1908-04-24

LANDS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution :
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Logan,
Greenway,
Maclean (York, C.), Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), Schell (Glengarry), Gordon,
Knowles,
McLean (Huron, S.), Fielding,
Dyment,
Macdonald,
Smith (Nanaimo), German,
Harty,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), McCarthy (Simcoe), Sinclair,	*
Cyr,
Roche (Halifax), Black,
Crawford,
Law,
Clarke,
Devlin,
Lemieux,
Opposition.
Lefurgey,
Tisdale,
Northrup,
Ganong,
Barker,
Kemp,
Roche (Marquette), Owen,
MacLaren,
Beattie,
Stanfield,
F oster,
Osier
Hughes (Victoria), Haggart,
MacLean (York, S.), Porter,
Lake,
Ward,
Pringle,
01&T6
Smith (Wentworth), Marshall,
Lalor,
Forget,
Resolved, that the Minister . of Finance may, under the authority of the Governor in Council, pay to the proper authorities of each of "the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, out of the Assurance Fund formed under the Territories Real Property Act, chapter 26, of the statutes of 1886, and continued under the Land Titles Act, 1894, chapter 28, of the statutes of the year, so much thereof as has arisen from transacti9ms relating to lands now within such province.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wish to rise to a question of privilege relating to a letter written by Dr. Nadeau, medical officer of the immigration branch at Quebec, which I will read before the House because he apparently so desires. Dr. Nadeau is under the impression that in the remarks which I offered the other day upon the question of 1 immigration I did cast insinuations upon

the integrity of the medical men of Quebec who are immigration officers. Here is what he writes to me:
Quebec, April 21, 1908. My dear Lavergne,-My attention has just been called to a report which ' I/Aetion Sociale ' of the 18th instant has given of a speech purpoted to have been lately delivered by yon in the House upon the question of immigration.
Following is the report of ' L'Action Sociale:'



THE SALVATION ARMY.

[Stage Direction]
I challenge the minister, said Mr. Lavergne, to have an inquiry made into the Salvation Army and the immigrants it has brought into Quebec, and to ask the doctors at Quebec to give their evidence; but I hope this time the government will not stop the mouths of the witnesses who give evidence. There has been collusion between the officers at Quebec and the Salvation Army and I have it from officers who receive the immigrants at Quebec that before they pass the medical examination these immigrants go to the barracks and get the password of the Salvation Army at Quebec, and then go back and answer the doctor. The minister cannot contradict that, if he looks at the correspondence produced.
Mr. OLIVER.: The hon. member is making a great many statements which he puts forward as statements of fact. The statement that immigrants coming out under the auspices of the Salvation Army are treated any different from any other immigrants who come out, so far as my knowledge goes, is absolutely incorrect; and if he can by any means demonstrate that it is the fact we will have a change in the immigration service at Quebec immediately.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All last summer the immigrants brought out by the Salvation Army were sent to the barracks and there they got the password from the Salvation Army officers to answer the doctors of the Immigration Department. Not only was a complaint laid before the Interior Department here, but Mr. Doyle and the immigration doctors at Quebec, I think Dr. Nadeau and Dr. Potvin were advised, that if there were one hundred Salvation Army immigrants, they would pass before the doctor first, but if less, they would go to the barracks first. That is the statement I have to make and on it I would like the department to throw more light.
Dr. Nadeau adds:
So then, the Salvation Army of England, exclusively, devotes its attention in the recruiting of immigrants, without trying to locate them, relying as to that upon its representatives at Quebec, whose business office is under the same roof as the office of the government agent himself, where all examinations are passed, medical and civil.
As a rule, those representatives keep a list of employment offers to several mechanics or to farmers far in excess of the number of arrivals. Thus thev are able to direct sys-tematicallv and more safely these people to their destination.
The immigrants who do not come under the Mr. A. LAVERGNE
auspices of the Salvation Army are supposed to have received at the time of their departure from Europe the necessary directions that will enable them to reach their destination ; at least, that is mentioned on their tickets. So that they can go directly from the medical inspectors to the civil inspectors, who require them to say what trade or calling thev follow, and where they are going.
At first, immigrants coming out under the auspices of the Salvation Army, having passed the medicad examination, had to go to the barracks to learn what their destination was and then came back to comply with all the requirements of the civil examination.
That system gave rise to many inconven-iencies, above all it greatlv delayed the inspection. It was then decided that the immigrants would go to the barracks first in order to learn what their destination is and should afterwards pass the medical examination, so as to be able to give all the necessary information, when passing the civil examination.
This rule was to apply only if there were less than one hundred Salvation Army immigrants. Otherwise, the Salvation Army officers, for convenience sake, volunteered to attend at the arrival of the steamer at Rimouski, in order to acquaint all the passengers with their destination, so that everything should be ready when they landed at Quebec.
Neither Mr. Doyle or the doctors did ever receive from Ottawa any directions as to that; but the representative of the Salvation Army the immigration agent and the doctors came to an understanding. Besides, all those particulars of the administration are settled in the same way. Our instructions concerning the medical examination of the immigrants admit of no relaxation in favour of anybody, neither for the Salvation Army people nor for any other immigrants. Moreover, I am at a loss to understand what password could be given to the diseased immigrants, so as to conceal their shortcomings, when they come to pass the medical examination.
Dr. Nadeau's letter shows that what I stated the other day is entirely true, namely, that the immigrants who come out under the auspices of the Salvation Army are treated differently from other immigrants. The officers of the Interior Department at Quebec confer with the representatives of the Salvation Army. I said nothing else.
I never intended to cast any reflection upon the integrity of the medical officers at the port of Quebec. I am satisfied that they all discharge their duty. This I did say and I say again : the immigrants that come out under the auspices of the Salvation Army receive a different treatment; the officers of the Army that take care of those immigrants are located in the same building as the immigration agency. When they come out, they do not know where to go, having all been inscribed by their officers as farm labourers: then the representatives of the Army direct them where to go, and as the majority of them are mechanics they do not go out and work upon farms, not-

withstanding the policy of the government, as laid down by the minister.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-MAJOR HODGINS.

Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: Mr. Speaker,
I have received from Mr. Parent, the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the following papers, which I desire to lay before the House :
The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, Ottawa.	.
Office of the Chairman,
April 23, 1908.
Memorandum to the R;t. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister.
A letter from Major Hodgins, lately our district engineer, at Kenora, Ontario, has been given wide publicity in the press, namely by the Manitoba ' Free Press' and the Ottawa ' Morning Citizen,' where it was commented upon.	.
There are insinuations and statements in it that should not be allowed to pass unanswered.	,
Without laying anv specific charges, Mr. Hodgins makes vague, general accusations that are absolutely groundless. It is plain that the object in view is to cause us annoyance, without any regard to truth or public interest	[DOT]
If Major Hodgins has had in his possession anv evidence of irregularities or wrong-doing, he should have submitted such to the commissioners. As a corporate body, and being the first concerned, it would have been our dutv to investigate the matter promptly, rl he'had done so. and the commissioners had refused to look into his charges, then he might have be.en justified m issuing statements to the public. There is nothing in Major Hodgins* allegations to indicate that he is even now in possession of any such evidence.	.	.
Taking up seriatim the allegations m Major Hodgins' letter as printed m the
^l^That the government is paying padded accounts for the work done, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific people are making no objection because they merely have to pay the added interest.	,
This statement is without any fondation. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company make objections when they see fit, and these are looked into at once with due care.
2.	They (the commissioners) wanted to change iny ideas, based on a good many years experience, on the construction to the classification that is allowed to contractors in
^This statement is also without foundation. The commissioners never, at any time, requested Major Hodgins to adopt in his district any classification not in accordance with the contract and specifications. As to the classification in Quebec, it was looked over and found to be agreeing with these and therefore perfectly regular.
3.	If Mr. Poulin, the engineer appointed by Mr. Parent to replace me on the western district. has allowed the introduction of a classification similar to that allowed in Quebec, this will account for the increase in the estimated cost of the line. If this increase
amounts to $3,000,000 or $1,000,000 it is time the public demanded some explanation.
Such hypothetical statements of course amount to nothing at all. In the first place, Mr. Poulin was not appointed by Mr. Parent, the chairman, who did not even suggest it, but by the 'board, on the recommendation of the chief engineer, because he was considered to be the best rran for the position and to take hold of th< work of organizing the district, which had been left in such a had shape by Major Hodgins. At this point it may be well to remark that classification comes from the chief engineer and not the chairman or the commissioners as Major Hodgins puts it.
Since leaving our employment, Major Hodgins has talked a good deal openly, m fact much more than professional dignity and the sense of justice would seem usuallv to permit.
It is time, we feel, in justice to ourselves and to the public, before whom there is an evident desire to misrepresent the facts, to call a halt and make it necessary for the accuser to bring facts to substantiate his charges.
You will find, attached, newspaper clippings in reference to Major Hodgins' letter, and all correspondence relating to the circumstances of his dismissal; also a letter from our chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, on the same subject.
In conclusion the commissioners would respectfully request, as they do not wish to remain under the aspersion which such reports cast oil them, that the whole matter be referred to and looked into by a committee ot the House, and that Major Hodgins be assigned to appear before the same to repeat his charges in a specific manner in order to substantiate them if he can. Then an opportunity will be given right minded people to see where the truth is and if public interest would have'been better served by keeping an engineer who ignored the specifications or by replacing him, as was done, by one who will follow them.	,
The commissioners trust their request will receive early attention.



S. N. PARENT,

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
The communication of the chief engineer referred to in this letter Is as follows :
Ottawa, April 23, 1908. Sirs,-In regard to the article which appeared in the Manitoba Free Press of the 18tb instant and the editorial in the Morn ing Citizen' of the 22nd instant referring to a letter from Major E. A. Hodgins, now of Victoria, B.C., I beg to state that as far as I know no estimates or accounts for work done have been padded. The Grand Trunk Pacific have made from time to time some general objections as to classifications m dlstrmt 1 >
but until after the dates above referred to no details giving actual points where such over-classification was claimed were submitted to me. As you are aware I on the 11th and 30th January, issued special circulars to the district engineers, giving my interpretation of clauses 34, 35 and 36 of our general specifications accompanied by a diagram explanatory of same, and I have letters from the district engineers in districts A, B, and F where actual grading was being proceeded with, stating that my interpretation had been and is being adhered to. My letter of the 19th of September last to the chairman, gives
[Stage Direction]
my reasons for suggesting a change in district engineers in district F.
Your obedient servant,
_	.	HUGH LUMSDEN.
*the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
In view of the request contained in this letter, I beg to inform my hon. friend and the House that on Monday next I will move that the matter be referred to a special committee for investigation.

Mr. BERGERON.: I beg to renew my question of yesterday as to whether a report has been made by Mr. Gaudet who has conducted the Sorel investigation and to ask the minister to bring the report down to the House if it is ready ?


Mr. BRODEUR.: Mr. Gaudet came to Ottawa the other day to complete the investigation. I hope the report will be ready for Monday.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. FOSTER.: Has the Finance Minister any information to give us with respect to the Insurance Bill which was brought down some weeks ago ? It was the subject of more or less investigation in the Banking and Commerce Committee, but since that time little has been heard of it.


Mr. FIELDING.: In view of the very extended hearing which took place before the Committee on Banking and Commerce and the numerous statements made, I desired that some time should elapse before proceeding with the Bill, in order that the officials of the Insurance Department might have an opportunity of studying all that was said. We hope at an early date to make a further move in the matter.



QUEBEC BRIDGE COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Has the Minister of Railways any further information in regard to the printing of the report of the Quebec Bridge Commission ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I made inquiry concerning that report, and I believe that the report proper with the appendices will be printed in a very short time. The drawings and the other parts of the report will be a little later.
I might say in this connection that I propose to move at the proper time that more than the ordinary number of copies shall be printed on account of the very many inquiries we have had for the report. We have had several cables from Europe, and the High Commissioner has informed us that he has had a great manv inquiries. In order to supply that demand which I


Wilfrid Laurier: think we should do for the general information of the public, we will have to send quite a large number there. It strikes me that it would be very proper that at least one or two copies of the report should be placed in each public library and that every university library ought to have two or three copies for general information.
\I ith this in view I propose at the proper time to move that we have a larger number printed than the regular number.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY- HILLSBOROUGH BRIDGE -THE HANEY CLAIM.

Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens).: I desire to ask whether or not the claim for extras made by Mr. Haney in connection with the construction of the Hillsborough bridge a few years ago has been allowed, or what progress has been made ?


George Perry Graham: The claim made by Mr. Haney was not all for extras. The claim would have been disposed of had it mot been for a change in chief engineer of the department which rendered it undesirable for the present chief engineer of railways and canals to deal with the accounts, they having already been dealt with by him as chief engineer of Mr. Haney, as he was at that time. The matter was referred to Mr. Schreiber who had been chief engineer, his powers being extended so that he could deal with the question of equity as well as those directly coming under his charge as chief engineer. Mr. Schreiber made an award, the amount of which, I fancy, will have to be placed in the supplementary estimates and can then be fully discussed. The papers in the case were brought down some time ago.


Alexander Martin: Can the minister tell us the amount of the award and the amount of the claims of Mr. Haney which are not for extras ?	,


George Perry Graham: The documents containing all this information have been on the table of the House for some time, or if not, they will be presented to the House. Speaking in round figures and from memory only, I believe Mr. Haney's claim was for $390,000, and the arbitrator awarded him $164,000.



SUPPLY-TIMBER LIMITS-DREDGING.

["I submit to my hon. friend's superior judgment in the matter.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed."]
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Before you -leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on two or three subjects I understood last night that the order of business to-day would be Supply, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-

ley) being taken up. I see that bon. gentleman is not in his place ; and, as in a few minutes, I wish to address a few remarks to him, I will thank the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) if he will ask the Minister of Public Works to be in his seat. Meantime, I will occupy a few minutes with another matter.
I am not at all surprised that the government, after having a number of scandals exposed during the present session in connection with timber limits, mining leases, civil service administration, dredging contracts and numerous other matters, have sent the rank and file of their supDorters hunting through the files of the departments covering the term of the Conservative administration for material to offset these scandals, if possible. We have many instances here in recent discussions of lion, gentlemen referring to matters which they could only find in the files of the departments. It is evident that a horde has been sent hunting through the files containing the records under the Conservative government to see if something could not be raked up reflecting upon the action of Conservative members of this House. A few days ago. an hon. gentleman was put up to make charges against myself. This hon. gentleman said :
I also find another member of this parliament who is known to most of you, Geo. Tay-' lo'' M.P.. who made application for friends for townships 39. 40 and 41, ranges 18, 19 and 20 west meridian, not a very small application ; he did not go in for small things.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: I immediately rose in my place and said :


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will allow me-he has been perusing the records, I presume, of the Department of the Interior, where he gets his information. I challenge him to produce an aoplic'ation signed bv me on behalf of anybody. Mr. Walter Beatv made an application in his own behalf, and I tol'wa rdi (1 his letter. The hon. gentleman cannot find anything else in the department, no application that I ever made, either on my own behalf or on behalf of anybody else. He has made a statement. I challenge him either to produce the proof or to withdraw the statement.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL.: The hon. gentleman is like the rest, he says he made an application, and gives the name of one.


George Taylor: No, I did not make an application ; I inclosed his letter in one I wrote to the minister.


Malcolm Smith Schell: That is just as good.


George Taylor: Is that a crime? It is sim-plv disgraceful for a member to get up in his place and make a charge against a mem-be" of narliament, and then either refuse to ta_ke it hack or to produce the document.
And further on :


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman said that the applications are on file; are they in the department or in the library?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I said the records were in the library.


George Taylor: Where?


Malcolm Smith Schell: In the ' Hansard.'


George Taylor: In the speech made by the late Ananias Cameron?


Mr. SPROULE.: And John Charlton.
Mr. TAY'LOR. Thev made statements, as the hon. "-entleman is making them, without anv authority
I repeat that challenge to-day-let the government search every file during the administration of the late Conservative government, and they will not find an application made by me, either on my own behalf or on behalf of anybody else for any timber limit. I happened to be in the Public Accounts Committee and was looking over one of the files that had been brought to the committee in charge of an officer of one of the departments-for members of the opposition have no rights, we are told, and a government officer was in charge of the file. I looked over it and made a precis of what the file contained. Here is a portion of it:
Lettex- dated Seixtember 2, 1903, from Latch-ford, McDongall & Daly, applying on behalf of Colin & Campbell, of Edmonton, to have department advertise a timber berth in the district of Alberta, 8 miles by 31 miles on each side of McLeod river. Berth was numbered 1096.
September 10, 1903. Letter from P. G. Iteves to Latchfoi'd, McDougall & Daly, informing them that berth 1096 should be shortly advertised.
Letter dated September JO. P. G. Keyes to Crown timber agent of Edmonton, informing him to the same effect.
September 10, letter from P. G. Keyes to E. Stewart, Department of Forestry, Ottawa, inclosing copy of advertisement for berth 1096 in district of Alberta.
There are a lot of other letters on file that do not amount to much, but after a while we come down to a letter dated Ottawa, November 11. 1903, as follows :
I hereby offer a bonus of $1,000 for timber berth No. 1096 containing "	square
miles, situated	for which public
competition is being invited, and I inclose an accepted cheque on Traders' Bank for $1,000, being amount of said bonus.
(Sgd.) JOHN GENTLES,
Kincardine, Per J. T.
On the margin is marked ' received cheque $1,000, 11-11-03.'
(Sgd.) P. R, for accountant.
This letter is marked as having been received, stamped with the Department of the Interior, Wednesday- 18th November, 1903, Timber and Mines Branch.
On the bottom of the letter is written in red ink to address letter to Hon. John Tolmie, Kincardine, Ontario.
This tender was I'eceived in an envelope bearing no post-mark, the address printed thereon being ' Timber and Mines Branch, Department of the Interior. Ottawa.'
There is no stamp on envelope as to when it was received.

Memo, attached: John Gentles, care of Hon. John Tolmie, Kincardine, Ontario.
Cash $1,000 bonus for license to cut timber on limit 1096.
And here is copy of a receipt dated November 11, Department of the Interior, Timber and Mines Branch :
Received from John Gentles, care of Hon. John Tolmie, Kincardine, Ontario, the sum of one thousand dollars in payment of bonus for a license to cut timber on limit No. 1096.
(Sgd.) G. U. RYLEY,
Chief Clerk,
Per Pans Loyer, book-keeper.
Then there is more correspondence involving a good deal of dickering, but I need not quote any of it until we come to a letter dated Kincardine, 11th February, 1904, and addressed to P. G. Keyes, secretary :
My Dear Sir,-Inclosed please find license duly signed by Mr. Gentles and returned by mvself. There is something I do not fully understand, and that is that while the license states the lease is from December 11, 1903, to April 30, 1901. the receipt for moneys paid states from December 11, 1903, to December 11, 1904. Kindly explain this.
Yours truly,
(Sg3.) JOHN TOLMIE.
Then there is correspondence showing that the ground rent had not been paid. Mr. Keyes writes to Mr. Tolmie stating that amounts owing on berths 1092, 1095 and 1096 had been called to his attention on 28th September, and if they were not paid within thirty days steps would be taken to have berths cancelled, and he now begs to state that the amount involved had not been paid, and that Mr. Gentles' right to cut timber on these berths was withdrawn from the records of the department. Mr. Tolmie wrote back immediately under date of November 20, 1905, as follows :-
Hon. Frank Oliver,
Minister of the Interior.
Dear Mr. Oliver,-I inclose you a letter from the secretary of vour department which explains itself. My partner, Mr. John Gentles, in this deal

Mr. Gentles was his partner in this deal. It looks as if he had had a good many other deals.
My partner, Mr. John Gentles, in this deal was inclined to throw up and hence the delay in paving the ground rent. Kindly send me statement of account due with interest to date and wa will send it to you on receipt of the statement.
Kindest regards from yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Tolmie was a member then, because there were several letters addressed to him in the House of Commons when the correspondence was going on. I need not read all the letters, but there is another one here dated 16th June, 1906.
W. W. Cory,
Deputy Minister of the Interior.
Dear Mr. Cory,-As I told you the other day by phone we sold the limits owned by Mr. TAYLOR.
Mr. Gentles and myself, 1092, 1095 and 1096, on the McLeod river, Alberta. The ground rent has been paid by us until either the 1st of Mav or 1st of June, 1906. The parties purchasing the same assume the payment of the rent for 1906-7. The assignment from Mr. Gentles, signed bv him, has been mailed to you, and I trust the non-payment of rent by us for 1906-7 will not be a bar in the way of closing the assignment as we have lost enough. The party purchasing them has inspected the limits and are satisfied, and I trust you will complete vour part with us with as much despatch as possible.
Then comes the assignment of these limits to Mr. Gentles at $4,000. These are copies of the original documents on file, showing that a member of this House, while he was a member, made application with his partner Mr. Gentles, and got a limit from this government and sold the same for $4,000. Yet in the face of facts such as these, hon. gentlemen in the back benches will get up and accuse hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who .never had anything to do with limits, in order to throw out to the country that we were as bad or worse when the Conservatives were in power. That is all I propose saying on that matter.
Now I have another matter with regard to which I wish to say a few words with regard to the Minister of Public Works. Two days ago when my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss an important matter-and it has turned out to be important, because since that discussion the Minister of Public Works has cancelled the order in council that he had passed renewing certain dredging contracts. When the matter was up I undertook to discuss a question relating to the Quebec harbour improvement in which there was some dredging, and the Minister of Public Works raised a point of order that I could not discuss that matter because the motion only referred to dredging contracts in the neighbourhood of Midland. But in reading the resolution, you, Mr. Speaker, said it read ' there and at other points ' and you authorized me to speak on dredging elsewhere. Then I referred to a contract that was given by this government and notified the Minister of Public Works not to renew it again. It was given in 1903 for the Quebec harbour improvements, in which there was a large amount of dredging done, but with the dredging there were certain goods supplied. That contract has been extended from year to year up to last year. There was paid on the first contract, No. 4613, $183,000. Then it was extended by order in council and a new contract. No. 5111, was made, on which $224,000 was paid. That was renewed by another order in council, and on the new contract, No. 5693. $107,000 were paid. Then it was renewed again by another order In council, a new contract was made. No. 5888, on 1 which there were paid $98,000. A total of

[Stage Direction]
$614,000 was paid in four years for the harbour improvements in Quebec. A contract was given to a firm by the name of Dussault and Lemieux. I presume they may have had it extended, I do not know whether there has been an order in council extending it to this year or not. But I drew the attention of the House to the fact that according to my information, which I believe is correct, a contract for dredging was given at 75 cents a yard, and the gentleman who got this contract had neither dredge nor anything else to do the work with, and they farmed it out for 15 cents a yard to other contractors, and pocketed 60 cents clear for themselves on this job-More than that, they had clearing work to do. This dredge that was getting 75 cents a yard dumped the material over into the dock and then got 32 cents a yard for the filling. This is my information, and I believe it is correct.
Mr. PTJGSLEY.: Would the hon. gentleman tell me to whom they farmed it out ?


