1909-02-18

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: The clerk of the House has received from the clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of the Hon. William Templeman, member elect for Comox-Atlin, British Columbia.



FIRST READING.

Mr.  T. S.@: SPROULE (East Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 64) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said:	This
Bill is to correct what appears to have been an error which crept into the Bill as it passed last year. When the Dominion Lands Bill was before the Senate on July 17, 1908 -three days before the closing of parliament-an amendment was there moved to the following effect as appears by the minutes of the Senate:
The order of the day being read for the third reading of Bill (No. 181) entitled an Act to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public lands of the Dominion, as amended, the Hon. Mr. Scott moved, seconded by the Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, that the said Bill, as amended, be now read a third time. The Hon. Mr. Lougheed in amendment, moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Perley:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time but be amended by restoring to section 42 in the 6th line thereof before the word ' schools,' the word ' public ' so as to read ' public schools ', as now in the present law respecting Dominion lands. The question of concurrence being put thereon, the same was resolved in the affirmative. The question of concurrence being again put on the main motion, the same was resolved in the affirmative. The said Bill, as further amended, was then read a third time accordingly. The question was put whether this Bill as further amended, shall pass. This was resolved in the affirmative.
Ordered, that the clerk go down to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate have passed this Bill with several amendments to which they desire their concurrence.

The message was taken down to the House of Commons on the same day, as appears from the Votes and Proceedings, July 17, 1908, page 1454. The minute is as follows:
A message was received from the Senate agreeing to the Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public lands of the Dominion with an amendment which is as follows:
Page 8, line 21-after ' provide ' insert the following as subclause 9 of clause 15:
' Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years imprisonment, who buys, trades or sells, or professes to buy trade or sell land, or any interest in or control of land open to homestead entry, or for which homestead entry has been - granted, before patent therefor has been issued.
The House then adjourned at 1.55 o'clock a.m. until 11 o'clock a.m. this day.
It will be seen that the amendment moved by Senator Lougheed and adopted by the Senate did not appear in the message sent to the House of Commons and therefore that amendment did not come before the House for concurrence. Who was responsible for this omission, and whether it was the result of accident or design is to me unknown. In any event it never came before this House. This House agreed to the one amendment sent down, as appears from the following entry in our Votes and Proceedings of July 18 last, page 1464:
The amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills were taken into consideration and agreed to, namely Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act, and Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Act respecting the public lands of the Dominion.
The result is that the clause, as it now stands, in the statutes of 1908, materially changes the law, as the word ' public ' is omitted and the words now are: ' organized and carried on in accordance with the law of such province.
That was a material change in the Act. And, right here, I wish to draw attention to another thing. When the first Dominion Lands Bill was brought down, it had explanatory notes after the several clauses. The clause to which I now refer contained an amendment which appears in the Bill of 1908, and the note at the foot of it refers only to another amendment of the law which was properly brought to our attention by that explanatory note. But, when the Bill of the succeeding year was brought down, which purports to have the same explanatory notes at the foot of each clause, and where this important amendment was made_ in that clause, there is no reference to it in the explanatory note, but there is a reference to another change which was made in that clause. It was clause 42. In the Act of 1906-7, the clause is practically the same as in the old law and provides as follows :
All moneys from time to time realized from the sale of school lands should be invested in Mr. SPROULE.
securities of Canada to form a school fund and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, should be paid annually to the government of the province within which such lands are situate toward the support of public schools therein.
The explanatory note says:
This provision is the same as in the present law, except that the words ' or territory ' have been struck out, as the territory referred to has been divided into the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and there are no school lands beyond.
In the Bill of 1908, in which the important amendment I have referred to is made, there is no explanatory clause, except the one in the former Bill which I have just read. It makes no reference to the other very important ohajige introduced into this Bill of 1908. Therefore reading the explanatory notes, as one naturally would, and finding no statement to the effect that this important change was to be made, in all human probability, a few of the members, when the Bill was going through, read the clause as it is now in the law. The Bill which I now introduce is to amend the Act so as to make it read as it was heretofore. The section now reads:
All moneys from time to time realized from the sale of school lands should be invested in securities of Canada to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, should be paid annually to the government of the province within which such lands are situate, towards the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the law of such province.
The words of the old law were:
-toward the support of public schools therein.
My amendment would restore the wording of the original clause before this amendment was made in 1908.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  J. G.@: TURRIFF (Assiniboia) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 65) to amend the Railway Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is, word for word, the Bill I promoted in this House last year. The Bill, after being introduced and read the first and second times, was sent to the Railway Committee, and there amended into the shape in which it now is. It passed the Railway Committee and came to this House, but was so late in getting through the Railway Committee that the session ended before it could be reached. The Bill provides that every railway company that receives a charter from this parliament shall be compelled not to spend fifteen per cent within the first two years as provided by the present law, but shall be compelled, if the railway is under 250 miles in length, to build ten per cent of the mileage during the first

two years, an additional ten per cent in the third year, another ten in the fourth year, and to complete the road in five years as at present; if the road is over 250 miles in length, the company shall be compelled to build at least one-twentieth of the mileage in the first two years, an additional one-twentieth in each of the third and fourth years, and to complete in five years as at present. I believe that something along this line is absolutely necessary. I speak with some experience of how these matters work out, in the western country at all events. The constituency I represent is an old-settled constituency-settled since 1882-and there are many settlers in that country who have been waiting year after year for a road to be built; charters have been granted eight or ten years ago, and yet nothing has been done toward extending ^these lines of railway. The companies come before this House and before the Railway Committee, and, on one excuse or another, they get an extension of time. We have seen it this year in the Railway Committee that, almost every time an effort is made to force a railway company to build so much of its line each year, the excuse is made: You cannot pick out one railway company and treat it differently from the others. I agree with that; it would not be fair to treat one differently from the others. But I believe that it would be in the interest of the country generally, and especially of the west, that all railway companies should be compelled to build a certain proportion of their roads every year or forfeit the charter. It has been stated, time and again, that the possession of a charter does not prevent another road from getting a charter and going on and building. That may be well enough in theory, but it does not work out that way in practice. When one big company has the charter, it can play the dog in the manger to the fullest extent, not building its own proposed road and yet preventing other railways from building. We have had that to contend with for years in my own constituency. One of the big companies, the Canadian Pacific Railway, has a charter. They will not build the road, but the moment the Canadian Northern, or the Grand Trunk Pacific, gets a charter, and proposes to build, the Canadian Pacific Railway will go on and grade a few miles. Only yesterday, in the Railway Committee an hon. member from British Columbia gave us an instance in which one of the big railway companies- the same company-in order to keep out the Jim Hill system graded a portion of the road and laid the rails, but as soon as they had shut out the building of a competing line they not only ceased working, but actually took up the rails they had already laid. Is that a state of things we ought to tolerate in this country? I claim that the time has come when some change ought to be made. The railway companies are doing exactly as they like. We have no say as to where they
shall build the branch lines; in the western country at all events they do not consult the wishes of the people, but build with a view to cutting out competing companies. What we want is a law that will compel them, when they get a charter, to go on and do something with the road. I have understood my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to state on several occasions that whenever the Railway Committee take a certain line of action, it is not his policy or the policy of the government to go contrary to the wishes of that committee.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) should confine himself to an explanation of his Bill as is customary on the first reading.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Well, those, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons I have for introducing this Bill, and those are the provisions of the Bill. If it is thought desirable to send it to the Railway Committee. I have not the slightest doubt that the Railway Com mittee will do again this year as it did last year, pass the Bill and send it back here to be dealt with by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. HUGHES asked:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the announcement that the British government has contracted for large quantities of canned meats for the army and navy, with firms in foreign nations?
2.	Were efforts made by the British government to have these supplies furnished by Canada, Australia or South Africa?
3.	Is it the custom of the British government to favour foreign nations with whom it wishes to cultivate friendship, and persons other than those loyal to Britain and her institutions, to the detriment and exclusion of those loyal and true to Britain and her institutions?


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	The attention of the government has not been drawn to the fact that the British government has contracted for large quantities of canned meats for the army and navy with firms in foreign countries.
2.	On this the government has no informa tion.
3.	The propriety of this question seems to be questionable, as it implies a censure on a matter which is not of the competence of this House. But this government has no doubt that in any business relations the British government would, wherever possible, favour British countries in preference to foreign countries.



COST OF WORK ON THE ASSINIBOINE RIVER.

Mr. MEIGHEN asked:: Wh at was the actual cost per yard of the work on the Assiniboine river, near Portage la Prairie, done in September or October, 1908?
been imported into Canada during the year ending March 31, 1908?
2.	What were the quantities entered at the different ports?
3.	What numbers of dozens, and the values of same, were imported by manufacturers on which the export drawback has been allowed?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Twenty-two cents and a half per cubic yard.



IMPORTATIONS OP HICKORY AND ASH HANDLES.

Mr. ELSON asked:: 1.	How many hickory and ash handles for pitchforks, axes, hoes, hammers, etc., have


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I regret that we are not able to answer all the questions on the paper. I have had a statement prepared which gives all we are able to afford in the way of reply. As it involves a great deal of detail, perhaps the hon. member will consent, with the permission of the House, that I hand this in to the 'Hansard.'
Statement showing the Value of the undermentioned Articles, together with the Duty collected thereon. entered for Consumption at each Port in Canada during the fiscal Year ended March 31, 1908.
Ports.
Bridgeburg. Chatham...
Collingwood	
Galt	
Gananoque	
Goderich	
Guelph	
Harmlton	
London	
Ottawa	
Paris	
Peterboro	
Port Arthur	
Port Hope	
St. Catharines	
St. Thomas	
Sault Ste. Marie	
Toronto	
Wallaceburg	
Windsor	
Quebec-
Athelstan	
Montreal	
Quebec	
Sherbrooke	
Nova Scotia-
Halifax	
North Sydney	
Yarmouth	
New Brunswick-
St. John	
Manitoba-
Brandon	
Winnipeg	
British Columbia-
Prince Rupert	
Grand Porks	
Nanaimo	
Nelson	
New Westminster	
Vancouver,	
Victoria	
Greenwood	
Saskatchewan and Alberta-
Calgarv	
Edmonton.,	
Lethbridge	
North Portal	
Regina	
D. Shovel Handies.
V alue. Duty.
173
Dominion total.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER7
40,168
3,266
9,155
5,206
'2, sis " io9
4,631
114
1,105
450
125
67,633
S ets, 2 40 25 95
6,025 20 489 90 2 55 1,373 25 34 20
780 90
422 25 ii>
35
0 30 694 65 3 15 17 10
165 75
0 75 67 50
1 95 18 75
2 10
10,144 95
Ash Handles.
Value. Duty.
' 3^666
105
55,026
23
341
207
929
113
42
61,109
cts,
1 00

Hickory Handles.
Value.
51 00 232 25
46 50
28 25 144 50 10 50 73 25
15,274 85
235
32
1,404 ' 3'427
833
7,166
Duty.
$ cts. 11 25
58 75
49 25 5 60 16 25
351 00
856 75
62 00 208 25
62 00 1,775 76
~n	17 75
512	128 00
42	10 50
2,976	744 00
11	2 75
241	60 25
	247	61 75
16,011	4,002 75
1,546	386 50
41	10 25
35,598	8,881 36



STURGEON PIER, P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1- Were tenders called for enlarging and raising stem of Sturgeon pier, in Kings county, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?
i.	If no tenders were called for, how is this work being done, and who has charge of this work ?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Neil Campbell, Sturgeon, P.E.I., $4,100; Daniel Collings, Sturgeon, P.E.I., $4,971;
F. S. Macdonald, Souris, P.E.I., $5,095; Thos. Campbell, Sturgeon, P.E.I., $5,300.
3.	Neil Campbell.
4.	Answered by No. 1.



ISSUES OF POST OFFICE ORDERS AND POSTAL NOTES.

Mr. MACDONELL asked:: What is the total number and amount of post office orders or postal notes issued in Canada payable in Great Britain and in Europe, during the calendar years 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908, respectively?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: The following statement relates to money orders only, as postal notes issued in Canada are not negotiable in Great Britain or Europe.
Statement showing the total number and total amount of Post Office Money Orders issued in Canada and
*	made payable m Great Britain and the undermentioned countries in Europe during the four calendar
*	years ended December 31, 1908.
Country.	1905.	1906.	1907.	1908.	No.	Amount.	No.	Amount.	No.	Amount.	No.	Amount.Great Britain	
Austria	
Belgium 	
^Denmark	
France	
Germany	
*(Holland	
Hungary	
Italy 	
Norway	
Sweden	
{Switzerland ... .	205,660 23,202 2,260 9,740 3,507 5,077 18,070 3,339 5,391 870	$ cts. 2,229,253 61 651,445 21 47,424 32 92,243 32 58,131 62 199,817 48 845,143 08 84,160 63 137,736 47 13,396 86	280,956 32,349 2,825 641 11,759 4,146 303 5,859 27,955 4,667 6,863 835	$ cts. 3,045,392 29 1,027,811 38 63,815 31 12,459 64 117,998 49 82,116 61 4,837 99 236,239 86 1,499,748 01 130,716 79 203,592 64 12,740 14	426,968 52,019 3,594 949 13,900 4,574 1,375 7,191 42,074 5,634 8,333 1,054	$ cts. 4,593,955 04 1,765,045 47 90,395 76 19,310 30 153,905 00 86,572 63 21,342 59 314,821 24 2,375,185 75 170,341 96 276,797 90 26,100 06	435,467 50,495 3,988 867 15,866 4,712 1,480 7,540 38,112 5,135 7,524 2,771	$ cts. 4,210,662 08 1,541,534 43 97,921 51 16,554 82 158,526 04 79,333 53 22,177 45 310,908 85 2,226,725 84 152,081 34 240,593 89 103,841 84
k

* Commenced April 1, 1906. f Commenced July 1, 1906. { Including Bulgaria and Servia.



TARIFF ON WOOD AND WOOD PULP.

Mr. JAMIESON asked:: 1.	Have any negotiations taken place or are any pending between the governments of Canada and the United States of America, contemplating the reduction of the American tariff on ground wood and woodpulp upon conditions prohibiting the imposition of an export tax upon such products by the government of Canada?
2.	Is the government considering the imposition of an export tax upon ground wood and woodpulp ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	No.
2.	The government are not considering the imposition of an export tax on these articles.



ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION INTO BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Has the government received from the government of British Columbia a resolution adopted by the legislature of that province, praying that application be made to the Imperial government for the appointment of a Koyal Commission to inquire into the circumstances m connection with Oriental immigration into British Columbia?
2.	If so, what was the date of receipt, what acknowledgment was made, and what action has been taken?
8. If no action has been taken, is it the intention of the government to deal with the matter ?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State):: 1. No.
2	and 3. See answer to 1.



RAILWAY IN KINGS COUNTY, P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER-by Mr. Geo. Taylorasked :
1.	Were tenders called for the construction of a railroad from Harmony to Elmira, in Kings county, P.E.I.? If so were any tenders received?
2.	What are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
3.	Was any tender accepted? If not, why not? If so, whose tender was accepted?
4.	How much has been spent out of the appropriation of $31,000 voted last session for the construction of this railroad?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to begin the construction of this road during the present year?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2.	Tender No. 1, D. R. Morrison and P. B. Clark, Summerside.
Tender No. 2, E. S. Reade and L. W. Reade, Ottawa.
Tender No. 3, Thos. Campbell, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Tender No. 4, Wellington Mutch, Eldon, P.E.I.; Archibald McLean, Charlottetown; R. E. Mutch, Charlottetown.
Tender No. 5, James Camplong, Hudson, P.Q.
Tender No. 6, E. A. Wallberg, Montreal.
Tender No. 7, Whitehead Bros., Grand Falls, N.B.	!
Tender No. 8, Eustache Tremblay, Her-bertville, Que.
It is not in the public interest to disclose the amount of each tender, as the matter has not been disposed of.
3.	The matter is under the consideration of the government.
4.	$3,077.91.
5.	It is the intention to begin the work.



INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY

[Stage Direction]
-FISHERIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: I would like to call the attention of the government, and especially of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a statement which I see in the St. John ' Globe ' of February 17. This is the statement :
In an Ottawa despatch to the Fredericton * Gleaner * the position of the New Brunswick government is defined. Hon. Mr. Grimmer, Surveyor General, who represents this province at the conference, says:
' While he had no official knowledge of the nature of the proposed regulations he had been given to understand that they were applied to spawning grounds in the waters of Grand Manan and Petit Manan, and other points in New Brunswick sea waters which were fifteen miles and more from the international boundaries. He could not see how these could be described as international waters, and could see no reason for Canada's handing the management of them over to a Mr. MURPHY.
commission in which the United States had anv say.'
But this is the part to which I wish particularly to call attention :
In the original draft, as he understood it, it was proposed to give to the fishermen of each nation the right to come in and fish in the waters of the other nations as they were covered by the joint commission. He did not know how far this had been modified by the later changes in the regulations, but if it were put in force in that form it would hand over to Americans the best fishing grounds in Canada, while the American waters which were thrown open to Canadian were not worth mentioning. What he objected to was the principle of declaring waters to be international which were nowhere near the boundary line.
I would like to know from the government whether it is a fact that the treaty, and the regulations which are to be made under it, will permit American fishermen to enjoy the privileges of our inland fisheries in any of the waters which are embraced in this treaty; because if it does, it would allow American fishermen to come into the harbour of St. John and carry on fishing operations there, and fish all the way up the St. John river, notwithstanding that the harbour and the greater part of the river and many miles away from the boundary. I think it very important that the public should know whether that is the intention or not.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: In virtue of the treaty which was signed last year, it is provided that the fishery regulations of some of the boundary waters shall be uniform and under the control of a joint commission appointed by the Canadian government and the American government. This commission is composed of Dr. Jordan, as was stated the other day, on the American side, and Dr. Prince on the Canadian side. They are now at work preparing the regulations. I understand that a draft which has been prepared by the American commissioner got abroad and was published. I do not know whether the draft as published is correct or not. I am inclined to believe that it is not correct. At all events this draft has not been accepted by our commissioner and the regulations are the subject of negotiations now between the American and Canadian commissioners.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the minister will excuse me, I think he did not answer the question which I asked whether the treaty, or these regulations would permit alien or American fishermen to fish in Canadian waters which are included in the treaty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I missed that point. It is formally stated in the treaty, if I remember it aright, that Canadians will have the exclusive right to fish on the Canadian side and Americans on the American side.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is a very important statement, and if that is so I presume that Americans will have the right to come into St. John harbour and fish


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, no.


William Pugsley: It is the other way.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, my hon. friend did not understand me aright. I said that Canadians would have the right to fish on the Canadian side and Americans on the American side. There is no proposition, and I understand it will be contrary to the treaty for the Commission to give to American fishermen the right to fish in Canadian waters.


Mr. FOSTER.: May I ask the minister one further question as to who will have the ultimate ratification or approval of these regulations made or to be made by Professor Prince and Mr. Jordan?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The two governments.


George Eulas Foster: With or without the knowledge of parliament?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say as to that, but I may state that some fifteen or sixteen years ago the American and Canadian governments had a commission to make regulations for the preservation of fish in boundary waters. They made a report suggesting certain close seasons and joint regulations to be approved by both countries. This report never was acted upon by the American government, although we are prepared to act upon it. The object of the present commission is to have a system of joint regulations applicable both in the United States and in Canada so far as close seasons and other matters are concerned, but neither country has surrendered its rights within its own waters.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask as to whether this treaty goes into effect without being presented to the Canadian parliament?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it does.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) a question which I must preface by a few words. I noticed by the press yesterday that regulations are now being framed under the provisions of the Waterways Treaty, and I understand that these regulations simply refer to international waters. Under the decision of the Privy Council in the fisheries case some years ago, or by virtue of that decision, there has occurred and is occurring a conflict between the federal and provincial governments respecting their several jurisdictions. Some year or two ago, I think, the government appointed one Mr. Bastedo, of the province
of Ontario, as a commissioner to negotiate with the provinces and to obtain, if possible some settlement or understanding as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal authorities. I noticed by the press lately that Mr. Bastedo was removed from this position and that Professor Prince was appointed in his place. I would like to know if Professor Prince is carrying on the negotiations with the provincial governments, if he has reported progress and what, if any, information the Minister of Marine and Fisheries can give us. It is an extremely important matter and it is a very unfortunate thing for the fisheries of this country that, by reason of the decision of the Privy Council, there exists a conflict of jurisdiction. As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I am sure it would be quite willing to abandon any rights it may have as a province under that decision and transfer them to the Dominion government. I believe that in that province we would go as far as to amend the British North America Act to make it absolutely plain


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is exceeding the limits of a question.
. ^r- K; MACLEAN. I am just finishes make it absolutely plain that the control of our coast fisheries is absolutely within the control of the Dominion parliament. The question I desire to ask is what progress has been made with the negotiations with the provinces respecting this matter?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There have been no negotiations with the provincial governments concerning the question of the fisheries except in a casual way in a conference which took place a few days ago between representatives of the New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario governments and myself. As there may be some misapprehension with reeard to that conference, I may inform the House as to what has been done and as to the circumstances under which that conference took place. This conference had nothing to do with the Waterways Commission, as my hon. friend has stated, but it was held for the purpose of discussing with the provincial governments interested, that is to say, the governments of New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, the regulations which are to be the subject of negotiations between the Canadian and American commissioners. I thought that before the Canadian commissioner should meet more formally the American commissioner he should have the benefit of the views of the provincial authorities. The three governments in question were, with the exception of the government of British Columbia, the only ones which were interested in the regulations which are to be made under the

treaty. The treaty provides for joint and uniform regulations in Passamaquoddy bay and in the St. John and St. Croix rivers in the province of New Brunswick; in Lake Memphramagog and Lake Champlain, in the province of Quebec, and within the great lakes and connecting rivers in Ontario, including the north channel. I thought that before Professor Prince should meet the American commissioner he should have the opportunity of meeting and consulting with the provincial authorities as to the regulations which should be accepted. The conference took place; while I am not at liberty to state what has been the result of this conference, I must say that it was conducted in the most harmonious way, and that we were very glad to have the benefit of the views which were expressed by the provincial governments.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is hardly an answer to my question. What I want to know is this: Some two years ago the government was in conference with the provincial governments as to the question of jurisdiction


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rules only allow the hon. gentleman to ask a question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were no negotiations with regard to the question of the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities except in a casual way at the conference which took place the other day.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are the negotiations still going on?


George Eulas Foster: With reference to the regulations which are to be made by Professor Prince and Mr. Jordan and on which the minister has asked the views of representatives from the provincial governments, would he take occasion to consult with the members of the House before these regulations are finally adopted?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will be very glad to have the benefit of the views of the members of the House who take an interest in the matter; in fact I have already asked some hon. gentlemen to give me their views.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The regulations to be made would cover the whole of the St. John river ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understood the hon. gentleman to sav that the finding of these commissioners would not require to be ratified by parliament. Will the government have power to accept or reject that conclusion if they think fit ?


Wilfrid Laurier: In view of the observations made by my hon. friend (Mr Foster) a moment ago I think my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will have every opportunity to look at the treaty and we will know what he has to say about it.
TjT?wnuT?sri~Nr T have not a copy of
it.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has been before the House for the last six months.



ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION.

Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to ask the minister if, under the terms of the treaty, all the waters of the St. John river and its tributaries are placed under the control of the International Commission, or is the jurisdiction limited to the portion of the waters which constitute the boundary line?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If I remember aright, the treaty includes the whole of the St. John river; the part in Canada as well as the part in the United States.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And all its tributaries ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The tributaries are not included.


George Eulas Foster: As the minister has given us an opinion on two or three occasions as to what the treaty really means in certain points, I would ask him whether it is not competent for the government to make all the members of the House quite as wise as himself by laying that treaty on the table of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was laid on the table of the House last year.


Mr J D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I wish to call attention to what appears to be an inaccuracy in the reply given to-day to question No. 20 on the Order Paper. _ I asked whether this government had received from the government of British Columbia a certain resolution, and the answer was, no. I have in my hand a report of the proceeding's of the British Columbia legislature on the 2nd inst., in which appears this communication from the secretary of the Lieutenant Governor of the province:
The 28th day of January, 1909.
At the Government House, Victoria, B.C.
Pear Sir.-In reply to your memorandum, of the 27th inst., with regard to a resolution having reference to oriental immigration, which was forwarded by His Honour to Ottawa on the 16th March last, the only correspondence thereon received from the Secretary of State was a letter-dated the 23rd of March, informing His Honour that it had been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
In view of this I would like to ask if the Secretary of State would be good enough to inquire further into the matter and give me a more complete answer to the question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Wilfrid Laurier: I presume that the Secretary of State answered from the information given him by his department, but I have already asked my private secretary to look through the correspondence of the Privy Council Department and I presume it may be found there.



FISHERY BOUNTIES.

Mr. ADAM B. CROSBY (Halifax).: I want to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a question which was put by me on Monday and Tuesday last, and which was put by the hon. the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) on Wednesday. Why is it that the fishermen in a number of the districts in Halifax county have not yet received the blank forms on which to file their claims for last year's bounty ? This is an important matter and I wish an answer.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was engaged on Tuesday and Wednesday at the conference with reference to the fishery regulations and was unfortunately unable to be present in the House, but I can answer the hon. gentleman now. Formerly the bounty claims were collected by Mr. Ogden who was in charge of the Bedford fish hatchery and who resigned in July or August last. These bounty claims are generally collected after the fishing season which would be about the end of November. I do not think the appointment covers the whole county of Halifax. but there was delay with regard to the district between Bedford and Nine Mile river in which Mr. Ogden formerly collected the claims. On the 3rd of December I made a recommendation to council for the appointment of another man, at a small salary, I think $75, to look after the collection of these claims. That recommendation had to go to the treasury board and unfortunately it was lost between the Privy Council and the Treasury Board. When my attention was called to this later on I made a new recommendation, and the new man has been appointed and I am informed the collection is being made. All those who have claims for bounties will be paid as promptly as possible.


Adam Brown Crosby: Am I to understand that this gentleman is in his office now and collecting claims? I am informed by some fishermen that they have not yet had an opportunity of filing their claims.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Venning informs me that Mr. Christian was fully instructed as to his duties and supplied with the necessary forms.


Adam Brown Crosby: But they have not yet got to the fishermen ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The fishermen will of course be paid later on.



INQUIRY FOR REPORTS.

Robert Laird Borden: When will the concluding volume of the Auditor General's Report be brought down ?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: I expect it will be ready to-morrow.


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON.: When may we expect the report of the Department of Railways and Canals ?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Early next week; it is in the hands of the printer.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public buildings, chargeable to capital- Ottawa, new departmental buildings, $125,000.
['The first will be the Bill that stands in the name of the Minister of Justice. Then we will go into Supply, and continue with the estimates of the Public Works Department.']
William Pugsley: This sum is asked to make provision to complete payments for the purchase of properties on Sussex street and Mackenzie avenue as a site for the new departmental buildings. I gave very full information at the last session in regard to the cost of the land.


George Eulas Foster: Has any additional land
been bought since?


William Pugsley: Yes, and we have expropriated the remainder. Between the first of April, 1908, and the 31st of December there was paid $49,394.30. I cannot give the actual dates of the purchases.


George Eulas Foster: These are payments which were made in carrying out the purchases which were agreed upon, and which were explained to the House last session?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Has all the land been purchased and paid for that is necessary for these buildings?


William Pugsley: No, not all paid for, because with respect to some of the properties, we have not been able to agree with the vendors, and proceedings have been taken in the Exchequer Court to obtain a valuation.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total amount paid so far?


William Pugsley: Up to the 31st December, 1908, $459,900.


George Eulas Foster: What is the estimate of the amount required to secure the whole?


William Pugsley: It isi expected that the present vote will cover the entire purchase.


George Eulas Foster: That will make about $600,000?


William Pugsley: Just about.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done with reference to the buildings?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been done with regard to the erection of the buildings beyond obtaining the plans; but I think it is not unlikely that in the very near future a start wiil be made, not for the erection of all the buildings, but for the erection of a wing to afford much needed accommodation. As the estimated cost of the buildings is very considerable, we have not thought it well to proceed with the whole scheme at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: About $4,000,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is any portion of this to be devoted to building purposes?


William Pugsley: I am not quite sure. It is just possible that if the expropriation valuation is not completed at a fairly early date, we may enter into a contract for the erection of a wing; and, if so, we will use part of the money for that purpose. I may say we are greatly pressed by the Board of Railway Commissioners for additional accommodation, and, instead of renting premises in Ottawa, we have thought it might be well to erect what would serve in the future as a wing of these buildings. I am not quite sure whether we shall do that or not; it is now under consideration.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend would do well to add the words, ' purchase of site ' to this vote, so that he would not use a portion of it to commence a wing. Let it stand for what it is intended for. What does my hon.; friend think the wing will cost?


