank. My kon. friend from Lennox (Mr. U. Wilson) asked about the cost of the printing of Dominion notes. The committee is aware that the business of the country, with regard to the circulation of these notes, has enormously increased, and there is a further reason why this vote has to be larger-and it is one that has always won the sympathy of the House-the desirability of having our currency cleaner than it used to be. I am glad now there is a very great improvement ; but, of course, if we are to retire the old notes and give new ones, the cost of printing is increased. In that way we are spending considerably larger sums than in former years. The expenditure for the last year for which we have the official return, the year ending June 30th, 1904, was $129,974, practically $130,000.


Uriah Wilson: But this is to finish this year.


William Stevens Fielding: In the main estimates we have an appropriation of $110,000, which with this $25,000 will give a total appropriation for the year of $135,000, against $129,974 actually expended last year, so we are allowing for a * small increase in the year now current.


Uriah Wilson: How many have you had printed ?


William Stevens Fielding: We retired last year $8,000,000 of old notes and substituted new ones besides the natural expansion.


Uriah Wilson: Do you know in what proportions ?


William Stevens Fielding: The $1 and $2 notes are chiefly used. The $1 is the most generally used Issue. The $1 note Is also used to some extent.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Might I ask the hon. minister if he has considered the question of doing away with the $1 Bill which is not generally approved of by the commercial community? The difficulty is that a portion of the four is so much like a one that a mistake is apt to be made in handling the money hurriedly. I think the matter came up last session.


William Stevens Fielding: I think at one time there seemed to be some ground for complaint that the appearance of the $4 note was not sufficiently different from that of the $1 note. We made some change .in the form of the $4 note for the purpose of obviating this difficulty, and I have heard no complaint against the use of the $4 note recently. There was a complaint that sometimes the original $4 note could be confused with a $1, but I have had no complaint for some time and I think the notes are sufficiently separate and distinct in appearance to guard against any confusion.


Mr. HAG G ART.: Would my hon. friend give us a statement of the amount of notes in circulation and the value to the government of having these notes, what the interest amounts to ?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not give that now, but before we come to the item in the main estimates which has yet to be dealt with I shall see that the information is prepared.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the minister could give us the average amount issued and we could draw our own conclusions.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount actually in circulation on April 30th of this year was $47,937,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Ones and twos ?


William Stevens Fielding: Ones and twos and fours. It also includes some of the large notes not often seen by the public, which are used by the banks and which are called legals.


George Taylor: The $5,000 notes.


John Graham Haggart: That includes the reserve the banks are obliged to keep in Dominion notes?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, they have to use these notes to a considerable extent. The Mr. FIELDING.
amount of our circulation has been increasing very much. In 1890, the Dominion notes in circulation were something over $15,000,000; in 1895, $19,000,000 ; in 1900. $26,000.000 ; in 1901, $27,000,000 ; in 1902, $32,000,000 ; in 1903, $39,000,000 ; in 1904, $41,000,000 and on April 30, 1905, $47,900,000. So my hon. friend will see the amount is increasing' very largely.


John Graham Haggart: What is the percentage you have to keep in gold for the purpose of redeeming them ?


William Stevens Fielding: Up to a certain sum we keep 25 per cent. We changed that sum a year or two ago. Up to a certain sum we keep 25 per cent and after that we keep dollar for dollar, so that for the larger part of our circulation we have gold to correspond.


John Graham Haggart: I would like a full statement in connection with the general estimates as a matter of interest and curiosity.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be very glad to give my hon. friend the details then.
Ml'. ARMSTRONG. Would the minister give the names of the firms which print these notes?


William Stevens Fielding: They are printed entirely by one concern under contract. The work is done in Ottawa, and the printing firm is called the American Bank Note Company. It is a branch of the institution of that name in New York, but under our contract they had to erect a building in Ottawa. The whole business is transacted in sight of the parliament buildings, on Wellington street, and although the company bears an American name and has the authority and backing of the American institution, it is practically Canadian, as at least 95 or 98 per cent of the people employed there are Canadians.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How long will the contract last?
Mi\ FIELDING. I think the contract will expire in 1907.


John Graham Haggart: Are these notes printed in the same way as government notes and postage stamps ? Are they printed under government supervision? It is a very dangerous authority to grant to any pi'inting institution any way it is done.


William Stevens Fielding: There is all supervision we can usefully employ. The matter has been carefully considered by the chief officers of the department. On one occasion I got the Auditor General to go down and examine the method employed, and in all cases we have been satisfied that all possible precautions are taken.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many officers have the government watching the work ?
625;


William Stevens Fielding: The government have no officers now at all. Experience has not shown that it is necessary, hut the whole method of printing, every detail from the beginning to the end, has been very carefully worked out, and our government officials have examined it and reported that it is entirely safe and satisfactory.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the safeguard then between the people and the Bank Note Company ?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, the only safeguard is the method by which the business is done and the reputation of the great organization which Is doing this for nearly all the governments of the civilized world.
I had the matter carefully examined into by the deputy minister and the Auditor General and they were both satisfied that all the precautions they could possibly take are involved in the present system.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Are the goods being handled in the same manner by the governments of other countries?


William Stevens Fielding: This concern at New York is making notes for banks the wide world over and is making notes for many countries. Some countries have their own printing departments. The United States circulation is printed at a government printing bureau. The English system I think is to have the work done by contractors. I do not think the English bank notes, &c., are, printed at a government institution, but by; private contractors. In the United States; they have a printing, bureau, but this company with headquarters in New York rnakek notes for banks the world over and for a; number of countries. It is an old estabi lished institution of the highest reputation,! and I have no reason to doubt that all safeguards that we could impose are in force now.


John Graham Haggart: I had reason to inquire into the matter some time ago when I was in charge of the Post Office Department, and I found that in Great Britain and in all countries in Europe it is put under the charge of a certain department and then when the printing is done by c(intract as it is done in England, it is under the supervision of the Inland Revenue Department there and a most accurate supervision as to the paper and everything in reference to it is maintained. There is extreme danger in a company that has a contract with the government having an unlimited right of printing Dominion notes without the supervision of the government. The same thing refers to postage and inland revenue stamps, and I think there should be an efficient government supervision over them even when the work is done by contract.
reference to having an official of the government look after the matter. I would ask with reference to the printing expenditure of $140,000, whether the minister, has taken into consideration the advisability of the government printing their own notes ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that matter was discussed some years ago, and we thought that if we had a building specially constructed by the government, in close proximity to the department at Ottawa, in close contact with it, that would be the wiser system, and that was the system which prevailed when I came into office. So far as the system itself is concerned, it was found to work satisfactorily, and we thought there was no reason to change it. We required the contractor to put up a special building for the purpose, taking every precaution with regard to quality of paper, kind of paper and number of sheets. Whether we could make it any better by putting one of our own officers to live in tne building, may be a question, but we have never had reason to believe we could make the system more efficient than it is.
I grant that it is a matter of the utmost importance, and if there is a possibility of a more complete supervision we should endeavour to attain it. On more than one occasion I have thought the matter over in my own mind, and I have instructed my officials to go over the system and examine it thoroughly, I think on one occasion the Auditor General was with them ; they did so, and they were quite satisfied that all possible precautions were taken.


John Graham Haggart: But suppose the supervisor, the head of the department, appointed parties for the purpose of defrauding the government, what possible check have you ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no system you can think of that will not in the end leave the responsibility with somebody. I doubt if any officer of the government we could put there, on an ordinary salary, would be a' more responsible person than that great corporation is itself. I doubt if any officer of the government we could put there would give us a greater guarantee than that company gives by its standing reputation. If an officer of the government were put there on a salary of a couple of thousand dollars a year, he could still be corrupted.


John Graham Haggart: But there should be checks on that person, the responsibility should not rest on one man.


William Stevens Fielding: No matter what you do, in the end some individual must be trusted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Minister of Finance, in answering my hon. friend from Mr. ARMSTRONG. I certainly believe | Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) said that this that the hon. gentleman who has just taken company would put up a special building, his seat has made a very wise remark with There was a special building before. There
199$

was a very good company that -were doing this work under the late government, the British American Bank Note Company, working in a special building, but they were a Conservative concern. The new concern had no building and had to put up one, that is the whole matter so far as the building is concerned. Now the question of a guarantee is altogether a different one. 1 think the hon. member for Lanark (.Mr. Haggart) is right in saying that there must be a very careful supervision over that work. We have read a great deal about things of that sort going wrong. The Minister of Finance says he has taken every precaution, no doubt he has taken great care, because he is in a way responsible to the country. I am glad to hear that the government are having a renewal of the notes oftener than in the past, so that we may have clean bank notes, ones, twos and fours. I am surprised to hear that it costs $130,000 a year to do that. I want to ask if there is not some redeeming advantage to the government in changing the notes in circulation. I am told that banks are very anxious to secure the circulation of their notes, is there not some way of compensating the government for tiie cost of renewing their notes, so that we may get something to the credit side of this $130,000 ?


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my boil, friend will find that interesting lock on the bills at present, it has disappeared. By the way, a criticism might as well have +vTellt. offere(I on the fricture of the fish on the backs of some of the notes, because we had no guarantee as to what kind of water the fish were swimming in. However, the lock on the note now is a Canadian lock.


David Henderson: Speaking of a guarantee of everything being properly car-Mr. BERGERON.
? rie(I on in the office where these bank e notes are printed, to my mind the calling >
Jh of soiled notes to the extent of $8,000,3 000 a year is certainly a very great pro-i tection to the country, because, in so do, ing, if any forgeries were committed, they 3 would readily be discovered. In the course l of four or five years the entire issue would . be called in, so that no very large amount . of spurious notes would get into circula-t tion until they were detected by the de-t partmental officers. I am a little surprised t to hear the Minister of Finance say that - the issue of these notes is a matter" of no ' profit to the country.


William Stevens Fielding: After the first limit is reached, the first $25,000,000. We increased it, I forget the figure to-day.


David Henderson: Now is it absolutely necessary that the Dominion of Canada, with all its wonderful resources, should be obliged to put up dollar for dollar in gold for this issue ? You do not ask a chartered bank to put up dollar for dollar of its issue, only a fractional part of that issue it put up. If a chartered bank were compelled to put up dollar for dollar in gold, I do not think there would be much profit in banking. Nor do I see the necessity of the Great Dominion of Canada being called upon to put up dollar for dollar, to hold gold in its vaults to redeem its bills. To my mind, the pledge of the Dominion of Canada is absolutely sufficient to warrant the fact that its money is perfectly good, and that it can be accepted by all parties, at all times, without hesitation. Then, I think we would have some profit on the issue of this currency. I am inclined to think this is a relic of past days, simply something that the government has copied from governments that have gone before. We know they have copied a good dead from governments of the past. I think this is a matter that the hon. Minister of Finance should take into consideration and that in this great wealthy country he will be able to come down in the course of another year or so and say that he believes that a profit can be made out of this circulation. If we are going to have a government circulation at all I think we ought to be able to make it at least pay its own expenses, to make sufficient out of it to pay for the printing of the government notes, and that to my mind could be done by dispensing with this system of holding such a large amount of gold for the purpose of redeeming notes which I think are sufficiently guaranteed by the credit of the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. HAGGARiT. Where is the gold held? Is it held by the Receiver General ?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) think it should be wise or prudent that I should tell him where all that gold is ? I think he should have confidence enough to believe that the govern-

ment lias this gold. I would rather not proclaim on the house-tops where It is. I will be glad to tell him privately where it is.


David Henderson: As a matter of fact is it held at all ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


David Henderson: I have very great doubt that it is actually held in gold.


William Stevens Fielding: Ilf the effect of my answer is to create a doubt whether this amount is held in gold or not, I shall be obliged to tell my hon. friend. Seriously it does not seem a prudent thing to state where it is all held, but I will be very glad to give the hon. member private information.
ill-. BERGERON. If we pay $140,000 for the printing of these notes we must derive some benefit from the issue of them? We must have some compensation somewhere or else we would be engaged in a losing business. Where do we get the benefit from the issue of ones, twos, and fours ?


William Stevens Fielding: 'Suppose we do not get any benefit if the country requires it for business would it not be the duty of the government to provide this issue ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why do not the banks of the country provide that ? II do not see why we should spend $140,000 a year to provide notes of the denominations of one, two and four dollars when the banks could do it. I know that the banks are willing and axious to do it. Are.we making money by the issue of these notes or are we lose-ing anything by the printing of them ?