George Taylor: We will likely have an inquiry, and we will get the particulars, but I am anxious that another order in council should not be passed extending the time.


William Pugsley: Would it not be more convenient to discuss it when we have the inquiry ?


George Taylor: My hon. friend might pass an order in council extending the contract, and rob the country for another year. It is to prevent that taking place that I bring up this discussion now, and to notify him that this contract must not be extended another year. Now among the items charged for there are drift bolts, iron, 105,600 pounds at 7 cents a pound. Any person who has ever built a dock knows that drift bolts are simply a bar of iron cut in lengths of 10, 16, 18 or 24 inches long, pointed or sharpened, and anybody knows that you can bjty iron at $1.00 or $1.75 per 100 pounds. Yet these gentlemen have been paying from year to year 7 cents a pound for these drift bolts. I took the trouble to write to a party to know what he would furnish them for, and this is what he answered :
I have your favour of the 19th and am much obliged. Bolts such as you ask about including drift bolts nointed at one end are worth about 3 cents ner pound. It would depend altogether upon the nature of the specification and how badly we wanted the order, but you could figure two and three-quarter cents per pound as a minimum and about 3J cents per pound as maximum. This would be f.o.b. factory.
Having a nut on one end would not affect the price hardly at all. as these large nuts are sold almost at the same price as bolts.
They get 8 cents a pound for screw bolts, iron. A screw bolt is simply a steel plate with a hole punched in it, and anybody can
buy them for 2 cents a pound. Then we find stone ballast in cribs, 10,500 cubic yards at $1.25. Dredging foundation, 18,000 cubic yards at 75 cents a yard. This is being farmed out at 15 cents a yard. Then stone and gravel foundation, 4,490 cubic yards, at $2.50. Earth filling, 60,400 cubic yards at 32 cents. This was lifted up by the dredge at 75 cents and dumped in at 32 cents more.


Mr. JACOB T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: The hon. gentleman characterizes the price as extremely high for the drift bolts. Would he be surprised to know that Mackenzie and Mann are paying me to-day 7 cents a pound for drift bolts, and the prices are put down by themselves in cases where I had no special price mentioned and the quantities are much larger than he has quoted.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman wants to make a good profit, I will supply them at 2f cents and ship them from the factory.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I can buy just as cheaply as the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: My word is as good as the hon. gentleman's. I will supply the bolts at 21 cents. I will get a man who will take the contract for supplying the bolts to Mackenzie and Mann at 2\ cents.
Mr. .1. T. SCHELL. Does he mean the bolts with the nuts on?


George Taylor: Yes. They say they make no difference between the drift bolts pointed without the nuts and with the nuts on.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I will take a contract at that rate.


George Taylor: Then I will give it to you.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Nothing smaller than three-quarters of an inch.


George Taylor: We will discuss that afterwards. Any statement I make here, I am prepared to carry out. The hon. Minister of Public Works attempted to bluff-


William Pugsley: To what? Do I hear the hon. gentleman right?


George Taylor: Yes. You undertook to bluff me the other day. If that expression is not parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withdraw it, but I want the minister to understand that as regards being conversant with the practice of this parliament, he is a mere fledgeling and is losing his time when he attempts to practice on old parliamentarians what perhaps he had the privilege of doing in New Brunswick.


Mr. BENNETT.: Do not stir up his feelings.


George Taylor: I have always thought, and the people have a perfect right to think,

that when an hon. minister makes a statement in parliament, that statement should be true as the gospel. But when he makes a statement that is not in accord with the facts, how much confidence can the people place in him? Here is the statement I made the other day:


George Taylor: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, if he has yet completed the return in reference to Petit Rocher ?


William Pugsley: On making inquiry of my deputy, I find that the answer given contained exactly the information which was asked for, that is, matters detailed on a certain page of the Auditor General's report. If any hon. friend desires further information and will be good enough to put another question, I shall be glad to give him the further information.


George Taylor: It was not a question at all but a motion for.a return.


William Pugsley: It was for a return as to
matters detailed on a certain page of the Auditor General's Report, and that return has been made and is complete.


George Taylor: There Is the minister's reply.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: And he puts the onus on his deputy. I am acquainted with his deputy, and I am satisfied that his deputy would not put in anybody's mouth a statement not in accord with the facts.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: That statement must have come directly from the minister. Now what are the facts ? Here is the motion I made for that return, and in that motion there is not a word making any reference at all to the Auditor General's Report. Yet the minister says that my motion had reference to matter contained in that report.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman kindly read it?


George Taylor: I read it before and the minister went away and came back and tried to bluff me the second time. I shall read it now and ask the hon. gentleman to make an apology:
Return to an address of the House of Com-rnons, dated the 15th January, 1908, for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, orders in council, contracts and tenders, with the names and amount of each, in possession of the government or any member or official thereof, respecting the construction of a breakwater at Petit Rocher, on the southwestern side of Bale des Chaleurs, as detailed on page 74 of the report of the Minister of Public Works, tor the year ended 31st March, 1907.


William Pugsley: Quite so.


George Taylor: Is there anything in that about the Auditor General's Report? That refers to page 74 of the minister's own report. Yet he comes here and will not give me the answer but tells me something that Mr. TAYLOR.
is possibly untrue. Here is the report. What does it say?
Petit Rocher is a farming, fishing and lumbering settlement on the southwestern side of Baie des Chaleurs, twelve miles north of Bathurst.
To afford protection to the fishing boats and vessels trading in Baie des Chaleurs, for which there is no natural shelter in the vicinity, and to facilitate the shipment of lumber, a contract was entered into May 31, 1904, with Simon McGregor, for the construction of a breakwater, consisting of a main work, 209 feet long on the outer face, and a wing or ' L,' placed at an angle of 74 degrees 30 minutes with the main part, 160 feet long on the outer face. The width on top will be 30 feet. At its inner end the breakwater will be 480 feet from the shore. The depth along the inner face varies from 11 to 18J feet at low water.
In 1904-5, a right of way, 860 feet long, from the public road to the shore was opened up, graded and fenced.
The contract work was begun on March 18, 1905, and by the end of 1904-5 two cribs, 96J and 41 feet long respectively, had been built and sunk in place.
A crib to form the remainder of the work was started on February 19, 1906, but on March 11, when it had reached a height of about six tiers, it was carried away by' the ice. It was, however, recovered on May 14. The outer section, which was intended to complete the main part of the breakwater was found to be intact and work on it was resumed. By the end of the fiscal year this crib had been built to a height of nineteen tiers and the two cribs sunk in 1905 had been filled with ballast and built up to half tide level, and the upper ballast floors were laid.
During the fiscal year 1906-7, the crib forming the remainder of the main work was sunk in place and a crib to complete the ' L ' was begun and placed in position. The building of the superstructure was continued on the main part up to about high water level, when two storms, on November 12 and 16 carried away nearly the whole top, the break being about 9 feet in extreme depth.
Work was resumed on March 7, and by the close of the fiscal year the remains of three damaged tiers of face timbers had been removed, and a part of the wrecked superstructure near the southern end rebuilt, the interior being filled with ballast.
The expenditure for the fiscal year 1906-7 was $5,029.60.
That is what I wanted the Information for.


William Pugsley: It seems a pity to take up the time of the House discussing whether or not a certain return Is according to the motion calling for it. My hon. friend says he has the most perfect confidence in my deputy. I may repeat to him that the instructions sent to my deputy were to furnish a complete answer to the motion made by my hon. friend, and the return laid on the table was made by the deputy. If the hon. gentleman doubts my statement, he is at perfect liberty to communicate himself, either in writing or verbally, with the de-
APEtL 24, 1908
puty, and my deputy will confirm what I have said. If there be any omission, it rests with the deputy, and the deputy informed me that he had made a complete return as required by the motion.


George Taylor: After my having read the motion for the return and pointing out that the return simply comes down to 1905 and does not refer to the carrying away of the piers, as detailed in page 74 of the minister's report, referred to in the motion for the return, or the expenditure since, or who the contractor was or how the contract was let, the hon. gentleman still insists that it is a complete return. But is it not evident that the return is not complete, and that the minister's statement the other day was not in accord with the facts?


William Pugsley: I called the attention of the deputy to the page to which my hon. friend refers, and the deputy still asserted that he had sent a complete return of all the correspondence which there had been upon the subject as detailed upon that page of the report. It was the report of the Minister of Public Works. It is a misquotation when the Auditor General's Report is mentioned. It was the report mentioned in the motion of my hon. friend which was referred to the deputy and his return is based upon that. When I called his attention to it he assured me that he had sent a complete return of everything in the department on the subject.


George Taylor: Then the minister had better go back to the department and give his deputy a lecture for putting in his mouth a statement which is not correct When I brought it up upon the first occasion I got the same answer. I brought it up again and I was put down; I could not proceed to discuss it.


William Pugsley: I must take the statement of my deputy.


George Taylor: I have not received the information as yet, and I want the return completed. The return brought down only goes to 1905 and the expenditure is in 1906-7.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman will put the matter in the form of a question I will see that he will get a complete answer.


George Taylor: I will put no more questions until the return is completed or until the minister complies with the order of the House. The minister must obey that order and complete that return.


William Pugsley: All I can say to my hon. friend is that I can do no more than I have done.


George Taylor: Then the minister had better resign his position.


William Pugsley: One moment


George Taylor: I am making my speech, and when I get through the minister may get up and answer me. All he can do is to come here and tell us that the deputy has told him he has complied with the return, that he can do no more when, on the face of it, he must know and admit before the House that the return is not complete and that he made a statement the other day which is not in accordance with the facts.


William Pugsley: I do not know it, I do not admit it, and I shall believe my deputy until I learn the contrary.


George Taylor: I would believe the deputy, too, much sooner than I would believe the minister in view of the statement which he made in the House the other day I have as much confidence in the deputy as the hon. gentleman has, because I knew him long before the minister did. I can tell the hon. gentleman that hon. members on this side of the House are not going to be bluffed down by him saying that is the only return, or that is all you can get unless you put another motion or ask another question. I am not going to put another motion and I am not going to ask another question ; I am going to ask the minister to comply with the order of the House and complete that return.


Mr. TURGEON.: I might give an explanation to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor), who has just taken his seat, in reference to a portion of the work at Petit Rocker. The contractor is the master of his own work, and if, through inexperience, he makes mistakes he is responsible for them and has to account to the department for them. A portion of this work, in the spring of 3906. was carried away by the ice. The tide is very strong in that locality and the ice carried away the work. He was responsible for it and had to pay for it. He had to do his work over again, and naturally nothing would appear in the accounts of the engineer or of the department. The contractor had to make good the loss and that should explain the lack in the report of the department.


George Taylor: Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turgeou) admits that the return whicli has been brought down is not complete?


Onésiphore Turgeon: It is complete in so far as the department is concerned. The contractor paid $4,000 or $5,000 twice, but that was his own loss and the department has not lost one dollar by it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Nova Scotia-Antigonish, public building, $7,000.
William Pugsley: This amount is required to complete the new building which is in course of construction at Antigonish.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of a building is it?


William Pugsley: A public building, brick with stone foundation, 33 x 35, 2t storeys high.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is it to be used for ?


Mr.   PTTGSEEY@: Post office, customs house and office of the resident engineer of the Public Works Department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there much busi ness done at that point?


William Pugsley: It is quite a thriving town.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it a port of entry:


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much will the building cost?


William Pugsley: $28,700, which will include the cost of the building, heating, plumbing, wiring, fixtures, furniture, &c.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much did the land cost and from whom was it purchased?


William Pugsley: I have not the memorandum here ; the cost of the site is not given.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was that building commenced?


William Pugsley: It was begun in 1905.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Whom was the site bought from and how much did it cost?


William Pugsley: I find that the site was owned by the Crown, so that we had nothing to pay for it.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Who is the architect?


William Pugsley: Mr. Ewart, the Chief Architect of the department. The plans were prepared in the department under the direction of the Chief Architect.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Shall we have any more to vote after this, or is this the end of it?


William Pugsley: No, nothing more to vote; this is the end of it.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there any outside architect employed to make these plans?


William Pugsley: No outside architect.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. minister stated that the plans for public buildings were mostly all made in the department.


William Pugsley: Yes, plans for post offices, custom houses and buildings of that kind are in the great majority of cases made in the department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there a superintendent of the work during construction?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Yes, there is a clerk of
works-.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who is he, and what is his salary?


William Pugsley: His name is Mr. Mc-Gillivray, and ne received $3 per day.


Mr.   BRAIN@: What was the total payment to the clerk of works?


William Pugsley: I cannot at this moment tell my hon. friend, but he received $3 per day.


Mr. POWDER.: For the four years during wnich the buildings has been under construction?


William Pugsley: Simply while the work of construction has been going on.


Mr. FOWRER.: Has not this building been under construction for many years? I remember that the first vote for it was taken when the gentleman who is now a member of the Transcontinental Railway-Commission was a member of this House for the county of Antigonish.


William Pugsley: The contract was let in 1905. That would be something over two years.


George William Fowler: Was the clerk of the works paid for all that time?


William Pugsley: I presume he would be paid for the time he attended the work.


George William Fowler: Why would this building require three years to complete?


William Pugsley: It is quite an expensive building-a $28,000 building.


George William Fowler: It should be built in four or five months.


William Pugsley: I may say that the contractors are very excellent people-Rhodes, Curry & Co.-and would not take longer than was necessary.


George William Fowler: Would the hon. minister say that a building that would cost $28,000 would not be unduly delayed if it took two years to complete it?


William Pugsley: It would not necessarily follow that it was unduly delayed. The contract was not let until the summer of 1905, and it would not be many months until the winter was on, when building operations would cease.


George William Fowler: At what time was the contract let?
Mr. PUGSREY'. Not until June.


George William Fowler: There would be ample time, then, to have the outside walls erected before the winter. I have done a considerable amount of building myself, and have built up to Christmas in the climate of New Brunswick, which is not very much less severe than that of Nova Scotia, and I do-

not think there would be any difficulty at all about completing the outside walls of this building by the time building operations would have to cease for the winter. The inside work would certainly be done in the winter time. Have you no memorandum of what the inspection of this building cost? -because sometimes the cost of inspection bears a very large proportion to the cost of the work.


William Pugsley: 1 may say to my hon. friend that the expenditure under the head of incidental expenses was $1,938, which would include the salary of the clerk of works, and I presume also advertising, printing, and the like of that. If my hon. friend wants to know exactly what was paid to the clerk of works, I can get it.


George William Fowler: Yes. What is Mr. Mc-Gillivray's occupation?


William Pugsley: I have not his occupation. His name is A. McGillivray.


George William Fowler: It would not follow that he would be a builder at all.


William Pugsley: I should be glad to get the information for my hon. friend.


George William Fowler: He might be a tailor, you know.


William Pugsley: Sometimes tailors are men of very good judgment.


George William Fowler: Very good iudgment indeed, in the cut of a suit of clothes, but not necessarily in the quality of work on a building.


William Pugsley: I know that my hon. friend would think, although he is a lawyer, that he knows a good deal about building.


George William Fowler: Because I have built a good many buildings.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was the work let by tender and given to the lowest tenderer?


William Pugsley: Let by tender. Three tenders were received in answer to public advertisement, and Rhodes, Curry & Co. were the lowest and received the contract.


George William Fowler: What was the amount of the tenders?


William Pugsley: They ranged from $14,990 to $19,898.


George William Fowler: What did these tenders cover?


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend what they did not cover-the heating, the wiring, the town clock, the fittings.


George William Fowler: How much would it cost for the heating?


William Pugsley: 


George William Fowler: Who had that contract?


William Pugsley: Rhodes, Curry & Co.


George William Fowler: What was the cost Of the wiring?


William Pugsley: 


George William Fowler: Do I understand the minister to say that it cost $650 to wire the building for electric lights?


William Pugsley: Not only to put the wiring in, but also for the fittings and electroliers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did Rhodes, Curry & Co. get the contract at that tender of $14,990?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much have they received altogether?


William Pugsley: I could not tell my hon. friend what has been paid to Rhodes, Curry & Co., but the total amount paid to the 31st of October, 1907, was $21,323.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did the contractors do the work for the price tendered or were they paid extras ?


William Pugsley: They did not receive any extras. They were paid $14,990, the amount of the contract.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister has already paid out $21,000 and is asking for more. He cites one contract for $14,990. Will he give the other contracts for the extra expenditure ?


William Pugsley: Printing and advertising, clerk of the works salary, &c., $2,024.90.


George William Fowler: I would like to have the separate items.


William Pugsley: I should be very glad indeed to get them for my hon. friend but 1 cannot have them this afternoon.


George William Fowler: Better let that item stand.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend not think he should allow that to pass, on the understanding that I will furnish the information on some other item ?


George William Fowler: The trouble is you never furnish it but always forget.


William Pugsley: I will undertake to furnish it.


George William Fowler: Go on and give the items.


William Pugsley: Printing and advertising and clerk of the works salary, &c.~ $2,024.90 ; paid to the contractor up to 31st of October, 1907, $14,990. That is the price of the contract. For a boiler, $229.80.


George William Fowler: From whom was that bought ?


William Pugsley: I do not know, the price is not very high.


George William Fowler: It depends on the kind of boiler.


William Pugsley: Tower clock $1,140.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: From whom was that bought ?


William Pugsley: From R. D. Kirk. There were tenders called for.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it the custom of the department to put up clocks on all the buildings ?


William Pugsley: Not in all of them, but in towns of some considerable importance the department has very frequently put up clocks in the towers. Sometimes the tower is built suitable for a clock. Some twenty years ago a building was erected by the government and the holes were made in the tower for a clock. A few weeks ago I had a delegation urging most strongly that I should supply the clock which should have been supplied twenty years ago.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I hope you will do it.


William Pugsley: I intend to.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are you going to put up a clock in the Yalleyfleld post office ?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will make representations on the subject, I will consider the matter.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Well, I make the application now.


George William Fowler: How about the post office at Sussex ? Is there a clock there ?


William Pugsley: Is there a tower provided for the clock ?


George William Fowler: Yes, there is an opportunity to put a clock there.


William Pugsley: If there is any provision made for a clock, 1 will consider the matter. That building was erected fifteen years ago, did the hon. gentleman ever urge very strongly that a clock should be put there ?


George William Fowler: I did not suppose it was the policy of the government to distribute these clocks. But now that the government are so generous, I thought it would be quite in accord with the policy of the minister and his love for that constituency which he used to represent, that he would undertake to do something for it. It is certainly ns important as Antigouish.


William Pugsley: I hope the hon. gentleman will not try to prevent this being done for Antigonish.


George William Fowler: It is done already so that I could not prevent it even if I wanted to.


William Pugsley: Tower clock, $1,140 ; sidewalk, &c., $735.30.


George William Fowler: Is that sidewalk just in from off the building?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: It is' the paving all around the public building.


George William Fowler: What material ?


William Pugsley: I presume granolithic.


George Taylor: How many square feet ?


William Pugsley: The size of the lot is 240 square yards and my hon. friend can figure that out for himself.


George Taylor: You cannot figure from that. I do not know how wide the sidewalk is and how many square feet in it.


William Pugsley: It is a corner lot.


George Taylor: How many square feet around the lot? Is the sidewalk three feet or six feet wide ?


William Pugsley: I have not that information, I am sorry to say.


George William Fowler: Is the sidewalk on four streets or on two streets ?


William Pugsley: On two streets.


George William Fowler: That is a pretty good price.
Mr. PUGSLEY! I think that a granolithic, fairly wide sidewalk would probably cost that much.


George William Fowler: What is the size of the building ?


William Pugsley: Thirty-three feet by fifty-five with an annex twelve by thirty-three.


George William Fowler: The annex would not be on both streets. There would be no sidewalk for the annex.


William Pugsley: The sidewalk would be on both streets.


George William Fowler: You can only figure 33 feet one way and 55 the other ?


William Pugsley: I take it for granted the government would build a sidewalk around the whole lot.


George William Fowler: They would go to the line of their lot. Is the lot 55 feet each way ?


William Pugsley: The only information I have here with regard to the lot is that it contains 240 square yards.


George William Fowler: At $700 you would be paying two prices, but that is not sufficiently unusual to be remarkable.
Mr. PUGSLEY". I forgive my hon. friend that statement because if he did not make it, he would not be acting in accordance with his usual practice. He often indulges in these statements but perhaps thoughtlessly.
Mr. FOWLER, The minister knows me better than that.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Is it not usual for the town or city to pay some proportion of the cost of the sidewalk or does the government put a sidewalk all around the lot?


William Pugsley: The chief architect informs me that where the government erects a building and a sidewalk has to be built, the government usually pays the whole cost.


John Stanfield: The sidewalk around the post office in the town of Truro is in very bad condition. I would like the government to put that sidewalk in good order, if it is their business to do that.


William Pugsley: That would be repairing the sidewalk. No doubt if the town made representations to the department, they would be received with a desire to contribute something, probably pay half the cost.


George William Fowler: At the public building in Sussex there is no sidewalk laid down by the government at all. I would suggest that the government put a sidewalk there.


William Pugsley: Is there a sidewalk on each side of the building ?


George William Fowler: There is a street but no granolithic sidewalk.


William Pugsley: In cases where the town has built a granolithic sidewalk along a public building


George William Fowler: But the town has not.