William Pugsley: We have not yet had an estimate of the cost of the wing prepared. The chief architect is considering the matter. I may say that it is only within the last two or three weeks that it has been pressed on my attention by the Board of Railway Commissioners. They are greatly cramped for room, and they have asked us to rent a building to give them more accommodation. In considering what would be the necessary rental, I have thought that a good deal of money could be saved if we made a start by erecting a wing to afford the Railway Commissioners the accommodation they require, and to let the larger building stand for perhaps a fey years. But this is entirely tentative. It will be some little time before the chief architect can give us the plans and estimates of cost of the building.


Mr. OSLER.: Are the plans being prepared by the government architect ?


William Pugsley: Plans have been received, as the result of public competition, but they are being revised by the government architect, and we are considering whether we might not, with great advan-Mr. FOSTER.
tage and economy, erect a wing which could be used for the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend cannot build that out of this appropiation. He cannot really take anything out of this appropriation for that purpose.


William Pugsley: We could let the contract.


George Eulas Foster: Could you let a contract without having a sufficient amount of money voted, at least to carry on the operations for the year? The explanation of my hon. friend was that this would barely suffice to pay for the ground. We should have some definiteness if possible in our estimates. If this is for the purchase of a site, let it appear, and if my hon. friend proposes to go into the erection of a department building let him come down and ask for an appropriation. He may think it would be economy to build a wing, but I think he will admit that there are some other considerations to be looked at which might make it less desirable to go into any other large expenditure.


William Pugsley: I have given every consideration to the matter. To arrange for the erection of a suitable building would mean the erection by a private company of a building suitable for the purpose, and that would mean engaging to rent the building for a term of years, to which I am opposed as it would not be economy to do so.


George Eulas Foster: For what department is this?


William Pugsley: For the Board of Rail-Commissioners. They are very much cramped now. Several clerks occupy one room, and some are in rooms which are very dark. Mr^ Scott, the assistant chief commissioner, has a room entirely unsuitable, and I think the demand is reasonable. What I thought might be done is this. It is possible that these properties, in regard to which proceedings have to be taken in the Exchequer Court, will not be required to be paid for until next year. If we have this vote, we could erect a suitable wing, or a part of a wing suitable for the accommodation required for $100,000, and it might be economy to let the contract and have the building completed next year.


Mr. J. D. REID.: When the minister was arranging for the building of these new departmental offices, did he consider the advisability of securing the block between the Post Office and the Langevin block? That is a block which the government could secure, and make that street opposite the parliamentary buildings all government property. In a few years that property will be much more valuable than now. I would like to see that building out there, or at least as much as could be used for a public building.


William Pugsley: I have thought of that property, but as the government has such a large amount of property on Sussex street and Mackenzie avenue, I did not feel justified in entering into negotiations for its purchase at present.
Ottawa Parliament Buildings-additions and alterations, $93,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for buildings during the coming year, the works in connection with the additions and alterations of the parliament buildings, such as the new wing and additions.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much will that make the total cost of the new wing?


William Pugsley: Including everything, $447,732.94. That will include the original contract, also the elevators, heating, plumbing, furniture, electric wiring, etc.


Mr. AMES.: What was the amount of the original contract?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: And the extras amount to as much more?


William Pugsley: They are not extras. They are things which were not provided for in the original contract. They include taking down walls, cementing walls, the renewal of wings, lumber, hardware, elevators, $17,150, alterations and improvements in the different buildings, switchboards, radiators, etc.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were not tenders invited for these additions? Were tenders invited for the elevators?


William Pugsley: No, we decided that it is very much better to instal the Otis-Fensom elevator, as we believe their system to be the best. We have had some experience calling for tenders in elevators, and it was very unsatisfactory.


Herbert Brown Ames: Which of these items, not included in the original contract, were given out without tender?


William Pugsley: 
Herbert Brown Ames: Then all the other $237,000 were given out without tender?


William Pugsley: Without public tender.


Herbert Brown Ames: What line of action was followed in deciding to whom these should be given?


William Pugsley: The contractor for the building was asked to tender for the different works. It would be very much more convenient for him to do the other work; and upon his tender being received, the chief architect was instructed to go carefully into the cost, and on his certifying that the tender was reasonable it was accepted.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are we to understand that this example is a fair indication of the manner in which government buildings are constructed? The original contract is let by tender for one-half the value, and the remainder given at prices arranged between the government and the contractor. Here is a building costing nearly $500,000, and the_original contract let was for only $237,-
000.	The1 extras, subsequently arranged! for with the contractor, amount to a sum equal to the original expenditure. There was no competition for about one-half the entire expenditure on the building. Is this the regular method adopted by the department ?


William Pugsley: It is not the regular method. It depends on the circumstances and the kind of work to be done. My hon. friend, who has had a good deal to do with the erection of buildings, will realize that if the contractor is a reliable man, and will do the extra work required at a price certified to by the architect as reasonable, it is better to give him that work, as it is likely to be much better done than if there were independent contractors for the different classes of work


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister is correct, in some respects, in saying that I have had experience in connection with firms that have had large building contracts. But we have found no difficulty, when we wanted a large building, in finding an architect who would draw in advance the plans which would cover the whole building, so that it could all be let by tender and contract, and the extras would not exceed ten per cent of the whole. In this case, you have extras practically dollar for dollar of your original contract, which, I need hardly tell the minister, is a wholly indefensible proportion.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were the plans drawn by the architect of the department?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Does this amount include furnishing?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Were separate contracts given for the furnishing ?


William Pugsley: With respect to a good deal of the furnishing, tenders were invited from the different firms.


George Eulas Foster: What firms?


William Pugsley: I cannot give them at the moment, but I will undertake to send my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) a memorandum of them.


George Eulas Foster: Were tenders called for by letter or by circular, or were public advertisements issued?


William Pugsley: By letter.


George Eulas Foster: What does the bill for furnishing amount to?


William Pugsley: In the memorandum before me there is an item for renewal of windows, lumber, hardware, furniture, &c., $40,555.04. There is also an amount due for furniture, glassware, silverware, &c., $9,000.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Was the original contract let on schedule prices?


William Pugsley: No, it was a lump sum contract.


John Graham Haggart: Then, how could it be extended ?


William Pugsley: It was not extended.


John Graham Haggart: I understood the minister to say that the work was given to the original contractor, which means, I take it, that the contract was extended.


William Pugsley: 
Herbert Brown Ames: What did the original contract include?


William Pugsley: I wish I had the contract here.


Herbert Brown Ames: But the minister can give it to us in a general way.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that it included the walls, the roof, the floor, the stairs and such interior walls as were, necessary to carry the roof and floors.


Herbert Brown Ames: And were the subdividing walls, the tiling, the windows, and everything of that kind, which ordinarily goes to make a house-the plumbing and heating apparatus also-considered as extra and given out afterwards without tender or contract?


William Pugsley: The tiling was included in the original contract. The plumbing and heating were done by the staff of the department. The subdividing walls were not included, because it could not be Mr. FOSTER.
known with accuracy how the rooms were to be divided.


Herbert Brown Ames: Messrs. McGillivray & La-belle, the original contractors, had a contract for $237,000. How much did they receive, all told?


William Pugsley: They received, altogether, $381,507.52.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is, about $150,000 was paid to the contractors in addition to their original contract for work which they did under arrangement with the department?


William Pugsley: I make it about $140,000, but my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) is substantially correct.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the minister will see that that method, if generally followed throughout the Public Works Department, is one open to very considerable abuse. The ordinary tenderers in competition tender with the expectation that they will have to do what their contract calls for, and that that will end the matter. If a tenderer expects to have $150,000 of extras besides, he can afford to figure low on the first estimate, in the expectation of being able to get a large margin on the balance. In that way, other tenderers competing against him who might aggregate something less, are shut out. The method is open to great abuse.


William Pugsley: I quite agree that the method is one that ought not to be followed, and it is not followed. But this is an exceptional ease. We did not know, at least I suppose my predecessor did not know when the contract was let nor until the building was pretty well erected, what would be required. My hon. friend from North Toronto I trust is reasonably well satisfied. The chief Conservative whip of course was consulted as to the number of rooms which we required.


James Davis Taylor: The Conservative whip was not consulted until everything was laid out, and then he had simply to walk through and see what was done.


William Pugsley: Was not my hon. friend consulted last session?


James Davis Taylor: After the work was all done.


William Pugsley: It was not done last session.


James Davis Taylor: The partitions were all up before I was taken into the confidence of the government at all. Then I walked through the building with the exSpeaker, and he told me what he intended to do about allotting these rooms.


William Pugsley: I understood that last session before the partitions were finally erected, the late Speaker was consulted, and I think he consulted with the leader

of the opposition, and I think also with the the chief whip of the opposition; and it was after careful consideration that instructions were given as to the laying out of the different rooms.


James Davis Taylor: The partitions were all up.


William Pugsley: They were not all up before the late Speaker was consulted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the original contract signed?


William Pugsley: On the 9th of January,
1907.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the arrangement made with the contractor for additions?


William Pugsley: From time to time as the wcrk went on and we knew what was required. I could give the dates to my hon. friend. One was on the 10th of September,
1908,	one on the 22nd of October, one on the 3rd of October, one on the 10th of April.


Oswald Smith Crocket: They amounted to $150,-
000.


William Pugsley: About $140,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the amount chargeable to alterations or additions in the arrangement made on April 10?


William Pugsley: I will read the items. Taking down walls, and cement for walls, $4,990; renewals of windows, lumber, hardware and paint, $40,555.04; elevators, $17,150; alterations and improvements for ventilation, including motors, $32,516.75. That takes in the old building. Then radiators, $5,505.95; rubber tiling, $7,565.65; printing and advertising, salary of clerk of works, $3,924.87. The total expenditure up to the 31st of January was $314,038.94.


George Eulas Foster: What did the extras amount to on the 10th of April?


William Pugsley: To the difference between $314,000 and $201,830.


George Eulas Foster: There does not seem to be anything in all these items which occurred gratuitously, or which could not have been foreseen, which were not in what you might call the stock parts of the work of constructing the building. Can my hon. friend point out any that were not? I do not see anything there that the late Speaker interfered with, as to what partitions should be put up, what rooms should be made, how many upon a flat, or anything of that kind. Can the minister point out anything which was done from the interference of the late Speaker, or of the whips, or of any member of parliament?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that the late Speaker interfered, or that the chief whip interfered. What I tried to say was that
when the original contract was let some of the plans for the laying out of the interior of the building did not appear to be feasible. The then Speaker was consulted with regard to that. I think the leader of the opposition raised a question as to the apportionment of the rooms, as to who would probably have to do with it, and it was the general opinion of the House that it should rest with the Speaker and the Minister of Public Works. We received some suggestions from the late Speaker. With regard to these items I am no table to point out any, where the suggestions of the Speaker would have changed the cost one way or the other. I am not able to say as to to what part of these works might have been provided for at the outset. Taking down the walls, that is a class of work which would ordinarily be done by the day. Then renewals of windows, lumber, hardware and paint-that was in connection with the old building, and would probably be done by the day. Then take furniture, carpets, matting, as to which prices were obtained from different trades.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are we to understand that furniture, carpets and matting are included in the cost of the building?


William Pugsley: In the cost which I gave.


Herbert Brown Ames: And are charged to capital account?


William Pugsley: That is all charged to capital account.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does it not seem strange to charge carpets and matting that wear out in the course of a few years, to capital account?


William Pugsley: It has been the practice, I believe, ever since confederation to charge the original furnishings of buildings at the capital, to capital account.


Herbert Brown Ames: A bad precedent need not necessarily be followed. I think a better business method could be introduced.


William Pugsley: When I have to do with the erection of a building under my own administration, I will carefully consider the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Adam Brown Crosby: I want to find out how this thing happened to be constructed. Why was it constructed at all?


William Pugsley: It was constructed with the authority and with the approval of parliament, which made an appropriation for the work two or three years ago.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did they know what they wanted?


William Pugsley: I presume they wanted additional accommodation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Am I to understand from the minister that these additional works that he has mentioned were not made the subject of a specific contract and that the contractor was simply directed to go on and perform these works without any arrangement being made as to what they were to cost?


William Pugsley: I did not say that. I said that public tenders were not called but that the contractor was invited to give a price at which he would do the work and, upon the chief architect going over the matter and certifying that the price was fair and reasonable, a contract was entered into for most of this work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: First there was a price obtained before the contractor was directed to proceed with the work.


William Pugsley: Yes, in most cases.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were any others asked to give figures for the same work?


William Pugsley: No, only the contractors.


Herbert Brown Ames: So that the prices of $150,000 worth of work were arranged between the department and contractor without competition of any kind?


William Pugsley: That is entirely right.


Mr. BARR.: Was the same plan followed with regard to the carpets and heating; that is the chief architect got prices and made arrangements with whomever he chose, no tenders being asked?


William Pugsley: No public tenders were called. Boilers, radiators and things of that kind were purchased at market price. The chief architect has had large experience in these matters and he would know whether the contractor's price was reasonable or not. In general my hon. friend is right; no public tenders were invited, but the chief architect satisfied himself in every case that the price was fair and reasonable.


John Barr: If there is open competition there is always likely to be a reduction. In this case it seems that such was not the case. Evidently the contractor had it all his own way, or, at least, in so far as he and the architect were concerned, they could fix things up to suit themselves. No outsider had any opportunity of tendering.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has given the details of the work that was arranged for on April 10. How many other arrangements of that kind were made?


George Eulas Foster: What was the next one?


William Pugsley: I cannot give them in the order of date. There was one on the 10th of September, 1908, the amount being $1,011.77.
Mr. PUGSLEY


George Eulas Foster: What for?


William Pugsley: For alterations to window frames in the speaker's quarters and several other changes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was that arranged for?


William Pugsley: On the 22nd of October, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: What did that include?


William Pugsley: That included certain changes in the work. They were very considerable in the Speaker's quarters, necessary by reason of the addition which was made. Certain windows were blocked up and other accommodation had to be given to the Speaker. Then there was another contract on the 3rd of October, 1908, for additional work amounting to $18,548.63.


George Eulas Foster: What was included in that?


William Pugsley: I am sorry I cannot give that to my hon. friend at present.