William Stevens Fielding: When my hon. friend says that the banks are willing to do it, of course, the banks are willing to do it provided we allow them a larger circulation than we now give to them. If the banks want to do it all they have to do is to increase their capital and then they can issue notes right up to the extent of that capital.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They cannot do it unless you allow them to do it.


William Stevens Fielding: We would not prevent them. Whenever any bank has expressed a desire to increase its capital we have never raised any question. The banks no doubt would issue more notes if we wished it. The banks can only issue an amount equal to their paid-up capital, and that is not equal to the requirements of the country. Therefore, the difference must be supplied by the government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend knows that the banks would be delighted to issue ones, twos and fours and, in fact shin plasters. I remember hearing that the banks would have been glad to Issue these notes but that the government would not allow them to do so. The government insist, upon issuing ones, twos, and fours. II do not see why they should not allow the banks
to do so, especially when they are obliged to spend $140,000 a year, which represents a very heavy capital, for the printing of these notes. I would like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to place upon ' Hansard ' so that the people will know it, the reason why we issue these notes when we have to pay so much for the printing of them and whether we are losing that amount of money every year as a result of this system.


William Stevens Fielding: The capital of the united banks of the country is not equal to the currency demands of the country if they issued notes in denominations of ones or twos it would make no difference if they only issued an amount up to the aggregate of the capital subscribed by the different *banks.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What difference would it make if a bank were to issue ten ones instead of a ten dollar bill or five ones instead of a five dollar bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: The main point is that you have to supply the needed currency to meet the demands of the expanding trade and commerce of our country, and if you took the united subscribed capital of all the banks and issued an equal amount of currency you would find a stringency in the money market, because you would not have enough to carry on the business of the country. If the banks want to issue more notes all they have to do is to put up more capital. Whether a note is issued in the denomination of one dollar or five dollars makes no difference in this respect. The subscribed capital of the united banks of the country is not nearly enough to carry on the business of the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it not a fact that the government of Canada are making a great deal of money in the issuing of these notes in denominations of ones, twos and fours ?


William Stevens Fielding: As I have already stated there is a point-it used to be $25,000,000, but we increased it a year or two ago-up to which we are obliged to carry a reserve of 25 per cent of gold. As respects that there is a profit to the country ; but after you pass that point, for every additional note you issue, you have to put up dollar for dollar and therefore there is no profit in it. We increased the limit in 1903 and that perhaps will meet to some extent the suggestion of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). It used to be $25,000,000, but believing that with the growth and expansion of Canada, we could issue a larger sum on the 25 per cent limit we expanded that in 1903 to $30,000,000, and as the country grows that limit will be raised. There is a certain sum which we may issue with a reserve of 25 per cent of gold. As respects that there is a profit, but when
02.10

you pass that point for' every dollar you issue you must have a dollar in gold against it and there is no profit on that.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount you are allowed to issue on the 25 per cent basis ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Graham Haggart: That is $7,000,000 besides the $25,000,000. That makes $32,000,-
000.


William Stevens Fielding: It was increased by the Act of 1903 to $30,000,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That $30,000,000 you only have to cover by a reserve of 25 per cent ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct. By the Act, 3 Ed. VIII, Chap. 43, respecting Dominion Notes, it is provided that:
The Minister of Finance and Receiver General shall always hold as security for the redemption of Dominion notes issued and outstanding at any one time, up to and including $30,000,000, an amount in gold, or in gold and securities of Canada, the principal or interest of such securities being guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom, equal to not less than 25 per cent of the amount of such notes so issued and outstanding.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does the country make enough money to cover the amount of $140,000 a year that is now being spent for the printing of these notes ? I want to know whether the country Is redeeming this expenditure.


William Stevens Fielding: I think we do until we reach a certain amount. As respects the first sum there is a profit, but for every additional dollar we issue there is no profit.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If we are not making much out of it why should we not allow the different chartered banks to issue these notes ? We look upon our banking system as a very good one and that being so why should not we allow them to issue these notes of the denominations of one, two and four dollars ?


William Stevens Fielding: As a matter of convenience it is better that the banks should issue notes of a certain class and that we should issue notes of a certain class, but it would make no difference if they issued ten ones instead of issuing one ten.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 'If their circulation helps them as they say it does, why should we not give them this privilege ? There are some people in Ottawa who are making money only out of circulation. If that Is so, by circulating $39,000,000 or $40,000,000 in ones, twos or threes, it would help them to increase not only their circulation but their capital.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why not ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: Circulation does not help them to increase capital. Capital helps them to increase circulation. They must issue their circulation on the basis of their capital. If a bank has a capital of $1,000,000 and it has only $500,000 or $600,000 of notes out, if the business has only taken up that amount, it has then $400,000 which it can issue in money, and if its own business is not expanding it can loan these notes to another bank, but the moment it l'eaches the limit of its capital it must stop. That is where the government comes in and supplies the difference.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Cannot the Finance Minister find a way to compel the banks to issue clean notes, just as the Dominion is doing ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not thought it necessary to do more than to generally indicate to the banks that they should pay attention to the cleanliness of the notes in circulation, and I think they are doing so. The Dominion notes in circulation are vastly improved in that respect, and I think the bank notes too. We have not taken any legislative power to compel the banks, but I have no doubt they will pay attention to the matter as a result of the discussion that has taken place here.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Finance Minister says he will have some slight amendments to the Bank Act; could not he propose an amendment to cover this point ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it is necessary.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I hear constant complaint of the dirty bills circulated by the banks being injurious to health.


William Stevens Fielding: Most of us are so happy to get these bills that we do not quarrel about their shape and colour, but I trust the discussion to-day may induce the banks to give attention to the matter.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Minister of Finance is of course hot making any personal reference because the members are paid by cheques, the face value of which is very small I am sorry to say.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: I assume it would not cost less to print a one dollar note than it would to print a ten dollar note, and if that be the case it would seem that the point is well taken.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course it makes no difference in the cost of printing whether the figure be a ' I ' or a ' X ' but it has been found a matter of public convenience that these small notes should be dealt with by the Dominion, and I do not think there is any complaint about it. With the extending business of the country the banks as a rule are able to find employment for their circulation on the basis of the present arrangement.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is no complaint if we do not lose money in connection with it.


George Taylor: The Minister of Finance has told us that there are $47,000,000 now in circulation ; has he ever had a calculation made as to how much of that is lost yearly through fires, &c. Does he think that seven millions of that forty-seven millions have been lost.


William Stevens Fielding: Once it is issued it is charged up as a part of the debt of this country and must always remain so until it is redeemed. Therefore, whether it is lost or not does not. concern us. True it could never be presented, but it still stands in our books as part of the debt due by the Dominion. We never write off a note until it is redeemed and destroyed.


George Taylor: I understand that a good share of the profit of the banks is due to the loss of notes in circulation ; there is hardly a fire that there are not some bills lost.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a question in olden times as to banks making profit in that way, but I do not think they claim today that they have a right to make such profit. Until a note is redeemed it is held to be a debt of the bank. In olden times there was a practice of writing off notes of that character, but I do not think that practice is followed by the banks to-day.


David Henderson: Although the amount in circulation according to the books of the Finance Department is forty-seven millions, it may not be more than forty millions ?


William Stevens Fielding: There would not be so much as that lost.


David Henderson: In the many years during which these notes have been in circulation 1 have no doubt that several millions have been lost. I would ask the Finance Minister to tell me, if he thinks it is perfectly safe to issue thirty millions on the basis of 25 per cent of gold, why is it not perfectly safe to issue fifty millions ? Where would be the difficulty ? What reason does the Minister of Finance give for not issuing the entire amount on the basis of 25 per ceut gold ? If this were done it would remedy the complaint that the country is losing money by paying for the printing of these notes.


William Stevens Fielding: I fear that all the great financial authorities of the world will say that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) is touching on dangerous ground. His proposition simply means what was at one time irreverently called the rag-baby scheme of currency ; grinding out the notes as fast as any one took them up and making money in that way. The financiers of the world have not regarded that system with approval. If Canada adopted the policy of issuing notes on the credit of the country without regard to limit, while we might have great pride in that as Canadians, the financial authorities of the world would not consider that our credit was thereby made good.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It has been suggested that of the forty-seven, million dollars worth of notes in circulation possibly seven mlll-iions may have been destroyed. On the other hand is there not a possibility that several millions of notes now in circulation may be counterfeit ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think not. I appreciate what hon. gentlemen have said as to the necessity of extra precaution, but I think we generally discover counterfeit notes very quickly. There have been a few instances and we have traced them and generally succeeded in finding the counterfeiters in a short time and putting them behind the bars. It is quite a long time since we heard of any Canadian counterfeit notes, and so far as I know there are none to-day. We have taken all reasonable precautions, but in the light of what has been said to-day it will be my duty to look into the matter to see if there is any other precaution which can be taken to prevent the possibility of the occurence of that which my hon. friends fear.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it not possible for us to have a definite knowledge of the value of the Dominion notes now in circulation ?


William Stevens Fielding: We can only give to the public a definite knowledge as to the number issued. What becomes of them is beyond our knowledge and control. We are bound to asume for the purposes of accounts and public credit that they are existing somewhere, and so they stand on the records as a charge against us.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With reference to the thirty million dollars in our treasury, of course I do not want to ask where it is at present, but I wish to know whether n large portion or any portion of that gold is deposited in the banks of this counti*y, and whether we are receiving interest on it *


William Stevens Fielding: No portion of this is held by banks in the way of ordinary deposits ; it is held in other ways. Of course we have our transactions with the banks in other respects and large sums of money are moving to and fro, but these moneys are not included in such bank accounts.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it would be a good thing for the Finance Minister to tell us now where that gold is kept.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course I am not personally interested in any way, but sometimes we'hear the statement made, especially during election campaigns, that there is a chest here in which that gold is kept, and very often we hear it said on the platform that the Liberal candidate was up in Ottawa

and lie got into tlie dark room where they keep the money and had his arms up to his elbows in the gold. This is an opportune time to know whether that is true or not. I do not believe it myself, but it might be as well to have an authoritative official statement from the Finance Minister.


William Stevens Fielding: What is that ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is an idea in the country that there is a chest sortie where here in Ottawa where you keep this large amount of gold, and speakers on the stump say : so and so is a thief, because he was seen in Ottawa with his arms as far as his elbows down in the gold. Of course the more enlightened of the electors think it is not true, but I would like to have an end put to the rumour. I imagine that the money must be kept in the banks. My hon. friend has gone too far in denials until now. He is bound to say where that money is, because he has changed the ideas of those enlightened people who say that there is no money in Ottawa-that it is all in the banks, and that the payments are all made by cheques. If there is any place here where gold is kept, he is bound to say so.


William Stevens Fielding: There are various reasons for not telling, and one is that I am most anxious to protect the reputation of my hon. friend.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Those who are accused are on the government side, not the opposition side.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is thinking of the other government. It was not in that respect that I wanted to protect my hon. friend's reputation. After what has occurred, this display of my hon. friend's zeal to know where the gold is kept would lay him open to suspicion in event of any loss, and I think we ought not to put him in that box.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it is the duty of my hon. friend to let the public know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see why $25,000 more is required than was estimated last year, because it surely must have been foreseen that we would require more Dominion notes.


William Stevens Fielding: The Finance Minister does not like to make his first estimate too large, because ministers generally are inclined to spend all you give them and want more. I know it is contended that the departments ought to take in their first estimates all that they want. The Minister of Finance sometimes cuts down the estimates of his colleagues, and tells them that if they want more, parliament will have to vote it in the supplementary estimates ; and that is found to be a wise arrangement. In this case he has applied it to himself. I have shown that we spent on Dominion notes a little less than $130,000 last year. Our appropriation for the present year is $100,000,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: .
to which we add this $25,000, making $135,000 for the service of the year, a small increase over last year. We must expect an expansion of this item every year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Joking apart, I would like my hon. friend to say that there is not a cent of gold kept here in the vaults of the government but that everything is held in bonds or in banks. I think that should be said.


William Stevens Fielding: All the government money is held in places of safe keeping and in the usual places where it was kept when I became Finance Minister,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The hon. minister should not leave people under the impression that there are vaults here where gold is kept.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think my hon. friend is entirely too innocent if he thinks there are not ways of the ' heathen Chinee ' type by which the government can get money when it wants to carry an election.