William Pugsley: I presume that the sidewalk in front of the public building in Sussex is the same as the sidewalk on the street above and below. It would be somewhat anomalous to have a different sidewalk In front of one building from that in front of the buildings on either side.


George William Fowler: Not necessarily?


George Taylor: If your lot is 60 feet front by 120 feet deep, which is a large sized lot for a town, as in most towns they are 40 feet front by 80 feet, and supposing the sidewalk is six feet wide-


William Pugsley: I am told that it is 12 feet wide.


George Taylor: Then, I will double it On the basis on which I have started-a sidewalk 6 feet wide, you would have a total of 1,080 square feet. At 16 cents a square foot, that would amount to $172.80. Or double it, and you have 2,160 square feet costing $345.00.


George William Fowler: That is what I say-we have paid about double.


George Taylor: And my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Henderson) says that in his town they get this work done for 12 cents. I paid 16 cents for a sidewalk in front of my own house last year.


George William Fowler: Did the minister say there were 240 square yards in the lot?


William Pugsley: Yes. The other expenditures are wiring and fixtures, $660; furniture and letter boxes, &c., $1,343.09; total expenditure up to October 31, 1907, $21,323.


Mr. BLAIN.: Were tenders asked for the boxes?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: I would like to get at the size of this lot.


William Pugsley: I told the hon. gentleman I could not give the frontage and depth but the area is 240 square yards.


George William Fowler: That is an exceedingly small lot. To pay $200 for a sidewalk on two sides of such a lot would be an enormous price.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) is astray in his arithmetic.


George William Fowler: If the lot were 12 yards one way by 20 yards the other way, that would make an area of 240 yards. Reduced to feet, such a lot would be 36 feet front by 60 feet deep. Or, for two sides of the lot 96 running feet. If you make a sidewalk 12 feet wide you would have 1,152 square feet which at 16 cents would be $184.32. I think that arithmetic is pretty nearly according to Sangster.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much was paid for the sidewalk?
Mr. FOWLER, $750. When I said the hon. gentleman paid about double, I was figuring on the size of the lot he first gave. But it appears now that, instead of paying double, he has paid over four times.


William Pugsley: Is the hob. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) speaking of the cost of granolithic pavement from any experience?


George William Fowler: Yes, I have built many square feet of it at my own expense around my properties in Sussex.


William Pugsley: What does it cost?


George William Fowler: Sixteen cents.


William Pugsley: What is the depth of the granolithic material?


George William Fowler: You measure by surface measure.


William Pugsley: But I suppose something would depend upon the location-whether the lot was high and dry or whether you had to go deeper for a foundation.
Mr. FOWLER, Something would depend upon whether you had to build up or not. But the building up is done with gravel which is very cheap material in most places. You do not build up with cement from the bottom. But you would need to build up with gold dust to justify such a price as this.



Mr. TA\ LOR. Our town let a contract at 16 cents to lay granolithic sidewalk on several streets, and some of them had to be raised three or four feet. And my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) says that 12 cents was the ruling price there- 16 cents is an outside price.


William Pugsley: Something would depend on the cost of cement and the description of the land.


George William Fowler: But why should cement he dearer in Antigonlsh than in other places? In fact, it ought to be less; for. I understand there are cement works in Sydney. There certainly is not enough to account for the difference between 12 cents or 16 cents and the 70 cents that the minister has been paying. It is no wonder that this building, which was to have cost $15,000 or $16,000 has already cost $28,000, if everything else is paid for on the same basis as this sidewalk:


William Pugsley: I will have the chief architect produce a plan of the lot and building.


George William Fowler: Better let the item stand.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that the sidewalk cost a certain sum per foot, and his opinion was that the price was reasonable. I do not profess to know the cost of granolithic sidewalk, because this material is not much used in the part of the province from which I come.


George William Fowler: Does the architect say that 70 cents is a reasonable price?


William Pugsley: He says that the sidewalk was constructed at a reasonable price, but he did not state at how much per yard. But I will get the plan.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When a building such as this is finished, who receives it for the government and passes the work as having been carried out properly?


William Pugsley: The clerk of works would certify to the erection of the building, then the chief architect would send a man from his department to see if it was built according to the plans and specifications.


George William Fowler: Who had the contract for the sidewalk ?


William Pugsley: I cannot say from this memorandum. But it was let by contract at so much per foot, the total cost being $735. It says, ' Sidewalk, &c.' showing there was something in addition.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is it the custom of the department to bear the whole cost of the construction of a new sidewalk built in front of a public building ?


William Pugsley: The architect tells me that where the work is entirely a new one Mr. FOWLER.
the department has been in the habit of paying the whole cost.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What about repairs to that sidewnlk ? Does the department pay for keeping the sidewalk in repair ?


William Pugsley: After the department has constructed the sidewalk the practice is to keep it in repair.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would call the minister's attention to the sidewalk in Fredericton which extends a whole block on Queen street. The government owns all the property on the eastern side of Queen street from Carleton to Regent street. On this property are the post office building and the officers' barracks, and that sidewalk has been in very bad condition for several years past and is in great need of repairs. It is an asphalt sidewalk.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to give it consideration.


George William Fowler: Have you a vault in that building ?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is the contract. The vault door is supplied by the contractor.
Mr. FOWLER, You had better let this item stand until we get the particulars.


William Pugsley: Very well.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I did not quite understand the answer of the minister as to the procedure after public buildings are finished.


William Pugsley: The clerk of works certifies to the department that the building has been completed, and then the chief architect sends an architect from the department to examine the building and see whether it has been completed according to the plans and specifications, and he informs the chief architect of the fact.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that satisfactory to the department ?


William Pugsley: I think that is the only way in which it can be done.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That explains why so many works turn out to have been badly constructed. They are not finished properly, they are made by people who do not care what happens to them after they are finished, but who construct them according to their own notions. There is no supervision. I remember a case where a public -work was built by men who did not care whether it was well done or not. They have a clerk of works who is generally a political appointment. He is paid $3 a day, and sometimes does not know anything about the work he is supposed to supervise. He makes a report that the building is finished properly, and it is accepted. When I was in the west last summer I heard of a breakwater built by the government at

Nanaimo, at a cost of $10,000. As soon as it was built a freshet came and carried it away, and it is now lying somewhere in the sea.	-


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Does the hon. gentleman say a breakwater was built at Nanaimo ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At a place called Nanaimo, anyway it was in the district of Nanaimo.


Robert George Macpherson: Nanaimo is in my constituency, and there is no wharf built by the government there.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was in the district of Nanaimo. A day or two ago I heard of a lighthouse built by the Department of Marine and Fisheries that has been carried away, a very expensive work. I mention these things to show that the government should pay more attention to these works and see that they are properly inspected before they are accepted.


William Pugsley: That is exactly what we are doing. Before a building is accepted the chief architect sends an expert, an experienced man from the department, who makes a thorough examination, and he does not accept the building unless it is built according to the plans and specifications.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman's criticisms may be correct with respect to some other cases of which I have no know-lege, but they are not correct with respect to this building in Antigonisb. He says that these works are often built by people who have no concern but to get them up and get away. This building was erected by Rhodes & Curry, one of the most reputable firms in the lower provinces, and I am sure these gentlemen have sufficient pride in their work not to build it as the hon. gentleman says. There may be some cases that justify his criticism, but as to any work constructed by Rhodes & Curry, who are contractors of the highest standing, there is no ground for criticism.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I was speaking in a general way, and criticising the government for receiving these public works without paying sufficient attention to the way they have been built. It may be that in this case the clerk of the works is a good man. But we all know from what takes place in the Public Accounts Committee that in many cases these clerks of works do not even go near the work.


William Pugsley: What has taken place in respect of this building is an index of what takes place in respect of all buildings, as I am informed by the chief architect. In the first place there is a clerk of works appointed. Inquiry is made as to his ability, his judgment and integrity before he is appointed.
226*


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And his politics.


William Pugsley: Of course we would not like to appoint a man who would endeavour to have a building badly constructed in order to discredit the government. We try to get a man who will be fair at all events, and see that the work is constructed so as to reflect credit upon the government. Then the department sends an expert from time to time to see that everything is being done properly. When the building is finished the clerk of the works makes his certificate, but the chief architect does not act finally upon that, because he sends an expert from the department specially to examine the building carefully, to look it all over, and see if it has been constructed according to the plans and specifications. He makes his report in writing, and upon his report, when favourable, the building is taken oyer.


George William Fowler: Is this architect who is sent to make progress inspection, in all cases an official of the department, or do you employ outside architects ?


William Pugsley: An officer of the department is always sent.


George William Fowler: How about the progress inspections ?


William Pugsley: An architect is also sent to see to the progress inspections.


George William Fowler: Do you employ outside architects in your department and if so for what purpose ?


William Pugsley: Sometimes we do, but comparatively few. Sometimes an architect may be employed as an inspector on a building. In the case of large buildings there is sometimes a clerk of works and also an architect.


George William Fowler: On what buildings were they employed last year?


William Pugsley: In the case of a building at Halifax a Mr. Bush was employed as architect. He acted as clerk of works and architect.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much did you pay last year ?


William Pugsley: I do not say that is the only case. The chief architect cannot now say how much was paid, without referring to the notes.


George William Fowler: As great a sum as $10,000 ?


William Pugsley: He thinks not.


George William Fowler: Less than that ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister states that about $10,000 was paid last year for outside architectural services. I have run over some of the payments and I find the

following amounts were paid by the Department of Public Works to outside architects and engineers in the last nine months:
Name.	Work.	Amount.H. C. Ewart, Archi-	Royal Mint	$ cts. 950 00tect.	Darling & Pearson,	Winnipeg Post	27,071 00Architects. Architectural and En-	Office. Edmonton Gaol...	4,320 00gineering Co.	Yaudelet, Engineer..	St. Andrews Dam.	15,000 00(Quebec Harbour	12,250 00M. Perrault, Archi*	Shed. Mont real Post	7,875 00tect. II II . .	Office. Postal Station, St.	2,302 00Architectural and En-	Catharines. Belleville Armory.	1,775 00gineering Co.	G. O. Tanguay, Archi-	Three Rivers Drill	1,150 00tect. E. M. Talbot, Archi-	Hall. Quebec Immigra-	911 00tect. H. C. McBride, Archi-	tion Hospital. London Post Office	2,358 90tect.	II It .	Stratford Armory.	711 00II II . .	Woodstock Arm-	2,004 00Band, Murray & Mer-	ory. Dominion Arch-	4,006 00edith. T. A. Ewart, Archi-	ives Building. Royal Mint	1,381 00tect.	Investigating Power,	1,783 00collapse.	Maxwell Bros., Archi-	First Prize Dept.	8,000 00tects. Darling & Pearson...	plans. Second Prize Dept.	4,000 00plans.	
Altogether about $100,000 in 1907-08 for nine months was paid out by the Department of Public Works for outside architectural fees. You had better hire 20 good men at $5,000 each.


Mr. PUGS LEY.: I hope the hon. gentleman does not think that by quoting these figures he shows that the chief architect was in error in regard to the amount paid for services of architects last year for purely architectural services. In the items he has read he includes engineering work. Vautelet is an engineer and his work in connection with the St. Andrews lock and at Quebec was engineering work.


William Humphrey Bennett: At Quebec he was putting up a building.


William Pugsley: But that is not under Mr. Ewart at all. .The hon. gentleman has included the amounts paid for prizes for the plans for the large departmental building which it is proposed to construct on Sussex street. I had not in mind the inclusion of these amounts as that is not architects' work in the ordinary sense.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


George William Fowler: Would not the man who got first prize be the man whose plans were adopted ?


William Pugsley: No, it does not follow at all.


George William Fowler: Then did you get nothing except plans that you would not use, in return for the money paid out ?


William Pugsley: A board of judges was appointed to ask for and consider the plans and to determine as to which were entitled to the prizes, but the department expressly reserved the right to exercise its own judgment as to adopting any of the plans. The department is not bound to take any one.


George William Fowler: Did you start a competition among architects for plans for a departmental building and offer prizes to a considerable amount and not propose necessarily to take any of the plans ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Certainly.


George William Fowler: You offered premiums for the making of plans suitable for a departmental building and gave the prizes although the department did not consider one of the plans suitable for erection purposes? That seems to me a funny proceeding. I would think that you would try to get plans as nearly perfect as possible and if an architect could not draw a plan suitable for that building he certainly did not deserve a prize. It is the most surprising statement I ever heard.


William Humphrey Bennett: Deducting $15,000 for St. Andrews and $12,000 for the plans that still leaves $75,000 for outside architects. I am not blaming the minister, it is simply that he does not get proper information.


William Pugsley: The payment to Darling and Pearson was for services extending over some years, not for last year.


George William Fowler: The question was what was paid last year ?


William Pugsley: The question was put generally one afternoon when we were discussing estimates and the chief engineer said he did not think it would exceed $10,000 a year, taking the average. A number of the other gentlemen who were mentioned by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) supervised the erection of buildings, acting as clerks of works as well as inspectors. As to the plans for the departmental buildings, these buildings will be very costly and*it is desirable that they should he built upon the very best design possible. No one would regard it as unreasonable that prizes should be offered to architects for the submission of plans. Even although the plans received may be departed from in many respects, yet they afford most valuable information to the chief architect and I presume he may take ideas from all of

them. What I meant to say was that the department did not bind itself absolutely to adopt any one of these plans ; it reserved a certain freedom which I think it was desirable to reserve.


George William Fowler: Do you have the right to use the plans ?


William Pugsley: Oh, yes, I can use any part of them, we can take any part of them we choose.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were the prizes paid?


William Pugsley: Yes, we paid prizes of .$8,000, $4,000, $2,000 and $1,000 ; that is $15,000 in all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The answer of the minister seems to be very reasonable when he says that the chief architect will have to go through all these different plans. When the Langevin block was built-and it is looked upon as one of the finest buildings in Ottawa, the chief architect at that time, who, I am sure, was not the superior of the present architect, made the plans without consulting anybody. It did not cost the government one cent for making the plans of that beautiful building. To show the difference between the course pursued by the two governments, I might refer to the estimaters who were appointed to value the properties on Sussex street which have been purchased by the government for the site of this new building. I think there were three or four sets of estimaters.


William Pugsley: Is the Langevin block the building in connection with which the roof was omitted from the contract ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, no.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not know, I am talking about the plans of the buildings. Three or four sets of estimaters were appointed to value the property on Sussex street. One set of men made an estimate and they were paid and very well paid. Another set of men made a second estimate and they were paid, and then Mr. Riopel was appointed to make a new estimate. He was paid a part of his account for services and now he is claiming a very large sum of money. My hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) need not be surprised if money is spent in this way. It all goes to party friends right and left. It is part of the combination.


George William Fowler: Notwithstanding the explanation of the minister, which my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) sarcastically has said was a reasonable answer, and I am sure my hon. friend was sarcastic-


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman's statement was sincere.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Certainly.


George William Fowler: I had supposed that my hon. friend was speaking sarcastically.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, I referred to the hon. minister's answer.


George William Fowler: Surely my hon. friend is not sincere in saying that the payment of $15,000 to assist the chief architect in drawing up these plans is reasonable ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I thought that that was a good answer compared with the other things they were doing a little lower down.


George William Fowler: I knew my hon. friend was sarcastic. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is so accustomed to giving soft-soapy answers that he always assumes that every thing is all right. Is it not absurd on the face of it ? We pay a chief architect a salary for doing what ?-surely for designing these public buildings that are to be erected. Surely the chief architect has assistants-how many ?-by the score ?


William Pugsley: A great many.


George William Fowler: How many ?


William Pugsley: Twelve who may be called architects and draughtsmen.


George William Fowler: 
William Pugsley: The Dominion was not so big then as it is now.


George William Fowler: The building is the same whether the country was as big or not.
Mr; PUGSLEY. I mean that the work of the architect's office was not nearly so great then as it is now.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The men were bigger than they are now.


William Pugsley: They were very good men.


George William Fowler: I cannot conceive of a greater waste of public money than the payment of $15,000 to these outside architects.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was the competition open to the wrorld or only to Canadians ?


William Pugsley: Only to Canadians.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would my hon. friend give the names of those who made plans and those who got the prizes ?


William Pugsley: I could, not give all the names. Twenty-nine different architects submitted plans.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there a committee appointed to examine the plans ?


William Pugsley: Yes, a committee consisting of the president of the Ontario Association of Architects, the president of the Quebec Association of Architects, and Mr. Ewart, the chief architect of the department.


George William Fowler: These were the committee ?


William Pugsley: Yes, they were the boai-d of judges.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were they paid ?


William Pugsley: They were paid.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did they compete ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: How much did they get ? 1 do not think there is any limit to what may be done by this government in the line of wrong-doing.


William Pugsley: I knew my hon. friend would say that.


George William Fowler: I want to compliment the Minister of Public Works by saying that of all the ministers he is prepared to go to the greatest length in the waste of public money, and I will guarantee, from what I know of the hon. gentleman and his former career, that he will outstrip them all. He will leave them a long way in the distance.
I want to know how much this committee was paid.


William Pugsley: This committee was paid $4,500.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Besides the $15,000 ?


William Pugsley: Mr. PUGSLEY\ Yes, they were paid $1,500 each.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: So that the whole cost about $20,000?


William Pugsley: About $20,000-$19,500.


George William Fowler: How much money do you propose to expend on this building ?


William Pugsley: About $4,000,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: We will be in that.


William Pugsley: I am surprised at the hon. member for Kings and Albert indulging in talk such as he has in regard to the plans. I am sure that my hon. friend, in his moments of sincerity and soberness, and he is always sober and not always insincere, will realize that when the government were undertaking the erection of these very important and costly buildings to accommodate the various departments, and including a palace of justice, it was not an unreasonable expenditure of money to invite from the architects of Canada designs for those buildings. I think also that any one would say that in not binding ourselves to accept any one of those plans, but giving the chief architect of the department the right to avail himself of any ideas which were unfolded by them, the department wras acting wisely. With regard to myself, I am always thankful for any attention that my hon. friend gives me. Even though my hon. friend has at times in the past criticised me and gentlemen with whom I have been associated, I have seen the day when he was the warmest in our praise. Therefore I do not take the criticisms of the hon. gentleman upon myself too seriously. But I think it might be advisable for him to wait until he sees how I administer the department over which I preside before he gives the assurance to this House that I shall not manage it economically and well. Thus far my hon. friend cannot point to anything in my administration of the department which invites his criticism, or even the criticism of those who would look at the matter from a non-partisan standpoint.


George William Fowler: Since my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has read me this lecture, I will devote a few minutes to a reply. In the first place, he makes the challenge that I have been unable to point to any particular thing in which he has shown extravagance as Minister of Public Works. Sir, that was a safe challenge for the hon. minister to throw down. He knows perfectly wrnll that I have had no opportunity yet to know what he has done in his department. He knows perfectly well that until the accounts for the year are produced it will be impossible for us to know just how extravagantly he has conducted the affairs of his department. But I will refer the hon. gentleman to some of

the things which have already occurred, which will bear out the general statement I made to the effect, that whatever extravagance there might be in the various departments of this government, the Department of Public Works, under the superintendence of the present minister, would far outstrip all those other departments in wanton, wilful >waste and extravagance; and, Sir, you will find when the next session comes, and when we have an opportunity to disclose to the public just what the hon. gentleman has done in his department, that the words I have uttered will be verified and more than verified. We had an order in council passed by the government at the request of the hon. gentleman; and we had in this House the other day the humiliating spectacle of the hon. gentleman being compelled to stand up in his place and admit that owing to what had been brought out here by the opposition, his colleagues had taken him by the neck, as it were, and had rescinded that order in council which he had defended upon the floor of parliament. No greater humiliation was ever offered


William Pugsley: X do not wish unduly to interrupt my hon. friend, but X can assure him that he is now making a statement which is wholly unwarranted. Whatever was done in passing the order in council, and whatever was done in rescinding it, was done wholly on my initiation and at my recommendation.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. A. Johnston).: I would suggest that we have departed sufficiently from the item before the committee.


George William Fowler: I understand, then, that the chairman feels that his minister is getting rather the worst of this, and that although he invited it by making an attack upon me, the Chairman proposes to exercise his right and refuse to allow me the opportunity of answering him. I have much more to say about the hon. Minister of Public Works, and I would like to have an opportunity now of saying it.


The CHAIRMAN.: I think I have allowed the hon. gentleman to proceed far enough. I realized a little while ago that the discussion was out of order.


George William Fowler: You should have stopped your minister, not me.


Charles Marcil: I propose to ask the committee to come back to the immediate item -which is before the committee. I suggest that for the consideration of the committee.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend desires, we will let this item stand, and take up the next.


George William Fowler: I would like to finish what I have to say in answer to the hon.
gentleman first. Surely the Chairman does not want me to do the hon. gentleman the discourtesy of not replying to the statement he made.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman forgets that I was replying to him.


George William Fowler: Not at all. The hon. gentleman was making a statement entirely contrary to the fact, and I was pointing out to him his duty under the circumstances. When the government of which he is a member humiliated him by rescinding an order in council passed at his desire, it seems to me that there was only one course open to him as a man of honour, and that was to lay down his portfolio and resign from the government. Surely no other course was open to the hon. gentleman ; but, as some of my hon. friends suggest, he certainly would not do that. The hon. gentleman has waded through too much in order to get this portfolio. He refers to a time when I spoke well of him. There was a time when I perhaps did speak well of the hon. gentleman and of the views which he entertained upon the political questions of the day ; but that time was when he was sailing under a different flag from the one he sails under to-day, not the skull and cross-bones. That was when he was sailing under the Conservative flag and was as strong a Conservative as could be found in this country. As an individual he is a very nice, courteous gentleman ; but the manner in which you speak of the hon. gentleman's politics depends on the period of the hon. gentleman's career to which you are referring. If you are referring to the period from 1873 to 1878, if you happen to be a Liberal, you will commend most strongly his attitude then on the political questions of the day, because there was at that time, no stronger Liberal or supporter of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie from the Atlantic to the Pacific than the hon. gentleman. But, Sir, there came a change in the year 1878; there was a Dominion election on. The hon. gentleman had not at that time changed his political attitude.


William Pugsley: Is this modern or ancient history ?