George Eulas Foster: That is a very large one.


William Pugsley: Yes, quite large. The chief architect tells me that is principally for division walls.


George Eulas Foster: Was there a plan of the divisional walls drawn by the chief architect?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Everything was specified?


William Pugsley: Yes in the contract entered into.


George Eulas Foster: And it was entered into without competition?


William Pugsley: Yes. Then there was certain tile and marble work in toilet rooms and in the kitchen


George Eulas Foster: What date?


William Pugsley: I am sorry the date is omitted.


George Eulas Foster: What was the amount?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: This all went to the original contractors?


William Pugsley: Yes. Then, on the 10th of April, 1908, there was a contract for a balustrade which was carried along the edge of the roof on the outside and which was necessary to give uniformity to the building.


George Eulas Foster: Was not that foreseen in the original contract?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: What did that amount to?


William Pugsley: $4,439.69. Of course, I am making a statement of what took place before I became minister, and the chief architect is my authority for this information. Then there was alteration to steel work and cutting floors and walls for plumbers' work and heating pipes amounting to $10,802. As to that there was no contract. Bills of cost were rendered by the contractor. The contractors have not been paid in full yet but $381,507.22 covers the original contract and also this additional work. Is there anything else you would like to have?


George Eulas Foster: I did not get exactly what the furnishing cost.


William Pugsley: I have not that separated; it is included.


George Eulas Foster: There is none of it included in the items we have had?


William Pugsley: No, but it is included in my memorandum. For lumber, hardware, furniture, carpets, glassware, &c., there is a total of $40,555.04. I can get the cost of the furniture and give it to my hon. friend later on. There is $9,000 which is due for furniture, glassware, &c. I have not given the items which make the total of $447,000 yet. I was stopped. Perhaps I had better give them now. I gave the figures of the total expenditure down to 1909 as $314,028.94. The amount due on contract, additional work, is $79,617; due on elevators, $9,150; due for heating and plumbing, $9,308; due for furniture, glassware, silverware, &c., $9,000; due for electric wiring and fixtures, $3,180; due for fitting up the Speaker's quarters, $6,000; due for painting, $5,000


George Eulas Foster: What do you mean by fitting up the Speaker's quarters?


William Pugsley: Painting, decorating, furniture, &c.


George Eulas Foster: Who did the work ?


William Pugsley: The department did some by day labour with its own staff.


George Eulas Foster: Who did the chief work?


William Pugsley: Mr. Bell, of Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: How much was paid Mr. Bell?	I


William Pugsley: He has not rendered his account yet. The chief architect tells me that the account will, including some of the furniture, be about $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: Was there any contract with Mr. Bell?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: Was he given carte blanche?	; :j


William Pugsley: No. He was held under strict supervision.


George Eulas Foster: By whom?


William Pugsley: By the chief architect.


George Eulas Foster: In what way?


William Pugsley: He was told to do so and so, and the prices were fixed for the different things.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister say that prices were absolutely fixed for the different parts of the work done by Mr. Bell? That there were plain and definite specifications and that Mr. Bell was instructed just what to do and not to do any more?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me there was a description of the work and the price was fixed as closely as possible in work of that character.


George Eulas Foster: That specification is in writing?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me they have the price of practically everything in writing.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were the arrangements for the additional work approved by the minister before the contract was closed between the architect and the contractor?


William Pugsley: The authority was from the outset for the chief architect to make arrangements with the contractor if he would do the work at prices which he certified to be fair and reasonable. These were his general instructions. It was a departmental matter and the judgment of the chief architect in such things would prevail.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it the practice of the chief architect to make contracts involving such large expenditure without obtaining the approval of the minister or consulting him?


William Pugsley: I was consulted and gave the architect authority to make this arrangement provided the prices were fair and reasonable in his judgment.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Before the arrangement was closed would the approval of the minister he asked?


William Pugsley: I take the chief architect's certificate as to the price.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did the government have any estimate made of what this was going to cost; did they have any idea of that as a business man would have?


William Pugsley: When the work was undertaken the chief architect estimated that it would cost for the building-which would not include the heating or the furnishing, or this work done in the old part- $275,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: Surely the government knew what they were going to build and must have had an estimate made. Did the architect give an estimate merely for the bare walls without any heating or lighting or any props except a few props to keep the roof up? The people of Canada should know how it is that we came to spend half a million dollars on a new wing to this building, and I want to know all details from the minister so that I may be able to tell my constituents about it. If I tell them the story I am hearing to-night they will not be satisfied.


William Pugsley: The chief architect estimated for the walls of the building, for the principal partitions which were necessary to support the roof, and the floors, and


Adam Brown Crosby: And the doors I suppose?


William Pugsley: Yes, exactly, for what was included in the contract. He estimated $275,000 and the lowest tender was $237,000, or about $40,000 less. If the hon. gentleman desires I will bring down the contract.


Adam Brown Crosby: What was his estimate for the balance of the building?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that at the time his estimate was that the partitions, and the plumbing, and the heating, and the electric lighting, and everything of that kind, would cost about $125,000 more, without the furniture.


James Davis Taylor: My * recollection is that when the late Minister of Public Works decided to make the improvement he laid on the table of the House a plan, and that plan showed all the rooms as they exist now. I do not see why the tender did not cover the completed building. It was known then that heating and plumbing would have to be provided for. The contractor went on with his work, and then the Public Works Department sent their men on to undo what the contractor had done, and to put in water pipes and heating pipes. Any business man would have attended to these in the first place; but with the department they were an after consideration, and the result was to increase the cost by 50 per cent. My recollection is that the first plan included everything.


William Pugsley: No, my hon. friend is in error.


James Davis Taylor: We had the plans on the table here, and they showed the building divided into rooms.


William Pugsley: My information is that the plans simply showed the main partitions, but not the layout of the rooms, be- * Mr. PUGSLEY.
cause I suppose the minister at that time did not know how the rooms would be divided up.


George Eulas Foster: What are the partitions made of?


William Pugsley: Terra cotta. The building, I should say, is as near fireproof as it is possible to make it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understood the minister to state just now that the architect had told him that the probable cost of this new wing, all completed, would be about $400,000. I wish to read to the minister and the House what the minister stated with regard to this matter last year. The estimate was:	''Parliament buildings, additions and alterations, $150,000;" and the minister said:
The note which I have from the officers of my department is that this vote of $150,000 is asked to make provision for continuing the works placed under contract in connection with the additions and alterations to the parliament buildings, which consist in extending the northwest wing northward and the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons westward, the construction of a new upper story and roof on the tower which forms a portion of the residence, the cubic contents being 745,000 cubic feet; also for alterations to the parliament buildings in accordance with the sub-joined estimate submitted by the chief architect. The amount paid to the contractors is $76,970; renewal of windows, furniture, carpets, matting, lumber, paints, labour, $7,300.30; alterations and improvements to ventilation system, speed motor, switchboard, Nernst lamps, &c. $21,567.75; contingencies, printing, advertising and salary of clerk of works, $1,939.92, making a total expenditure up to the 31st March, 1907, of $107,777.97. Then I have further information. The amount due on the contract work is $160,463; heating and boilers, $5,000; electrical wiring and fixtures, $5,000; furniture, $10,000, &c. The total probable cost of the additions and alterations to the parliament buildings is $322,247.97.
Now, the minister told us this afternoon that the architect had assured him that the probable cost was $400,000. Which of these statements is correct, and what will be, not the probable cost, but the actual cost when the work is finished?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not state that the architect had told me that the probable cost would be $400,000. He informed me that that was the estimate which he had given to the then minister. The statement that my hon. friend has read would be correct at that time, according to the progress of the work up to that date. I suppose that in the statement I gave there may not have been included certain things, such as the alteration and improvement of the ventilating system, the radiators, the elevators, the tiling and rubber tiling.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister's statement is this:
The total probable cost of the additions and alterations to the parliament buildings is $322,247,97.
The total cost, as I understand it, must include everything.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did not the minister state that this $93,000 which he is asking for now is to complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes, the chief architect tells me that that will complete the work as outlined.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister said that would make the total cost of the building, including the furniture, $447,000.


William Pugsley: Yes, and including upwards of $30,000 in connection with the old building-$447,432.90.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to know if, after the contract was let, there were any alterations made in the original plans?


William Pugsley: Nothing of any consequence.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that, as I have listened to this discussion, there are two lessons that we may draw from it. One is as to the peculiar way in which the government carries out the principle of constructing public works by public tender and contract. Every possible rule with relation to that principle has been violated in this instance. The minister's first excuse was that there were so many complex, abstruse and unexpected things imported into this work that it was impossible to ask for tenders, and that consequently the only thing to do was to ask the contractor what he would do them for, and arrange with him to do them. But when he read the estimates, the moment he read them, we found that these added things were really stock articles, with the exception of taking down some old partitions and making some cuts between rooms, which could not be foreseen and provided for, and therefore I suppose could not be done otherwise than by day's work. With these exceptions there was nothing that could not have been put in specifications, and for which tenders could not have been asked. If there were any other things they were so very small that we might leave them out entirely in discussing the matter. Heating, electric lighting, plumbing, elevators,. all these different stock things in the construction of a building are as well defined and as easy to be estimated and put in the form of specifications as any other part of the building.


William Pugsley: I have led my hon. friend astray. Through an unfortunate error of the typewriter, the amount as paid to the contractor is put at $381,000 instead of $281,000.


George Eulas Foster: Then we have a good deal more to account for.


William Pugsley: No, it makes the contractors paid only $281,000, and the total paid was the difference between $237,000 and $281,000.


George Eulas Foster: Then my hon. friend will take back some of his arguments ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will have to take back some of his criticism.


George Eulas Foster: No, I have criticised on the statement of the minister. If only $45,000 to $50,000 is to be accounted for, he must account for the difference between that item of $281,000 and the $450,000, and he accounted for the difference between $381,000 and $450,000. But his statement remains that there was no competition for this difference, and that these extras were given the contractor without tender. Am I right or not?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: His second point of refuge was that there were a lot of unexpected things imported into the matter by the whips and the ex-Speaker (Mr. Sutherland). Well, the ex-Speaker shakes his head and declares he is guiltless. The whip on the Conservative side, on whom we can thoroughly rely, declares that he had nothing to do with it until he came here and found the partitions all up, and then he had to endeavour to get a little accommodation for members on the Conservative side, though the other side having pretty well taken the whole thing before he appeared on the scene.


William Pugsley: The Conservative whip was well pleased.


George Eulas Foster: So we have to eliminate certain partitions in the division of the room and that we might agree to, but they were all plain and simple, done by terra* cotta work, easily put into specifications with their dimensions, and could have been as easily put up to competition as a wall on the outside of the building. In all those cases, we have had a denegation of the principle of tender and contract, as applied to a construction which has cost the people nearly $500,000. The next lesson to be learned from this is that, under the same Minister of Public Works and the same department and staff of architects we ars going to undertake the building of great public edifices on a site which has been got at a very large expenditure. What will those cost, if this system is to be continued, which we have heard with astonishment

described by the minister, with his architect by his side, as the one under which public buildings have been constructed in the Dominion during these past years. In the Public Works Department which has been putting up buildings costing about $10,000,000, this has been the system carried on. Of that there cannot be any doubt, and there can be no doubt that this expenditure of $500,000 of the people's money does not show that value, judging from what we see in these rooms and this parliament building. No man would put $500,000 for himself into a construction which would show no more value than is shown here. Is that the way under which we are proceeding with our public works? I thought that the business of an architect was to draw plans and look after the construction, but the minister says that he is practically the man who arranged the terms upon which these things are done. I do not think that that is any part of the architect's branch. It is unwise and unfortunate that the architect's branch should be mixed up in the least with a department of the government which has to see what prices are to be paid and what amount of money expended. An architect is for the purpose of advising and having the specifications properly drawn and the plans properly made and putting information into the hands of the proper officers to call for tenders and award them. The advice of an architect is always good in these matters, but I do not think he should have been put in the position of making the best terms with the contractor. Here you have an original contract for $237,000 and a building when constructed costing $500,000, and practically the contractor has had, without competition, every bit of extra work at his own prices. Anybody knows, who has read the proceedings of the Cassels' Commission, that an officer of the department has no show for his life when there is a question between a contractor and the minister. The officer is used as the buffer, but the contractor gets about what he wants, and the architect and the officers who stand in between the two ought not to be! placed in the position of the responsible minister who has to see what prices should be paid. That, however, has been the case during this transaction. Will the minister tell this House what we have to show for that $500,000 of the people's money?


William Pugsley: I admire some of the qualities of my hon. friend and often wonder at the vast amount of information which he possesses. But as regards the construction of a building, he is deplorably ignorant. He says that, with regard to the prices for these different works, I should not have relied on the architect at all, but have fixed the prices myself. I venture to say there is no private individual who has ever erected a building, in connection with which he Mr. FOSTER.
has had, during the progress of the work to do certain things not specified in the contract. It is the architect who makes out the estimates and specifications at the outset and fixes the prices. Why? Because his knowledge and experience enable him to form a judgment as to what are fair prices, and all contracts provide that if payments are made from time to time they are to be made on progress estimates certified to by the architect. It is the architect on whom the owner places reliance ; and I can well understand that if a minister had made certain payments to the contractor, without having the information from the architect as to what that work is worth, my hon. friend would have justly _ complained that the minister had no business to do that but should have relied on his architect.
Now, he has made the suggestion that the Cassels' inquiry has shown that the officials of the department have no independence, that they cannot exercise an honest judgment, but are obliged to do whatever the minister wishes them to do. He must know something of the character, reputation and standing of the chief architect of 'the; Department of Public Works. That gentleman was appointed in 1871, some thirty-eight years ago, and I would not like to be the minister who would ask the chief architect to vary his figures by one iota to satisfy me or any other member of the government. While I have been minister-and no doubt, the same remark would apply to my predecessor, both of this government and of previous governments-the judgment of the present chief architect could be relied upon with a great deal of confidence. At all events, he is a man who will exercise his own independent judgment, and will not be influenced by any minister under whom he might serve. I have already called attention to an unfortunate error in the figures furnished me which caused me to overstate the amount actually paid to the contractors by about $100,000. The amounts paid to the contractors beyond the original contract were as follows:
Under the contract of Sept. 10, 1908. $1,011 77
Contract October 02, 1908	 4,567 19
Contract October 3, 1908	 18,458 63
Contract for tiling and metal work
(date not given)	
4,794	92Stone balustrade	
4,439	69Work done by iMcGillivray and La-belle, for which bills were, rendered and certified by the chief architect	
10,802	00
That makes the total amount of additional work, including these partitions, about $44,000 instead of $150,000 as I unwittingly led by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) to believe. I am sure that, looking over these figures, the hon. gentleman will see that, in view of

the class of work to be done and the difficulty which, apparently, the former minister, Mr. Hyman, had in determining what partitions were to be erected, and determining how the rooms were to be laid out, it was not unreasonable that the work should be done upon prices given by the contractor. And he will see that it could not be done by a separate contract that might be given to an outsider, because, in that case, the work of the two contractors would be likely to clash. The important question is whether the chief architect could be relied upon to determine what were fair and reasonable prices.