Mr. THOMPSON.: This discussion has proven extremely interesting to me, as the representative of the only territory in Canada which exclusively produces gold. As I am going before this session closes to submit a proposition to the government to purchase all the gold that we produce in the Yukon Territory, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if there is any objection to the government purchasing gold and giving therefor government certificates ? We produce somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000,000 a year.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a matter which will probably come up when we have our mint ready for operation. I do not think it arises at present in connection with any of our financial arrangements. But when the mint, the foundation of which is now being laid in Sussex street, is completed, we shall have to take that question up. While I would listen with respect to anything my hon. friend has to suggest on the subject, I would like to keep an open mind, so that we may consider it later.
Department of the Interior-further amount required for salaries and expenses of mines branch, $2,500.


Mr. OLIVER.: This item is to provide for the printing of an edition in French of the report on electrical smelting of Dr. Haanel, who is in charge of the mineralogical branch'. Dr. Haanel has visited Europe and made an investigation of the process of electrical smelting of iron. Provision has already been made for the printing of his report in English.


John Graham Haggart: Is the geological department divided into two branches ? I never heard of the mines branch before ?


Frank Oliver: I understand that the mines branch is 'a sub-branch. The Geological

Survey does not take cognizance particularly of minerals, but the mines branch is to take special cognizance of minerals and mineral development.


John Graham Haggart: I do not remember any legislation setting apart the mines branch.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no special legislation constituting a mines branch. Strictly speaking, it is not a branch of the Geological Survey, but a part of the Department of the Interior, designated as a mines branch just as any other department may designate the different features of its service.
class clerk at $1,400 per annum for the first six months of fiscal year 1903-04
(revote)	$ 150 00
To pay M. C. Doyle the difference between the salary of a junior second-class clerk at $1,000 and that of a second-class clerk at $1,100 per annum for first six months of fiscal vear 1903-04
(revote)	  50	00
To pay F. H. Houde the difference between the salary of $500 and that of a junior second-class clerk at $600 per annum from July 1, 1903, to De lemher
11, 1903	(revote)	
44	44Contingencies-further amount required!	
2,500	00


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Minister of the Interior tells us that it is to look after minerals. I would naturally suppose that the geological department would have the care and investigation of the minerals of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: The Geological Survey is devoted to the exploration and survey of the country ; but, as the Minister of the Interior has said, this mines branch has reference to other matters, such as the smelting of ores, and Dr. Haanel was sent to Europe to investigate that subject.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: While on this subject I would ask the Minister of the Interior whether Dr. Bell has been gazetted as director of the survey ? I sincerely hope he has. He has been doing a noble work for our country for many years.


Frank Oliver: No, he has not been gazetted as director.


John Graham Haggart: Who is at present the heird of the geological branch ?
Mr. OLIVER, Dr. Bell is acting director.


John Graham Haggart: No appointment has been made ?


Frank Oliver: No appointment has yet been made.


John Graham Haggart: Is it not about time ? The position has been vacant for a couple of years.


Frank Oliver: I have not been conducting the department long enough to be able to give any information on that point.


John Graham Haggart: I have known Dr. Bell, who is at present acting director, for many years. I know he has taken a great deal of interest in the Geological Survey, and I think he is the best man for the place.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have had a good deal to do with this department since coming to Ottawa, and have followed up Dr. Bell's work a number of years. I hope the minister will see that he is gazetted at an early date.
2,744 44


John Graham Haggart: Why did you not pay the amount when you had the vote ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: This is the result of a misunderstanding with the Auditor General.


Mr. BARR.: Do you understand each other now ?
Mr) [PREiFONTAINE. We thought it would be settled, but it could not be settled except by a vote of parliament.


John Graham Haggart: Did the Auditor General refuse to pass it because these men had not complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Act ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; it was purely and simply because the amount was left open for over a year on the refusal of the. Auditor General, and, as a matter of justice to these civil servants, it was put in the supplementary estimates.


Mr U WILSON.: Was it because the vote had expired that the Auditor General refused to pay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These three officials had been promoted and should have been paid their full salary from the 1st July. 1903. The session lasted until October, and when they claimed their salary, according to promotion and the vote, the Auditor General refused to pay the six months from the 1st Jitlv to the 1st January, h rom the information I have, he made no objection in the case of the other officials who were in the same position as these three, and all the others were paid. The matter remained in this way the whole of the year 1904, until at last tlie Auditor General said : lne yeai lias elapsed ; better have the amount voted vpo-nijirlv bv parliament.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman give us the Auditor General's letter on the subject ?	[DOT]


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no letter. It was a personal interview with the Auditor General.
Department of Marine and Fisheries- To pay Jules d'E. Clement the difier-ence between the salary of a second-class clerk at $1,100 and that of a first-


John Graham Haggart: Surely a refusal to pay on a recommendation from the department would not be made verbally ?

626'

Mr. PRF,FONTAINE. I am informed it happens very often that way.


William Stevens Fielding: These officials go and discuss the matter with the Auditor General.


John Graham Haggart: That is an improper way. There should be correspondence. Where an amount is voted by the House and the Auditor General refuses to pay, we should have the reasons in writing for his refusal.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was the controversy with the Auditor General on the ground that these men were not entitled to be classed as first-class clerks ?
Department of Finance-further amount required for contingencies, $1,200.
To provide for the appointment of a second-class clerk, a barrister, notwithstanding any-think in the Civil Service Act, $200.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount already provided for contingencies in my department is $12,000. This vote includes a certain part of the cost of the temporary clerks for the year, and it includes printing, stationery and sundry small items. The last item is to appoint a second-class clerk. The gentleman is a practising barrister, who does not happen to have a civil service certificate but there is no question as to his qualification.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; it was a misunderstanding as regards how the payments were to be made, and the matter remained in abeyance the whole year. I am bringing it before the House on the advice of the Auditor General himself.


John Graham Haggart: What about the $2,500 further amount required for contingencies?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have explained that the department having increased during last year it was impossible to provide the necessary contingencies. The department has nearly doubled since 1901, and of course we had no provision made for that.


Mr.   U.@: W ILiSON. What class of barrister do you get for $1,200 ? He can not be fit to be a judge according to the discussion we have had in this House ?


William Stevens Fielding: He is a young gentleman who has recently entered the profession and is going to act in the capacity of private secretary.


Uriah Wilson: He gets an additional salary for that.


William Stevens Fielding: Not at present; it is contemplated he may become private secre-nuj and some part of the other allowance may go to him later.


John Graham Haggart: What will this amount be for this year and what was it for last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The amount in the mam estimates this year is about $20,000 This will bring the amount to $19,000, but
^el- las au ovei'<lraft in the former year of $(,000 so really it is only $12,000. This u as for accounts for the year previous that were left over and had not been provided tor and this amount was taken from the vote of this year.
sbmiVri HAGGART. Then that amount should have been voted for the year previous.	1


Uriah Wilson: What is the other allowance ?


William Stevens Fielding: $600. which mav be paid to different persons, and a part of'that has already been given to others in the department, young ladies.
Departments generally-further amount required for cleaning, &e., $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is au iucrease in the general vote in the cleaning service, for the same reason as in the Department of Printing and Stationery. It arises from the increase in the allowance of wages to the charwomen.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
John Graham Haggart: Legislation, House of Commons, $94,794.18,


John Graham Haggart: I received a note in reference to this item asking that it should stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course if my hon friend wishes we shall allow it to stand' but I may say that some of the minor officers of the House who cannot very well wait for the money cannot be paid unless we pass this vote. We cannot pay them until we get a supply Bill, but every day's delay is a hardship. I hope my hon. friends opposite ill appreciate that view and try to help us to get this through and get a supplementary vote.


Mr.   F .@: W ILiSON. I think the Minister of Finance might easily arrange to get money enough to pay the working people ; I think it is a very great hardship.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman with the best intentions is giving very bad advice. I could easily arrange in an illegal way to get money but I do not want to do it.


Uriah Wilson: I remember when the members were cut off an arrangement was soon made. And if you can pay members of parliament, I think you could easily afford to pay the employees of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: There was no arrangement made by me. I treated the members the same as I do the charwomen. I waited until I had the legal right to pay them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last session was prolonged after June 30th, and by reason of that fact money was drawn to pay services around this building. It seems to me strange that because this occurred we are short now. Could not that difficulty be got over in some way without our having to be called upon every year to pass estimates like this? We have had this for several years past and it is causing a hardship.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course it is a question of the number of days the session may occupy and although we may have the best intentions- that the session is to be short, sometimes unexpected things happen and the delay occurs. I am afraid every time we have a session we will have some cause of shortage. In view of the great expenditures of Canada the amount that we asked for in this way towards the close of a year is not large.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a small item but it is creating more hardship than any other item we vote.


William Stevens Fielding: That is true.


John Graham Haggart: This $94,000 is an additional amount over the amount voted last year;' that is a bad system of bookkeeping, $100,000 of a mistake for one House is too much.


Wilfrid Laurier: We did not calculate that the session would be as long as it turned out to be. We had not calculated on the power of hon. gentlemen opposite to talk as they have done.


Andrew B. Ingram: The trouble is that the First Minister has not brought down his legislation.


William Stevens Fielding: Remember that this includes not only the present session but everything that occurred after the 1st of July last year, because this is for the present fiscal year. So that really a part of the expenditures of last session came into the present fiscal year. We will let this item stand.
Exhibitions-further amount required, $40,000.


Mr. FISHER.: This sum is required to finish up the expenditures at the St. Louis exhibition in the course of the fiscal year,
and for the preparations for the Liege exhibition that is open and in operation. I had a vote of $200,000 for these expenses in the main estimates of this year. Out of that, as an expenditure on the -St. Louis exhibition in the course of this fiscal year, we require nearly $100,000. As I have already explained to the House, we thought best to take some part in a trade exhibition in England last fall and the early part of the winter for which we spent about $18,000, making $118,000. Up to the 1st of May we have expended on the Liege exhibition a little over $60,000, making the total about $180,000. That leaves us with $20,000. Now, outstanding accounts in regard to the Liege exhibition and other expenditures we shall have to make before the 1st of July, will amount to nearly $60,000. That leaves us with a deficit of about $40,000. In the mam estimates for the next year I had $7o,000 to finish up the Liege exhibition, as I explained and some other exhibitions which we wished to take part in. I expect that vote will meet the requirements, but if I were obliged to draw on that vote to pay outstanding accounts before the 1st of July 1 would not have enough, and would have to ask for a supplementary estimate next year. I thought it was better to close up the work of this fiscal year completely by the present vote. I hope by so doing to avoid the necessity of any supplementary item in next year's estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What expenses does this cover ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This covers finishing and closing up the S't. Louis exhibition and the initial preparations, the buildings and so forth, for the Liege exhibition, which is now going on in Belgium. That was opened on the 27th of April. We now have our exhibits there and our officers at work, the only expenditure in this connection which I did not foresee was the expenditure for the purchase of some of the exhibits which were loaned to us at St. Louis mineral exhibits and some exhibits of animals and game. These were so valuable and attracted so much attention that, after consultation with my commissioner, I decided to purchase them. We paid about $15,000 for minerals. I cannot tell exactly what we paid for the animal specimens. But I would like to mention to the committee that in consequence of what we have been doing lately we have to-day a very large class of permanent exhibits. These minerals I speak of can be used over and over again. W e send them to Liege just as they were taken away from St. Louis. The same is true of the game exhibits and various other things- photographs, paintings, flags and so forth, of which I have a list here. We also possess a lot of our own show cases and packm cases which we use, and which are of strong and permanent character, showing total investment in these things of*a permap P Cfq

Showing how that
nent character of nearly $60,000. We purchased these mineral specimens from the owners of the mines from which they came Some of them we had to get ourselves ; they were not on hand. We have an official catalogue of the minerals, showing the names or tlie mines.


Uriah Wilson: Could the minis-tei give us a statement of what he bought, who he bought it from, and how much he paid for it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can do that, but it would be a pretty long statement if I were to give every specimen that we bought and the price.


Uriah Wilson: $60,000 was expended ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The $60,000 does not cover exhibits8 al01le" 1 am speaking of Permanent


Uriah Wilson: 
David Henderson: What is the object of paying such large sums for exhibits of this kind ? Wliat profit arte they going to bring back to the country if no other animals of that kind exist ? It is not going to enable anybody to effect a sale.
i "H.1' W ISHER. While it would probably be hard to find any animals such as those we exhibited, we have still a very large number of musk-ox robes in this country for sale. It is quite a large business and we sell these things in a commercial way. But, when we make an exhibit to attract attention, we must exhibit something a little better than the commercial article. If we confined ourselves to the commercial article we would make a pretty good commercial exhibit, but we would not attract the attention of the ordinary sight-seer and to have the exhibit so commented upon as to serve as a valuable advertisement for the country.