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman is not so old that the history of his political career would necessarily be ancient history.
The hon. gentleman is grey, but he is not really an old man except in sin^-politi-cal sin. I make the distinction. Now, there was a general election on, and any person walking along the streets of the city of St. John and looking at the bill boards might have seen a notice to the effect that there would be a rally of the Liberal party to be held in the hall in the parish of St. Martins, and that rally was to be addressed b'- the Hon. William Pugs-ley and other leaders of the Liberal party. This was the notice that appeared on

Monday. But on Tuesday any person passing through the streets and observing the bill boards would see pasted over this notice a' placard bearing these words : 'Great Conservative Rally ; a meeting in the interests of the Liberal-Conservative party
to be held in the hall of 

 on such a
day ; the chair to be taken at 8 o'clock, and the meeting will be addressed by the Hon. William Pugsley and other Conservative leaders.' Talk about the conversion of St. Paul. It was not a circumstance to that of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman's was quite as rapid.


Robert Laird Borden: But not so thorough.


George William Fowler: Not so thorough, as my hon. leader says, because the hon. gentleman was yet to undergo another change, a change equally wonderful, and accompanied by another change of government of course. No government could change more quickly than could the hon. gentleman. Time passed. The hon. gentleman was a strong Conservative; and in 1895-not very ancient history-he had aspirations towards Ottawa. He wanted to be a representative of his native county and he was nominated the Conservative candidate. I had the pleasure of moving his nomination and I had the pleasure on several occasions- and I suppose that is what the hon. gentleman refers to-of accompanying him in his canvass throughout the county and of speaking from different platforms with him. I cannot recall now that I was particularly eulogistic of the hon. gentleman personally, but I certainly was of the policy of the party of which the hon. gentleman then was a strong exponent, as I have always been all my life. So that when he says there was a time when I was somewhat vehement in my praise of his political associates, I admit the fact. But that time was when the hon. gentleman was an associate of mine politically and a leader in that party to which all my life I have belonged.


William Pugsley: That does not happen to be what I was referring to.


George William Fowler: Then I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman was referring to and would like him to state what it was.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman knows.


George William Fowler: I do not know. But there came a change. The hon. gentleman found that his political course had been so tortuous that the good people of the county of Kings-the Conservative people of the county of Kings-were not satisfied with him as a candidate, and he discovered that if he were to continue a candidate he would be very apt to lose the election. So he wrote a letter to the president of the association in which he resigned the nomination and gave his reasons for resigning.


George William Fowler: 


William Pugsley: We had all this four mouths ago.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman has brought it on himself and he may'have it several times before this parliament is through.


William Pugsley: What about the suffering country?


George William Fowler: It is a good thing and will bear repetition. The hon. gentleman wrote a letter to the president of the association in which he resigned the nomination and gave his reasons, and his principal reason was that he did not wish to be the means of sowing discord and dissension in the ranks of the grand old Conservative party of which he was such a lover-that party which had done everything that had been done for the upbuilding of Canada. And he went to St. John, and there he ran as a strong opponent of both the government and the opposition. He ran as an independent. Why, he had no confidence, Sir, in you as the leader of the opposition, as the leader of the Liberal party at that time. No man on the government side was one-half so strong in denunciation of you, Sir, and your political ideals as was the hon. minister who is now such a subservient follower of yours.


Wilfrid Laurier: Stronger than yours ?


George William Fowler: Very much stronger. Why there was not a political sin he did not accuse you of. He called you a traitor to your country.


William Pugsley: I would not interrupt my hon. friend when he goes to such extremes if he were saying what he really believed to be true, but he is simply indulging in flights of imagination and stating what he must know, if he knows at all what I said, to be without foundation.


George William Fowler: I can well understand how this bites, but the hon. gentleman has been forgiven, he has made his peace, he has wiped the feet of the First Slinister with his tears of repentance, he has had the benediction of the First Slinister laid upon his bowed head and has received the injunction :	Rise, son, thy sins are forgiven thee, go and sin no more. This was in the days when the hon. gentleman was in the transition period of his political life. It was in that transition period when he was changing from the caterpillar to the butterfly and when he was still in the chrysalis as a member of the Conservative party. But during that election campaign of 1896 the process of change and disintegration had begun, and when, on the night of June 23, 1896, the news came flashing over the wires that the Liberal party had won, just as quickly as the news came, the hon. gentleman cast aside his caterpillar shell and emerged into the splendor of a

new day, a gaudy, glittering butterfly. He has been a" Liberal ever since. Yes, he has since In the twelve years during which he has been basking in the sunshine that radiates from you, right hon. Sir, as the head of the Liberal party


Wilfrid Laurier: Address the Chair.


George William Fowler: I am addressing the chair, Sir, through you. Ever since that day he has been a strong, active working Liberal. I want to say, however, to the right hon. the First Minister that I do not think the hon. gentleman has brought very great strength to the Liberal cause in the province from which lie comes. I think, Sir, that the defeat, the disastrous defeat which has befallen the Liberal party in the province of New Brunswick, is to some considerable extent due to the dissatisfaction felt by the people of that province in the political principles and methods of the hon. gentleman whom you have taken into your cabinet as Minister of Public Works. I have no doubt that this had largely to do with it. And that disastrous defeat which has overtaken your party in that province, although it was in the matter of local politics, is yet a true index of what will happen in federal politics this autumn, if you decide to go to the country then. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Prime Minister to cast about him for a man from the province of New Brunswick in whom the people of that province would have more confidence. I am perfectly disinterested in giving this advice, for, from the party standpoint, there is no one who could probably make it easier for us of the opposition to win in that province than the hon. gentleman. But you had, sitting behind him in the back benches, one man who was able to carry a constituency which he represented here; and it seems to me that if you are looking for political success in the province of New Brunswick, you had better change your Minister of Public Works. For, not only will he be a weakness to you in New Brunswick, but you will find that he will continue in his conduct of his present office the methods which he followed in his own province and which brought his part}' their to disastrous rout. It does seem to me that the condition of your party, owiug to the misconduct of the heads of departments, is already deplorable enough without making it worse by giving a free hand to your Minister of Public Works. This advice I give gratuitously to the Prime Minister ; I give it from the patriotic standpoint, not from the party standpoint.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is all the more valuable.


George William Fowler: It is all the more valuable, for it is all perfectly disinterested. I hope the Prime Minister will profit by it and that he will relegate the hon. gentleman to the
background and bring in a new Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: I feel that I should really apologize to the House for taking up any time in replying to the observations of the hon. gentlemau (Mr. Fowler) for they are not at all relevant to the matter before the committee. But I wish to say one word in answer to the speech which the hon. gentleman has just made. This is the same speech that was reported in the newspapers some months ago as having been made by the hon. gentleman in St. John before the election was called to fill the vacancy caused by the death of my late friend, Dr. Stockton. On that occasion, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) came to St. John and addressed a large public meeting, maxing the same speech as he has made today. He spoke of my political career, covering some thirty years, and begged the Conservative party to put up some person in opposition to me. But the electors of the city of St. John, Liberals and Conservatives, who know the hon. gentleman and know me, who know7 the course I have pursued in that city siuce I went there to make my home among them a good many years ago, gave the hon. gentleman his answer by returning me by acclamation.


George William Fowler: In the first place the statement the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) has made about the speech is absolutely foundationless. I did address a public meeting in St. John, and I did advise the electors to oppose the present Minister of Public Works, even though he had held out as a bribe to the people of St. John w7hat he could do for them if he were returned as Minister of Public Works. And the hon. gentleman plumes himself upon his election by acclamation. I wras opposed to his election by acclamation, notwithstanding all the pledges and promises he made to the people. But, if the hon. gentleman had asked the people to elect him without his portfolio, lie would have been beaten by more than five hundred votes. It w7as not the person of the hon. gentleman that was elected in the city of St. John, it was the office. And is that a thing for the hon. gentleman to plume himself upon? Is that a thing for him to boast about? For my part, I should much prefer to be elected on my personality. Why, the hon. gentleman, never once, during his long political career has appeared before the public and asked for their suffrages as a representative of a party in opposition-Oh, yes; I am mistaken. He did, once. On one occasion he appeared, not exactly as an opposition but as an independent candidate. What happened when lie dared thus to face the electors of any constituency in Canada on his own personality as a man? Why he lost his deposit- that is what happened. This is the hon. gentleman who is trying to make the people think that so magnificent is his personality,

so much are the people of St. John in love with him. that they fall over themselves to elect him by acclamation. Yet, as I have said, the only time that the hon. gentleman ever faced the electors In opposition to any government was when he ran in 1896 as an independent, and was so disastrously beaten that he lost his deposit. Yes, and even if he had got a thousand votes more than he did, he would still have lost his deposit. And that is what the people think of the hon. gentleman's personality in the city in which he lives. But, Sir, here was a government in power: here was a city that had made tremendous sacrifices in order to provide terminal transportation facilities: and here, they felt, was an opportunity to get some assistance in the establishment of further facilities which were required at that port; and so they elected the office of Minister of Public Works, and, unfortunately, they had to take with it the personality of the hon. gentleman who had been selected by the Prime Minister to fill that office. It was a handicap that the office was filled by the hon. gentleman-almost anybody else would have had a better chance than he. I do not think he will refer to this matter again.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


George William Fowler: This item stands, does it?


William Pugsley: It is carried.


George William Fowler: No, it is not carried; and I do not propose that it shall be carried now. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) promised certain information with regard to it.


William Pugsley: Well, let it stand then.
Bridgewater, public building. $22,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is this one to cost?
Mr, PUGSLEY. The hon. gentleman will see that this is a revote of $5,000. This is to make provision for the construction of a public building in the town of Bridgewater. The total cost will be $39,500, including the site, heating, electric wiring, fixtures, furniture, &c. This is a new building. Bridgewater is in the county of Lunenburg.


George William Fowler: How much did the land cost ?


William Pugsley: $5,500. The lot is 110 feet on King street, and 130 feet on Dominion street.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What is the population of Bridgewater ?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1901 the population was 2,900, including Bridgewater North and South. The post office receipts for 1907 were $1,362 ; customs receipts, $4,871 ; money orders issued, $42,449 ; money orders paid, $32,000. It has a large bank, a printing office, four gang sawmills, grist mills, and so forth, and does a large trade in lumber.


George William Fowler: Mr.. BERGERON. Who was the site bought from ?


William Pugsley: From H. and A. Davidson.


George William Fowler: Was that a vacant lot ?


William Pugsley: I presume so.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: It is perhaps fair to say that the price is large ; I suppose judged by the land values in most Nova Scotia towns it would appear to be large. But there were few available places on which this building could be erected, and it appeared desirable to have it built on the principal business street which is somewhat congested owing to physical conditions, and consequently the values on this street are higher than in most Nova Scotia towns. This vacant lot cost the owners practically the amount it was sold for. I had considerable to do in advising the department concerning the purchase of the lot. The owners, in making up the price, took into consideration the original cost, and interest at 4 per cent.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who did the Davidsons buy the property from ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A corporation known as the Academy of Music Company, Limited, I think were the previous owners. There was an opera house upon the site at one time and it was burned.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who selected the site ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I recommended the site to the department. It appeared on the whole to be the best site in the town, and no other site could be purchased at a lower price.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did the Davidsons buy the property on purpose to sell it to tile government ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I may say that the Davidsons sold this land at a lower price to the department than they would have sold to any other purchaser.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long had the opera house been burnt before this property was soli to the government'?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About seven or eight years.


George William Fowler: What lawyer put the title through ?


William Pugsley: I do not think that is mentioned.


Mr. DANIEL.: I suppose this building is being erected by tender ?


William Pugsley: Yes, tenders were received in answer to public advertisements. The tenders were $23,500 and $24,000, the lowest being accepted. The tenderers were A. D. Falconer, of Sydney, and W. R. Macdonald, of Kentville.


George William Fowler: How much was paid for legal services for getting the title ?


William Pugsley: The total amount paid for legal expenses and advertising, printing, survey of site, &e., of every kind were $216.81.


Richard Blain: Who was the clerk of works, and what was his salary ?


William Pugsley: The clerk of works is Mr. Lamb, and his salary is $3.50 a day.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation was he appointed, and what are his special qualifications for that work ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I may inform the hon. gentleman that I had the pleasure of recommending the appointment. He is a carpenter, and very competent.


George William Fowler: This is certainly a departure from the usual rule, actually appointing' as clerk of works a man whose occupation would fit him for that position.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the policy of the department is to ask the member for the county to recommend a site for public buildings, and also to recommend the clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: As I understand the practice of the department, when a man is required to supervise the erection of a public building, the member of thei county is supposed to know the men best qualified for that purpose, and he is consulted.' If he makes a recommendation the head of the department makes inquiry as to the man's capability, his occupation and generally as to his qualifications for performing the duties.


Richard Blain: Does it make any difference on which side of the House the sitting member is ?


William Pugsley: I would think so, yes, that is a time-honoured custom.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might remind the minister that I made a recommendation for the enlargement of the St. John post office, which has not been acted upon. I offer the suggestion to the Minister of Public Works to bear it in mind.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should not press that because we are told these things are bribes to the citizens of St. John and it would be highly improper to bribe them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The people of St. John could accept an enlarged post office which is very much needed even although the Minister of Finance may possibly consider that it was being used as a bribe. As the west is absorbing some of our immigrants, so we may be able to absorb an enlarged post office without any injury to the political atmosphere of the city.


William Pugsley: The improvement of the accommodation of the St. John post office came under consideration some little time ago, and the Postmaster General decided that increased accommodation is to be given and that is to be attended to. By making certain changes in the interior of the building it is supposed the accommodation can be so improved that it will do for a number of years to come, without going to the heavy expense of erecting a new post office.


Richard Blain: Is it the policy of the minister to purchase sites and to appoint clerks of works solely on the recommendation of the sitting member ?


William Pugsley: I thought I had made it clear that 'the policy of the department, certainly my policy, is to make inquiries after tlie recommendation is made. We would not act on the recommendation of a member without making inquiry as to the suitability of a site. While ordinarily we feel that we may rely on the recommendations of our friends, in this case we would think it well to go further and make inquiry as to the site for the building and as to the qualification of the clerk of works.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What would the minister think of the selection of a medical practitioner to superintend the erection of a lighthouse ?


William Pugsley: Everything would depend on his general qualification, but if he had had experience in that kind of work and knew how to handle men he might be a very good man.


George William Fowler: Would it make any difference if he were a defeated candidate ? Would that make his qualifications any stronger ?


William Pugsley: I suppose not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In Sunbury a medical man who has been a candidate in the last two elections was appointed to superintend the erection of a lighthouse.


William Pugsley: That is not in my department.


George William Fowler: Or wharfs?


William Pugsley: Wharfs but not lighthouses. If the hon. gentleman says I appointed a medical gentleman to inspect a wharf he is misinformed.


George William Fowler: No one said you appointed him in any case, but a medical gentleman was appointed to inspect the erection of a lighthouse and also of a wharf.


William Pugsley: What wharf ?


George William Fowler: I fancy the Oromocto wharf.


William Pugsley: I fancy the hon. gentleman is in error.

ilr. FOWLER. Dr. Peake who was tlie defeated candidate In the last election and also in the election previous was appointed inspector of the lighthouse and a wharf.


William Pugsley: The wharf at Oromoeto?


George William Fowler: I do not say the wharf at Oromoeto but a wharf.
Glace Ray, public building, $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What would be the total cost and is the contract let ?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $57,767 exclusive of site. The amount of the contract is $34,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who are the contractors ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Rhodes and
Curry.


William Humphrey Bennett: The work is under
way ?


William Pugsley: The contract was taken December 19, 1907, and the work is now under way.


Richard Blain: From whom was the site purchased and at what price ?


William Pugsley: One lot was purchased from M. Nolan. Another property, known as the Ferguson property, was also purchased.


Richard Blain: Had Dr. Sullivan something to do with one of those sites ?
Mi-. PUGSLEY. 1 do not know as to that.


William Pugsley: 1 stated it as 2,900.


George Taylor: Yes, less than 3,000. When the Conservative party were in power our town, which has about 4,000 population and which has a very much larger postal revenue, had to give a free site and got a building costing between $8,000 and $10,-
000.	I think it is an outrage to put a $39,000 building in a little village of 2,900 people.


Mr. TALBOT.: That was to make up for the Laprairie post office.
Halifax Dominion buildings-improvements, repairs, &c., $15,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that to be done by contract?


William Pugsley: That is to make provision towards remodelling the interior of the Halifax Dominion building which is to be used for post office purposes.


Richard Blain: Has that anything to do with the customs house?


William Pugsley: No, the customs examining warehouse and the offices of the Inland Revenue Department have been removed to the new customs house building and now we want to make some improvements to the post office building.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the work be done by tender or day's labour?


William Pugsley: We called for tenders for this building, but no contracts have been let jet. The matter is under consideration.


Richard Blain: I see an item :
Dr. Sullivan, purchase price of site, $4,509.


William Stevens Fielding: The property known as the Ferguson property was owned by Dr. Sullivan. Ferguson is an old name attached to it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I see that last year $200 was paid to Whitten, is he the clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: That is a case where an outside architect prepared plans and is the supervising architect. He would be the one the hon. gentleman refers to.


George Taylor: If I understood the minister correctly the cost of the post office at Bridgewater was $39,000.


William Pugsley: Yes, including the site, fittings and everything.


George Taylor: Is there not a mistake? I heard a discussion going on close about me that there must certainly be a mistake of $10,000.


William Pugsley: No, the total estimated cost is $39,500.


George Taylor: I understand that Bridgewater has a population of less than 3.000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the work be done by contract or day's labour?


William Pugsley: We are endeavouring to get it done by contract, but I am not in a position to say whether it may not be for the best under the circumstances, which perhaps it may not be necessary for me to state to the committee, to get the work done by day's labour. It may be more economical to get it done by day's work.


George William Fowler: What is the nature of the work ?


William Pugsley: Remodelling the inside of the building.


George William Fowler: Changing partitions?


William Pugsley: Y'es, changing partitions and all that sort of work which is rendered necessary by reason of the building being required for post office purposes.


George William Fowler: Are you taking in any additional offices?


William Stevens Fielding: The post office, customs house and a number of other offices were all in this old building. It was a building constructed before confederation. Now that the new customs house has been


William Pugsley: 


2L 1908
[Stage Direction]
built, the customs staff has been moved over to the new building and the old building is being entirely remodelled for the accommodation of the post office and also some other departments ; for instance, the Finance Department, which has an office in a private building in the city, is to be moved into this building and in so far as possible all the offices which have been distributed throughout the city will be consolidated in these two buildings.
William Pugsley: This is entirely a revote.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
On the order,
House in Committee on Bill No. 51, an Act respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company (reported without amendment). -Mr. Crawford.
George Perry Graham: Stand.


Mr. HENDERSON.: If the objection to going on is that the promoter is not here, I waive that objection.


George Perry Graham: I want it to stand. There are questions arising on this that I want to look into.


Mr. LENNOX.: The minister is aware that I gave notice of an amendment, which will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the 21st inst. It is somewhat to the same effect as the provision which we incorporated in the statute of 1904 when we were granting additional privileges to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, that we could on certain terms take over certain branches; so that the government, when they resumed possession of the eastern division, if they should resume possession, at the end of fifty years, would have the right to take over such branches as are built in connection with the eastern division. I would be glad if the minister would consider it in the meantime.
Progress reported.


RELIEF OF EDITH MAUD ROSARIO GAMMELL.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 139), for the relief of Edith Maud Rosario Gam-mell.-Mr. Galliher.
Haughton Lennox: I suppose that the committee to whom was referred this case have taken into consideration the evidence perhaps more fully than the Senate Committee did. I called attention the other night to the fact that the evidence that was presented to us from the Senate did not appear
to be very satisfactory, and that view was concurred in by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are not present to-night. I do not belong to that committee and do not know what their procedure is; but as the matter was before the Senate Committee, there were to my mind two serious defects in the case. One was that there was no proper identification of tile husband. Taking it as clearly established that improper relations were shown to have existed between a certain man and a lady, it was not definitely shown that the man referred to was the husband of this Mrs. Gammell, although she speaks of him as her husband. Aside from that, the evidence produced was to my mind of the most unsatisfactory kind. It was the evidence of a constable and some one who accompanied him. and it was not explained how they were able to proceed to the point they spoke of without being detected by the other party. I would not believe their evidence for the purpose of determining the ownership of a barrel of apples. It is possible that the members of the House of Commons Committee have satisfied themselves by further investigation; but if they have not, 1 venture to say that this thing is going through on very unsatisfactory and inconclusive evidence.


Mr. GALLIHER.: This Bill is in my name. I may say that I do not know very much about the facts and nothing about the people. I happened to be on the Private Bills Committee when It went through there, and I have also read the evidence. There is something in what my hon. friend opposite says. Still, after all, I think the fact is pretty clearly established that the man with whom the lady was found was certainly not her husband, whoever her husband may have been. With regard to how the people got there without being seen, that would probably depend a good deal on the preoccupation of the individuals themselves as they took their evening stroll. For my part, although the evidence is not as direct as possible, It leaves no doubt In my mind that the woman is entitled to the relief she claims. I may say that there was no further evidence adduced before the committee.


Haughton Lennox: I submit to my hon. friend's superior judgment in the matter.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 124) for the relief of Andrew Walker.-(Mr. Guthrie).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Halifax immigration building-renewals and repairs in connection with heating, plumbinw &c„ $1,800.
['We will proceed with Supply and take up the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.']
William Pugsley: This is for certain repairs to the heating apparatus. The total cost is $4,800 and there has been expended, under a previous vote, $3,000. We are asking for a revote of $1,800 to complete.
Halifax immigrant detention building, $7,-


Mr. ALCORN.: Is there a larger garrison at Halifax now than when the imperial authorities had charge ?


William Pugsley: 1 would have to refer my hon. friend to the Minister of Militia for that information.
000.


William Pugsley: This is required to complete the building under construction. It is for the treatment of immigrants suffering from trachoma and other kindred diseases. It was put under contract October, 1905. The dimensions are 115 by 51. Total probable cost, $72,106.91. It has been all paid for with the exception of this $7,000.


George Oscar Alcorn: It is difficult to understand why this expenditure should be necessary now when the accommodation was sufficient for the imperial troops ?