George Eulas Foster: Then how does the minister explain the increase of $169,000 over the $281,000?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will find that the figures I have given do not alter the total previously given, $447,732.


Mr. HUGHES.: If the minister will pardon me a moment, there is one matter of detail to which I would like to call attention. The room which has been allotted to the Conservative members is supposed to have upper double windows. If the minister will step around to that room, if he cannot give the architect a suggestion, I shall be surprised. The windows should be on hinges; bolted, they are no use.


William Pugsley: The chief architect will make a note of that point.


Adam Brown Crosby: The building will cost $447,000?	.


William Pugsley: Including the furniture. I understand my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to ask, ' What have you to show for it ? ' One has only to go through the building, including the upper stories, and to view the magnificent restaurant and the different rooms set apart for the accommodation, and I think any one of experience will say that we have received good value for our money.


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems from what we have been able to ascertain from the minister that there is a difference of nearly $100,000 between the estimated cost of the building as made by the architect, and the actual cost. This is a very large difference. I understood the minister to say in answer to my hon. friend from North Toronto, that the architect was the man that did everything. But does any man in this country putting up a building allow the architect to make whatever arrangements he likes with the contractor? The man who furnishes the money does not allow the architect to go to the contractor and say he may do just as he likes. Of course, everybody knows that we must rely a good deal upon the architect, but not to the extent
that has been done in this case. I am satisfied to spend a good deal of money in Ottawa, but I do not want to see all the money of the Dominion of Canada spent here; I want some of it spent in other parts of the country.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister say what amount of space or what number of rooms provided by this expenditure, has gone to the accommodation of officers of the House?


William Pugsley: That has all appeared in the 'Hansard,' to which I would refer my hon. friend.


James Davis Taylor: I think the officials have more space than the members. I want to say in connection with the allotment of rooms to the opposition, that just before the prorogation of parliament last year the late Speaker invited the chief government whip (Mr. Calvert) and myself to go through the building, and he gave us what his plan was at that time, giving comfortable quarters to the leader of the opposition in old No. 6, also where he proposed making the Premier's room,~ and then a room for the whips. His plan was to give a certain proportion to the government side and a certain proportion to the opposition side. But that arrangement was not carried out. When I came down here after the allotment was made, I found that the plans of the late Speaker concerning a room for the opposition leader and the Conservative whips had been carried out. Then after some negotiations, we secured quarters for the balance of our contingent in the rooms that had been occupied previously by members supporting the government. According to the returns brought down, I think we got our fair share of the space, but we have not got our fair share of the new quarters.


William Pugsley: In what I had to do with the matter I tried to make it as convenient as possible for our hon. friends opposite. There is some dissatisfaction among them, and there is dissatisfaction among our own friends, who feel they have not got the accommodation they would like. Even a minister of the Crown came to me not long ago and complained. But we tried to satisfy everybody who had claims for accommodation.


James Davis Taylor: An arvnlication is in and I hope it will be carried out soon, to give us Conservative members, better seating accommodation. We have a lot of old dilapidated chairs there which ought to be stored. When we had a caucus this morning we had to send into the room of the Minister of Finance to get chairs.


William Pugsley: The chairs have been ordered.


John Barr: It is a notorious fact that officials of this House are better provided for than the members, so much so that some of the officials are renting rooms.


William Pugsley: What official is renting rooms?


John Barr: Right downstairs there.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to deal with that matter when my attention is called to it.


John Barr: I know that was the state of affairs formerly.


William Pugsley: I think it must have been some time ago.
Ottawa Royal Mint, refinery, $30,000.


William Pugsley: I have put in this item at the request of the Minister of Finance, who says it is urgently needed. The building is expected to cost $30,000. Nothing has been done yet. It is intended to erect a building 35 x 60 feet, one story high, on stone foundations, fireproof throughout, and with strong vaults.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this include the refining machinery?


William Pugsley: Only the building.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the minister prepared to state what the plant will cost?


William Pugsley: That is a matter for the Finance Department rather than mine, for the officers of the mint.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What will this make the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure to the 31st of December last was $520,233.88. That includes the site for the building, the wiring, the machinery, tools and everything.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much did the fence cost?


William Pugsley: We heard so much about that last session that I hoped my hon. friend would not refer to it again. But my hon. friend forgets about the guard-rooms, there are very substantial guard-rooms embraced in the cost.


Samuel Hughes: What size?


William Pugsley: Go down and look at them. The total amount for this high iron fence, with the granite foundations and guard-rooms, was $43,529.


Samuel Hughes: When are the members going to be taken through the mint?


William Pugsley: Any time they wish, when an arrangement can be made.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were tenders called for?


William Pugsley: No public tenders, it was done by contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: How was the arrangement arrived at by which the contractors charged that expenditure of $43,529 ?


William Pugsley: Plans were prepared for the work to be done and a tender was asked Mr. BARR.
from the contractor. He submitted a tender which the chief architect thought to be fair and reasonable, and upon his certificate the contract was let.


Herbert Brown Ames: So that no one else was given the opportunity to compete for the work although plans were prepared beforehand?


William Pugsley: There were no public tenders called.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is in no way a part of the building itself. There was no reason why the work of erecting a fence and inclosing the property could not have been put up to public tender and contract. What possible reason was there why this work was not thrown open to competition?


William Pugsley: This was all arranged for before I became minister, but I am informed that the contractor had all his plant there, encumbering the ground, and it was thought inconvenient to bring in another contractor. The Master of the Mint was pressing for the erection these guard houses, and it had to be done as quickly as possible because they would not open the mint until these things were provided, and that is the reason why it was not put up to public competition.


George Eulas Foster: Has anybody ever got over that fence?


William Pugsley: It is pretty difficult; he would have to be quite a jumper.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there one contract for the fence and the guard house?


William Pugsley: One contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: $43,000?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: The question was asked a session or two ago and the statement was made that the fence cost $29,000 and the guard house $13,000 or $14,000.


William Pugsley: It was one contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was not the price fixed separately for the guard-house?


William Pugsley: No, it was one price.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this work we have a repetition of what we had in the other case. While the contractors, Messrs. Sullivan & Langdon, have a contract calling for $263,000, the total payment to them is $325,000, so that we have these contractors receiving $60,000 over their contract price without any tenders being asked or without any opportunity for competition on the part of others. That is the same thing repeated in connection with the Mint that we have in connection with this addition to the parliament buildings.


William Pugsley: That is something I would not justify unless there were very special reasons for it, and in this case there were special reasons.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There are always special reasons.


William Pugsley: It apparently was not anticipated that a fence and guard-room of this character were required. It had been announced that the Mint would open at a certain time and the Imperial authorities required that the fence and the guardhouses should be built before they would allow the Mint to be opened. It was work which was very urgent, and it was deemed very much better to allow this contractor, who was a most reliable contractor, to do the work at what the chief architect thought was a fair and reasonable price.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it not a fact that the law states that the Minister of Public Works shall not expend any amount over $5,000 without calling for tenders?


William Pugsley: Yes, but there is an exception to the law. The law provides that he cannot do it except in cases of emergency.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: This was a case of that kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the minister where there is any condition about an emergency in the statute? I think not.


William Pugsley: Yes, it is in the statute.


John Graham Haggart: The statute provides that an order in council, signed by His Excellency and setting forth the emergency, shall be passed.


William Pugsley: I am quite aware of the fact, and in this case the grounds of the emergency were set out and the order m council passed.


George Eulas Foster: Was there an order in council passed in each of the cases in reference to this new wing in which work was given without contract or tender amounting to more than $5,000.


William Pugsley: Yes, as to the elevators, which I think is the only one that is over $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: No.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: There is one of $10,800 and another of $18,000.


William Pugsley: I cannot tell as to other amounts over $5,000, but I know that in the case of the elevators that was done.


George Eulas Foster: The minister would not violate the law ?


William Pugsley: He would not intentionally.


George Eulas Foster: Did he not know what the law was?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And it has been violated?


William Pugsley: My practice has always been in every case where it is over $5,000 to have an order in council setting forth the grounds of emergency.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister see if in these three cases there was an order in council?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister bring down the order in council because it certainly will be a curiosity to place before the House.


William Pugsley: For the guard-house and fence? I will be glad to.


George Eulas Foster: And then afterwards we may take a vote to send it down to the archives.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to ask the minister if the plan which has been prepared for the refinery provides for the complete building or just for the walls?


William Pugsley: This estimate is for the complete building, but not for the refining plant.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I understood the minister to say that the emergency arose out of the fact that the Imperial government insisted that this guard-house and fence should be built before the Mint was opened. I would ask the minister if the Mint was not opened before the guard-house and fence were constructed? The guard-house was not finished before we went away from here last year.


William Pugsley: My information was that the fence was completed.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The fence was, but not the guard-room.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my remarks should be limited to the fence.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then you broke the law with regard to the guard-room?


William Pugsley: Possibly they are separate.	.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would ask the minister to bring down all the orders in council or all the amounts that have been expended over and above $5,000 without tender and contract upon the new wing as well as upon the building under discussion.


William Pugsley: I stated to the committee that I thought there was one providing for the purchase of the elevators from the Otis-Fensom Company, but I was not sure whether there were any others. If there are I will bring them down.


Adam Brown Crosby: If there were not, the expenditures would be contrary to law.
Ottawa, Victoria Memorial Museum, $400,-
000.


William Pugsley: Many hon. gentlemen are familiar with this building. The vote is $400,000 and this is to continue the erection of the Victoria Memorial Museum. The chief architect estimated this building would cost $1,250,000 but the actual contract is only $950,000. It was let to Mr. Goodwin who is a very experienced contractor at some $300,000 less than the chief architect estimated. The contractor has gone ahead very satisfactorily with his work and I am much afraid he will not make much out of it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much has been expended up to the present?


William Pugsley: Altogether, up to the 28th of December, $786,056.73 including $75,000 cost of site.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much is required to complete?


William Pugsley: Including the site, furniture, fittings, elevators, &c., it is supposed that the total cost to complete and equip will be $1,312,143.15.


John Barr: When do you expect it will be completed?


William Pugsley: In fifteen months oi eighteen months.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are you asking for this $400,000, expecting that it will completely finish the work?


William Pugsley: We expect it will cost $100,000 more.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much do you consider the building will have cost at the end of the present fiscal year?


William Pugsley: The actual expenditure will be about $812,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then you only expect to spend $26,000, for the remainder of the fiscal year?


William Pugsley: Yes. Perhaps I had better give the figures: Paid for site $75,000; incidental expenses, surveying, printing, advertising, clerk of works salary, &c., $13,306.73; laying of drain $4,500; paid to the contractor up to the 28th of December, $693,250; total expenditure to 28th of December, $786,056.73; amount due on contract work when contract is finished, $256,750; heating apparatus, boilers, &c., (es-Mr. CROSBY.	i	 i
timated) $50,000; electric wiring, fixtures, (estimated) $25,000; elevators (estimated) $40,000; fittings, furniture (estimated) $100, 000; carving (estimated) $15,000; superintendence, &c. (estimated) $29,000. That makes the total including, site, furnishing, fittings, &e., $1,312,143.15.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is any of the money at present voted to go to other portions of the work that are not included in the contract of George Goodwin?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister give us his assurance that there will be proper competition, and opportunity given to other people besides Mr. Goodwin to tender in connection with this work?


William Pugsley: No, I would not like to give my hon. friend that assurance and I will tell you why: Mr. George Goodwin is as reliable a contractor as there is in Canada. He has taken this contract at about $300,000 less than the chief architect's estimate.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did he build the Laurier tower which fell down?


William Pugsley: I do not know as to that. Mr. Goodwin is a splendid contractor and everybody will say that he has done a thoroughly good job on that museum. His tender was I think $275,000 less than the next lowest tender, but Mr. Goodwin is a man who is prepared to carry out what he undertakes. Now, my own view would be that there are advantages, in the case of a building like that, in having the contractor do the heating, and plumbing, and work of that character, and if Mr. Goodwin is prepared to do that work at a figure which the chief architect is prepared to say is fair and reasonable I will say frankly, that I would be disposed, if it can be done, to give that work to Mr. George Goodwin, the contractor. I do not say it will be done but I am not prepared now to give my hon. friend the assurance that it will not be done.


Herbert Brown Ames: Here we have a distinct avowal in advance that once a contractor is in possession of the four walls and the roof of a building he practically has the absolute refusal of all the remaining work. He can do it without tender and by a simple arrangement between himself and the architect. That is just the way to pay the highest possible price for the additional work required on the building. If that is the fixed policy of the department we must expect to pay very high prices and oftentimes in excess of the real value of the work. That is not the way public establishments do their business, at least such as I have had to do with. Further, it is not fair to other contractors if it is

understood that if a contractor secures a contract even at a low figure he will have an opportunity of making very large returns upon his extras. If the government is favourable to the contractor he is given the opportunity to continue the extra work at a price to be arranged between himself and the architect and if the government is not favourable to him he is deprived of that chance to make money.


William Pugsley: As a general proposition the contracts for all work on a building should be let by public tender and I have asked the architect in future, as far as possible, to let the contract in the first place including heating, and wiring, and all these things so far as that can be done.


George Eulas Foster: That is fair.


William Pugsley: But here is a very large and expensive building, one which has been built with great care and in the most satisfactory way by the contractor. As he is rushing along his work towards completion, it might cause great dissatisfaction to put in three or four sub-contractors, each acting independently and under no one control. Therefore, if I can be assured by the chief architect that Mr. Goodwin is prepared to do this work at a fair and reasonable price, I would have no hesitation myself in recommending His Excellency in Council to give the work to the contractor.