David Henderson: Some time during the past winter I was passing along Queen Street in the city and I saw a stuffed buffalo. Apparently it was either being brought back from St. Louis or was about to be sent to some other exhibition. Have we such a large number' of buffalo in this country that it is necessary or advisable to spend large sums of money to make an exhibit to attract attention to our stock of buffalo with the view of providing a market for that class of animals ? I am inclined to think that that time has gone past and it is more a matter of curiosity than a matter of commercial interest to the people of the country.


Uriah Wilson: Where was it got


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Near New Liskeard in the northern pant of Ontario. We have alsc got now some quite uniqhe specimens oi mineral which could not be duplicated. They w ere found quite accidentally and we managed to get hold of them. \Vg have some rather extraordinary specimens which attracted a great deal of attention and made the exhibit more effective than the ordinary value of the mineral itself would indicate. Animals and specimens of fur bearing animals we bought for the purpose of making up the game and fur exhibit. These are a little difficult to find. When we do get good ones and they are well set up they are ot great value. The United States government tried hard to get our exhibit of furbearing animals at iSt. Louis for their Washington museum and thev offered us Mr. FISHER.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I grant to my hon. friend that we have no buffaloes to sell. We have not even buffalo robes to sell to any extent, but when you are making an exhibit of fur-bearing animals, if you want to attract the attention of the ordinary exhibition- visitor and the newspaper man who is describing the 'Canadian section, you must make it as varied and attractive as possible and you have to put in a good many things which in a commercial sense may not be valuable to the country.


David Henderson: I think it is rather what the ordinary man would call a fake exhibit.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it is fair to apply that term to it at all. This exhibit at 'St. Louis advertised this country in a way which I do not think it had ever been advertised before. Personally I only

went to 'St. Louis at the end of the exhibition. I had heard very flattering accounts of the exhibits there and the sensation they were creating. I think some lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House said something about that when the vote was up in the main estimates. I went down there rather feeling that these reports were too flattering, but when I saw the exhibits and saw the way that the people were examining them, taking an interest in them and commenting upon them, I felt that good business had been done in advertising our country in a general way. These exhibits have been undertaken by this government and carried out on a pretty considerable scale, I grant, very largely for immigration purposes. My hon. friend will perhaps smile and say that the exhibit of a buffalo will not attract settlers. 1 do not say it will in that particular instance, but at the same time the variety of things exhibited and the general effect of the exhibition do create an impression on people's minds which draws their attention to the country, gets them talking about it and attracts them so as to enabre our other officers to reach them for immigration purposes. 1 have no hesitation in saying that the series of exhibits which we have conducted during the last seven or eight years has attracted very materially the enormous influx of immigration into this country.


David Henderson: 'I think these exhibits should certainly be confined to such articles as the country is at the present time producing, and that we should not do anything tto help people to come into the country when the particular article that attracted their attention is not to be found in the country after they do come here. It seems to me it would only lead to disappointment. (I would favour very much making an exhibit- of everything we can produce, but I do not see the propriety of making an exhibit of what we do not produce, simply for the purpose of making the exhibit attractive. 1 think there is no genuine policy in that course of procedure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There was a large amount of money expended on the exhibition in Japan a year ago.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Three years ago.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister gave us to understand that our trade and commerce with that country had wonderfully increased. Could the hon. minister give us an estimate of the increase in our trade with that country during the past year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not the figures under my hand. I am told, however, that during the last year or 18 months there has been a very considerable increase in our exports to Japan. I may say off-hand from my own personal knowledge that the creameries of the Northwest are sending about ten times as much butter to Japan now as they did before the exhibition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How about flour ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The export of flour has increased very materially also. I have not the same personal knowledge of flour as of butter, because butter has to come officially under the administration of my own department. But, I am also informed that the flour trade has very largely increased. There is a constant export of Canadian flour to Japan now which there was not before the exhibition.


Uriah Wilson: Would the hon. minister tell us what each of these exhibitions has cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Japan exhibition cost between $50,000 and $55,000 and the St. Louis exhibition about $320,000-$310,000 if we do not include what may be fairly charged to the purchase of these exhibits which were loaned to us but which since that we have prchased. I think nearly half of that may be charged to St. Louis. $310,000 was the expenditure in connection with -the St. Louis exhibition up to the time of the purchase of the St. Louis exhibits. We expect that the Liege exhibition will cost roughly speaking, something over $150,-
000.
General statistics-to increase the salary of E. H. St. Denis to $2,500 per annum, $625.


Aaron Abel Wright: I wish to draw attention to some little anomalies in the census report which I think are worthy the consideration of the minister. In making a division between the urban and rural population it would appear that large stretches of rural territory are taken into the urban districts in consequence of which I very much doubt if we have a correct estimate of the rural population as distinguished from the urban population. For instance, in the city of Ottawa we have 3,000 acres of territory with a population of 59,000, but in Fredericton, New Brunswick, with a population of 7,000 we have 10,000 acres, of territory. Probably that is due to some particular method of laying out the municipal boundaries by which a -large area of rural district is included in the municipality, and in consequence of which the urban district would get credit for people who live on thousands of acres in the rural [DOT]district. I think some method should be adopted whereby we would be able to get the population of the cities and towns distinguished from the population of the rural districts. In Emerson, Northwest Territories, [DOT] with a population of 840 there are 5,000 acres of territory; in Winnipeg with 12,000 acres there is less population than in Ottawa although the area of Winnipeg is four times greater ; in Portage la Prairie there is a territory of

[DOT] 11,000 acres and a population of less than 4,000. It would seem to me tliat many outlying townships must have been included with the town itself in such cases as these, I would like to have some definite information in the census so that we may know what the actual rural and urban population of Canada is. Then, when the question came up on the Autonomy Bill, I could not find the figures for such towns as Calgary, Edmonton, Regina and other places, although I felt it was important that we should know the size of these places. In Calgary east there are 15,000 acres, in Calgary north 79,000' acres, in Calgary south 22,000 acres, in Calgary west 63,000 acres, so that apparently a very large stretch of country is taken in and the rural population included with the urban population. The census should show the actual figures for the towns themselves. 1 take a great interest in this matter, and I would like to be able to turn to the census report and find what the actual population of a city or town is. Outside of four large cities in British Columbia I cannot find the population separated. I cannot find the figures for the other provinces in the corresponding columns in which they are given for Ontario and Quebec. In New Brunswick there is a small place like St. George, with an area of 130,000 acres, enough for a whole county, and the area of the town of St. Andrews is given in somewhat the same way. I find this anomaly all through the census report. 1 am not finding any fault, but I would suggest that iu taking the population of the Northwest Territories next year, more attention should be paid to this matter so that we may be able to get the actual urban and rural population.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad my hon. friend drew attention to this point and I will have it looked into and see if we cannot have it remedied.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILES.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 138) an Act respecting the Montreal Bridge Company, and to change its name to 'The Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.'-Mr. Piobe.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 152) for the relief of Clara Bidwell McDermot.-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. LANC  ASTER@: This is a very peculiar case, and I think the Bill ought to stand until the Minister of Justice is present. I have read the evidence, and I am bound to say that I do not think the preamble is proven. I am quite satisfied that no judge of ex-Mr. W. WRIGHT.
perience and no intelligent jury would find this respondent guilty of the allegations which are said by the preamble to be proven on the evidence printed and laid before the House. One does not like to discuss the details of these eases in public more than is necessary ; but we have a public duty to perform. The whole evidence is that of two, women, who notoriously and openly state their reasons for knowing to be that they, are disreputable characters, and their statements are positively denied on oath by the respondent. He puts his oath against theirs; and, on reading the evidence, I am forced to the conclusion that it is very doubtful indeed whether this man ought to be found guilty under the circumstances. It is a very serious thing to divorce anybody, much more serious, I think, than many of us suppose, and has a bad effect on the country. We are in the habit of letting these Bills go through this House simply because the Senate has passed them. 1 am probably as guilty as any one in that respect. We do not pay one-quarter of the attention to them that we ought to do, or contemplate the seriousness of what we do. Here is a man with three children who call him father, who is entitled to their respect if he is innocent of this charge, but who, if this Bill passes, will be deprived of his rights as a father, as well as his rights as a husband, and who will be disgraced in a very serious way. I suppose most of us would rather serve a term in the penitentiary than be under the disgrace that this man will be under if we pass this Bill. We must treat this case as one requiring substantial and strict proof. There is no evidence on which any judge or any intelligent jury would convict this man of the offence charged against him. I have not been approached by anybody or been asked to oppose this Bill. This is my own action as a legislator, and I say that if we grant this divorce on such evidence as we have here, we shall open the door to a most terrible state of affairs. There is not a respectable man in this Dominion who will not be subject to blackmail and the worst sort of treatment if this evidence is held to be sufficient. There have been similar cases to this one, but corroborative evidence has always been required. This is a case in which two accomplices of the very worst character, upon their own evidence, have induced the Senate to assume that this man is guilty. He denies their statements under oath, comes nil the way from British Columbia for the purpose, cross-examines these witnesses ; and we must come to the conclusion that his story is more likely to be true than theirs. No intelligent jury ever convicts a man of a crime on the evidence of accomplices ; and if they would, they would always be charged by the judge that such evidence must be corroborated. This is a serious matter, not only for this man, but for everybody in this country. I am pro-

bably less favourable to divorces than many: people:	I recognize, however, that there
are cases in which divorces should be granted under our laws, but they are extreme cases, and should admit of no doubt.( In the absence of the Chairman of the PriJ vate Bills Committee, who considered this Bill, and also of the Minister of Justice,; who, I think, should look into it, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: This is a very unusual course to take on a Bill of this kind. I admit that the evidence, like the evidence in all cases upon which we grant divorces, is not of the very highest character. This case has been tried by the Senate, who examined the witnesses and had an opportunity of hearing their evidence, and who unanimously came to the decision that the case was proven, and reported the Bill to us. Not only have we the evidence of these persons, but we have the conduct of this man, of whom my hon. friend speaks as a very exemplary husband-a mail who left his wife and three little children and went off to British Columbia, where he remained for fourteen or sixteen years, and who, on his own evidence, in that time did not give ?400 to support them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They were not needing money.


Archibald Campbell: If they had needed money, they would not have got it from him. I do not know this woman at all, but I have it from the very best persons in the country that she is one of the most respectable women in the whole district, and the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Christie) is aware of that fact. She has raised three children, now grown to manhood, without any help from her husband. They are a most highly respected family, and I do not think any man, on reading the evidence, could fail to come to the conclusion that the Senate was perfectly right in unanimously passing this Bill. Any man who would leave his wife and family for sixteen years and let them drift as best they could, is no father and no man at all, and should not receive any consideration from this House.
Mi\ LANCASTER. Supposing this man did what the hon. gentleman alleges, that is no-ground for divorce; and it is quite clear on the evidence that his money was not needed because she returned the sums he sent her and did not want to have anything to do with him. There must be some reason why this woman, who has been wedded all these years, should want to get rid of her husband now, and we ought not to undo a marriage for the purpose of letting her marry again unless there are beyond question proper grounds for a divorce. The woman returned the money this man sent her. she returned the $100 payments, and there is no evidence that she suffered
for want of his money. The charge made by the hon. gentleman against this man is one we should not listen to. We are not here as judges granting alimony to this woman. What my hon. friend alleges would be a reason why a judge might decree judicial separation and grant alimony, but we are asked to absolutely divorce this man from his wife and children, and we are asked to do it on the evidence of two most disreputable characters, whom he contradicts on his o.ath. I cannot see what objection my hon. friend can have to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) looking into the evidence and passing upon it before we come to a decision. This House is not going to prorogue to-morrow or next day, and the Minister of Justice will have plenty opportunity to see whether the position I take is a sound one. My hon. friend's desire for undue haste would rather indicate that the view I take is the right one. I am willing to have delay until the Minister of Justice looks into the matter. Surely my hon. friend can trust the Minister of Justice; and if the minister is convinced that I am wrong, then the Bill will pass.