William Pugsley: This is not for a new building but for a reconstruction of the old one.


David Henderson: Were the barracks burnt down ?


David Henderson: I thought that we deported the diseased immigrants.


William Pugsley: No, but they had become very dilapidated.


William Pugsley: They have to be detained until they can be deported and there must be a place in which to treat them. They have to be treated in a humane manner. In some cases they might be detained until they recover.
Halifax military buildings, Wellington barracks-re-construction of married men's quarters, $45,000.


William Pugsley: This amount was voted last session but no part of it has been used so that this is a revote. This work is urgently requested by the Department of Militia.


Richard Blain: Will tenders be called ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


David Henderson: There cannot be very much urgency when the whole amount voted last year remains unexpended. Why was this work held over ? Is there any special object in keeping it on hand until this year ? This money should have been spent when parliament ordered it. We are not supposed to vote money for the mere pleasure of voting it. Why has the minister allowed this work to stand over ? If it was so urgently required, why was it not done last year ? Is the money to be spent this year ?


William Pugsley: We intend spending the money this year. It does not always follow that when parliament votes money for a specific purpose, it is absolutely essential that the money should be spent. In view of the financial conditions the world over last year, one can well understand that we should incur only such expenditure as was absolutely necessary.


David Henderson: Suppose there should be no elections this year, will the money be spent just the same ?


William Pugsley: The question of an election has never been thought of in this connection.
Halifax-new public building, customhouse, $12,000.


William Pugsley: As hon. gentlemen will see, this is a revote of $12,000, to make provision for the amount estimated to be spent during the fiscal year in the erection of a public building in Halifax for the purposes of the customs. I need not go into a description, but may say generally, that it is a large and fine building.


Richard Blain: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: Including electric wiring, heating, elevator, furniture, &c., the cost will be $325,015.25.


Richard Blain: Who is the contractor?


William Pugsley: Mr. Keefe, of Halifax.


Richard Blain: Has the contractor done his work satisfactorily to the architect?


William Pugsley: Not entirely so. Some objections have been raised. At my request the chief architect has sent a member of his staff to make a thorough investigation, and, in the meantime, an amount is held back.


Richard Blain: What is the trouble ?


William Pugsley: I suppose the hon. gentleman would not wish me to go into the details. A number of objections are made, none of great magnitude. For instance, there is an objection to the way the windows are hung and a number of matters of that kind.


David Henderson: What was the estimated cost of this building?


William Pugsley: My deputy informs me that it was $300,000.


David Henderson: And this has already been exceeded by $25,000.


William Pugsley: Well, the estimate of $300,000 was for the bare building, whereas the figure I have given of the building complete includes electric wiring, fittings, furniture, elevator, heating, and so on.


Haughton Lennox: 
David Henderson: I would draw the minister's attention to a point that has frequently been discussed in this House in past years in connection with the construction of buildings of this kind. I, for one, and others also, have insisted, when a vote is to be taken for a public building, that the minister in charge shall give an estimate of the total cost, not merely for the construction of the building, hut covering also the heating apparatus and fittings, and so on, so that we may know exactly what we are doing, and keep a proper check upon the expenditure of the minister. From the little information I have, this seems, to be one of the cases where the amount necessary to complete the building will far exceed the original estimates. Already more than $25,000 over the estimate has been spent, and now we are asked for another vote of $12,000. Next year, possibly, we may be called upon for a further vote for furniture, and for extras possibly. I presume the minister was not personally responsible for the expenditure on this work, but, of course, he has to assume responsibility for the acts of his predecessors. I wish to make our position clear in this matter. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is very fond of charging hon. members on this side with objecting to public works, especially public works in the province of Nova Scotia. I want the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to distinguish between objection and criticism. We do not object to the construction of useful public works, for we recognize that expenditure on this service is necessary and will be necessary in time to come. We approve the construction of public works that are essential for the purposes of the country. But we are ready to enter our very strong protest against any extravagance or waste, or, if the minister will pardon me, graft, in connection with the construction of these buildings. This is the reason why we want to have a careful estimate made before any money is voted for the construction of a new building. We find it necessary, owing to the largely increasing expenditure, to put checks upon it. What we object to is not expenditure that is called for by the needs of the country, but careless and extravagant expenditure. As the items of supply are discussed from time to time, the hon. minister will understand why it is that we hold him strictly to account for any over-stepping of the estimate of the cost of a public building. There is no reason why an architect should not estimate almost to a nicety, the cost of a building such as this. A few years ago, we endeavoured to get the Minister of Public Works to erect in small country towns for post office purposes buildings that, probably, would not cost more than SS.000 or $10,000. Hon. Mr. Tarte, when Minister of Public Works, declared his intention of providing such buildings. He made an attempt, commencing, I believe, in West Huron, with the town of Clinton. He proposed to erect there a building on the principle I had suggested, being not only a building for the post office, but a residence for the postmaster, thereby saving the expense of a caretaker. But X understand that when the matter went to the architect he refused to draw the plans and said they were not in the habit of drawing plans and specifications for buildings of less than $10,000. Were I Minister of Public Works-which I do not expect ever to be -I would ask the architect, in such a case, to step out, and would put another man in his place, for I think the minister is the man to be responsible for the expenditure and not the architect. Of course, I find no fault with the officer who is here to advise the minister to-night. Probably that may be the custom. But it is a custom we must try to get over. The architect must be ready to lay before the committee a careful and correct estimate of the total expenditure of the building, and then it will be the duty of this committee, year after year, as we are voting money, to see to it that the expenditure is kept within that line. If tnis is done, I think the Minister of Finance will not encounter the difficulty in furnishing the money for these public works which he has indicated. I was a little surprised when the minister made this confession a few moments ago that the reason why an item of $45,000 was not expended was that the Minister of Finance realized that, owing to- danger of money stringency, it was better to allow the work to remain unfinished than to undertake the expenditure. I had an idea that this country was big enough and rich enough to carry through any proposition approved by parliament, and I think so yet. When matters of this character come up again, especially on a first vote, the minister will hear from me on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. gentleman, while well intentioned, is too exacting when he insists that there should be at the beginning a very full estimate as to the cost of the work. There should be a general estimate undoubtedly at the time these estimates are prepared. Even in the case of the public work now under notice, detailed plans could not be prepared ; it would not be the part of wisdom to prepare detailed plans before the appropriation was made. Therefore, the first estimate must necessarily be a preliminary estimate. It need not necessarily on that ground be far from the facts, for it should take into account of course lighting, heating and other items of expenditure. But where you prepare detailed plans later, it is possible that you will find the original estimate is somewhat exceeded, and if the amounts are not too large. I do not think would be any ground for criticism. With regard to the more general question of expenditures, it may happen that

after we have' appropriated the money there are seasons when things are running smoothly and when the Minister of Finance would have no reason to forbid the various spending departments to use the moneys which have been appropriated for the public service. But if it should appear that the expenditure was running high and the revenue was running lower than usual, it would be the part of wisdom in the Minister of Finance to say to his colleagues : Well, although this appropriation is supposed to be at your disposal to deal with in any way you like, you had better hold part of it up until the following year. I think that would be a wise course to pursue under such circumstances.


David Henderson: In this case no part of the appropriation has been expended, no effort was made to go on with the work. With reference to what the Finance Minister has said about the impossibility of estimating exactly what a building will cost, my plan would be that the minister should say to the architect :	We propose
to erect a public building in the city of Halifax, or wherever it is to be erected, for a specific purpose ; it may be a custom house, it may be an armoury, it may be a post office. We propose to spend on that building the sum of $100,000, and that sum must complete the building in its entirety. It must furnish the site, it must put up the building, it must furnish the heating, lighting, fittings and everything else required. He says to his architect: I want you to draw a plan and prepare specifications for a building that will cost $100,000 and not one dollar more. If the architect finds, after working out his details, that the building is going to cost a little more than that, then it will be his duty to shave it down, to revise his calculations, and come within the limit of the amount the minister has directed him to expend on that building. I remember years ago when Hon. Mr. Sutherland was Minister of Public Works drawing his attention to this matter in a case that occurred in the city of London, where an estimate for an armoury had been exceeded, if I remember rightly, some $75,000 or $80,000 over the appropriation voted by parliament. I laid down this very principle, and Mr. Sutherland heartily endorsed it. I have no doubt that the Minister of Public Works to-day, if he thinks the matter over, will see a great deal of wisdom in it, and I think he w ill find less trouble in the erection of these buildings and keeping them within the estimated cost if he adopts some arbitrary plan like that. At the same time, I think he will get over the difficulty that the Minister of Finance has pointed out, about a building costing a little more than was originally intended. Let the architect make some allowance for such extras as might reasonably be expected, and hold him re-Mr. FIELDING
sponsible for keeping within the amount that is to be expended on that building.


Mr. BARKER.: 1 cannot help expressing my extreme surpx-ise at the remarkable statement made by the Minister of Finance. We are now told plainly that when this government comes down with a proposition to parliament to build certain works, no matter what we are told as to the estimated cost, we are not to rely upon that, it doesn't amount to a row of pins. You do not expect your officers to know what to think or to estimate. Just give parliament something to go upon and we will start out. I say that such preaching from the Finance Minister can have no other result than the waste, plunder and extravagance that we have seen for years under this government. The officers of the Department of Public Works are present and are listening to the Finance Minister. The architect hears the Finance Minister of this country standing up and giving him practically authority just to shuflle off the figures. No matter whether we are right or wrong, just give us something to throw out to the House and we will go on with the work. Now, that is so extravagant a proposition that I wonder the Minister of Finance is not ashamed to stand up and make it. Why, such a proposition would disgrace any municipal council. The idea of a municipality going to work to build a municipal structure, and without ascertaining what that structure was going to cost, committing the municipality to the work, going on and putting $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 upon it. Now, you have begun it you must go on with it, though it cost you $100,000. I hope the hon. gentleman spoke without any consideration and simply to get the Minister of Public Works out of a possible hole he was in, because I think the hon. gentleman knows a great deal more about business than one would imagine from that statement. Surely there cannot be anything plainer than that before a minister controlling a department would recommend his colleagues to construct a particular public work, he would take the utmost care with his officers to find out what it would cost before he dared to come before his colleagues in council to get their approval. He should be able to tell them what it would cost; he might not be able to guarantee the expenditure to a dollar. But what do public companies, what do municipalities, what do governments do who have any care for their reputation ? They get from their engineer a carefully prepared estimate of the cost of the construction in detail ; they add a percentage to that to cover all possible contingencies, say ten or fifteen per cent. The engineer or architect who would lead his company into exnenditures that would ultimately upset all their calculations would get his walking ticket very quickly. But

this government could not dismiss an architect no matter how far he might be out, because the Finance Minister says :	Oh,
we do not expect him to be correct; we simply get something to go upon, to start with. They would rather he did not estimate too closely because as it is they can come session after session and say :	We
only got $50,000 from you and now we want $100,000 more. I think it is an outrage upon the House that we should be asked to vote money on an estimate which according to the words of the minister of the department goes for nothing.


William Pugsley: Who said that ?


Samuel Barker: Because the Finance Minister says that we must not pay attention to that estimate, we cannot be accurate so we need not pay attention to the estimate, but simply vote what is asked for. Over and over again we have been asked to vote fifty per cent, sixty per cent or 100 per cent more than we have been told the work would require, only to be told afterwards that it was simply a rough estimate to start with, and that it could not be expected that the officers would know from the beginning the probable cost. That is just what the architect is for. Here is an architect who is building a post office. He has probably had 20 samples of that very building all through the country and should not have the slightest excuse for not coming very close to the proper figures in his estimate ; but if he is told, as the Minister of Finance says, to go ahead, he will not take the trouble to be accurate, he will simply put in any sum, it would be quite superfluous for him to make an accurate estimate as he can have all he wants added to his original estimate. The Minister of Public Works says that thei'e was an estimate for this building, but they did not put in the wiring. He might just as well say that they did not put in tile gas pipes, or the cement that was provided long before the completion of the building. The wiring forsooth. I venture to say that we will probably have this up next year with a request for several thousands more to put in the patent steel desks. The argument of the Minister of Finance will be quite as effectual next year or five years hence, we will have something in addition to the original estimates under the name of furniture. This year it is wiring ; I suppose the next time it will be door knobs, window panes or something of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: What the Minister of Finance thinks will be judged from what he said and what is in ' Hansard ' and not from the extraordinary distortion of his words we have heard from the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker).


Samuel Barker: I am pretty accurate.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. 'member is not accurate, and if any one takes the 227
trouble to consult ' Hansard ' and to read the extraordinary statement the hon. gentleman has made, he will see that the hon. gentleman was not accurate. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to whom l was replying, said that the Minister of Public Works in asking a vote for a public building such as the one now asked for at Halifax, should lay before the House full and detailed plans and estimates of the building, and condemned the minister for not producing such plans. I stated that my hon. friend had a purpose in that which was legitimate and commendable, but it was not well to push that contention too far. I said it was not the practice and it had never been the practice of any government, when a first vote is taken for a public building, to come forward with all the detailed plans. It would not be the part of wisdom to undertake the detailed plans of a public building before parliament had made an appropriation.


Samuel Barker: Why not ?


William Stevens Fielding: It has never been done, i do not think it is possible.


Samuel Barker: It should be done.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not agree. If we could all be as wise as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) it would perhaps be better but that is impossible.


Samuel Barker: How is he to get tenders for the building if he has not plans ?


William Stevens Fielding: At the time you are asking for an appropriation you are not asking for tenders. I am not speaking of the time when you ask for tenders, but of the time when you take the first vote in parliament, months before tenders are asked for. Of course when tenders are asked "you must have detailed plans down to the duest point. But when application is made to parliament for the construction of a building of a certain character in a cerium place. I do not think it is reasonable to ask a department to have detailed plans for presentation. It has never been done and I do not think that any sensible man would ask it. When you come to call for tenders that is the proper time to have detailed plans and specifications made. If it turns out that the original preliminary and general estimate, which should include wiring and all these things, turns out to be less than is required, it does not prove that the architect is incompetent or that the minuter neglected his work.
Mr. *BLAIN. I see at Y-36 an item :
Department of Customs, duty on bronze coat-of-arms, $435.
Would the minister explain that ?


William Stevens Fielding: I remember that a coat-of-arms was included in the plans for the building, and the contractor suggested that



lie should be allowed to bring it in free of duty. I know my own view was that as he had tendered to put in a eoat-of-arms, therefore lie should pay duty. I thought the Department of Customs should make him pay that and I think they did.


William Pugsley: The item, as it is worded, shows that the duty was paid.


Richard Blain: By whom ?


William Pugsley: By the contractor.


William Stevens Fielding: It would be paid I take it for granted, to the contractor, as a part of the general cost, but he would have to pay the duty to the customs.


George William Fowler: Would that be charged against him ?


William Stevens Fielding: It should be and I suppose it was.


William Pugsley: It would probably be paid by the Department of Public Works and charged to the contractor.


Richard Blain: I cannot understand why it should be in this book any more than 10() kegs of nails supplied to the contractor.


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me that the duty was paid by the department. The department at the time insisted that the contractor should pay it. There was a long argument and finally it was decided that under the circumstances the department should bear the duty. It was not paid by the contractor.


William Stevens Fielding: If that statement is correct I must withdraw what I said. I know the contractor mentioned the matter to me and I told him that he would have to pay the duty. I never heard of the matter since. I supposed that he had paid it.


Richard Blain: The contractor tenders for the coat of arms upon the building and he decides to purchase this coat of arms in New York. May I ask the minister how ' much the coat of arms cost or how much the contractor's tender was ?


William Pugsley: My deputy says that the ground upon which the contractor made the claim that he should not pay the duty was that formerly goods for the government came in free.


William Stevens Fielding: It was so formerly.


William Pugsley: The contractor urged that he did not suppose there would he any duty upon the coat of arms.


Richard Blain: How much did it cost when the duty was $435 ?	,


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman would know pretty nearly as well as I would.


George Taylor: About $1,500.


William Pugsley: Probably, or perhaps more than that.
Mr. FIELDING


Richard Blain: At what rate of duty would this be admitted?


William Stevens Fielding: It would be 20 to 25 per cent.


William Pugsley: At all events he did not suppose the government would exact the duty. That is the argument he made and the minister at that time yielded to the argument and allowed the duty.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid that I misled the committee, because I supposed that he would he required to pay the duty. That was the impression I had and I did not know that he had persuaded the department to adopt his view until the statement was made by my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: Why did he not purchase this coat of arms in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Are these goods made in Canada?


Richard Blain: I think they are.


William Stevens Fielding: I think not.


Richard Blain: With all due respect to the hon. the Minister of Finance I am sure they are.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman say where they are made in Canada?


Richard Blain: In Toronto. I had something to do with the purchasing of one myself although not so extensive as this.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it be suitable for a large building?


Richard Blain: For the court house in my own town.


George William Fowler: St. John, New Brunswick, is another place wThere they make them.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that it could not be got in Canada at that time.


Richard Blain: If it could not be got in Canada the architect should have changed the plan so that it should he manufactured in Canada.


William Pugsley: I am quite sure that it would have been obtained in Canada if it had been possible because the artist who made the model was a Canadian. He obtained it from the United States.


Richard Blain: I notice that a clock was purchased at a cost of $2,080. It was also brought in from the United States for this building. May I ask the minister if the duty was paid on this clock by the government or the contractor?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that the duty on the clock was paid by the contractor and he also tells me that there was no clock of that description manufactured af that time in Canada.


George Taylor: What about the British preference ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who was the contractor of the building ?


William Pugsley: Mr. M. E. Keefe.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much has he received 1


William Pugsley: The contractor has received $251,928. While I am upon my feet I may say that I am sure that if my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) had wished to make any argument in regard to the chief architect's estimates being exceeded he certainly was very unfortunate in taking the case of this particular building, because it happened in this case that the chief architect made his estimate before calling for tenders and after he had prepared his plans and his estimate was $300,000 exclusive of the site. As a matter of fact the building will be completed with the additional $12,000 which we are asking for and the total cost of the building will only be $325,000, which includes site, inspection and everything, showing that the chief architect was only $1,000 out of the way.


George William Fowler: That is not an answer at all to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Hamilton and which were replied to with so much heat by the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Finance found it necessary to work himself into such a passion, such a rage. Whether it was actual rage that he felt or only simulated passion that he exhibited I do not know. Certainly my hon. friend from Hamilton did not distort the early statement that was made by the hon. the Finance Minister. It was a very unfortunate statement in view of the fact that the chief architect was here listening to him because it seemed as if it were a warrant to him to pursue the ordinary slipshod methods which have been hitherto pursued with respect to estimates for public buildings. Why there should be a different mode of procedure adopted for the conduct of a work by the government from that which would be adopted by a corporation or municipality with respect to the construction of public works is something I fail to understand; and I do not think the Minister of Finance, in his violent philippic, made it at all clear why there should be this difference. Why should it not be possible for the chief architect, who has a large staff regularly employed in his department, besides the outside staff that he employs, including several persons of his own name-I do not know whether they are his own relatives or not, before coming to this House to ask for an appropriation, to make a closer estimate of the actual cost ? Instead of that we find in every one of these public works that the cost is far in excess of the original estimate. I re-227*
member a somewhat famous case of a public work in the province of Quebec, a work known as the wharf at Grande Vall&e ; the first estimate we had was (lie exceedingly moderate sum of $5,000, and yet we paid out about $75,000 before we got through with that work. Now, I understood that this $75,000 of work at Grande Vallee has been carried away and is not in existence. However, the purpose for which that wharf was built having been served, I suppose the government did not care what became of the wharf.


William Pugsley: Who told the hon. gen. tleman that yarn that it has all been carried away ?


George William Fowler: I have the statement of my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor).


William Pugsley: Does he say that the Grande Vallee wharf has been carried away ?


George Taylor: Part of it fell into the river and a great deal of expenditure was necessary to replace it.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Kings and Albert said just now that it had been carried away.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Public Works does not think anything about a portion of this work falling into the river because they are so accustomed to their works dropping into the river that it does not excite comment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The object was attained ; the limits were sold.


George William Fowler: It was necessary to carry a certain county in Quebec and there was only one man who could carry it for the Liberal party. So, an arrangement was made whereby this gentleman was to have a wharf built at Grande Vallee in order that he might dispose of certain limits which he had purchased and which though valueless without this wharf, might be given value and might be disposed of. The bargain was carried out ; the county was carried ; the wharf was built. Now it does not make any difference whether it drops into the river or not, because the limits were sold after the wharf was built.


William Pugsley: Is my hon. friend aware that the Deseronto people are carrying on large lumbering operations there ?


George William Fowler: I do not know ; I think not. But it does seem to me that the minister has not done himself proud by the stand he has taken on this question. He has had to change his position in regard to this coat of arms, and he will find It necessary to change his position with respect to the duty on the clock, because I take it that was paid by the government.


William Pugsley: I do not know.


George William Fowler: At any rate, the duty m the coat of arms was paid by the government, and the Minister of Finance said he thought improperly so.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At page V-36 of the Auditor General's Report there is this item:
' Schulze, C. G. & Co., Est. 1 to February 16, on $2,080 contract for clock and $268.80 duly.'
Mr. P1JGSLEY. That does not show that the government paid the duty.


George William Fowler: If would look as if the duty was paid by the government and was charged against the contractor ; but as far as the coat of arms is concerned, the duty was paid, and the Minister of Finance says it should not have been paid.


William Stevens Fielding: Generally speaking, I think the admission of various articles for the government free of duty has been a source of much embarrassment, and in the tariff as it now stands we have insisted that everything shall pay duty, even w'hen a department imports the goods. I recollect the contractor saying that he thought this coat of arms ought to be free of duty. I said that I thought it should pay the duty. He evidently went to the department and was able to satisfy the department on the general principle that goods for the government ought to be admitted free of duty.


George William Fowler: The other people who tendered would naturally expect to pay duty, and therefore this contractor was given that advantage over them. It does seem a funny thing that you had to go to the United States to get the coat of arms of the country cast in bronze. Surely there are brass founders in this country who can cast a coat of arms.


Richard Blain: I have some information about the manner in which this work was done, and I want to read a paragraph :
The floors of the building-


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman tell me from what he is reading ?