Adam Brown Crosby: If I take the architect's estimate of the cost of this building, $1,250,000, and then take the contract price at which we are getting it built, $950,000, does it not mean that the architect is very extravagant in his estimates ?


William Pugsley: Take the next tender.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am speaking of the estimate of the architect. I do not want to say anything against him, but it strikes me that it is not safe to allow him to name the price of anything that goes into that building.


Mr. SPROULE.: We have had some experience in the past of architects and engineers certifying that prices are fair and reasonable. I could give a number of instances, but I need only mention the lighting of the Cornwall canal. When a dispute arose between the Auditor General and the party who was paid for the service, the account was cut down from $52,000 to $29,000, because the Auditor General would not agree to it, even though the engineer had certified that the price was fair and reasonable, and recommended the payment of the money and the Minister of Railways and Canals had assented ; and then the Auditor General declared that it was $10,000 too high still. We have brought a great many instances of this kind to light during the last few years. Is it any wonder that we
should be a little suspicious in passing this matter over to the tender mercies of any;
architect ?
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If I understood the minister aright, the contract for this building covers only the building proper, and other arrangements will have to be made for the fittings.


William Pugsley: In the case of the Victoria Museum, the contract did not include heating apparatus, electric wiring, elevators, fittings and furniture and carving.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I also understood that it was the intention of the minister to give the contract for these works to the gentleman who had the contract for the building.


William Pugsley: I said I was not prepared to give an assurance that that would not be done.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We gathered from the debate that that would probably take place.


William Pugsley: Possibly.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If that principle were generally accepted, a contractor could wetl take his contracts at a much reduced rate, with the expectation and strong probabilities of making good out of these later contracts. I presume that the heating, wiring, and so on will cost $100,000, and probably more?


William Pugsley: The estimate is $85,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then, it is not difficult to believe that they will cost $100,000. This is a principle to which I very much object-that a contract should be made for so large a building as this, with what looks like a full intention of giving the contracts for the fittings to the same party without tender. I do not think that is a businesslike way or one that will satisfy the people. I do not see why others should not have the opportunity of tendering if they desire to do so.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) understood me correctly that I would not give assurance that this would not be done. And my present view would be that, if the contractor is willing to undertake the work at a price that the chief architect, in whose judgment I have the greatest possible confidence, certified to be fair and reasonable, I would be disposed to recommend to my colleagues, under the circumstances, that the present contractor should have the contract. My first

reason is because of the low figure at which he undertook the work of the building, and because I am satisfied that he has lost money, his tender being $300,000 below the estimate of the chief architect, and $275,000 lower than that of the next lowest tenderer. Another reason is the very satisfactory way in which he has done the work. Another reason is that it would be much more satisfactory to have the work go on under one contractor than under a separate contractor.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That may all be very true, but it is not a very good reason for the course which the minister suggests. The mere fact that the contractor has taken the contract at what is supposed to be too low a figure and has lost money is not sufficient reason for taking this particular means of making that money up to him.


William Pugsley: Can't very well make up $300,000 on a contract for $85,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the trimmings cost as much more than the estimate as the building has done-


William Pugsley: This building is costing much less than the estimate. The architect's estimate was $1,250,000 and the contract is $950,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is not finished yet.


William Pugsley: This was the estimate of only that part which was contracted for. It did not include the heating apparatus, the electric wiring, elevators, fittings and furniture and carving.


Adam Brown Crosby: And, if I understood the minister correctly, he wants to throw $200,000 or $300,000 to this contractor, whoever he may be, because he took the contract at too low a figure-


William Pugsley: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) does not wish to misunderstand me. The total estimate for these fittings is $85,000. I certainly am not throwing $300,000 to him.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister's anxiety concerning the contractor arises from the fact that the contractor is supposed to be losing money by this contract. There is just as much reason for us to conclude that the architect was out in his estimate. The very fact that he estimated $1,250,000 for the construction of a building, and that a contractor whom the minister describes as one of the best contractors in the Dominion offers to construct that building for $950,000 is strong reason why this committee should not accept him as the final authority in these matters when he is so extravagant in his estimates. I, for one, am not going to sit in this House and vote in favour of contracts being given in this Mr. PUGSLEY.
way. Unless there is some indication that this work is going to be let by tender and contract, I shall not agree to such a vote without registering my strong protest against dealing with the public money in this manner.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: When we were discussing the last item, the minister said, as I understood him, that it was an exceptional case, but that if he had had control from the beginning, he would not have let the contract in the way in which it was let. But now, when we come to consider this item, the minister acknowledges that he is going to do exactly the same thing as his predecessor did; that is, notwithstanding that the original contract was let after tenders called, he intends to give the contract for the remaining portion of the work to the person who has received the contract and without calling for further tenders. This completely justifies the complaint that the opposition is making against a contract of this kind. Once a party tendering knows that when he gets a contract for a certain portion, he will get a contract for the balance of the works without tender that eliminates the principle of competition. It puts the other parties who tender, and who do not know that the one whose tender would be accepted was bound to get the balance of the work without competition, at a disadvantage; and it enables the one who knew this, to tender at a lower figure than he otherwise would, relying on increased profits in the additional work which he would secure without tender, so that in reality he is not the lowest tenderer. Whenever a vote is asked for an appropriation, the minister should be in a position to let us know what the work will cost altogether and call for tenders for the entire work, so that all who tender may be on an equal footing. It is not fair to the country to let a portion of the contract by tender and then give the balance without competition to favoured friends of the government. The minister tells us that the reason why he grants the remainder of the contract to the one whose tender is accepted is because his tender was the cheapest, but the reason why this man tendered at the lowest figures may have been because he knew that the minister was going to do what he has told us tonight he intended doing.


Mr. SAM. SHARPE.: Who is the clerk of works?


William Pugsley: Mr. B. Cantlie.-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Has he had any experience in supervising the construction of public buildings?


William Pugsley: About ten years.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is he the gentleman who was the clerk of works on the Laurier tower?


William Pugsley: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not think it is possible to have a more vicious system than that which the minister has just explained to us. We know what it has led to in the department which has been under investigation and which is the only one in which there was a little lift of the curtain. This system of giving contracts for part of the work to one man, after inviting public tenders, and then giving him the balance without tender, is bound to result in great loss to the country and public scandal. I do not think we can condemn it in sufficiently strong terms, and I hope the minister will see his way to giving us the strongest assurance that no such method will be followed by the government in the future. I would ask him whether his architect has an absolutely free hand in giving the extras to whom he likes, or whether he must give them to those who are on the patronage list?


William Pugsley: The patronage list has been abolished in my department and there is no question of patronage here. It is simply a question as to -whether public tenders shall be invited for the fittings, or *whether an arrangement be made with the contractor, provided he is willing to do the work at a price which our chief architect considers fair and reasonable. Some little time ago, after I became minister-and it has been impressed on my attention more recently because of the consideration I have givfen in this building and one or two others-I came to the conclusion that it is desirable, as far as possible, to provide in the original contract for all the different classes* of work. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that it is better to do that, and that is my intention. As far as possible, in letting contracts in future, I intend that the original contract shall provide for everything which can be reasonably foreseen.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why not do it now?


William Pugsley: I cannot do it in this case because the building is nearly completed. Here is a very expensive building which, although not completed, is pretty well on to completion, and the wiring and heating ought to be going on simultaneously with the finishing up of the work. Mv experience is that if we have an honest contractor and can fix a reasonable price with him, it is infinitely better for him to do the work than have two or three sub-contractors whose men will be quarrelling together as to how the work will go along.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Was the contract let without reservation on the part of the government that they could let other workmen into the building?


William Pugsley: Of course we can.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Better delay the completion
of the building for six months and let us have an honest tender for the work not under contract and remaining to be done, and not have the very grave suspicion aroused which a system of this sort is bound to excite.


William Pugsley: 1 do not think anybody can have any suspicion.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am going to vote against this item unless we have some assurance from the minister that the work, not let by contract and yet to be done, will he open to public competition.


William Pugsley: I shall be very sorry if the hon. gentleman votes against it.


Adam Brown Crosby: There will be a time when the minister will have reason to be sorry.


Mr. GOODEVE.: What are the duties of a clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: He has to be on the spot constantly and see that the contractor carries out the plans and specifications and also the instructions and the directions of the architect.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It seems to me that a man who will work for $3.50 per day is hardly capable of doing that work. When you let a contract involving a million dollars and then hire a man at $3.50 per day to pass on the technical work and stand between the contractor and the government, I should say that a man who will work for that wage is not capable of fulfilling these duties. If he were, he would command higher pay.


William Pugsley: We have an experienced architect on our staff who is there constantly in addition to the clerk of works.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: In that case the clerk of works is not required at all. Either he is capable of overseeing the work or he is not. If he is, you do not require an architect there with him; and if he is not, he is no use there at all.
Amherst, public buildings, Nova Scotia- improvements, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the purchase of a tower clock and its installation and also for the re-wiring of the entire building. I may say that at the last session of parliament there was voted $2,500 for this purpose; of that amount $809 was available on the 1st of February.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How big does the town have to be before it gets a town clock?


William Pugsley: Some cases have been brought to my notice where towers have been erected on the various buildings intended for a clock; in some cases towers



were erected ten or fifteen years ago for the purpose of a clock. In the case of Amherst, my attention was called to the fact that the building had an unfinished appearance, was unsightly, and I gave directions to have a clock put in the tower.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to a "fact that quite xecently a judgment was given in England against a man who had put up a public clock. As time went on the clock was neglected, it was not wound up, and some citizens sued the man, and I think got damages for misleading them as to the time of day. It was held that a public body who erected a town clock for the public good was bound to keep the clock in order. Now the minister sees the posi-bility that the government may be sued if it neglects to keep these town clocks in proper order.


William Pugsley: We will take the chances of that.
Bridgewater, public buildings, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for continuing during the coming years the construction of a public building in the town of Bridgewater. It is to be two stories, on a stone foundation, and intended to provide accommodation for post office, customs house, etc. The total amount of the contract is $23,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much has been already expended on the contract?


William Pugsley: There has been paid to the contractor already $23,710. There has been some extra work.


Herbert Brown Ames: After having paid the contractor the full amount of his contract, why do you want this $6,000 more?
. Mr. PUGSLEY. The explanation of that is that subsequently to the contract being awarded it was decided to put a clock in this building, and to erect a tower for the purpose; consequently the contract was changed, and it was agreed to pay the contractors for that $2,882.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is the rest of the
$0,000?


William Pugsley: I will give the whole statement. Amount paid for site, $5,500; for legal expenses, survey of site, printing, advertising and clerk of works, $1,042.62. There was paid on account for heating apparatus and for boiler, $594, and there is still due for heating apparatus, $656. Due on electric wiring and fixtures, $1,000; fittings, furniture, lock boxes, the estimate is $4,000; sidewalks and fences, $1,000; contingencies of various, kinds, $2,000. The total estimated cost, with the site of the building, heating, electric wiring and fixtures, $14,539.80. The total expenditure to the 31st of December was $30,846.80. Assumed Mr. PUGSLEY.
expenditure from 31st December last to 31st March, $2,692. The population of Bridgewater is nearly 3,000.


Mr. McCALL.: Is it the intention of the minister to put a clock in every public building where there is a tower constructed for that purpose?
( Mr. PUGSLEY. There is no settled policy. I have put clocks in several public buildings where it has been represented to me that they were desirable. But I cannot say that I will do it in every public building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister gave as a reason for putting a clock in the public building at Amherst that there was a tower erected for the purpose, and it was unsightly without a clock. But in this case he seems to have decided to erect a public building without a tower, and afterwards changed his mind. Now when did he reach the conclusion that it was wise, after the contract was let, to change the plans and specifications and erect a tower and put in a clock?


William Pugsley: That was decided along in the spring of 1908. I may say that by reason of the location of the building at Bridgewater, it was strongly represented to me that a tower and clock would greatly improve the appearance of the building, and as the expense would not be great I yielded to the representations. I have plenty of precedents for that. When our friends opposite were in power many public buildings were erected in some of which clocks were placed, and others were left unsightly without clocks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a distinct recollection that the principle of supplying clocks was strongly condemned by the hon. gentleman's friends when in opposition. It was declared to be extravagant, wrong and unjustifiable. Now the hon. gentleman, supported by his friends, comes forward and does the very thing which they so strongly condemned. Two wrongs can never make a right. If it was wrong for the hon. gentleman's predecessors to do it surely there is no justification for him repeating that wrong because, from his intelligence, he must have known better.


William Pugsley: You would say that it was right then.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In explanation of the purpose of putting a tower on this building, I may say that the building belongs to a new design introduced by the Department of Public Works about a year ago. It is a flat-roofed building. The appearance of the building is rather low and there were very strong representations made on behalf of the people of the town to alter the exterior appearance of the building by placing a tower upon it, or by mak-

ing some other change. It did add a little to the cost, but I may say that if any hon. gentleman saw the building he would feel that the department was strictly justified in putting on this tower.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did the tower and clock cost?


William Pugsley: The tower cost $2,882 and the clock will probably cost $1,500 or $2,000.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: Is this a post office building?


William Pugsley: Post office and customs house.


George Gordon: Have the government any settled policy as to where buildings of that description should be erected, having reference to population?


William Pugsley: No rule has been laid down as to the exact number of people required in a place in order to justify the erection therein of a public building. Population does not always govern. Something may depend upon the trade that is done in a place, upon the customs receipts, upon the existing post office accommodation, upon the possibility or otherwise of renting suitable buildings for public purposes and sometimes upon whether it is a county town or not. There has been one rule laid down, not as a fixed rule, but it has been recognized and, I think, it was so stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and that is that this government will be disposed to favour as rapidly as might reasonably be done, the erection of one public building in a county, that public building to be in the county town. But, of course, it can be seen that that rule cannot always be adhered to, because it sometimes happens that the county town may not be the most important town in the county.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You think there should be one in every county?


William Pugsley: I think that should be the ultimate aim to which we should look forward.


George Gordon: Is Bridgewater a county town?


William Pugsley: I do not think it is.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is and it is not. There are two towns in the county of Lunenburg, each of which regards itself as a county town because each is the seat of courts. It is rather an important town, and I do not think that any gentleman can make any valid objection to this expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the population?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: About 2,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the post office revenue?


Mr. WRIGHT.: It was not large enough to be incorporated when the census was taken.


William Pugsley: The post office revenue is $5,590, the customs duties, $4,448; money orders issued, $59,000, and money orders paid, $21,000.