Archibald Campbell: My hon. friend is very anxious to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice when it suits his purpose ; but I notice that when the Minister of Justice does given an opinion, my hon. friend is not disposed to follow it. Another allegation he makes is that this woman returned $100 which her husband sent her. True she did, but the fellow never sent it to her until proceedings had been commenced for a divorce. It was only then that he sent her any money and he had deliberately refused to send her any for years previously. Why, the admissions of this man himself as to the company he kept and the places he visited and his general conduct corroborate the evidence given by his wife. How are you going to contradict the evidence given by other witnesses ? You will not get any respectable woman to give evidence as to the places this man frequented, and those who did, knew nothing about Mrs. McDer-mot and never saw her and gave their evidence in a straightforward manner. Of course the husband denies it, but he also denies Mrs. McDermot's evidence. The only witness he brought are two brothers-in-law of his own, and they testified that he was a very nice young boy when growing up, and one of them admits that the point on which he was brought to testify-that is with reference to Mrs. McDermot-occurred twenty odd years ago and he could not remember anything about it. I have no interest in the Bill other than that it was placed in my hands, and I have the best authority for believing that this woman is one of the most respectable in the whole country and raised a nice respectable family. Under the circumstances, I do not ' think there should be any hesitation in

granting her divorce from this man who deserted her.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The request of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is, it seems to me, under the circumstances, exceedingly reasonable. It will be five or six weeks, perhaps two months, perhaps more before prorogation takes place, so that there will be ample time to have the evidence thoroughly reviewed by officers of the government competent to give a judicial opinion upon it, and therefore I do not see why my hon. friend from Centre York, (Mr. Campbell) should object to the request made by the hou. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). It is of the last importance that we should exercise the greatest care before pronouncing a dissolution of the marriage tie. Canadians, I believe, are a righteous and moral people, who desire that the moral foundations, which are the basis of a good and God fearing nation, should be strengthened ; and if we should exercise the haste urged upon the committee by my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell), we would be aiming a blow at the very basis of those Christian principles which should govern our divorce pro ceedings and would in that way be inflict-* ing a blow on public morality.
I have looked at the evidence in this case. I am a lawyer and so is my hon. friend from Lincoln. I have had some experience in the dissection of evidence both in civil and criminal proceedings, and the hon. member for Centre York, while he is a man of great shrewdness and great business sagacity, is not accustomed to the dissection of evidence, to the careful analysis and weighing' of evidence, to ascertain what is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof in a civil or criminal case. The hon. member for Centre ' York must bear this in mind that before! the decree can be passed in a case of this kind there must be not only evidence of guilt of the legal infidelity which is charged, but there must be overwhelming evidence of that guilt, there must be such evidence of that guilt as would satisfy the ordinary mind that the presumption of innocence is entirely overcome. My hon. friend from Lincoln reminds me of the principle that the evidence should go further, that it should satisfy the minds of the members of the committees of the two Houses through which the Bill is obliged to pass, that there is no reason able doubt at all about the innocence of the person charged with this grave offence. Before we dissect the particular facts which have been referred to, let us look at the procedure, the very admirable procedure which is one which makes for the protection of all classes and for the presex-vation of a high standard of morality in the state. The evidence as well as the Bill come down from the higher chamber to this House. For what purpose ? Surely for the very purpose referred to by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), that every member of this Mr. CAMPBELL.
House, as is his duty, is to read that evidence and if he thinks it falls short of the remedy sought in this preamble he should have an opportunity of stating, as the hon. member for Lincoln does now, that in his opinion the evidence does fall short of that and that the committee ought to go slowly. The hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) has not that legal knowledge, that legal capacity of weighing evidence-I do not profess to be superior in that respect, I do not profess to have that business sagacity and shrewdness which characterize my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell)- but I do say that it is my opinion that there might be a good deal stronger evidence in this case and yet the committee might hesitate before coming to the conclusion that the grave charge made has been fully upheld. Now to show that the hon. member for Centre York is pursuing a wrong line of argument in this case I -would point out to you that the line that he has taken does not touch, except in one or two minor instances, the root of the charge as recited in this preamble. My hon. friend has referred only to the questions of legal cruelty and desertion, facts which are not grounds for the granting of any divorce in this country, and which are not set forth in the Bill either. They are merely evidence of collateral circumstances, evidence which might well have been excluded by the committee, but evidence which certainly, taken alone, cannot have any weight whatever with respect to the matter under consideration by the committee of the Senate.
The fact that the witnesses are of the same disreputable class is surely a circumstance to be taken into consideration. Surely it is not the intention and is not to be the principle laid down by this committee in this case that whatever evidence comes down from the Senate is to be passed by every member of this committee as absolute and undoubted evidence of the guilt of the accused. Surely we have functions to perform, the responsibility of which we cannot shirk and if we say that upon that evidence there is a doubt then I say it is our duty to face that question boldly and investigate and if there be a question then surely no person can be hurt by the very reasonable request of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) to refer the evidence with the Bill to the Minister of Justice asking him to consider the matter and make a report in this case, so that dissection and discussion of the details is not necessary in this committe but we may have the report of the law officer of the Crown, a gentleman skilled in that work who will give the committee the benefit of his judgment, a judicial judgment and cue which cannot fail to enlighten the committee one way or the another. It would be futile and I think unpleasant to discuss this matter in committee here, nor would it be pleasant or serve any good result, but to refer the evidence with the Bill back to the

Minister of Justice and to ask his opinion and to ask him to lay his report before the House would be a step in the right direction and be travelling along safe ground and on safe lines.	.


Archibald Campbell: That is a course which in all my experience to this House, extending over many years, I never saw or heard of before. In all the Bills that have been passed here this is the first time that objection has ever been taken in this House and the course suggested, that we should refer this to the Minister of Justice to weigh the evidence is unprecedented. What are 216 members of this House for if they cannot read this evidence and come to a conclusion themselves ? It has now been before the House for the last two weeks, it passed the Senate committee unanimously, it passed the Upper Chamber unanimously, it passed the Private Bills Committee of this House without any objection, and now it comes before this House after the evidence has been in the hands of every member for two weeks or more and forsooth this hon. gentleman says his legal mind is not capable of weighing and deciding upon this evidence and he wants to refer it to the Minister of Justice for a judicial decision and for a report, and the other members of this House were not of a legal and judicial mind, not capable of deciding this question and should not give a vote upon it because they have not the legal training. And I myself have not the legal training to decide whether this Bill should be granted or not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: Now I think that this is a childish, I think it is frivolous, the most frivolous argument ever advanced in this House for a man of the ability of the hon. member for Lincoln, or the hon. member for Algoma, to seriously propose to refer this to the Minister of Justice for a judicial decision upon the legal point. What legal point is there about it ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The legal point is whether the evidence here is legally sufficient to warrant the stain of guilt that is sought to be put on this man.


Archibald Campbell: Who is to decide that ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not a proper question for the law officers of the Crown to decide ?


Archibald Campbell: Is that not for a jury to decide.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is a question that he can decide.


Archibald Campbell: I can decide it according to my conviction and according to my own ability. I do not require a legal mind. The Senate heard that evidence and they decided unanimously. The Private Bills Committee of this House heard the evidence, and decided to pass this Bill, and now it comes 200 [DOT]
up for its third reading. We are called upon to decide it in this House, and we must decide it, we cannot shirk our responsibility. The only point that is raised is as to the character of these witnesses. I say that the character of these witnesses, according to the evidence that has been submitted, will stand on a par with the evidence of the man who swears he was telling an untruth. I say that the character of the man who says that these witnesses are not reliable, is such that he himself is not a credible witness, his conduct and his course for the last fourteen years put him exactly on the same plane as these witnesses, and I would believe them just as quick as I would him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then my bon. friend will probably concede that the evidence in favour of innocence is equal to the evidence in favour of guilt.


Archibald Campbell: Not at all. The evidence in favour of guilt is overwhelming. To my mind there is no evidence at all on the other side, except of this party who opposes this Bill. He brings no witnesses at all in his favour during the twelve or fourteen years that he lived out in Golden. Does he bring any one from there to prove that he was not frequenting these houses ? On the contrary he admits it, and there is no evidence except his own ; and when you take into consideration his course, the unmanly, the almost inhuman course he has pursued for these fourteen, years in leaving this woman and her three children to provide for themselves-I say when a man like that comes up to give Ms evidence' it should not be believed by the members of this House.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: I desire to say that I have kntown Mrs. iMCDermot since she was a child. She belongs to one of the best families in our county, I never heard a word of reflection cast upon her. She has raised these three children for fourteen or sixteen years, I think he has been in the west for fourteen years, and was separated from her for a year or two before he left Port Perry. Her three children are as nice girls, as well behaved girls, as well brought up girls as there are in the county of South Ontario. Mrs. McDermot is as fine a woman as there is anywhere. There is n,ot a word to be said against her, she has the sympathy of every person there. I am satisfied that this parliament never granted a divorce better justified than this one.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: <3283

iMlr. CAMPBELL. Hisi good character !' What do you make of his conduct ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: His own statement is absolutely consistent with a good character for all that he is charged with and for all that must be sufficient to justify a divorce. I do not wish to put upon ' Hansard ' all the language of this report, because it is not necessary. But if my hon. friend will read the preamble of the Bill he will see that the only charges made against this man as grounds for passing this Bill, are the very things he denies. The other things which my hon. friend speaks about as showing that this man is perhaps not as careful to look after his wife and children as my hon. friend is or as I am, still, are not grounds for divorce, or, evidence against the man's character in regard to what he is accused of.


Archibald Campbell: I say that they go a long way to contradict his own evidence especially when these statements are corroborated by two or three witnesses.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If my hon. friend consults the Minister of Justice, or any other sound lawyer in this House, lie will tell him that it does not go a hair's breadth in the direction he speaks of. It has nothing to do with it. A woman cannot secure a divorce because she has not chosen to live with her husband for so many years, and because her husband may or may not have given her as much money as she thought she ought to have. If she has a case in

that respect she can go into the civil courts and claim alimony. She has no right to do anything else, and she has no right to say, that because X can convince the hon. member for Centre York, or any other person who is not in the habit of weighing evidence and therefore innocently, enough will do an injustice to somebody, that I have been wrongly and harshly treated in regard to a matter which is not a statutory ground for divorce that must be laid against him and that must be taken as a ground for divorce in connection with the evidence which was given, evidence which in my opinion is perjured evidence. If my hon. friend had had any experience in courts of law he would have known that judges always charge juries, when people acknowledge their characters to be bad, that their oaths are not worth considering, standing alone. They will charge the ju ry that the evidence of such characters is not to be taken unless it is corroborated. It is all very well for the hon. member for Centre York to say that justice will be done by granting this divorce. He has no right to do that. He has to consider soeitey's welfare. He cannot divorce a husband from a wife or a wife from a husband on a certain kind of evidence and refuse to divorce another husband from his wife or wTife from her husband on exactly the same evidence. There might be dozens of cases brought for no other purpose than the most terrible blackmail against almost every respectable married man who does not find it possible to live at home every day on just such evidence. All you have to do is to bring here a couple of these disreputable women to swear against any respectable man in this country and we must grant a divorce and break up the home and family because these two acknowledged disreputable characters will go before the Senate and swear something against that man, swear against a man who has never been convicted of any crime, who has not a bad character, who has never been prosecuted for anything, who has a good record and who has lived a proper life. My hon. friend shakes his head. Is he going to be a fair judge ? Is he going to say that a . man has not a good character who has never been convicted of wrong ?


Archibald Campbell: Do you think it is right to stay for fourteen years and let your family shift for themselves?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose he lived long enough to be away 114 years, what has that to do with it ? Why did she not go and live with him ?


Archibald Campbell: It has a good deal to do with it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It shows my hon. friend's capacity for granting divorces. If that is the way we are going to test the question whether we shall divorce men
from their lawful wives or wives from their lawful husbands, I do not think the hon. gentleman should undertake to support any measure because he shows that he is not competent to discuss the question. Two clergymen, absolutely respectable men, no question about their respectability, swear to this man's good character. My hon. friend says that one of them had not known him since his boyhood. He has not read the evidence very carefully. One of these clergymen was up there and saw the man in his store, knew the character of the man at the time he was doing business and at the time he was supposed to have committed this heinous offence. Are the oaths of these clergymen not to be taken against the oaths of these women of disreputable character ?