Richard Blain: From private information which I have, that is good information, I may say.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman kindly let me know from whom the information proceeds ? It would be valuable to me. I am very desirous of getting information of that kind.


Richard Blain: I am equally anxious to communicate the information to the minister. The only question in which my hon. friend and I are interested is whether these statements are correct or not. The hon. gentleman has already opened the door by saying that the department is not satisfied with the work done by Mr. Keefe. Was the contractor paid any extras on this work ?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: He has not been paid any extras on this work.


Richard Blain: Will he be paid any ?


William Pugsley: He has a claim against the department which has not been recognized so far.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it decided that his claim will not be paid ?


William Pugsley: I have asked the chief architect to send one of his staff to Halifax to examine the building, and into the complaints that have been made. The matter of the balance of the contract is under consideration, and his claim is also under consideration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is not settled one way or the other ?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the amount of the claim for extras ?


William Pugsley: I do not remember at this moment.


George William Fowler: The item on page Y-36 of the Auditor General's Report says that $268.80 of duty was paid, and $1,560.80 was paid on account.


William Pugsley: It seems from this account very clear that the contractor paid the duty, and he received an estimate on both. The duty is added to the cost of the clock.


George William Fowler: Why would the duty be mentioned there at all ?


William Pugsley: It is there because it shows the payment made to the contractor, who is paid on progress estimates. The duty is added to the contract price.


George William Fowler: If you add the duty to the contract price, would not that be making the government pay it ?


William Pugsley: Not at all. What apparently took place was this. The contract price was $2,080. Adding the duty, $268.80, would make about $2,340, and upon that the Public Works Department made a payment of $1,560, leaving a balance due the contractor of about $800.


George William Fowler: Why should the duty ippear in the public accounts at all if it
was not paid by the department ?


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend understand that if the contractor agreed to furnish the clock for $2,300 including the duty, the department would pay him the amount required for the duty ? No doubt, in making this contract, he would take the duty into consideration and regulate his price accordingly.


George William Fowler: Why should the word ' duty ' be there at all if the duty was paid by the contractor ? Surely you have some

information as to what the price of the clock was. What was the contract price ?


William Pugsley: I have said that the furnishing of the clock was not included in the contract for the building but there was a separate contract. The Schultze Company agreed to furnish the clock at a certain price with the duty added, and the amount of the duty would be added to the contract price of the clock.


George William Fowler: Is the government not paying for it ?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is paying the duty-in the price of the clock.


George William Fowler: In what respect does this differ from the coat of arms?


William Pugsley: The coat of arms was in the original contract. That is the difference. Suppose the coat of arms had been ordered separately and Mr. Keefe had said he would take $500 for it and the duty, if the duty were $100, that would have to be added to the contract price. In one sense the government would be paying the duty but the duty would be added to the contract* price. If the government buys the article, it pays the duty because the duty is added to the price. A merchant always adds the duty to the price when selling his goods.


George William Fowler: When this contract was made, there would be no question at all about the duty because the contractor would buy the clock in Canada.


William Pugsley: No such clocks are made in Canada. It had to be imported and the duty paid on it.


George William Fowler: Does the minister say that the contract price was so much and the contractor was to add the duty and would be paid the duty ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell at the moment.


George William Fowler: We should have that information. The chief architect does not appear to know much about it. It is rather strange that these clocks could not be made in Canada.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the meaning of the words ' less draw-back $8.80 ' ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my kon. friends what they mean, but I suppose the meaning is this. The amount of the contract was $2,080 and the amount of duty $268.80 or about $2,300 altogether and the amount paid on account was $1,568.80. Then the department always keeps back a certain percentage as an additional security for the completion of the contract, and that $8.80 would be the amount kept back.


George William Fowler: If your chief architect cannot invent a better explanation than that, he is not very expert.


William Pugsley: This is not the chief architect's statement but my own supposition.


George William Fowler: I am sorry you cannot do better than that. Just imagine $8.80 kept back as security for the carrying out of the contract. Well, we will let it go at that.


William Pugsley: There is a certain percentage kept back, and the $8.80 may have been required to complete the percentage.


George William Fowler: What is the percentage ?


William Pugsley: Usually 10 per cent.


George William Fowler: 10 per cent on what amount ?


William Pugsley: This $8.80 may have been required to make up the 10 per cent. Will my hon. friend make a better excuse ?


George William Fowler: I would suggest that this was 10 per cent kept back on the price of the pendulum.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it a new building entirely ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You have bought a great deal of furniture from Blander, Morris & Company. How many employees are there in that building ?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but in a city like Halifax there is a large business done in the customs.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this used for the customs ?


William Stevens Fielding: Chiefly but there are other offices as well.


William Pugsley: The exports were $7,000,000 last year and the imports $6,500,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where was the customs done before?


William Pugsley: In the building now to be used for a post office.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has become of the furniture in the old building? This is ail new.


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say I cannot tell my hon. friend.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We are buying new furniture all the time and do' not know what becomes of the old furniture.


William Pugsley: I presume it would remain in the old post office building.


George William Fowler: The minister deserves a good deal of sympathethic treatment. He is new to his position and evidently does not know much about this, and he is not getting any assistance from his officers who are here. I do not know whether it is because these gentlemen are equally ignorant. What the minister had better do is ask

the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that he may obtain some information which he can then give to the House. Here is this matter of the clock. They do not seem to know the contract price or whether the government paid the duty or where the clock was purchased. Then the minister cannot explain what this drawback of $8.80 means. I think the deputy minister might hunt up this information and be in a position to give it to the minister who could then inform the House when we meet again.


Richard Blain: Having made the statement that the contractor did not do the work satisfactorily to the department, X want to draw the attention of the minister to this letter which I have received :
The floors of the building sagged shortly after its construction owing to the beams not being set well into the wall. One floor, through which an elevator has to pass, projects over three feet into the space which should be left open to accommodate the elevator. As this projection is thjee feet beyond tbe lower floor, it would require a corkscrew elevator to reach the top floor of the building.
Do any of the complaints which the department has against the contractor refer to any of the items I have read or is it another matter that the department objected to ?


William Pugsley: After reading the report of the expert sent to Halifax to examine the building, I should think that the gentleman who wrote that letter had been making himself familiar with the corkscrew, for it is a most exaggerated and unfair statement. The report of the architect does not bear out the statements made.


Mr.   BEAIN@: The minister has said that the contractor did not do his work satisfactorily to the department. As a proof of that, we have the fact that the department held back some of the money. This article goes on to say :
The woodwork in the office desks has come to pieces in parts of the building. The roof was badly constructed, and Keefe charged for extras in the work which should have been included in .the original contract. I think there is no place made for connection with the water mains.
It says also :
The people in the city of Halifax are generally disturbed about the manner in which the contractor has carried on his work.
I would like to know from the minister how much money has been kept back ? Also, does the department intend to allow extras to this contractor who has done his work in such an unsatisfactory manner ?


William Pugsley: I have already stated that an expert has been sent from the de-Mr. FOWLER.
partment to Halifax to examine the building. His report has been received, and, while it shows that in quite a number of particulars the contractor has not carried out the specifications, yet the defects are not of the exaggerated kind that the statement given by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) would lead the committee to believe.


George William Fowler: Was there a clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: Did he report that the work was not right ?


William Pugsley: Mr. FOWLER. Mr. PUGSLEY. Mr. FOWLER. Mr. PUGSLEY.
No.
Who was he V Mr. Bush.
What is his business ? He is an architect.


George William Fowler: What salary did he receive for this work?


William Pugsley: He was to receive 1J per cent on the cost of the building. There is quite an amount held back pending the consideration of the report. We have refused to consider the claim for extras in the meantime.


George William Fowler: Is this inspector still employed in the work ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: He is dismissed ? Has he been paid his li per cent on the cost of the building ?


William Pugsley: Not in full.


George William Fowler: How much is left ?


William Pugsley: i could not say at the moment just how much, but it is a substantial amount.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman will look it up ?


William Pugsley: I will write my hon. friend a letter, giving the facts.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the following item on page V-36 of the Auditor General's Report:
Robertson, Wm., & Son: steel beams. &e., 1,805 pounds at 7i cents; ladders, $20, $155.38.
How could you put steel beams in a building when the contract has been given for the whole building ?


William Pugsley: I will have it looked up.


George William Fowler: Who is the contractor ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Keefe, of Halifax.


George William Fowler: Is that the local member ?


William Stevens Fielding: He was years ago, but is not now.


John Stanfield: I would call attention to an item on the same page, V-36, covering a charge for hot water heating apparatus complete, $4,798 ; another charge for four hot water boilers at $375 ; headers complete two at $128 and valves $180, then additional heating apparatus as per tender, and also alterations in heating apparatus.
I do not pretend to be an architect, but I believe there is no reason for making such changes in heating apparatus as these, or for having additional tenders for heating apparatus for a building of this size. I would like the minister to ask his architect for an explanation.


William Pugsley: I am informed that the post office authorities decided to occupy the basement for the purposes of the post office, which necessitated a change in the heating apparatus. The building is a very large one, and, for such a building, the total cost of heating equipment is not at all excessive. The building is four storeys in height and fronts on three streets, with a frontage of 106 feet on one, 86 feet on another and 107 feet on another.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did the lot belong to the government or was it bought ?


William Pugsley: It was bought for $24,-
000.
Mr. BERGERON1. From whom ?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Corbett, of Halifax. This is known as the old city market site.


Richard Blain: The minister has stated that the inspector did not direct the attention of the department to the fact that the contractor was not doing his work according to the specifications. Who did direct the attention of the department to this point ?


William Pugsley: In addition to the gentleman who specially represented the government on this work, we have a resident engineer at Halifax, who, in the discharge of his duty, gave some information with regard to the building which, we thought, necessitated a very complete examination, and so we sent an architect to make that examination.


George William Fowler: I see that the sum of $3,900 has been paid for wiring. Is that the wiring alone, or does that include fixtures ?


William Pugsley: That includes fixtures.


George William Fowler: Has the minister the contract there to show what it required ?


William Pugsley: I will get my hon. friend the contract. The contractors in this case were Messrs. J. A. Dunn & Company, of Halifax.


David Henderson: A few moments ago the minister stated that I had made a mistake in selecting the present item as one upon which to apply the plan I suggested with regard to estimating for public buildings. If I was at all in error in selecting this item, the minister himself is responsible, he not having given the full information to which we are entitled. This shows the necessity of having much more explicit information than is given in these discussions. The minister should familiarize himself thoroughly with all these items so as to be able to give the fullest information. I am glad to know that the minister is able to construct this building within the limits of the estimate. But unfortunately the building is not yet completed, and if there are to be a few more clocks and other extras, possibly he may find his estimate exceeded.


William Pugsley: I do not find any fault with my hon. friend. I intended^ in this matter, as in respect to all other items, to be as explicit as possible. But the hon. gentleman must remember that I have not been many months in the department. There must be at least a thousand works going on under the control of my department from one end of the country to the other, aDd it is impossible for me to have everything at my fingers' ends.


George William Fowler: On page 4, part 3, of the Public Works report, it says : 1 C. E. W. Dodwell, resident engineer and superintendent of public buildings, supervised this work.' Is that the gentleman who called attention to misdoings on the part of the contractor ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: The resident architect, Mr. Bush, has he done other work for the department besides this ?


William Pugsley: I think this is the first time he has been employed by the department, in recent years at all events.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not find any payment to this architect, Mr. Bush. How much has been paid him on account ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Bush's services extended over some three or four years, and he has been paid between $3,000 and $4,000 on account.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is no part of it charged up in this year's Auditor General's report.


William Pugsley: He was paid in previous years. I may say that Mr. Bush has been making a claim upon me for the remainder of his commission, and I have deferred payment until the matter was looked into.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long was the work in course of construction ?


William Pugsley: The contract was made on April 16, 1902, to be completed on

September 15, 1904. There was a good deal of delay.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there any penalty for failure to complete the contract within the time ?


William Pugsley: I think not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it not usual for contracts to contain a penalty clause ?


William Pugsley: It is not usual. Security is taken, of course.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the cause of the difficulty with Mr. Bush ?


William Pugsley: I felt that Mr. Bush was not as attentive to his duties as he ought to be, he did not give as close inspection to the building as I thought he ought to liav. iven. That is the objection I am making to the payment of the balance of his account. He is claiming somewhere in the vicinity of $1,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was Mr. Bush appointed engineer on the recommendation of the local members, as the minister stated this afternoon was the custom of the department ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it not possible to get that information ?


William Pugsley: I think not. The minister must take the responsibility of the appointment.


George Oscar Alcorn: Were there any defects in the building alleged to Mr. Bush as the reason why he should not be paid in full, and what were the defects ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell at this moment.


George Oscar Alcorn: An hon. gentleman has stated that some defects were pointed out to Mr. Bush, what were the others ?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman read what purported to be a letter, but I do not know whether the letter was intended as a joke or as an extravagant representation of the actual condition of affairs.


George William Fowler: It seems to me this matter ought to be allowed to stand, because the minister has not the necessary information. It seems there has been a great fraud perpetrated upon the public with respect to the building of this custom house in Halifax, and it is a matter of considerable importance.
Mr. PUGSLEV 411 I ask is a revote of $12,000.


George William Fowler: The whole thing involved very much more, $300,000. Although the contractor was not erecting the building according to the contract, he has been paid


William Pugsley: all except $12,000. The minister must have the certified cheque stiil in his possession and should penalize the contractor. We would like to see all the correspondence between the department and Bush who has so grossly failed in his duty as inspector. If the employment of architects results in this way perhaps it would be as well to continue the old practice of employing tailors and shoemakers as inspectors. It would look almost as if there were collusion between Bush and the contractor. Although you have a resident engineer and a resident architect and presumably sent an architect from the department to inspect for progress estimates, still the work has been so improperly performed that even the department has been forced to take notice of it. I think the item should, stand until we have full information.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman's request is unreasonable. We are asking for a revote of $12,000. Since I became minister the contractor has not received one dollar nor has Mr. Bush. I started investigating immediately the matter was brought to my attention. I sent down a first-class architect from the department who has made a thorough examination. His report does not corroborate the previous reports I have received ; it is to the effect that while there are certain not very serious defects in connection with the roof, the hanging of some of the windows, the flooring in one of the rooms and the cuttings for the elevators, these are so far as I now remember, substantially the only objections he makes. I am taking tile matter up, I am responsible in connection with the chief architect for fully protecting the public and surely nothing would be gained by postponing the passing of this vote. This committee could not give the proper time to the correspondence and therefore it must be left to the minister, and I hope my hon. friend will recognize that it is desirable to get along with public business and to proceed reasonably with the estimates.


George William Fowler: Could any one imagine a responsible minister advancing such a reason as that. Even if this committee could not take the time, what Is the Public Accounts Committee for?


William Pugsley: It is quite open to the Public Accounts Committee.


George William Fowler: Yet we would not have had any information that there was anything wrong if it had not been for a letter received by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). The minister should at least' have brought the two reports he has received from the architects. It would take a much shorter time to discuss it if the minister had been completely frank with the committee. As I understand, it is notorious in Halifax that the building is be-



[Stage Direction]
ing badly built aud that Bush is iu collusion with the contractor to represent everything as all right when it is all wrong. The opposition have a duty to perform in this House; they should not allow money to be voted unless they are satisfied it is being properly expended.
Mr. PUGS  BEY@: I think my hon. friend will see that the proper place to take this up is in the Public Accounts Committee. If that committee feel disposed to take it up, I shall see that all the papers are sent there ; but what cause is there to leave this over ?
Mr. POWLEIt. If it comes before the Public Accounts Committee this session I will be satisfied.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You will have to move to get it.


William Pugsley: It can easily be got at because there were payments made in 1905-6 and 1906-7 and these are before the Public Accounts Committee.


Richard Blain: The department has withheld $12,000. May I ask if that is $12,000 on the original contract ?


William Pugsley: I do not think I said $12,000: I said I was not sure of the amount.


Richard Blain: Is that part of the money of the original contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: What proportion of it?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend the exact amount to-night.


Richard Blain: This is a very large contract and the committee would like to know how much the department has withheld of the original contract. The total amount of the contract is over $300,000. Was there more than one contract ?


William Pugsley: There was a contract for fittings also.


Richard Blain: Did Mr. Keefe have that as well ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Has Mr. Keefe any other contract with the government in Halifax ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: What is the name of the architect that the department sent down to make this report ?


William Pugsley: Mr. W. H. Wright, assistant chief architect.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the report of your own architect state what amount would be required to make good these defects that the minister has referred to ?


William Pugsley: The report will speak for itself ; I cannot recall now whether it states any definite amount or not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this $12,000 which is being asked for to pay the balance under the contract for that building ?


William Pugsley: We have to pay for putting in the elevator yet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is not that included in the original contract ?


William Pugsley: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is Mr. Wright the second officer who was sent from the department ?


William Pugsley: He is the second one and he only went a few days ago.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who was the first gentleman to make the report ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Dodwell, of Halifax. I may say that Mr. Dodwell sent me a confidential report. He has not had special charge of the building. Special charge of it was given to Mr. Bush. Mr. Dodwell, as resident engineer, has a general supervision of the building. He has made a confidential report on the subject. Then, I sent for Mr. Keefe and talked matters over with him after which I decided to send Mr. Wright down to make a thorough examination of the building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister ought to be able to state what portion of this sum is to be devoted to the original contract. Under the minister's statement with regard to the report there is no liability on the part of the government to pay the contactor a further sum. He has failed to complete his contract and there are these serious defects which he has spoken of and which will require a considerable amount, I should think, to make them good. I think the minister ought to be able to state what portion of this sum is to be paid to the contractor.


William Pugsley: I am unable to state what will be the result of the consideration of the report or of the negotiations, but we certainly must have some more money at once to complete the work that is absolutely essential in the building. We have to instal an elevator and that will cost several thousand dollars.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much will the elevator cost ?


William Pugsley: Several thousand dollars.


George Taylor: Then the contractor must have got all his money.


George Oscar Alcorn: It is apparent the government has a good deal to conceal in this matter. I understood the minister to say that this building was to have been completed four years ago. That four years, I assume, have been occupied in correspondence between the government and the ar-

chitect, or the person to whom the contract was first given. I asked the question a short time ago what were the defects in construction pointed out by the government to the architect as the reason why the balance of the contract price was withheld. The minister did not answer that question but contented himself with making some remarks upon the statement of my hon. friend from Peel. I would like an answer to that question.


William Pugsley: The report which I have just received is a confidential report from Mr. Dodwell. That being a confidential report I could not give the details of it to the contractor, but I told him that I had been informed that there were a number of important defects in the construction of the building.


George Oscar Alcorn: What were these defects ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'.	I told him they were
important defets.	I did not enter into
the details, but I said that I would send an arctitect from the department down to Halifax and would give him an opportunity of going over the building with the architect so that he would have the most complete fair play as I did not want to do the contractor any injustice. It is just a" few days ago that the report was presented to me. Now, my intention is to have a copy of the report sent to the contractor and also to Mr. Bush. I would be very glad indeed if the Public Accounts Committee would find it convenient to take up these matters. That is the place where they should be inquired into. All the correspondence would be submitted to the committee. That would be much more convenient than attempting to consider the correspondence before a committee of the House.


George Oscar Alcorn: The minister says there has been a report ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: It is a report in regard to the public business and I fail to see how that would be confidential as regards this House. I think we have a right to know what the report contains. The minister says that he is about to send a copy of the report to the contractor.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of Mr. Wright's report; it is not confidential.


George Oscar Alcorn: In what sense could a report on a public work be confidential ? I think this committee has the right to know
the contents of that report.


William Pugsley: That will be a matter in the judgment of the Public Accounts Committee. I am rather inclined to think that the Committee on Public Accounts would say that if an official of the depart-Mr. ALCORN.
ment who was not specially charged with the supervision of this building wrote a confidential report, it should not be produced. Personally I have no objection, but we must respect the confidence of this gentleman. I have, myself, the utmost confidence in the report of Mr. Wright, and I think that the committee, having regard to his high standing as an architect, would also have confidence in his report. That report would be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am sure that my hon. friend has every possible confidence in Mr. Dodwell, and if it had not been for that gentleman, it is probable that we might never have heard anything about that building, and we would have paid the full amount the contract calls for. It is difficult to know whether this report should be disclosed if it is confidential. The public owe a great deal to Mr. Dodwell for having first found out these conditions and having been the cause of saving the money of the country. But, there is a great deal of difference between the report of Mr. Dodwell, who is not interested, and who has had no communication with the contractor, and the report of Mr. Wright, who may be a first-class architect, but who goes down there, meets the contractor, and we can see immediately the work of the contractor, because the report of Mr. Wright does not deal at all with the information given by Mr. Dodwell. It is a question whether it would not be a good thing to have the report of Mr. Dodwell, so that we could compare the two reports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no justifiable reason why it should be private. It deals with the expenditure of public money, and therefore this House is entitled to it.


William Pugsley: It was not at my suggestion that it was marked confidential. I received this communication from Mr. Dodwell, who I presume felt it to be his duty, as an official of the government, though not specially charged with looking after this building, to give me certain information, and it is for the Public Accounts Committee to say whether that should be produced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister should have said that as this was a public work, the report had no right to be marked confidential, and this House is entitled to see that or any other report made in connection with it.


George Oscar Alcorn: This committee is now asked to vote this large sum to complete this building, and it appears that two reports have been made on certain defects in the building. I am quite unable to see in what sense, as regards this committee or parliament, either of these reports can be said to be confidential. It is a new doc* trine to me that parliament can be denied

information simply because some outside party chooses to mark a paper as confidential. It is for the minister to say whether information so conveyed to him is confidential as between him and parliament. Was this report so marked paid for ?


William Pugsley: No.


George Oscar Alcorn: The other report was paid for, I presume ?


William Pugsley: It was made by an official of the department, whose expenses of course were paid, but there was no other charge.


George Oscar Alcorn: That report ought to be here.


William Pugsley: It'seems to me that the proper course would be, if it is thought desirable in the public interest that the matter should be investigated, for the Public Accounts Committee to take it up. That committee would have power to summon Mr. 1 lodwell and Mr. Bush to give evidence under oath, which of course could not be presented to this committee.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Suppose the majority of the committee refused to subpoena Mr. Dodwell.