David Henderson: I just came in a few moments ago and I understood that the discussion was centring on public buildings in county towns. I desire to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that there is a county town in the county which I have the honour to represent and during the recent election campaign my opponent gave a very strong promise that a post office would be erected in the town of Milton, the county town. He gave a very strong assurance of what he would accomplish when he came here. Unfortunately for the people who wanted a post office, he did not come, but I trust it may not be so unfortunate after all, because I believe that if the Minister of Public Works made the promise that he would erect a post office in that town he would not hesitate to do it even if the gentleman who conveyed that promise to the people should not have been elected.


William Pugsley: What is the population?


David Henderson: The population, I presume, is 1,700 or 1,800.


William Pugsley: Do you favour erecting one there?


David Henderson: Certainly, I would favour the erection of a post office in Milton. We had the strong assurance of the government candidate during the election that a post office would be erected in that town. I can hardly assume that my opponent made that promise without having had some guarantee from the minister that the promise would be implemented, and I do not think the minister would go so far as to give that assurance only on the condition that my opponent would be elected. I believe he is too honourable. I think that if he gave the promise at all it should ' be implemented no matter who was elected. All I ask is that the promise may be implemented by the erection of a public building in Milton. We have no public building in the county of Halton. There are some five towns and villages about the same size as Milton, not one of which has a public building, and I do not think I am asking too much when I ask the minister to carry out the pledge which was given by my opponent to the people of Milton that a post office should be erected there in the event of his return. I would like the minister to say whether he made

that promise and, if so, is it his intention to carry it out and give us a public building during the current year ?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I do not call to my mind at the present moment whether I was communicated with on the subject of a public building or not. I do remember my hon. friend presenting, at the last session of this parliament, the claims of Milton so strongly that I am inclined to think that he almost persuaded me that Milton should have a public building, but I can say to my hon. friend, and it may do for the whole of this discussion in regard to public buildings, that he will not find that I have ever, since I have been Minister of Public Works, made a promise, or authorized anybody else to make a promise for the erection of a public building conditional upon the election of a supporter of the government. Wherever I have made a statement that a public building will be erected it is an unqualified statement. If I have made any promise with regard to Milton or with regard to any other public building it will be carried out at the very earliest opportunity. I can tell my hon. friend that so far as I remember there are no amounts in the estimates this year for public buildings other than those in respect of which tenders have already been called. In view of the state of the revenue we have felt obliged to postpone for another year the erection of a great many public buildings for which appropriations were made last session and which we have not felt in a position to go on with at the present time. I am afraid that the public building at Milton, if one is to be erected there, would have to stand over the same as the rest.


David Henderson: There has been a discussion as to the erection of a town clock; may I ask the minister if he intends to put a clock in the Conservative members' room?


William Pugsley: Considering the youth and character of my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) I think we should put a ' watch ' there.


Mr. BLAIN.: What will be the total cost of the Bridgewater building?


William Pugsley: Including everything to complete, it is estimated to cost $42,539.80.
Glace Bay, public buildings, $12,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete this building providing accommodation for post office, custom house, inland revenue, examining warehouse, weights and measures. The total cost including the site, heating, electric wiring, &c., is estimated at $54,859.85.


David Henderson: 


David Henderson: What is the population of Glace Bay?


William Pugsley: 7,000 by census of 1901. I am informed it is probably 15,000 now.


Mr. MADDIN.: What is the estimated cost of this building?


William Pugsley: 


James William Maddin: What was the contract price and how much has been expended to date?


William Pugsley: The contract price $24,000; expended to 31st of December, $41,540 which includes $11,599 for the site.


James William Maddin: Will this vote complete the building?


William Pugsley: We expect it will.


James William Maddin: Will this building have a tower and clock?


William Pugsley: No.


James William Maddin: It would appear to me that the necessity for erecting towers on these public buildings and providing them with clocks becomes very pressing on the eve of an election. For instance, there was no clock on the Sydney building for a great many years, but on the eve of the 1904 election a stipendiary magistrate Mr. A. G. Maclean and a jeweller by the name of Fred. Lighter were appointed a committee to go to the old country to select a clock. The jeweller might have been a very good man for the purpose but I doubt the qualifications of the stipendiary magistrate; anyhow the clock has never given satisfaction. I suggest with all deference to the minister that instead of providing these buildings with towers which in the case of Amherst cost $2,800, and clocks which cost from $1,500 to $3,000, it would be much better to dispense with these luxuries which are much like the fifth wheel on a carriage, and to apply the money to the Postmaster General's Department towards giving a better mail service to the people in the scattered districts of Nova Scotia.
Guysborough public buildings, improvements, $1,200.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the installation of a clock and to provide an acetylene gas plant.


George Gordon: What is the population of Guysborough?


William Pugsley: About 1,500 last census.


George Gordon: What will these improvements cost?


William Pugsley: About $2,000.
Halifax. Dominion building, improvements, repairs, etc., $75,000.


William Pugsley: This vote is for the purpose of remodelling the whole interior of the Halifax Dominion building, making it

fire proof and fitting it for post office purposes and assistant receiver general's offices The customs, examining warehouse and inland revenue offices have been removed to the new customs building, and it is found necessary to remodel this building to fit it for post office purposes.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is being done by contract.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: Mr. Keefe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this vote complete?


William Pugsley: No, it will require $70,000 more. The total probable cost including everything is $165,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract let for $165,000?


William Pugsley: No, the contract, including the wiring, is let for $94,000. In addition, the heating and boilers, it is estimated, will cost $15,000, electric fixtures $1,500, fittings, furniture and lock boxes $25,000, vault lining of doors $10,000, contingencies and superintendence $19,500; total estimated cost $165,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this remodelling an old building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: When is this building to be completed?


William Pugsley: On the 18th of March, 1910.


William Sora Middlebro: Was the contract let by public tender?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Who are the contractors?


William Pugsley: Mr. Keefe, of Halifax.


William Sora Middlebro: What is the amount of his tender?


William Pugsley: $94,000. The other tenderers were for $114,000 and $145,000 respectively.


William Sora Middlebro: How much is the total work to cost, all completed?


William Pugsley: 


William Sora Middlebro: Is it the intention of the minister to let the difference between the contract and the total cost, amounting to $70,000, by tender or to the present contractor?


William Pugsley: My intention is to let that by tender, as far as we can do so.


William Sora Middlebro: How does the minister propose to let this addition of $70,000 by tender and not the addition for the museum?


William Pugsley: I have endeavoured to explain that there are special conditions with respect to the museum which do not exist with respect to this building. At all events, I do not know any special reason why we should not ask for tenders for this work, as we have ample time to do it.


William Sora Middlebro: I fail to see what the special conditions are. The minister has given us no special logical reason why he should not let the remainder of the museum work by tender. In the construction of all large buildings there are many contractors for different trades working at the same time.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman object to my letting this by tender?


William Sora Middlebro: No, but I am asking why the minister has not done it in the case of the museum.


William Pugsley: We are now discussing the Halifax public building.


William Sora Middlebro: I am asking the minister if he can give me any special reason why he adopts the principle of letting the remainder of this work by tender when he does not adopt that principle in the case of the museum.


William Pugsley: I have already answered. The hon. gentleman will find it all in 'Hansard.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there provision in this contract for other contractors to occupy the building at the same time, in the event of letting other portions of the work to other contractors?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Halifax-Immigrant Detention Building-Hospital, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is to provide for the erection of a stable in the immigration detention grounds at Halifax. It has been requested by the Superintendent of Immigration, and the estimated cost is $2,500.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does that complete the entire outfit at the Halifax immigration detention building?


William Pugsley: Yes.
New Glasgow public building-improvements, $1,000.


James William Maddin: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what the nature of these improvements is and at whose request they are made?


William Pugsley: This amount is for some alterations to be made in the building, and also for the purchase of a clock to be placed in the tower. The chief architect tells me that the Customs Department have applied for these changes.


Herbert Brown Ames: From whom does the government purchase these Nova Scotia clocks?


William Pugsley: Most of them are obtained in the old country; none of them are made in Canada.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How many public buildings in Nova Scotia have been supplied with clocks? I think the hon. minister is showing partiality to Nova Scotia. Only one was promised in Ontario-that was in Berlin.


James William Maddin: Is the hon. Minister of Public Works aware that the 'Eastern Chronicle,' published in New Glasgow, and the organ of this government in East Pictou, last month commented editorially on this expense, pointing out that it was altogether unnecessary and uncalled for, and that, as the editor had seen the alterations, they were calculated to weaken the building by the cutting of rafters and beams? I would like to know whether the Minister of Public Works is aware that that is the stand taken by the organ of the government in East Pictou.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of the stand taken by the paper referred to, nor am I aware that it is the organ of the government or that this government has any organ.


James William Maddin: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would hardly agree with the minister there.


William Pugsley: The expenditure is not very great. The total is only $3,000. The clock will cost $1,200 and the alterations of the building $1,495.


James William Maddin: The amount may not look very big, but it is sufficient to supply a daily mail to Bauline, which has now only one mail a week, and it would give it a daily mail for two years.
Pictou Public . Building-Renewals and repairs, $2,000.


William Pugsley: Of this amount, $1,500 is a revote. It is to make provision to replace the old galvanized iron roof, which was found leaking, also to re-cover the roof and repair the gable. The tender was for $1,900 and the contingencies $100, making a total of $2,000.
Shelburne Public Building, $19,000.


William Pugsley: This was placed under contract February 12, 1908. The building is of stone. It is 39 by 54 feet, two and a half stories high, with a turret three stories high. It is required for a post office and custom house. The total estimated cost, including site, heating, wiring, etc., is $35,158.77.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the population of the town?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: It is one of the oldest towns in Nova Scotia. Its population was 1,445 seven years ago. Since then it has been connected by railway with other parts of the province, and is now progressing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Was it in February, 1908 you decided to build that?


William Pugsley: The contract was entered into then.


Adam Brown Crosby: What is the revenue?


William Pugsley: The postal revenue is $1,669, customs duties, $1,471, money or-, ders given, $29,439, money orders paid $19,-
000.	The exports are $33,174.


Mr. CROTHERS.: That amounts to $25 per head for every man, woman and child for the total population.


George Gordon: That is a very expensive building for such a place with such a small revenue. I presume that the minister, as a business man, must have some kind of system governing the erection of these buildings in different parts of the country.' I would like to know if other places with an equal revenue are equally entitled to a public building, and if places which have a revenue three or four tmes that amount will be given public buildings?


William Pugsley: Places with the population and of the importance of this would have very strong claims on the government. That is as far as my hon. friend can expect me to go.


David Henderson: In whose riding is this?


William Pugsley: In that of the Minister of Finance.
Westville Public Building, $5,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How big is this place?


William Pugsley: It had a population of about 2,300 in 1901 but has increased a good deal since. It is quite a mining centre.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: The building site heating, electric wiring, &c., will cost $25,605.


James William Maddin: From whom was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: The Acadia Coal Company.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Is it the intention to put a side-walk along the building?


William Pugsley: If a side-walk is required, I would favourably regard the suggestion.
Georgetown Public. Building, Prince Edward Island, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This building was purchased at a low price, and this amount is

required for alterations to fit it for a public building.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When was it purchased?


William Pugsley: In March 1908. The price for building and site was $2,500.


Mr. JAMESON.: From whom was it purchased?


William Pugsley: From E. B. Hessian.
St. John Dominion Building, New Brunswick-improvements, repairs, &c., $4,000.
. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to make repairs in the St. John Post Office and Custom House and West Side Post Office.
St. John Drill hall, New Brunswick, $12,500.


William Pugsley: This is estimated sufficient to pay for the property which the Crown is expropriating as a site for a drill hall. We do not intend this year proceeding with the building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why not?
. Mr. PUGSLEY. In pursuance of the policy of postponing for a short time the works with regard to which tenders were not called before the decision was arrived at.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What negotiations have taken place with regard to any expropriation of land in St. John for drill hall purposes?


William Pugsley: Instead of negotiating we thought it better to file a plan of expropriation. In that locality many of the titles are somewhat uncertain, and it is not known who are the owners. It is thought better to file a plan of expropriation, and then negotiate afterwards. ' If we cannot arrive at a fair arrangement, we can let the Exchequer Court determine the value.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it the intention of the government, or the department, to put through these expropriation proceedings this year?	; ,


William Pugsley: Yes.
Public Works-Chargeable to Income-Public Buildings, Quebec-Cookshire Post Office, $15,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister please tell us the particulars of this?


William Pugsley: This building is being erected on a lot of land given as a free site by the municipal council of the town. It is a fine lot with a frontage of 100 feet on Main _ street and a depth of 125 feet. The building will be two stories high, and will be of brick on a concrete foundation. The building is required for post office, customs and inland revenue. The total estimated cost, including heating, electric wiring, fittings and furniture, is $23,053.55.
Joliette Armoury, $15,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: We would like some information about this.


William Pugsley: The site upon which this building is to be constructed has a frontage of 100 feet with a depth of 100 feet. The bulding will be of two stories, of brick, on a stone foundation, with stone trimmings, the size being 56 feet by 47 feet. The total estimated cost, including heating, fixtures and furniture, but not including the site, is $21,719.


Arthur Meighen: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: When was it let?


William Pugsley: I have not the date here, but it was let quite recently. Six tenders were received in answer to an advertisement, the tenders ranging from $13,500 to $15,395. The lowest was accepted on authority of an order in council passed on January 18 last. But there was some delay in letting the contract.


Arthur Meighen: That was subsequent to the determination of the minister not to proceed with any public works for which contracts were not let? .


William Pugsley: No, not subsequently.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, then, the minister's policy on this subject was adopted subsequent to January 18 of this
year?


William Pugsley: Tenders had been called for this building in 1908, and the decision that we arrived at was only arrived at in December.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why the delay in deciding on the tenders?


William Pugsley: I will make inquiries. I think we called twice for tenders.


Arthur Meighen: When was the last call
for tenders?


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me that I am in error in saying that there were two calls for tender. There was delay while we were making inquiry as to the responsibility and experience of the contractors.


Arthur Meighen: How large a place is Joliette?


William Pugsley: Seven or eight years ago it had a population of 4,200.


Arthur Meighen: Is it about the same yet, or is it larger?