Archibald Campbell: These two clergymen were his own brothers-in-law who saw him at the store but they did not follow him to the place at all. They only saw him in the store.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have heard of special pleading. Here is the double distilled quintessence of special pleading. Here is an hon. gentleman who wants to discuss the question on every other ground than the issue that is before the House. Here is an hon. gentleman desiring to draw us away from the Minister of Justice who would look at this calmly and appealing to us on a sentiment of a most frightful kind, in granting or withholding a divorce which we all know is a most serious thing. The hon. gentleman has said that there is a good case in his opinion against this man. I am going to talk for a minute or two as I would to a jury if I were defending this man. Just see what we are coming to. Against this man appear two most disreputable characters who for years have been living on the proceeds of their vice. They say so themselves. There is no defamation in saying that because it is their own statement. That is the way they qualify themselves as witnesses ; in fact, it is the way they qualify themselves as experts in this case. These are the only people who state anything against this man. They are bad characters on their admission, the most disreputable characters to have in the country, women of the most vicious kind, women who are dangerous to any community, breaking the law every day of their lives and liable to go to prison if they can be convicted and if the authorities are smart enough to prosecute them. On their own statement they have been guilty day after day of having led an immoral life. That is their character. Talk about their character being as good as his.. He does not admit that he is that kind of man. On the contrary, he denies it. He is backed up by the fact that he is a respectable merchant doing business in a community where these people are drawn from on behalf of thii
200J

woman, who for some strange reason wants to get a divorce from her lawful husband. In that same town she could have found dozens of men to swear to the bad character of this man if it were so. If she had called, that kind of evidence, if she had brought respectable people before the committee of the Senate, I could have listened with some patience if they had stated that his character was not as good as theirs. But, she does not do it, she does not bring a witness to show that this man is not to be believed on oath, but he puts into the box two men of the highest character, clergymen, who swear to what he was when he was a young man, and one of whom was out there in the place at the time he was supposed to have committed this offence with these outrageously disreputable women. Where is the excuse for the hon. gentleman saying that one's character is as good as the other ? Where is the protection for any respectable man who is not always surrounded by three or four witnesses able to prove an alibi ? What is the proposition of the hon. member for Centre York?-that if he was not guilty he should have proved it by some one else. Can the hon. gentleman prove where he was a year and two months and a day ago yetster-day ? Can he prove where he was fifteen mouths ago on a certain Wednesday at eight o'clock in the evening ? It is all very well to say he should have done it ? Could my hon. friend do anything else but what this man has done ? If any one made a false charge against my hon. friend such as that which has been made against this man could my hon. friend have done anything else but what this man has done ? We have to take this thing seriously. We have as much right to suppose that this evidence was given against yourself, Mr. Speaker, or myself, or the hon. member for Centre York and ask ourselves what we, absolutely innocent, would do or expect in the face of that evidence. What could we do but tell the truth as this man has done? If he were guilty would he come all the way down here from British Columbia without counsel and pledge his oath as he has done? If he were guilty of perjury he could be convicted on the evidence of these same two witnesses.


Archibald Campbell: Why does he not prosecute these women ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What earthly good would that be to the poor man after he was divorced ? A lot of satisfaction it would be, after a man is taken away from his wife and children, and after he and his children are disgraced for ever, to prosecute these outrageously disreputable women. When the honourable and learned Judge Britton was a member of this House he introduced ti Bill providing that divorces should be granted by the courts of the land and not by parliament. As I was personally not in favour Mr. LANCASTER.
of divorces, I took no part in the discussion on that Bill, but if we are going to grant divorces in such cases as this, then by all means let us have divorce courts which will decide these matters judicially and on sound principles. My hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) might have disposed of this matter according to my suggestion, but perhaps he forgot that by the rules of the House we will only have to prevail on him for three minutes longer in order that we may have a wider opportunity for discussing this matter and getting the Minister of Justice to throw some light on it, as the committee must then rise anyway.


Archibald Campbell: It is evident you want light.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend may be in a great hurry to divorce this wife, Clara Bidwell McDermot, from her husband, George Burton McDermot ; he may think it is a very wise thing to rush this legislation through, but I say again, as I said fifty minutes ago, that the consideration of this Bill should stand over until we have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. I trust that even at this late hour, even now when the hour for private Bills is about to expire, he will accept my suggestion. I do not want to be unduly contentious with my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell), and I trust he will consent that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. If he will not consent, then so long as the lamp holds out to burn we will endeavour to bring pressure on him. He says we should not shirk the responsibility, but that is exactly what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) is doing. He is endeavouring to shirk the responsibility by rushing this Bill through without allowing the House to seriously consider the matter.


Archibald Campbell: You want to shirk the responsibility and throw it on the Minister of Justice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) has no right to say that. If I wanted to shirk my responsibility I could remain silent and let the Bill pass, but I assume the responsibility of pointing out what I think is wrong in this Bill.


Archibald Campbell: If you are opposed to it, vote agaihst it; why do you want to talk it out ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the hon. gentleman thinks it is all right for a member to vote for or against a Bill and not give his reasons. There are gentlemen on the other side of the House who may think that good policy, but on this side even so much of a back bencher as the member for Lincoln thinks it right to state the reasons why he opposes a measure. It may be supposed that I oppose this Bill because I am not in favour of divorces, but, Sir, I recog-

raze that the statutes of Canada require us to grant divorces in proper eases, and, so long as that is the law of the land, I will vote for divorces in proper cases. But this is not a proper case, in my opinion, because the preamble of the Bill states that about the month of April, 1901, this man did certain things, and it declares that the petitioner has proved the allegations in her petition. In my judgment, that preamble is not borne out by the evidence.
The hour for private Bills having expired, the House resumed in Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence river and canals-reducing shoals west of Cornwall, $5,000.
['After private Bills we hope to proceed with the Autonomy Bill.']
John Graham Haggart: Where are these shoals, and how much altogether will it require to do the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work consists in dredging shoals, one opposite Hooper's creek, one mile west of Cornwall, dnd the other opposite Archibald's point, about one and a-half miles west at the head of the canal and connected with the mainland. The contract was entered Into with W. J. Poupore & Company. This $5,000 is required to pay off the contract, the whole contract being for $30,500.
Mr. HAGGARfT.. ,Is this the first expenditure on it ?	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. A contract was let last year, whan an amount wals voted towards the work, and this is the balance to close up the contract.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How much has been expended on the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is estimated that there 'Will be expended up to the 30th of June $80,500, and that will complete the work. In the main estimates o!f 1904-5 we had $25,500, which left the balance of $5,000,
Rapide Plat canal-enlargement of upper entrance, $4,200.
'Mr. EMiMiBRSON. This completesi the work.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 'The final estimate for the whole Work was $81,500. There wag paid up to the 30th of November, 1904, $19,063.40. That left a balance due of $2,437.52, which, added to the drawback of $1,268.53 makes $3,705.05, which with the engineer's staff salaries, $500, makes $4,200.


John Graham Haggart: Who are the contractors ?


Mr. EMMBRSON. P. H.: Gilbert was the contractor. The original contract was let in 1900. There rwere three tenders, and Mr. Gilbert's was the lowest.
Soulanges canal-steel bridge at power house, $500 ; construction, $36,500 ; total, $37,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The $500 is to cover the additional cost of the superstructure. $4,000 was voted In the main estimates, and the total cost will be $4,500. The $36,500 is a balance due to Manning & Macdonald, who had a contract for construction. The contractors are making claims against the department, hut this is all that the department recognizes.


John Graham Haggart: What was Manning & Macdonald's total contract ?
Mr. EMMEiRSION. The total payments on the 13th section to the 31st of December, 1904, amounted- to $682,407.75, -that is covering a period of years. The alnount remaining unpaid is $34,182.52, making the total amount about $717,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell us how that compares with the estimated cost by the department when the contract was entered into ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is in excess of the original estimate.


Mr. HAGG  ART@: Ho'w much ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My engineer cannot give me that amount.


John Graham Haggart: Is it more than double?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Somewhere in the vicinity of $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: It must be more than that. The amount expended on this contract is in the neighbourhood of $720,000. That would leave the estimated cost by the department $670,000. It would be interesting to the House to see how near the actual cost of 'construction came to the estimate by the engineers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: (I have not got that information, and my chief engineer tells me he does not remember what' the original estimate was. It was an estimate made many years ago, 'I am not personally familiar with it, but in the judgment of one of the 'officials the cost was' between $50,000 and $60,000 in excess of the original estiJ mate.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I suppose the hon. gentleman would not object to furnishing that estimate at a later date ?
Mr. BMMiERi&ON. Certainly not.
Welland canal-to deepen portion of long level, $52,000.


John Graham Haggart: How it is that the estimate was exceeded this' year ?
M*r. BMMERSON. It was estimated that we would expend about $150,000 this year, hut the contractors made greater progress than estimated and it requires $52,000 to continue the work and pay the drawback up to the end of the current year. It is

estimated that the two months' 'work will amount to $25,000 for each month, and there is a drawback of $10,000, making $60,000 in all. We have on hand $8,000 of the $150,000, so that the amount required is $52,000.


John Graham Haggart: Does this finish it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: With what is in the main estimates, this item of $52,000 Will finish the whole contract, so my chief engineer informs met
' Mr. HAGGAET. How much will you have in your lowest water navigation on the long level ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At normal level we will have seventeen feet.


John Graham Haggart: But at low water ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Fifteen feet.


John Graham Haggart: That is a foot deeper than the navigation on the locks ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What do you make the total expenditure on that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Graham Haggart: That does not cover all the expenditure in' deepening the long level?


Mr. EMM ERSON.: No, there was expended up to the 31st December, 1904, $390,270 on this long level.


John Graham Haggart: Then this is an expenditure of $700,000 for the purpose of putting this level to what it ought to have been originally when built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Graham Haggart: With the amount to be expended?
Mr. BMMIERSO'N. About $540,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When will the work be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is supposed to complete the work within this fiscal year.
Trent canal-to complete survey, $25,000 ; damages by flooding, $7,000 ; $32,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister give us a concise account of the two different lmes-the survey line to Port Hope and the line following the Trent river down, and which he thinks is the most advantageous ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have surveyed three lines, one to Cobourg, one to Port Hope the other to Trenton. The final report giving a comparison of the different routes has not been received. The work is not yet completed. In order to meet the liabilities incurred during this current year, we will require $25,000 for the surveys on the Trent Valley system. I am not in a position to give to the committee even the judgment of the engineer, in consequence of Mr. EMMERSON.
the survey not being completed and a final report not having been made. This matter was started by the department with an open mind, and I hope to have an exhaustive and thorough report from the independent engineer-a gentleman of eminence in his profession-and as soon as that report is received, H shall lay it on the table.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How much has been expended on the survey thus far ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Up to the 1st April, $16,259.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I should judge that the hon. minister has had the reports of his own engineers on the different routes ; and there has been a survey of that portion of the canal which was' intended to suit the people in North York. What was the result of that survey ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the report from the engineer. We have had reports in the department with respect to the different routes, and these have been laid before parliament from time to time. This has not been laid before parliament. There was a general complaint on the part of the different parties interested or the different' committees that, these surveys were not exhaustive in all instances, and I have even heard it alleged by hon. members in this House that sometimes the engineers who had made these surveys did not do so with an open mind, that they were biased and I promised the House last session that a survey would be made by engineers who would stand entirely indifferent as respects the different communities or localities interested, and in pursuance of that promise tins survey was commenced. I am not in a position to furnish the House with the information inasmuch as the report has not been presented as the work is not completed.


John Graham Haggart: There is in the department the report of the engineer in charge of the Trent canal who had surveyed both routes, and his report was strongly in favour of the Bay of Quinte or Trenton route. The minister has had no report since that from the engineer in charge of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The report from the independent engineer has not yet come in.


John Graham Haggart: Is an engineer at present employed by the government for the purpose ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, Mr. Watt was employed to survey the proposed routes, the Port Hope route, the Cobourg route, the Trenton route and at the other end, the Simcoe-Georgian bay route and the Aurora route.


John Graham Haggart: Have you had any report on the Aurora route ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not yet; there is no final report as to the result of the surveys.


John Graham Haggart: When will the other' lift lock he finished to enable them to get into the waters of Lake Simeoe ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be completed for the opening of navigation next season.


John Graham Haggart: Then there is to be continuous navigation for what length, the whole of Lake Simeoe and down to where V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Down below Peterborough to Rice lake.