William Pugsley: I cannot conceive such a thing possible. I am sure the committee would be most willing to investigate this matter, as I have noticed every desire on its part to investigate every public matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The item then should be allowed to stand until it is investigated ; because after the money is voted, the government need not care.


William Pugsley: The purpose of this vote will be to pay for the electric elevator and certain blinds and fittings which are necessary to put the building in shape so that it can be used by the customs authorities. I may say that there will be no money paid either to Mr. Keefe or Mr. Bush until the Committee on Public Accounts have a reasonable time to take the matter up; but we want to complete the furnishing and pay for the elevator.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. minister admits that this item, at all events a part of it, is necessary for examination by the Public Accounts Committee. In that state of affairs it seems highly improper to pass the item here.


George Taylor: If the minister is to spend all of this $12,000, $7,000 for an elevator and the rest for furnishings, what money is due to the contractor ? He must have got all his money. Does the minister hold the contractor's cheque which is put up with his tender ?


William Pugsley: Yes. There is security, but I do not know just the amount of it. The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me, as it was several thousands, not $7,000, that I said were required for the elevator. There will be still quite a balance of the $12,000 which we are asking for.
Mr. BLA1N. Mr. Keefe has two contracts with the government-the original contract and a further contract for fittings. Surely the minister can state how- much is due on each of these contracts.


William Pugsley: The fittings have been paid for in full, $7,400. There is no fault to find with them. The balance is in respect of the main contract.


Richard Blain: Was the contract for the fittings entirely satisfactory to the department?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister states that Mr. Dodwell was not charged with any duties in connection with this building. Is that correct ?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Mr. Dodwell is a resident engineer ; he looks principally after the construction of wharfs and works of that kind coming under the engineering department. But in the performance of his duty he is supposed to keen a general oversight of the erection of buildings as well. In this particular case there having been a resident architect employed as inspector, he did not feel it his duty to personally supervise the erection of the building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But as a matter of fact, the report which the minister received from this gentleman came in the ordinary course of his duty as resident engineer at Halifax. Under these circumstances it seems to me that there can be nothing whatever in the claim that this report is confidential. As one member of this committee, I think we are entitled to have that report before this item is passed.


William Pugsley: I think it would be very much preferable for the Committee on Public Accounts to take it up, if it desired to do so, and subpoena both Mr. Wright and Mr. Dodwell, and then Mr. Dodwell could give under oath his view of the building and any defects which he found in it.


Richard Blain: The contracts for the fittings having been fully paid for, does the minister say there is no truth whatever in this statement that the wood work in the office desks is going to pieces in parts of the building?


William Pugsley: I have not heard of that at all.


Richard Blain: Has the clerk of the works or the architect not reported on defects in the fittings?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister undertakes that all these papers will be sent to the Publie Accounts Committee and the committee be authorized to go into the whole subject we might allow the item to pass on that distinct understanding.


William Pugsley: I will send before the Public Accounts Committee all the contracts and progress reports from time to time and the correspondence in the department relating to the building, the report of Mr. Wright, and then, of course, I would suggest that the committee should subpoena Mr. Wright and Mr. Dodwell.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We could only go into what appears in the Auditor General's Report, but this comes up to a later date. If a motion be made that this committee be instructed to take this up, they can take it up to any date we may order.


William Pugsley: Even without a motion there will be no objection to investigate right up to date.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about the legal firm of Quirk, Gammon and Snap in the
committee?


William Stevens Fielding: They are on the other side of the House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will the hon. minister bring down the contractor's claim for extras ?


George Oscar Alcorn: Will he undertake that there will be no obstruction to go into the whole matter fully ?


William Pugsley: There will be none on my part, and I do not think there will be any on the part of any member of the committee.


George Oscar Alcorn: There will be none on this side of the House.


William Pugsley: Nor on this side.


George Oscar Alcorn: Will the minister bring down the confidential report?


William Pugsley: I do not think the committee should ask me to promise this. It would be better to subpoena Mr. Dodwell. His testimony under oath would be better than his report.


George Oscar Alcorn: The committee should have his report In order to know the particulars on which to examine Mr. Dodwell.
Halifax-quarantine station on Lawlor's island-winter hospital, electric plant repairs, &c.. $16,000.


William Pugsley: $10,000 of this is a revote. I could give the particulars if desired.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that the same firms who were engaged in furnishing the government in the other buildings in Halifax are still employed here. There is not Mr. PUGSLEY.
much use asking for tenders. The same contractors usually do the work. We have the firms of Rhodes, Curry & Co., Longard Bros., Frank Reardon all through the Auditor General's Report.


William Pugsley: Four tenders were received in reply to publie advertisements. I do not wonder at Rhodes, Curry & Co. getting many contracts, because they are the largest building contractors we have in the lower provinces. I am not quite sure that they are not the largest in Canada. They have large works at Amherst where they employ over 1,500 men, and I can well understand that they can do work cheaply. They are very large builders of cars as well. Not long ago they erected a great many buildings at Sydney. Longard Bros, are a very reputable firm also. At all events the lowest tenders were a'ccepted.
Inverness public building, $10 WO.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This is only a revote of $10,000 to complete this building. (It was placed under contract July 26, 1906. It is a building of 2i storeys high with an annex. It is built of brick on stone foundation with stone trimmings. It is required for post office and customs purposes.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the contract price ?


William Pugsley: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Does that include heating?


William Pugsley: No, the total probable cost, including heating, boilers, electric wiring, fittings, furniture, &c., exclusive of the site, is $22,950.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is the clerk of works?


William Pugsley: Mr. Mclsaac. He gets $3 per day.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much does he get altogether?


William Pugsley: The date of the contract was 20th July, 1906, and the date of completion was 1st November last year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the building ocm-pleted now ?


William Pugsley: Pretty nearly.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the meaning of the drawback of $S96.27 ?


William Pugsley: That is the percentage retained until the work is completed. Suppose that under the estimate there will be $20,000 to the contractor, 10 per cent is kept back as a further guarantee for the completion of the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is Mr. Mclsaac, the clerk of the works, a mason or a carpenter?


William Pugsley: I am not sure which, but I understand he is a practical man.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: He is a carpenter.
Shelburne public building, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will it cost to complete this building ?


William Pugsley: Including heating, electric wiring, fixtures, &c., $35,686.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will this vote finish it ?


William Pugsley: The work is just beginning. So far, $1,790 has been spent. The site cost $1,500, and other expenses, such as printing, advertising, legal services, survey of site, &c., cost $290.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who was the legal adviser ?


William Pugsley: They are appointed in the Justice Department and I have not the names at hand.


John Stanfield: The legal expenses seem to be very high.


William Pugsley: This $290 covers other expenses as well as the legal services.


John Stanfield: But at page V-37 of the Auditor General's Report, I find a charge for legal services, R. T. Macllreith, Halifax, $76.85.


William Pugsley: There would be the searcli of title, and there might be other things which would easily run up a bill of $76. I hardly think that such a bill would be out of the way.


William Stevens Fielding: The $1,500 purchases the corner lot on which the building is to stand. But there is a lot adjoining which is required in order to give it a decent size, and that is being expropriated.


William Pugsley: The legal bills are always carefully taxed by the officials of the Justice Department. That is something my department has nothing to do with.


John Stanfield: What is the size of the lot bought from Mr. King?


William Pugsley: It is 73 feet by 31 feet.


John Stanfield: Is it vacant or is there a building on it ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a very old house on it, which will have to be removed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The statement is made that the bills for legal services are strictly taxed by the Justice Department, but I am in a position to state that the opposite is the case. I had occasion to examine some bills presented to the Railway Department by Mr. Macllreith for the examination of titles in connection with acquiring a property at Halifax. He examined 35 or 40 titles and presented a separate bill for each title. I found, on examination, that he charged the Department of Railways more than once for the same day's search. In
one case, he charged the same day no less than six times. There were over twenty days that he charged twice, a number he charged three times, others he charged four times and one he actually charged six times, at $15.


William Pugsley: I am not informed as to the case to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I have here a complaint of one of the agents of the Minister of Justice about the very close way his bill has been taxed by the department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is this building for a post office ?


William Pugsley: Custom house and post office.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the population of Shelburne ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is under 2,000.


George Taylor: Is it necessary to make a search of title in Nova Scotia ? Is it different from Ontario, where you can go to the Registry Office and the registrar will make an abstract of title [DOT]


William Pugsley: Yes, it is different. In some of the counties of Ontario, they have adopted what is called the Torrens system, and under that system it is not necessary to search titles as is done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In these provinces it is necessary to search back to the original title.


George Taylor: In Ontario the registrar does that where the Torrens system is not in vogue. I have had a great deal to do with the examination of titles. I send to the registrar for an abstract of title which will cost $2, $3 or $4. The lawyer looks that over and for that and comparing the deed $10 is an outside price-it costs only $5 in many cases. I am agent for one of the largest loan companies in the country and have paid $10 for this service in connection with many mortgages-never more than $20. Yet here is $79 paid to a lawyer to go into a registry office, pass a title and draw a deed. This is simply throwing away the people's money for the benefit of political favourites.


William Pugsley: In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick no prudent man will buy a property or take a mortgage without having a solicitor examine the title. I certainly should feel that the government had been derelict in its duty if it did not employ a solicitor to make a thorough and careful search of title.


George Taylor: But the registrar furnishes the abstract, and he is responsible if he makes a mistake.


William Pugsley: That is not the law with us.


Oswald Smith Crocket: With regard to the sums paid to Mr. Macllreith, I have now in my

hand an abstract of Mr. Macllreith's accounts for the services for which he charged the Railway Department in connection with the taking over of the land at Halifax for the roundhouse. He charged for no less than 1821 days' searching in connection with these titles, most of them at $15 and some of them at $10, billing the department for no less than $2,842 for searching alone. I find there are 106 days on which a day or a part of a day's searching is charged. In ease of 55 of these more than one day's time is charged. In one case the same day is charged no less than six times ; one day charged 54 times : one day five times, one day 44 times, two are charged 4 times, eight 3 times, four, 2f times, four 24 times, one 21 times and 23 days are charged twice. In three other cases he managed to get in If days' time in one day. and in five others 14 days' time. I think that will give the committee some idea of the care that the minister states was exercised hy the Department of Justice in taxing the bills of Mr. R. T. Macllreith. These bills, I may explain, were presented separately, and that is the way in which he managed to multiply and duplicate these charges for the same day. Instead of showing the bills as presented separately, I have made up a bill showing the various services for which Mr. Macllreith charged the Railway Department on one day, the 30th of August. This is the way his bill would read for one sample day, taking these items out of the separate accounts and putting them into one account for one day's service:
August 30, 1905-
To search at office of registrar of
deeds, Mary Graves property, ill
day	 $10 00
To search at office of registrar of deeds, heirs W. J. Robertson property, all day	 15 00
To search at office of registrar of deeds, Thomas Spry property,
all day	 15	00
To search at office of registrar of deeds, Ritchie & Manger property,
all day	   10	00
To search at office of registrar of deeds, Thomas Ritchie property,
all day	
10	00To search at office of registrar of deeds, estate W. J. Ritchie property, 3 hours	
7	50
To search at prothonotary's office,
Thomas Spry property	 5	00
To search at probate office. Thomas
Spry property	
5	00To search at probate office, Mary Graves property	
7	50
All on the same day. He charged on August 30 against the Railway Department no less than six day's searches at the office of the registrar of deeds, besides charging for searches at the prothonotary's office and the probate office, amounting to $85. But be seems to have had an opportunity during that day of performing some other duties, Mr. CROCKET.
and on the same day he makes these additional charges:
To letter to W. K. Thompson, James
Graham property	 $0 50
To letter to W. B. McKenzie, James
Graham property	
0	50To attendance on J. K. Hubley....	2	50
To interview with agent of Mrs.
Katherine Kennedy	 2	50
To interview with Mrs. Mason as to
acceptance of Crown office	 2	50
To interview with Mr. O'Sullivan
when asked for increase	 2	00
To letter to W. B. McKenzie re estate W. J. Ritchie property....	0 50
To preparing abstract of title, estate
W. J. Ritchie property	 2 50
To drawing deed W. J. Ritchie property	
5	00To letter to A. J. Rothwell	
0	50To letter to W. B. McKenzie	
0	50
To attendance on J. A. McDonald re
C. H. Wallace property	
2	50To letter to Miss West	
0	50To letter to W. R. McKenzie re Miss West property	
0	50
Making a total in connection with these properties on that day, of $105.50. But in addition to that he managed to appear in the police court on the same day and- make the additional charges which we have here.
To prosecuting defendant .Wm. Overy in King vs. Overy, for trespassing
on Intercolonial Railway at North
Street station	 20 00
To prosecuting defendant McPhee, in King vs. McPhee, for trespassing on_ Intercolonial Railway at North Street station	 20 00
Making his total bill for that day's service no less than $145.50. Now Mr. Macllreith, I may say, is a lawyer who has but one partner, the firm name, I think, is Macllreith & Tremaine. In the Public Accounts Committee it transpired that his office staff consisted entirely of himself, his partner, an office boy and a girl typewriter. That will give the House some idea of the care that is exercised by the Justice Department in taxing solicitors' bills, which has so impressed the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. MICHAUD.: This question was discussed in the Public Accounts Committee, and it transpired that this gentleman employed outside lawyers to assist him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. gentleman's statement is entirely unwarranted, no such statement was made in the committee. It is true that Mr. Macllreith was examined as a witness, but he professed to know nothing of this matter. He said the business was all done by his partner, and he suggested that on some occasions he might have employed another solicitor. But when he was asked if it was possible for his firm to have had six different solicitors working in the registry office on the same day searching titles to adjoining properties, he was compelled to admit that there must have been
7m

some mistake. After the examination which took place in the Public Accounts Committee, a trial took place in the city of Halifax in a suit brought by Mr. Macllreith against the Halifax ' Herald,' and in the course of this trial this question of searching titles was fully gone into. Mr. Trea-mine was examined, and the evidence which he there gave bore out the statement which I now make that Mr. Macllreith duplicated and multiplied these charges against the department without any justification whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me unreasonable that the country's money should go this way without the slightest effort on the part of the government to get return for it. It is an absolute fraud on the country.


William Pugsley: This was in the Department of Railways, there is no suggestion that it was in the Public Works Department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But it is the same gentleman who, I see, received in connection with the transfer of this property in the Finance Minister's constituency, $76.85 for searching titles last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Titles that probably cost about $2. I have been engaged in real estate for twenty-five or thirty years, and I have not employed a lawyer twice to examine titles. I can get an abstract of a title from any registry office, and it won't cost above $2.


Mr. CARVELL.: You are a fortunate man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A single abstract of title for a single property will only cost 25 cents. If there are several of them it goes up, but I could get half a dozen of them for less than $2.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish we had some system like that in New Brunswick. I can assure my hon. friend that when he goes to the maritime provinces, he will not get any title searched for $2 ; I advise him not to ask a registrar down there to give him an abstract of title, or at least not to purchase on such an abstract. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, titles will run back 100 years ; the original grant may have been divided and subdivided a hundred times, and there may have been a dozen conveyances. There is no such thing as a Torrens system in the maritime provinces.


George Oscar Alcorn: There is a statute of limitations and there is no necessity to go back 100 years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You might have to go back 40 years or even 60. As to getting an abstract of title from the registrar it is not his business to prepare an abstract and he may not know if it is a correct one or not. It is his business to register
the deeds, &e., and he might not know if the copy of an abstract was correct. What would the hon. member think of a minister who would take a conveyance with an imperfect title ? My hon. friend would be the first man to find fault. If it were simply the searching of an ordinary title, if there were no complications and there was a continuous chain from the Crown to the present owner, probably $76 would be a good fee, but I have no doubt there are complications, the property may have been sold and resold, and I am sure there is not a lawyer in this House who would not say it would be unwise for any person to buy a property without a thorough search of the title. In my own experience recently I found a mortgage 20 years old that was undischarged and the parties concerned dead, so that I had to get administration to have the thing cleared up.
I will not state that I would charge $76 to search a title, but this charge is not stated to be for the searching of a title ; it is for legal services ; that includes many things besides searching titles. If this government do not squander any money in worse extravagance than this, there will not be much complaint.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know the system in Nova Scotia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the trouble; he does not know ; there are a few things the hon. gentleman does not know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With us a company like the Canada Permanent will mortgage a piece of property of 12 or 14 lots, they will examine the titles, make searches and everything else and draw all the writings, paying all expenses, for about $25.


George Taylor: I have never paid more than $20.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have had it done as low as $9, and never paid more than $30, although there were as many as 12 pieces of property in the same mortgage.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You cannot do that in the maritime provinces.	,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is regarded as a fair charge with us; these are the Toronto lawyers' charges, and if the maritime provinces are worse, God help the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not like to see the lawyers run down too much. Making money seems to be a disease with them in the maritime provinces. We had Lodge buying land for $5,000 and selling it to the government for $13,000, and Pearson buying it for $16,000 and selling it to the government for $45,000. The head of a department should have his eyes open when he has to do with any one down there.


William Pugsley: I do not think the gentlemen down below are very much worse

than those up above. I would trust the people of the maritime provinces as much as any one in Canada. I think human nature is about the same in all parts of the country. I did not know that doctors were so jealous of lawyers and I am surprised to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) talking in this way.
Westville public building, $13,125.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for a public building there. It is to be a nice building 61 by 30'6.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are these buildings all alike ?


William Pugsley: No, there are changes in the design depending on the location and the size of the place.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the population of Westville ?


William Pugsley: It was 2,300 at the last census. It is probably over 3,000 now.


William Stevens Fielding: While the census should be right this is a large mining town, and I should say its population is considerably above that. It is the centre of a large coal mining region in Pictou county.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: All that has been done is to purchase a site.


William Pugsley: Yes, the buying of a site up to November 14, 1907.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Bought from whom ?
Mr. pany.	PUGSLEY.	The Acadia	Coal	Corn-Mr. cost ?	BENNETT.	What will be the	totalMr.	PUGSLEY.	$25,000.	Mr. tings ?	BENNETT.	Does that	include fit-	Mr. thing.	PUGSLEY.	That includes	everyMr. pleted	STANFIELD. Are the V	plans	com-


William Pugsley: Yes, and the contract is let.


John Stanfield: Who has the contract ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Munroe, of New Glasgow.


John Stanfield: WThat does the contract consist of ?
Mr. rUGSLEY. The contract is for $12,995. That does not include heating and boilers, electric wiring, fixtures, fittings, lock boxes, sidewalks or fencing.


John Stanfield: Does that include painting ?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Stanfield: $25,000 will complete it in its entirety ?


William Pugsley: It is expected that that amount will complete it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Exclusive of site ?


William Pugsley: Including the site.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What rental is paid for the present post office in that town ?


William Pugsley: We pay $120 a year for the post office. This is intended for other purposes as well, I think. The revenue for nine months of last year from the post office at this place was $2,264; money orders, $24,277.15 ; money orders paid $10,359.
Yarmouth public building-improvement,


William Pugsley: Auditor General's Report for 1905-06-page 43-v:
Clerk of works-A. McGillivray-services, Julv 1, 1905, to June 30, 1906, 365 days
at $3	$1,095 00
King's Printer's account....	10 32

Auditor General's Report, 1906-07-page 34-V. Clerk of works-A. McGillivray-services, July 1, 1906, to March 31, 1907, 274 days
at $3	'. .$ 822 00
Payments under $50: Smith's work, $29.28; coal. $5.33; photographic work. $3.. ..	37 61

Chief accountant's books. Expenditure for sundry services up	to October 31, 1907	
57	00Total	$2,224	90


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What were the dates In the second year mentioned ?


William Pugsley: From July 1, 1905, to June 30, 1906, $1,095.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For	services ?


William Pugsley: For	services.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be	paying
him $3 a day including Sundays and all.


William Pugsley: Yes, that is true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do	you pay your	employees in that way ?


George William Fowler: Yes, why not ? He probably did as much instructing on Sunday as on any other day.


William Pugsley: He is paid by the month.


George William Fowler: Is it the rule to pay for Sundays ?


William Pugsley: The rule is to pay him at the rate of $3 per day for the whole year.


George William Fowler: Then you had better change that rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it is the rule generally. I have known of such cases but I never know of them having been paid for Sundays. They are paying inspectors $3 a day but they are only paid for six days in the week.


Mr. WM. JACKSON.: Is a clerk of works the same as an inspector under the department of Public Works ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Jackson: Do you pay your inspectors in Ontario, when you hire them by the day, for Sundays ?


William Pugsley: I could not tell at this moment.


William Jackson: You can go through the Auditor General's Report from one end to the other and you will not find one inspector getting paid for Sundays. If an inspector in the province of Nova Scotia is to get pay for Sunday work we have many people in Ontario who are not getting all out of this government that they could get. I think it is unfair for an inspector, paid by the day, to receive pay for Sundays. It is bad enough to pay him when he is not working half the week, but if you are paying inspectors in Nova Scotia for- every day in the week, Sunday included, there are some inspectors employed by the Department of Public Works in Ontario who do not receive that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this case there is not a holiday omitted. It is unlikely that this work was going on during holidays or even in the winter, much less that the work was continued on Sunday. When I was recommending people for these positions I know that they were paid $3 a day but I never knew that they were paid for Sun-228
days or holidays. This is a fraudulent method of taking money out of . the country. It is not likely that this inspector worked on New Years day or Dominion day. It is reasonable to suppose that he went to church on Sunday. If that is the system which is carried out it is well that the Christian people of this country should know to what extent Sunday observance takes place under this government.


William Pugsley: I have .just asked the chief architect and he says that sometimes they are paid for the whole month and sometimes they are not. I notice also a difference in the wages paid-in some cases they are $3.50 a day, and in some cases $3. It may be that in the case of the man paid $3.50 a deduction is made for Sundays. I say frankly that in my judgment they ought not to be paid for Sundays.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When the allowance is on a monthly basis, what is the usual allowance ?


William Pugsley: It varies so as to give from $3 to $3.50 a day. In the western country I think the payment is somewhat larger. I am inclined to think that it would be better to pay them simply for the working days.


George Taylor: My hon. friend has no rule. If he looks at page Y-37 of the Auditor's General Report he will see that the inspector of works at Lunenburg, D. J. Mullarkey, has been paid $4 a day for 31 days, Sunday and every other day. At Sydney the clerk of works, D. A. Gillis, is paid 3 per cent on the amount of the contract. So it all depends on the value politically of the clerk of works. If he is worth $3 a day to the party he will get it; if he is worth $4 a day, he will get that'; if he is worth more he will get a percentage.


William Pugsley: Mr. Mullarkey is a special inspector. His headquarters are in Ottawa and he is directed to go to different parts of the country on special work. I am inclined to think that it would be better to pay these inspectors for the actual working days.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we to understand that the minister will establish that practice in his department in future ?


William Pugsley: I think I can say that that will be the practice in the future. At all events, in the case of any new inspectors appointed that will be the case.


George William Fowler: I thiuk the government should not violate the Act passed a year or so ago in respect to Sabbath observance as they are doing by paying men for Sunday work.
Georgetown, Prince Edward Island, public building, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has any contract been let ?


William Pugsley: This is for purchasing a building. We can purchase a lot of land and a building upon it for the sum of $2,500. It is a very excellent bargain. The building is well situated for post office and customs purposes, and we purpose making certain improvements in it so that the total cost will not exceed $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: This afternoon my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fowler) gave the minister a reputation for being very profligate in the dissipation of public moneys, and I am afraid that as a result there may be inordinate demands on the hon. gentleman by our hon. friends opposite. There has lately been published the report of the Civil Service Commission, and I would like to direct the minister's attention to a passage which he will find in that report on page 43 :
The commissioners of 1892 drew attention to the practice of building custom houses, &c.. in small towns. With regard to this the Deputy Postmaster General at that time stated that not only did it tend to increase the charge to the department, for the reason that by moving to a public building, the postmaster had to give up his own business, but in other ways by the employment of caretakers, &c.. &c., it largely added to the cost of the service. Your commissioners think it desirable again to bring under notice the observations made in 1892.
That is a question that has been discussed in this House for a great many years-the erection of public buildings in small towns. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when in opposition took strong ground on that score. By reason of the fact that small places are mentioned in these estimates for the erection of public buildings, the hon. minister will be no doubt assailed by his supporters for further amounts to be brought down in the supplementary estimates, though I have been successful, if I can congratulate myself, in staying the minister's hand to some extent.


William Pugsley: I am not able to recall any instance.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, he rather came down on those dredging contracts lately.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Not in consequence of anything the hon. gentleman said.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman came down anyway. I want to direct the attention of the minister to what has been going on in the past twelve years in regard to the construction of public buildings in small places. The minister will not be assailed as past ministers have been by his colleagues in the ministry importuning him to erect buildings in their riding, as they have already been very successful in that inspect. The Minister of Agriculture has a


George William Fowler: very respectable public building erected in the town of Knowlton in his riding ; the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has succeeded in having one erected in his constituency ; the Postmaster General has succeeded in having one in his riding ; while the Minister of Finance has been doubly lucky in having two in the constituency he represents, and the Minister of Militia has one in his riding also. These buildings have all been erected in comparatively small places. What is the result ? The rank and file say :	If the ministers have been
so successful in their demands, what is there left for us? Now, I am going to read a list of some of these comparatively small places in which public buildings have been erected, with their population and the amount paid formerly for rent, fuel, light and attendance in premises used for postal and other government business : [DOT]
Paid formerly for rent,
	Population.	fuel, &c.
Markham			$ 90


Glencoe .. ..: ' 90
Parkhill		.. .. 1,430	90
Whitbv			135
Leamington		,. .. 2,451	150


Kincardine .. ..: .. .. 2,885	150
Simcoe			210
Renfrew	.. .. 3,153	195Alexandria	. .. 1,911	120Bowmanville.. ..	.. .. 2,731	180Knowlton	60C'ookshire	Farnham	.. .. 3,099	Plessisville	. .. 1,586	75Marieville	.. .. 1,366	45Nioolet	75Acton Vale	.. .. 1,175	20Shelburne, N.S..	.. .. 1,445	45Westville	.. .. 2,274	90Iventville	.. .. 1,731	Liverpool	.. .. 1,937	60Inverness	.. .. 1,890	60Antigonish	. .. 1,838	60Here is a list of	about twenty	places at
each of which a public building has been erected, and the aggregate cost of all these buildings is in the neighbourhood of $600,000 to $650,000. What is the result ? All the wants of the public were formerly met in these places out of an annual expenditure-of $1,578, whereas now we have to pay some $42,000 a year. Take the expenses of these public buildings. Each one must have a caretaker at about $400 per annum ; fuel, $150 ; light, $200 ; and interest on the capital invested, $1,200. It will cost over $2,000 yearly to maintain each of these buildings. And the minister will be importuned to construct a large number, more especially when we find ministers of the Crown deeming it their duty to ask that such large expenditure be made in their ridings. These things do not appeal to the public. I see the Minister of Railways present and that recalls to my recollection the fact that in the last election held in Centre York, there

was a meeting in the village of Markham at which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) showed the plans and specifications of a new building which the government were going to put up there. But in spite of this appeal of the ministers, the people there actually went back on the government by some thirty votes.


William Pugsley: That shows how self-sacrificing we are to give these public buildings where they do not affect the vote.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the ministers are not self-sacrificing at their own expense. This is done for the purpose of parading the public money before the people and get-ing them to vote for the government because of the local expenditure in these places.


William Stevens Fielding: It is your side who are taking up the time.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will look into the matter, he will find that more time has been taken up by members supporting the government.


William Stevens Fielding: Not on the estimates.


George Taylor: It lias been taken up by the ministers and their supporters more than by the opposition.


William Stevens Fielding: Has not three-fourths of the speaking to-day been on the side of my hon. friend ?


George Taylor: The minister occupied fullv one-half the time himself.


William Stevens Fielding: He has to answer questions.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. gentleman say that the plans were exhibited at that meeting ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can get the report in the newspapers of that meeting. Senator Campbell was present and announced that he had the plans and that the building would be a magnificent one, and he gave that as an earnest of what they could do.


Mr. MILLER.: Does my hon. friend say that the cost of maintaining each of these buildings is $2,500 per year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I find it would run to about $2,000 a year. Some of them run to more than that. The building at Bridgewater cost some $40,000. It is time that these huge expenditures should be stopped. If the same amount of money had been invested a few years ago in transportation, the country would have had some benefit. There is a list that will startle the average man throughout the Dominion. All that money is sacrificed simply out of a desire to gain political advantage. What necessity is there in a village like Markham with some 967 people, for a public building where formerly they had good post office accommodation at a total cost of $00 per year. But the country has to launch into a large public building, to maintain which it will cost $2,000 per year. It is high time that a protest should be made against spending money in this ridiculous way in these small places.


George Taylor: I think we ought now to rise.


William Stevens Fielding: At the rate we are going, it will take a good many days yet to go through the estimates.


George Taylor: That is not our fault.
St. John, New Brunswick, Dominion buildings-improvements, repairs, &c., $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is for repairs to the custom house, post office, &c.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that done by day's labour or by contract ?


William Pugsley: The amounts are all small ones and the work is done by day's labour.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is there an inspector on works of that kind ?


William Pugsley: We have the superintendent of buildings there.
St. John military building-addition to stores building and wagon and gun shed, $6,000.


George William Fowler: What is this estimated to cost?


William Pugsley: The estimate is $33,044.93.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was there a contract in this case?


William Pugsley: Yes, after public advertisement.
Mr. FOWLER, How much more will be required to complete.it?


William Pugsley: 

St. John quarantine station, Partridge island-to complete water service, &c., $2,500.


George William Fowler: How much has been paid on account of that water service? It seems to me we have had a vote for that every year.


William Pugsley: This $2,500 is to complete the work. I made a statement concerning it on a former occasion. The total probable cost is $54,988.91.


George William Fowler: Are you boring?


William Pugsley: No. There is a water pipe laid from the mainland. A trench had

to be excavated and the pipe laid. There was an accident to the pipe which added to the expense. The hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) is familiar with the case.


George William Fowler: Is this under contract?


William Pugsley: It is done under the direction of the resident engineer. It is to give a fresh-water supply to Partridge Island.


George William Fowler: Does the hon. minister intend to have an item for a public building at Hillsborough in the supplementary estimates?
Mr. PUGSLEYL If it is decided to erect a public building at Hillsborough to which I have been urged very strongly by Hon. Mr. Osman more especially, as "well as by some other residents there, of course, it will appear in the supplementary estimates.
Mr. CROCKET, been going on ?


William Pugsley: Mr. FOWLER, artesian well?
How long has the work Since 1904.
Did they try boring an


William Pugsley: Yes, and struck salt water at a great depth.
St. John quarantine station, Partridge island-site for steam sterilizer; dwelling for boatman: improvement and repair to existing buildings, &c., $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide a steam sterilizer and also a cottage- for the orderly. This is asked for by the director general of public health, Dr. Montizambert


George William Fowler: Does not the government own Partridge Island? Why then do they need to procure a site for the steam sterilizer?


William Pugsley: This is needed merely to provide the site-to build up the walls to make a level site for the building. This is a rocky island and the site for the building must be prepared.
Tracadie lazaretto-laundry and sanitary works, $6,OCO.


William Pugsley: This is the lazaretto where lepers are taken care of. It is in Gloucester county. This money is to provide a laundry and septic tank.


George William Fowler: How many lepers are there now ?


William Pugsley: I believe there are thirteen. This is a wonderfully well conducted institution, and deserving of being very carefully looked after.


George William Fowler: Does' the minister know if the lepers are decreasing or not?


George William Fowler: As a representative of the district, I have for a number of years urged the erection of a public building there.


William Pugsley: I have not heard from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) on the subject.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) has not been Minister of Public Works all the time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the population of Hillsborough ?


George William Fowler: Greater than that of most of the places where these buildings have been provided. This building would serve between 3,000 and 4,000 people.


William Pugsley: A very prominent and influential citizen (Hon. Mr. Osman), called upon me in addition to corresponding upon the subject, and said that if the government would erect a building there, the company with which he was connected would give the site free. He urged very strongly favourable consideration of the matter. I have said that, as minister, I was disposed to take a very favourable view of the case, recognizing that it was desirable to give to the people the necessary accommodation. For I do not take the view taken by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) on this subject. Judging from the complacency with which my hon. friend from King's and Albert (Mr. Fowler) listened to that hon. gentleman, I thought that he coincided with his views. It came to me as a matter of surprise that my hon. friend should urge the providing of a building for Hillsboro. Another* reason for my surprise was that, though I have been minister since August last, I have not had the pleasure of receiving any communication, written or verbal, from the hon. gentleman on the subject.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) could probably tell the committee better than I.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The number is decreasing so far as the locality is concerned. But Dr. Smith, the surgeon of the hospital, was sent to the west a month or so ago to bring in another case.


George William Fowler: Are these all the items for New Brunswick?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Pugsley: 


George William Fowler: The hon. minister speaks of the complacency with which I regarded the remarks of the hon. member for East Simcoe. I was merely copying the complacency of the hon. minister himself, and surely he does not object to hon. members. modelling themselves on his pattern. I have urged the construction of a public building at Hillsborough every session since I first had the honour of representing the county of Albert. With respect to providing buildings in these small towns, it seems to be a principle adopted by this govern-

ment. That being the case, I fail to see why a place of the importance of Hillsborough should not be recognized, since it is far more important than the great majority of the places that have already received public buildings. There Is a considerable revenue in Hillsborough, there is a custom house, it is a customs sub-port, and a post office would accommodate a very large number of people, both in the village and in the surrounding country. Among all the places that have been favoured this year there is not a solitary place with better claims for a public building than Hillsborough. I do not know what the minister's reason was for trying to make out that I had not been doing my duty by making a request for the erection of this building. If it was with the desire to injure me with my constituents his policy will entirely fail, because my constituents in that portion of the district I represent are fully aware of the fact that I have repeatedly urged upon the government the erection of this building. I think the Finance Minister at one time was acting Minister of Public Works, and he as good as promised me that this town would receive proper consideration. I am glad that his promise is likely to be carried out.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember the promise, but on general principles I am in favour of erecting these buildings. I only make this request, that when the speech of the hon. member for East Simcoe about the terrible expense of these buildings, is distributed, as I have no doubt it will be widely distributed, I think the hon. member for King's and Albert (Mr. Fowler) ought to arrange that his very effective reply should go with it.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend from King's and Albert takes this ground, and I take the same ground, that if the government is going to throw thousands of money away indiscriminately, then the most deserving places should be first regarded.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a change of ground. My hon. friend stated solemnly that it is time this.expenditure was stopped ; that is a solemn duty he imposes upon us. I do not agree with him. He warns us that we must not do it any longer ; then the hon. member for Kings and Albert gets up and says, don't mind my hon. friend from Simcoe but give us ta building in Hillsborough.


George di Madeiros Loy: It will be a good idea for the hon. member for Simcoe to pick out all these places like Hillsborough, Markham, Pictou, Acton vale, and a number of other small towns in Ontario and Quebec, and move a resolution that it is against public policy and against public interest that public buildings should be erected in these places. That would be a courageous and manly
course to take. Let him try that and see where he will be.


George Taylor: The Minister of Public Works was not in the House a few years ago when we spent a whole night discussing an appropriation for the little town of Dunnville. The opposition then declared that no public buildings should be erected in small places unless they were justified by tlie population and the post office revenue.


William Pugsley: What is the limit of population ?


George Taylor: I think 3,000 was the suggested limit. But here is a public building costing $25,000 in a small village of 900 or
1,000	of a population, and very little revenue ; while other towns with 3,000 or 4,000 and over are left out. There should be some system adopted. The revenue should amount to so much and the population should be so much before the government expends public money there. That was .he policy adopted by the opposition.


William Stevens Fielding: And I think my hon. friend voted against the very thing he now proposes.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has been in parliament a good while. Now let me call his attention to what I think is just about as laudable a thing as the Conservative government ever did, and that was the erection of a public building in the thriving town of Sussex when the population I am sure was not over 800.


George William Fowler: Oh, yes, the population then would be about 1,600.
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. Even so that would be about 1,400 less than the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says it should be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman think there are 1,500 people in Sussex now.
Mr. FOW'LEIi. Yes, 2,500.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has grown a great leal in the last year, then.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says that the erection >f public buildings, such as custom houses, post offices and so forth, should be dependent upon the revenue derived therefrom, f may say to him that in 1896 when the Liberal party came into power, for three years I had been applying to the Minister of Railways and Canals to have a station in my village, St. Michel de Bellechasse. in election after election we had been promised this station, but as the parish judged it proper to give a majority against the rovernment then we did not get the station. Finally I came to the Minister of Railways and Canals and told him that I would like to have a station in my village.

Well, lie said, there is uo revenue, the revenue last year was only $350. I pledged myself that if a station costing $1,200 or $1,500 was built, within a year the revenue would amount to over $2,000. The station was built, and in my parish where there was then a revenue of $280, we have this year a revenue of $7,000, owing to the existence of this station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: X understood the Minister of Public Works to say that he could not subscribe to the principle that had been in vogue heretofore with regard to the erection of public buildings. I think it would be well for him to lay down what he regards as the proper principle. I have held the view for many years, while our friends were in power as well as during the last 12 years, that wherever a convenient and suitable public building can be rented at a much less amount than it would cost to pay the interest on maintenance charges for a public building, that, in the interest of the country, it is desirable that a public building should not be erected in such a place. I do not care whether the place is large or small. I would make no difference in that regard. It is not a good principle and is no evidence of economy or desire to economize when public money is spent on the erection of a public building in a small village or town of 1,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. We would have to pay for the building say $10,000; on that the interest would be about $450 per annum, the care of the building about $400, heating about $100, lighting about $75, insurance about $25, and repairs about $50 a year. That is an annual expenditure of about $1,000, when in many cases a good and suitable building can be' rented for not more than $100 to $125 a year. To that you would have to add probably $50 or $60 for fuel and light, and the people would have as good service as with a public building for which you would have to pay out $1,000 a year. Take Owen Sound for instance. A post office building is now being erected there for the first time. It is a county town of over 10,000 inhabitants, but has never had a public building up to the present time. The people asked for one occasionally but were not pushing for it, because a good building could be rented for very much less. In the adjoining town of Meaford, of about
3,000	inhabitants, they have never had a public building erected for post office, custom house or inland revenue, but have rented a building at a very moderate price. In Markdale, the village in which I live, with about 1,200 inhabitants, the rent paid for a very good post office is, I think, $125 with $60 for heating and lighting. Durham with over 3,000 has no public building. The minister is coming in as a new member of the cabinet. He is at the head of a very important spending department, and he should Mr. TALBOT.
take this into his consideration and lay down some principle, letting the House and the country know that he has made a departure upon good, safe business lines and desires to save the money of the people while giving them all the convenience they require in the matter of public buildings.


William Pugsley: I do not think one could properly lay down a fixed rule that there should be no public building erected in a town unless it has a population of
3,000	or more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not go that far because there are places where you cannot get buildings ; but I say you should rent where you can procure a suitable building.


William Pugsley: I spoke of the public building erected in the very enterprising town of Sussex, because knowledge of it came to me as I was brought up in that locality. That building was regarded by the people as a very great improvement. It created a local pride among the people who saw this not expensive but nice building erected by the government. The county in which it is erected has not received any federal expenditure for wharfs, dredging, etc., as it is entirely inland. With an inland town where no money is expended for any purpose exeept the postal service, if you have a thriving town of only 3,000 or even 2,000, and the people feel that they would like to have a public building or some little expenditure, I do not think it is improper that their wishes should be met in that particular. Suppose we were to limit the erection of post offices and other public buildings to the larger towns the result would be very discouraging to the people who are living in smaller towns. They would see money being spent for dredging and the building of wharfs in other places and it would be discouraging to them. If money was being expended in the county for wharfs, &c., you might well say to them that for the present they should wait a little before asking for a public building. Therefore, I think it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule. Take the west where towns are springing up rapidly, where a town with a population of only 1,000 to-day may be full of hope and full of possibilities and the people ask a public building, is it not a reasonable encouragement to the people that a public building should be erected for post office and customs purposes ? Many applications have been made to me from the people of different towns urging that public buildings should be erected. While I would not erect buildings in towns of very small population, yet I would be very reluctant indeed to say that no public building should be erected in a place which has not more than 3,000 population or even
2,000.	Take the town of Hillsborough ; the hon. member for Kings and Albert said

that if the rule were fixed at 3,000 or even at 2,000, a public building could not be erected.


George Taylor: Revenue should count as well as population.


William Pugsley: If we were to be governed entirely by revenue what would we have to do ? Take the case of Montreal ; we are asked to erect a post office building there. It is going to be very costly, it will cost nearly half a million dollars in addition to the site. A plain building, absolutely without ornamentation, a building which might suit the purpose, I suppose, might be erected for half that money. What are we expending in these cities large sums of money for ?-for the purpose of erecting buildings which are beautiful, and to which people will look with pride and pleasure. It is because we take a pride in the community and seek to move along with it and gratify the feeling of the people that this money is spent. Money which is spent for the purpose of beautifying a building, making it more comfortable and convenient for the people to transact their business in may be regarded by some people as money wasted. Yet, it is not wasted. When the government, in a small and thriving town, where the people have ho other expenditure of public money, erects a small building which is a good specimen of architecture and in which the people take pride it is doing something to help them in their efforts to advance the community residing in that locality. I am not prepared to say that it is a waste of money, or that it is something to be condemned. I am a great believer in doing what is reasonable in the various sections of the country to encourage the people living in the smaller towns to take a pride in the places in which they live, and I would not say that there should be a fixed rule as to the population of the places in which we could erect buildings or that the question of revenue should be the sole consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not mention either of the rules that the minister talks about. He has been talking round the question for a quarter of an hour. The minister argued that it is a matter of pride with various communities that they should have public buildings in their midst. Let us apply that to domestic life. Suppose that the bon. Minister's wife has a pride and an ambition which prompts her to want a bonnet costing $100 and the minister's finances will not justify him in making the expenditure ; would he apply that principle to the expenditure of his own money ? Would he spend his own money in the same lavish way that he spends the country's money ? If he is not prepared to do with the country's money as he would do with his own he is not following the best and safest guide. Another
argument is that many of these places, being inland places do not get much expenditure and that they are entitled to public buildings. I presume that the expenditure of money in these places helps to carry elections. If that be a sound principle then I say let us divide the money up equitably among all these places.


William Stevens Fielding: That is socialism.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, it is not socialistic at all. The Minister of Finance is just a little too previous.
If it is fair and proper that because these constituencies have no general expenditure within their bounds they should have public buildings, then I say they are .entitled to their full share just as wrell as others. They have a perfect right to claim it and it is due to them that they should get it. If the minister follows out that principle I do not see how he can refuse it to all. He says we cannot follow any hard and fast rule. I did not ask that any hard and fast rule be followed. He says that we cannot regard a mere fixed population. I did not ask that a mere fixed population be regarded, whether it is 3.000, 4,000 5,000 or 10,000. I pointed to a town of 12,000 where there is no post office yet and another or 3,000 and smaller places along the line. I did not name a fixed population but I did lay down this rule that whether a place is large or small, if a public building can be secured in a central locality for the needs of the people at a smaller amount of money than that which would be required to pay the interest on the money that would be put into the erection of a public building, caretaking, heating, and maintenance, I did not see any justification for spending more money to supply the needs of the people in any place when we could supply the needs of the people for less money.


William Pugsley: You put it down to the bare question of dollars and cents ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I put it down to the principle of saving the peoples' money. If you can give the people the conveniences that they require for less money by renting a building than erecting a building, then I would rent a building. There are some places where you cannot rent a building. I can understand that in many places in the west you could not rent a building and under those circumstances the government would be justified in erecting a building. When you cannot rent and provide the people with the conveniences they require go on and build, but if you can rent a suitable building for less money than it costs to erect a building I do not understand by what principle of economy you would be justified iu expending a larger amount.
Some resolutions reported.

Mr. FIELDING moved tlie adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed with Supply and take up the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27, 1008.