Uriah Wilson: When were the surveys authorized by the government to Cobourg and Port Hope ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At the last session when a vote of parliament was asked.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose you had come to a decision before you asked for money to survey these routes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: To make all possible surveys and take into consideration the whole question, to furnish such evidence as would be of Value in finally determining the route to be adopted.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With reference to the November campaign had Mr. Aylesworth any authority from the department to tell the people in the riding that the Trent Valley canal would go through Port Hope ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was not even aware that Mr. Aylesworth made any such statement. I might mention also that my attention was called by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) to the possibility of a route by Brighton and I gave instructions to have that investigated and if it was found at all feasible to have it surveyed.


John Graham Haggart: I think that now the elections are all over the department might accept the opinion that was given by the engineer in charge, that there is no doubt whatever that the only practicable and feasible route is the Trenton route, and that you should use all the money you have on it in the construction of the canal instead of spending it on useless surveys.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no doubt my hon. friend is sincere but I have heard words uttered by my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Ward) who is not, I am sorry to see, in his place, that are entirely contrary to the views expressed by my hon. friend. There are differences of opinion and I should hope to have such information placed before me as would enable me to form some judgment of my own and I shall be very pleased to coincide with either my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) or the hon. gentleman from Durham (Mr. Ward).


John Graham Haggart: I am .only forming my opinion on the engineer's report.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When does the minister expect a report of these surveys ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: We ask in the main estimates $24,000 and we are now asking to complete $12,000. This amount is to cover the payment of drawback, increase in quantities and extra work for Cote St. Paul and Brewster's bridges. There was an Increase, the bulk of it on earth excavation. The material was found to be of a very unfavourable nature. There was also an increase in the amount of cribwork. A portion of last year's vote lapses. This work was done by contract, Quinlan & Robertson are the contractors. This completes the work. One of these bridges is at Cote St. Paul, and the other called Brewster's bridge. They both replace old bridges.


Mr. DANIEL.: What is the object of separating vote 51 from vote 53, seeing that they both refer to the Lachine canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: One is capital, the other is current expenses.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Give us gome idea of the extent of the enlargement of the canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These were bridges across the Lachine canal, new bridges replacing old ones that had become decayed, and the opening was widened.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The words are ' enlargements and improvements.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was for widening and opening the canal. This work is done by contract.


John Graham Haggart: How much does the cost exceed the estimate of the department when the contract was entered into?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expenditure in connection witlr this work up to the 1st of April, was $15S,882. We are asking for $12,000 more. I have not the exact figures, but there was some excess.


John Graham Haggart: The contract was based upon a lot of items.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was a schedule contract. There were two contracts, both relating to bridges. One contract was let to Quinlan & Robertson, that is the one at C6te St. Paul bridge, and the other was let to John Quinlan. The excess over the estimate was about $12,000 on the two contracts, and that was largely due to the character of the excavation.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The bridge at C6te St. Paul was an ordinary wooden bridge, has it been changed into a steel bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are there two locks at C6te St. Paul, or only one ? Was the old one enlarged ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The old one was enlarged and the span was increased in consequence. The old bridge was necessarily a shorter bridge, and in consequence of the enlargement the old lock had to be increased in length.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister know what is the size of the new lock made where the old lock was? Is it large enough to receive ocean vessels, as it was proposed to make it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are now 270 feet in length, and they were 245 feet. The depth of water is 14 feet on the mitre sill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was that contract let by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. It is a schedule contract, and is work that necessarily had to be done in the interest of the canal. The estimated cost of the whole work when these two slope walls are finally completed is $235,000. But this work has necessarily to be done within a very short time while the canal Is unwatered, in the spring. So much is done each season. It is done by tender and contract, and the lowest tender has been accepted in all cases.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That must have been done during the last month when the water was out of the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is right.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How is it that there was not enough money to finish it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are only asking for $13,000 during this year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is additional to the amount in the main estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the main estimates it was $13,000. It was expected that we might not do very much during this year but the conditions were favourable and* we instructed them to do the work.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will that complete the work ?	-


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it will go on for five or six years. A -certain proportion of the canal will be sloped each year under the specifications.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is only at the locks it is sloped with cut stone ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is all along the whole bank of the canal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is not all done in cut stone ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not cut stone ; it is dry masonry and rip-rapping.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it done by the yard ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the cubic yard.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much is it by the cubic yard ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For dry masonry $5.50, and for rip-rap repairing $2.40.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this season's work finished ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That portion that is ordinarily under water is attended to when the canal is unwatered in the spring, and from now until the 1st of July that which is above water will be attended to. The total estimated cost of that during this current year is $45,000. We only took an appropriation in the main estimates for $13,000, and therefore we are asking for the balance for the current fiscal year of $32,-
000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How can work of that kind be done by contract ? I understand that it is generally done by the employees of the government and those who work on the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How can you carry on the work for five or six years by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They tender at schedule prices, so much per cubic yard for concrete, so much per cubic yard for dry masonry and so much for rip-rapping.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is always the same contractor ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the first work that these gentlemen have done.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes ; the contract was let -some time last summer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: To be done this spring?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A certain portion of it to be done this spring, and next year there will be another portion of it done.


John Graham Haggart: Was not most of this work done when the canal was constructed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work became necessary by reason of the deepening of the canal. When they deepened the canal the old work was destroyed ; it broke down.


John Graham Haggart: This is renewal work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Practically renewal work caused by the deepening of the canal.


John Graham Haggart: How is the work standing where it was put in after the canal was deepened ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is standing very well, so the chief engineer says.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long is it since tile Lachine canal was deepened ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About nine years.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has this work been going on ever since ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; there has been a *certain proportion of this work going on since then. Delormier had the contract.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand Delormier was furnishing the stone. He had a quarry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: His contract was for the other as well. He had to furnish the stone because he had a contract for the other.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: On what part of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Between CSte St. Paul and Lachine.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that part finished ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That part is not finished. The south side has not been touched.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It may be kept on like that for ten years more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be a pretty large sum if we expended it all at one time, but it will perfect the canal to have the work done.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It . costs $15,000 this year, and it will be about the same thing next year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that for the work that was let under contract to Quinlan & Robertson it is estimated that the total will be about $235,000. They are doing $-15,000 worth of it this year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That means about five years ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Is this rip-rapping from the top of the rock excavation, or does it go down to the bottom ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It goes down to the bottom.


John Graham Haggart: Rip-rapping at the bottom where it is in rock excavation ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The work is only a few feet on the top.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They lay a concrete foundation in the bottom where there is rock, and this is in order to sustain the slope of the sides above.


John Graham Haggart: Rip-rapping at the side of the canal generally commences from the top of the rock excavation. There is a great deal of rock excavation on the Lachine canal, and if the rip-rapping was put in properly the deepening of the canal would not affect the rip-rap at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As a matter of fact, I am informed that it did affect it, and that it fell down.


John Graham Haggart: It should not have done so. You can deepen down the prism of the canal and the rip-rapping should only commence from the top of the rock work. It must have been very badly done, or there must have been something wrong about it, because the rip-rapping should never go down to the bottom of the rock excavation. It should only commence at the top. It is extremely curious. To my knowledge, a lot of the excavation for the Lachine canal is in rock, and that the rip-rapping should go down to the bottom is impossible. Riprapping commences at the top of the prism or of the rock excavation ; and if it were put in properly, the deepening of the canal would not interfere with it at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I understand it, in some places it was found to be necessary. In other places it only goes from the top of the rock excavation, as my hon. friend very properly says. In all cases where it was possible to do it in that way it was done. The chief engineer tells me that in certain places it was -found to be necessary to go to the bottom and to lay a concrete foundation.
Cornwall' canal-to purchase and fit up concreting apparatus, $2,400.


John Graham Haggart: What do you want this on the Cornwall canal for?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It Is for all the St. Lawrence canals from Prescott to Cornwall. The total estimated cost Is $6,230 and we previously voted $4,100.


John Graham Haggart: Does that include a crushing apparatus?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A boiler, engine, stone crusher, concrete mixer, two derricks with engines and the erection and installation.


John Graham Haggart: It will cost as much to remove it from one place to another as to do the work.
' Lachine canal-underpinning wall, basin No.
2, $10,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This wall was falling in and the work can only be done when the canal is unwatered. The estimate was $17,000 ; wre took a vote of $7,000 and we ask for the balance.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the engineer's estimate for the whole work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $17,000 and we previously took $7,000 thinking we would only do that amount of work up to the end of the fiscal year, but it was found possible to complete the work. The officers of the department found, they were wrong as to their expectations.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the work completed now?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How was the estimate of the department wrong?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The items are as follows : excavation, 2,000 yards at $1.15 per yard; concrete filling, 2,000 yards at $4.50 per yard; timber for supports, 2,000 lineal feet at 25 cents ; planking for facing, $416 ; cement, $4,000; engineering, $784; total, $17,000.	.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has become of that timber?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The plank facing would be utilized and the timber for the supports would be in the stores of the canal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was a matter of complaint in the Curran bridge case that there was a great deal of timber used for the same purpose and it disappeared.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This might disappear iij the same way, but there are officials there to look after it and it will not disappear if they do their duty.


John Graham Haggart: This $10,000 completes the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that winds it up.
Widening tail race-to pay contractor O. L. Henault for extra time, $514.60.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How is it that this poor contractor did not get paid ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total payment up to May 1, 1904, final estimate was $9,234.60. The contractors claimed a much larger amount than the vote, but the chief engineer allowed $514.60. The following are the items allowed by the chief engineer: cutting down and removing piers, $180; assisting government employees, $88.50 ; furnishing 34 yards of displacement, $45 ; supplying 22 tons of crushed stone, $24.80 ; supplying 22 tons of Potsdam stone, $33 ; iron, $53.80.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The appropriation is for extra time and according to your statement you are paying for work and material?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That must be a clerical error.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You had better change the wording of the item then.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will change it to ' extra work.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The engineer passed on this amount and decided it was correct?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but of course the contractor put in a claim for more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have no doubt about that; they generally ask more expecting to get less.
Improvements to flume on power house, $3,500.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is this for?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work is rendered necessary on account of the proposed operation of the locks by electric power. The present power will probably be sufficient to drive all the machinery.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Since when have the locks worked by electricity ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are only getting ready for that. This work is necessary to' enable us to do it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When will that be in
operation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We hope very shortly, some of the gates will be fitted this summer, and all of them, we hope, by October.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When you have that work done, what are you going to do with the eight or ten men who are employed on nearly every lock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know whether this will be a labour-saving machine or not. It may be necessary to dispense with the services of some of these gentlemen.


John Graham Haggart: Does the use of electricity result in a saving in expense ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It expedites the traffic. I will not say that it will be possible to dispense with the services of the men, because, while the vessels go through with greater expedition, they have to be guided in their passage, and men are necessary for that purpose.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: On the Soulanges canal there are very few men employed, and with the electric system we could dispense with half the men employed on the Lachine canal to-day. Will this apply to the old locks or only to the new ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it is found to be a success, all the locks will be operated in the same way. I do not know that the use of electricity on the Soulanges canal* has obviated the necessity of having men. The experience there is that only expedition is obtained, and not a lessening of thes cost, because men have to be constantly! on the watch as the vessels pass through.
Lachine canal-lock gates, suspension, $4,500.
Mi1. EMMERSON. This is for changing the hanging gear of the locks. The present hanging or suspension apparatus is not satisfactory, in the judgment of the officials of the department, because it is very* easily put out of gear. Stone cutting of races, protection beams, and other necessary work will cost $3,000, and iron beams for the gates will cost $1,500. There are five locks to be gated. The system adopted is the same as is used on the Ottawa canal,-which is giving every satisfaction.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has become of the invention of Mr. 'Manny ? Is it being put cm every gate ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is being put on many.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has it been found1 a success ?
iMr. EMMERSON. That 5s what the officers say.


John Graham Haggart: Is it to lock the gates after they are shut ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is it)o protect them' from vessels knocking against them.


John Graham Haggart: In going down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Going up.


John Graham Haggart: Do the vessels do anj harm to the gates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They do a great deal. We had an experience on the Welland canal where three gates were sent to glory.


John Graham Haggart: Was the vessel going up ?
IMr. EMMERSON. Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If that improvement had been on those gates, would the acciJ dent have happened ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer thinks that while it might not absolutely prevent accidents, accidents will be less likely to happen.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would it be good policy to put it on every gate ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are trying the experiment on the Eachine canal first and then will consider the advisability of asking a vote to put it on all the canals.
TO complete paving of Mill street, $2,200.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much does that cost altogether ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About $49,581.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Besides this amount V
Mr. EMMERiSON. Yes, the total Will he over $50,000.
Mr.. ARMSTRONG. Will this complete the work ?	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Is this on government property ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, the government owns Mill Street.
Chambly canal-culvert St. Theresa Island, $2,500 ; culvert at.Deneau's farm, $2,000, $4,500.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this a new culvert or repairing an old one ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a culvert on St. Theresa island, Iroquois river. There
were culverts there before. The total expenditure is $12,383. If was let by contract to ,a man named Finn, but he did not complete his contract, and the canal staff have been obliged to complete it.


John Graham Haggart: You charged it against him ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will that complete the whole thing ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the (Cost of the culvert at Denean's farm ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We expended $3,059 in 1904, and are asking now $2,000 more. The! total cost will be about $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is for the purpose! of carrying a stream under the canal.
St. Ours landing wharf, $4,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a renewal of a landing wharf below the locks, which has been in existence a very long time, and1 requires to be renewed. We require $4,500 to complete. The amount voted before was $6,000.


John Graham Haggart: How is it your engineers get so far astray in their estimates'(


Henry Robert Emmerson: The superintendent engineer reports that a certain amount off work can he done which is larger than was, expected, and on his report we ask fox' a vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will that complete the whole tiling ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Is the minister sure he did not promise, when he got the vote for $6,000 that that would complete the! work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Speaking from general custom, I would say I did not. But if the question were asked at all, I would' have asked my chief engineer and no doubt' would have answered just as he told me.


John Graham Haggart: If the minister made' the statement that $0,000 would complete and it is costing $10,000-


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would apologize on the spot.
Trent canal-completion of work of lowering floor of lock, $2,500.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is this in connection with the new lift-lock?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the lock below Peterborough which was built when I the canal was originally built.


John Graham Haggart: That would be about seventy years ago. Is this one of the old locks that is now owned by the Ontario government ? Is it one of the locks not conveyed to the Ontario government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. This is right at the town of Peterborough.


John Graham Haggart: Will this render this lock available for the present system of navigation proposed on the Trent canal?
Mi\ EMMERSON. That is the object of it.
To complete new dam at Peterborough lock,


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to complete the new dam. The work is let by contract to a Mr. Burnet. $2,955 was expended up to the 31st of December, 1904, and this is to complete it. We asked $7,000.


John Graham Haggart: This $2,000 will complete it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total cost?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 

To pay claim Geo. Matthews Company for damage caused by water, $600.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This amount is to pay a firm at Peterborough damages for injury to their goods caused by the raising of the waters of the Otonabee river in consequence of the government's works in building a new dam at Whitlaw's rapids. The cellars were flooded and a quantity of fertilizing material and bacon damaged. The claim was investigated by the engineer and was substantiated by his report. The matter was referred to the Justice Department, and they advised a settlement and it was deemed advisable to pay the price demanded rather than have litigation in view of the opinion of -the Department of Justice.


John Graham Haggart: One would think that the engineers in building the dam would know what damage would be caused above it and would have advised the people to remove the goods.
St. -Peter's canal-dredging, $1,500.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is this contract let by tender and if so, what is the price per yard?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it is not by tender. This is down in Gape Breton where it is almost impossible to get a dredge. There are none there and we had to convey one from Sydney. We paid so much per day for the dredge which we got from the Dominion Coal Company and the conveyance and cost of the work has certainly exceeded the estimates made by the engineers.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do you pay for the towing?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How much?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a dispute. We paid $68 a day for the dredge ; that included the towing.
Mi-. ARMSTRONG. Can the minister give us an idea of the amount of material that was moved by this dredge?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, we have no such estimate.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was the price so much an hour?


Henry Robert Emmerson: So much per day.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the depth and length of the clay that was removed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were two shoals at the St. Peter's canal which obstructed its navigation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What was the extent of it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were about $3,000 to $4,000 expended.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the department satisfied that the work is done properly?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, the only dispute is as to the time occupied in taking the dredge from Sydney to the canal. There is a dispute as to the number of days. The work was- necessary in the fall of the year and they contended that the time occupied in transporting the dredge should be included, the ten days occupied in that way. It was finally settled, the officers of tlie department agreeing upon the matter ; it will cost, including the towing, about $3,500.


John Graham Haggart: The amount you got last year was $2,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, we are asking more.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Who has the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was under the supervision of the man who had charge of the canal. The Dominion Coal Company rented the dredge.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was the Dominion Coal Company the owner of the dredge?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: And the department paid the coal company?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work was done under the instruction of Mr. Devereaux. He is an official of the department, and has charge of that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was the work last year done under the same conditions ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was all done last year.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was there any advertising for tenders ?	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is nothing in the shape of a dredge there at all, the nearest dredge would he in the city of St. John. The government have no dredge at their disposal.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That would be the converse case to the Port Arthur case, where there were dredges and nowhere else, and no advertisements were published.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Inquiries were made. This work was very urgent, navigators were making complaints, and the officials of the department had instructions from me to make inquiries in all directions to see what could be done towards getting a dredge to do this work. We could not find a dredge in any of the departments, and we were finally obliged to take this dredge at Sydney belonging to the Dominion Coal Company.
Carillon and Grenville canal-guide piers, $1,017.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These guide piers are at the head of these two canals. The contract was let in 1901 to Martineau Sons & Le-moine. The work is completed. The amount of the contract was $19,788.55, and this Is a balance to complete.


John Graham Haggart: Is this for extras ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it is a part of the contract.


John Graham Haggart: It is a wonder you did not ask for the amount last year to finish the contract.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will explain. These contractors had a claim in the department, this balance was in dispute, and this amount was finally adjusted by the chief engineer.


John Graham Haggart: This is over and above the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it is included in the contract; but the contractors made a greater claim. In the final estimate they put in claims, as a rule, for more work, and there is always a dispute as to the quantity. A dispute arose in connection with this contract, and it was finally adjusted by the chief engineer, and under his certificate $1,017 was agreed upon.
Welland canal-to pay Stephen Vanderburg for time lost, Injured while on duty, two-thirds time, 196 days at $1.75 per day, $228.86.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This man was engaged at the Port Maitland lock and was injured by falling into the lock, on the 6th of August last, and is still laid, up in consequence.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was the special work he was employed at ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were repairing the floor of the lock while it was unwatered.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was it because of any negligence of bis fellow-servants, or was it his own fault ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I believe it has been the custom for years to give indemnities in similar cases. The matter was submitted to me, and, in view of the course that had been followed, I decided to ask for a vote of parliament for the amount. I am not acquainted with the details, I could not say just what kind of work he was doing, or as to whose fault it was.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not finding fault with this, but I just wish to know the policy of the government, if, when a man is injured while at his work, they pay an indemnity without bothering to inquire, like an uncharitable corporation would, as to whether it was his fault or the fault of somebody else.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We do not pay. We inquire and then submit the matter to parliament. This has not been paid. It cannot be paid until parliament votes the amount. Of course, as I understand it, the custom has been to look into each individual case and if a man is injured on duty an allowance of a certain percentage is granted unless' it is the fault of the la-, bourer or workman. In that case it is not considered.	i


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And there is no discrimination between Liberals and Conserva-vatives ?	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is granted irrespective of whether there is negligence attributed to the government or not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is granted if the man is not negligent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it is n mere accident ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it is a mere accident.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You do not consider it necessary to make out a prima facie casei?
Miscellaneous-salaries of extra clerks, copyists and messengers, other than those who have passed the Civil Service examination, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount you have expended this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 

Lachine canal-repairs, $10,205.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where would these repairs be ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are several items that arose in connection with the working of the canal and the making of repairs for the season. I can give the dif-

ferent items. We replaced wooden by cast iron mooring posts on locks and approaches at a cost of $4,230.	i


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That must be an unforeseen expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These were repairs of which the department had not been advised at the time the main estimates were prepared.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much was there In the main estimates for this work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then that would be $65,000 instead of $55,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of repairs are these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In addition to the posts there were the following:	Underpinning crib at lower approach to lock 4, raising Wellington bridge, removing and renewing broken pivot, four 150 ton hydraulic jacks, four 25 ton hydraulic jacks for raiilsing large bridges, building line fence and sidewalks at Cote St. Paul, clearing site of Wellington basin leased to the Moorehouse Goal Company, removing dross and stone stored for repairs and concrete wall on the south side of the tail race of the waste weir at Cote St. Paul.
Mr. HAGO AItT. Is that our own waste weir or the 'waste weir from the mill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is one of the waste weirs at Cote St. Paul in connection with the lock.
Beauharnois canal-repairs, $4,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are the government going to keep that canal In operation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have to keep it in operation. It is used to a certain extent and while it is not very important as a canal it seems to be necessary to keep it up. There are some water-powers on it. I have not bean able to reach the conclusion that the canal should be abolished as a canal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has my bon. friend been approached in regard to utilizing the water-powers on the Canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter has been up from time to time.. There have been applications made to the department from a good many sources, from eoi'porations and individuals, for water rights. I have not been able to determine the question or look into it as I would like to. I do not know what course should be pursued.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are a few vessels passing through it. It is not a very costly work, as I understand, as there are very few men employed on it. It is important


Henry Robert Emmerson: ,*
however to keep it in repair as long as it is not costly because I can see that before long, if the hon. gentleman examines the subject, he may come to the conclusion that it would be a good thing to grant the right to use the water-powers. It would be an immense water-power, because there is about 80 feet of a chute. The canal is not in operatioit to-day to any great extent but it requites to be kept in repair because otherwise it would go to decay very soon.
St. Peter's canal-repairs, $500.


John Graham Haggart: Where is the other item for canals ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend want to discuss it now at this stage ? I expect to have it in the supplementaries for the coming year.


John Graham Haggart: It may be discussed on the supplementaries for the coming year.
Farran's Point canal-to complete the acetylene gas plant, $300.


John Graham Haggart: Surely you are not putting acetylene on this canal where you have so much power to generate electricity ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is isolated; this was done some time ago and the vote is to complete.


John Graham Haggart: Why, two or three miles of wire would connect it with the other canals. It seems to be an absurd expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was not done in my day.


John Graham Haggart: Is it to light the canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then I would advise the minister to fling it out and to connect with wires from his electric plant.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certainly will look into it; it is five miles from the Cornwall canal and about ten from the Ilapide Plat.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has a gentleman named Painchaud, of Montreal, written to the Minister of Railways with regard to an invention he has for making acetylene gas
safer?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have had several ap-lications respecting improvements, but I do not remember the names.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that Mr. Painchaud's process will prevent the accidents which have recently occurred?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Application has been made to the department in connection with the lighting of ears on the Intercolonial Railway, stating that this improvement is better than Pintsch gas and that the Canadian Pacific Railway were installing it.

Welland canal-lowering head of lock No. 1,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the necessity for this work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The breast wall and foundation at the head of lock No. 1, was originally built about one foot too high, and it requires to be lowered in order to
maintain fourteen feet navigation in the event of the retaining wall between the old and new canal giving out, as is very likely to happen at any time. The estimate is $10,000 and after the work is completed the retaining wall will not be required.


Mr. HAG  CART@: Is that the total amount?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the total estimated cost.


John Graham Haggart: Did we not have a vote for this before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is down at Port Dalhousie. Is not the government spending money every year to keep that retaining wall in repair ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had to repair the retaining wall as long as it remained, but now we are going to abandon that wall.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much per year has it cost to repair that retaining wall?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is considerably out of repair now and before it gives out we want to do this work so as to obviate the necessity of any further repairs.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are one or two items for the Department of Agriculture which I would like to get passed to-night.


John Graham Haggart: We did a good night's work for the purpose of getting through at 11 o'clock, and the explanations of the Minister of Agriculture are generally so brief that he might keep us here till 1 o'clock.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will undertake to make my remarks very brief.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There are several gentlemen absent who did not expect the agricultural estimates to come up.


John Graham Haggart: This is about the most interesting subject that comes before us and we would like a full House to hear the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. PATERSON.: I have two or three small items in the customs.


John Graham Haggart: Your items pass any time as a matter of course.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We can not make fish of one and flesh of another.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


John Graham Haggart: What are you going to do on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: After private Bills we hope to proceed with the Autonomy Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11-05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 22, 1905.