William Pugsley: I am told that it is about
6,000	population now.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister will remember that in his estimates last year an appropriation was made for an armoury in the city of Portage la Prairie, a city with a population larger than even the population estimated by the minister for

Joliette. But I do not see any appropriation this year for that armoury although it was promised by the candidate who opposed me in the last contest that an armoury would be erected in the city of Portage la Prairie. The reason I asked the minister when that policy was decided upon is that I would like to get at what the reason was for calling for tenders for certain of these public works immediately prior to, or immediately subsequent to, the election, and not calling for tenders for others equally necessary or more necessary for the country.


William Pugsley: A large number of buildings were provided for in the Appropriation Act of last year. My directions to the chief architect were to proceed as rapidly as possible to get the plans and specifications ready and to call for tenders just as soon as this was done. But the hon. member will realize that this work takes time, and that plans and specifications for all these public works could not be gone on with at the same time. No selection was made of one place more than another, so far as I am aware. The chief architect went on in the regular way, intending to get out plans in reasonable time and to call for tenders for all these works. The decision arrived at with regard to dropping a large number of the public works was arrived at when we began to prepare the estimates for this session, some time in December, and I think the latter part of December.


Arthur Meighen: Many tenders were called for subsequent to the 26th of October and prior to the date in December when the policy of the minister was decided upon. Then, I can quite understand what governed the department in calling for tenders in some cases and not in others.


Herbert Brown Ames: What military corps will probably use this Joliette armoury?


William Pugsley: This is headquarters for the 83rd Joliette Begiment and of A company.


George Gordon: The minister tells us that the chief architect had instructions to make up the plans and specifications, but that all could not be made up at once. What system is adopted to decide which should be first? Did he commence in the west and go east, or in the middle, or how? Is there any system?


William Pugsley: The practice is to follow the estimates that are voted, taking one after the other. Of course, we must first see that sites are obtained. Sometimes it happens that urgent representations are made by a member asking that the site be purchased as soon as possible, otherwise the option might be lost; or he might urge the erection of a building, and Mr. MEIGHEN.
his representations would be heeded. In some towns the necessity of a public building is more urgent than in others. In some places there may be no accommodation for a post office or custom house. All these considerations necessarily weigh in deciding the action of the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: To whom was the contract given for this work?


William Pugsley: Simoneau & Dion, of
Sherbrooke.


John Stanfield: After the Public Works Department has completed an armoury, how soon afterwards is it handed over to the Militia Department?


William Pugsley: In ordinary course it would be passed over to the Militia Department immediately on completion.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who were the other tenderers, and what were the prices?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the names. There were six tenders, ranging from $13,500 to $15,095.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was the land purchased, and from whom?


William Pugsley: I have not the name here, but I will get it.


Arthur Meighen: Am I correct in understanding that in the matter of calling for tenders the minister exercises a discretion as to what public buildings tenders shall be called for?


William Pugsley: I repeat what I have said, that in the ordinary course the chief architect takes the votes as they appear in the appropriation. But sometimes it occurs that a member writes to me urging me to proceed as rapidly as possbile with the erection of a building in a certain place for which there is an appropriation, urging that it is very much needed. I would send a memorandum to the chief architect to hurry along the plans and specifications for the building in such and such a place.


Arthur Meighen: If it is left to the chief architect, and he simply follows the appropriations, I do not think the government would be justified in adopting such an arbitrary line as has been adopted, namely
roceeding with such buildings as tenders
ave been called for and leaving others; because it would result in this, that those provinces that happen to be first in the estimates would secure practically all their public buildings, and those that happened to be last would get none at all. Am I correct in understanding that many tenders were called for subsequent to the 26th of October, and prior to this day in December when the policy of the ministry was decided upon that has borne so harshly on many constituencies throughout Canada?


William Pugsley: I thought I had made myself plain. In a number of cases I have been urged to see what was the cause of the delay in getting out plans and specifications. I have urged the chief architect to hurry along the. work and the plans and specifications, but I never interfered with his proceedings or plans. He had a free hand for all buildings for which appropriations were made at the last session of parliament. Quite a number of tenders were called for during the summer. Parliament did not rise until the 20th of July; that accounts for delay in respect to a good many buildings. Later on when we came to consider the estimates and to weigh the revenue and expenditure for the coming year, we decided that in the public interest we would be obliged to drop a large number of public works. Now if I had undertaken to go through the list of buildings throughout Canada and determine which building should be carried on and which should be stopped, it would have been a very difficult task indeed, because when I put the items in the estimates of last year for these buildings I thought they were all necessary in the public interest, and that remark applies as well to buildings in constituencies which were represented by hon. gentlemen opposite as to buildings in constituencies which were represented by our friends. We thought the better way would be to draw the line as clearly as possible between buildings in regard to which tenders had been called for before we reached that decision, and those in regard to which tenders had not been called for. We did not feel that any great injustice was being done to those places with regard to which we were leaving buildings out of the estimates this year, because it did not mean, and does not mean, an abandonment of those buildings; it only means, as we hope, a postponment of them until next year. Parliament will meet in the ordinary course next fall, and then provision can be made, we hope, for the erection of buildings which were left out of the estimates for this year. I am sure that upon reflection my hon. friend, as other hon. members of this House, will see that we have adopted the wisest course. I was compelled, in yielding to the views of my colleagues, particularly my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, to drop some $8,000,000 from my estimates. I was sorry to do it. It has disappointed our hon. friend on this side more than it has disappointed my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. We had to do it. We thought we were doing it in the public interest and the public will justify^ it. We felt that the public would recognize that in taking this step public men are showing their willingness to meet conditions which have come temporarily upon us and which, we hope, will soon pass away. We feel
that the financiers of the world will approve of the course which we have taken because it shows a determination on the part of the government to keep the expenditure within the revenue, and I trust my hon. friend will accept this explanation and allow this item to pass.


Arthur Meighen: I quite understand the explanation of the minister, but that is no answer to the question I put to him. The question I put was:	Were not many of
these tenders called for subsequent to October 26, and prior to this date in December, when the policy of the minister was decided upon?


William Pugsley: I told the hon. gentleman that some were, but I cannot tell how many.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister will not think we are captiously taking up time.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Because I, in common with many other members, four years from now, will be called upon to explain to the electors how it is that we did not succeed in getting these public buildings that were already in the estimates before we were elected, and when we say that the ministry decided upon a policy of economy owing to the diminution of the revenues they will answer us by saying that these revenues diminished a year ago. They will ask: How was it that the policy of the ministry was decided on one year after the condition existed, and when it should have been decided upon? I would be in a quandary to explain that decision to the electors. We would like to be able to offer some reasonable ground, but I am afraid that the explanation of the minister will be resented, because if the policy were adopted in December there was far more reason for it being adopted before any of us were candidates for the House at all, namely, a year ago.


Mr. BURRELL.: Is it the intention to proceed with the construction of some of these buildings for which tenders were asked after October 26?


William Pugsley: Yes, as to some of them, but not all.	.


Herbert Brown Ames: What principle has the minister followed in deciding what ones shall be gone on with and what ones shall not be?


William Pugsley: With regard to those in respect to which tenders were called we also considered very carefully as to whether we might not postpone some of them until the following year, and that is

the principle upon which we went. Those which we thought were absolutely urgent we have proceeded with.


George Eulas Foster: What was the principle?


William Pugsley: The public necessities.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has admitted that he found it necessary to strike out a great many items from the estimates providing for work that he would like to have done. On what principle did he proceed in deciding that certain items should be retained in the estimates and that certain items should be struck out?


William Pugsley: I thought I explained that.


Herbert Brown Ames: Not very clearly.


William Pugsley: On a certain day we came to the conclusion that we would have to make a large cut in the estimates.


Herbert Brown Ames: In December?


William Pugsley: Yes, I think it was in December that we began to make up the estimates, and we decided to drop a very large amount. I decided to recommend to my colleagues in the first place to drop those public works for which tenders had not been called irrespective of their necessity. That rule was followed possibly with one or two exceptions. Then that left to be considered all those works in regard to which we had called for tenders. We went through the list again, applied the pruning knife and considered as to whether or not there might not be a few of these which we might drop. We also considered as to whether they were really of such urgent public necessity that they could not stand over for another year. In the case of some public works we concluded that they might stand over and we dropped them even though tenders' had been called.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister give a concrete instance?


William Pugsley: Yes, I can give one. There was the case of the Naufrage Pond, in Prince Edward Island. The constituency had been asking for this for a considerable time, but the amount was large, and although we had asked for tenders we concluded that we might allow that to stand for another year. The matter was referred to the chief engineer and he reported that he did not think the public interest would suffer if it were allowed to stand for another year.


George Eulas Foster: What work was that?


William Pugsley: It was a breakwater.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has been unable to satisfy us yet as to the definite principle upon which he based his decis-Mr PUGSLEY.
ion. Consequently, the only way we can determine that principle is to use our own powers of thought. I would like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to submit to the House a list of those works that were struck out in his first pruning and of those that he struck out in his second pruning in order that we may determine for ourselves what the principle was upon which he proceeded.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend, who has won a reputation for industry, will not allow that reputation to he lost by asking me to do what the hon. gentleman can easily do himself. If my hon. friend would take the estimates of last year and compare them with the estimates of this year he will see what has been struck out. Then I can give him the list of the others.


Herbert Brown Ames: We cannot tell what items were on this original list which he says has been pruned so industriously to the extent of $8,000,000.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that the items on my original list were not new at all. They were only the works for which provision had been made at the last session of parliament.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister at least give us a list of those public works for which tenders had been called and which it was decided would not be gone on with this year.


William Pugsley: Now that is business; I will do that.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister also give us the assurance that those public buildings which were in the estimates last year and which now are unfortunately discontinued will be preferred and gone on with before other public buildings of a similar kind are initiated?


William Pugsley: I think that is a very fair question. I feel that is the course that I should pursue as Minister of Public Works and will certainly recommend to my colleagues. Of course there may be cases arise, such as a public building being burned down or a wharf being carried away, which might create an exception, and we might have to include these new works, but as a general principle I am and would be committed to those works which parliament was asked to sanction last year.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad to hear that answer, and I hope that principle will be extended.


Clarence Jameson: Does that apDly to breakwaters and wharfs as well as to public buildings?


William Pugsley: Yes. Of course if I were convinced that any work was not

necessary I would have to think the matter over, but as at present advised I would adopt that course.


Clarence Jameson: I am referring to the items which were in the estimates last year and which are stricken out of the estimates of the present year and which of course would not be placed in the estimates last year if the ministry did not consider they were justifiable?


William Pugsley: As at present advised I do not see any reason for changing my mind that all the works provided for last session are necessary public works. I think we are committed to them, and by every principle which ought to bind a public man I think I should recommend to my colleagues that they should be placed in the estimates next year or whenever the opportunity arises.


Herbert Brown Ames: We may then take it as an expression of definite policy on the part of the minister that the items which have once been voted by this House but not proceeded with shall have priority in the estimates for public works next year.


William Pugsley: Speaking as a general principle, yes.
Knowlton Public Building, $12,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: The total probable cost, including everything, is $26,866.76.


Herbert Brown Ames: Knowlton is a place of 800 inhabitants?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is not a large place but it is a place of considerable importance.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there any special rule followed as to the size and magnificence of a public building in comparison with the size and importance of the town?


William Pugsley: Where the place is small we try to give a comparatively small building.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the town is represented by a cabinet minister does it have a large and better building than otherwise?


William Pugsley: Not as a rule, but of course it shows a higher standard of intelligence on the part of the people.
Lachute Public Buildings, $7,000.


Mr. PERLEY.: What is the total cost of the building and will this vote complete it?


William Pugsley: This is supposed to>
complete the building. The total estimated cost is $26,774.69. It is in the constituency represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Perley).


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps the Minister of Customs will tell me whether he intends to make Lachute a port of entry seeing that he has now a building there to accommodate his officers?


William Pugsley: What do you say about the necessity for this building?


George Halsey Perley: The building is a very good building, but it was put in the wrong place, and were I to speak about that it might take considerable of the time of the committee. When this building was first spoken of I went to Mr. Hyman, then minister, and begged him to erect it in the part of the town where it ought to have been put, but unfortunately he thought that political considerations forced him to erect it on its present location. Later on I may discuss the question from that point of view. However, for the present I merely say that I had the pleasure of speaking ta the Minister of Customs on one occasion about making Lachute a port of entry and I now press my request on him again in view of the fact that this public building is specially designed to accommodate the customs service. Does the Minister of Customs propose to make a port of entry of Lachute?


William Paterson: We have not arrived at a definite conclusion as to that. After we have the money Voted and see what we have on hand we will consider the necessities of the different parts of the country in that respect. In this year of economy we have not been able to meet the wishes of' everybody, but the fact that quarters have been provided for customs in Lachute adds additional weight to the claim. The difficulty is that there are other towns asking for similar facilities which are not so well off as Lachute, but the matter will be given consideration.


George Halsey Perley: Lachute is exactly in the same position as Alexandria, being half way between Ottawa and Montreal. It is a town of about the same size and yet Alexandria was made a port of entry some years ago. The minister told me then that one of the great reasons why Alexandria was made a port of entry was that a public building had been erected which contained accommodation for the customs. I hope the hon. gentleman will not permit the customs offices in the Lachute public buildings to go untenanted.


William Paterson: I did not ask to have accommodation for the customs in the Alexandria building, but it was done and it made it more difficult to. refuse the demand. Otherwise I would have asked the Alexandria people to wait a little longer. Of course, the fact mentioned by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) gives a little more strength to his request with regard to La-

chute, but should I yield, it will be a double argument for some other place and so I will need a little time to think it over.


George Eulas Foster: The stable was built before you bought the horse.
Magog Public [DOT] Building, $14,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: The total cost including everything is estimated at $35,626. It will be used for post office and customs house.
Montreal Eastern Postal Station, $10,000.


Mr. MONK.: Is this a new building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. MARTIN.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my hon. friend I will tell him that the site of this postal station is on St. Catherine east. The amount paid for land is $33,000. It was bought from Mr. Jeannotte, a good Conservative.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I must ask this item to stand until the Postmaster General is here to tell us what he intends to do about the reorganization of the postal service in Montreal. A great commercial city like Montreal is entitled to the fullest consideration of parliament with respect to matters of this kind, but we should know what policy the government intends to pursue with respect to granting postal facilities. I heard Sir Wm. Mulock, when Postmaster General, state in this House that the government would provide a postal station about midway between the great rail way stations in Montreal in order to forward promptly to the central post office the mail matter arriving in the city. He gave reasons for declaring this as the policy of the government, but nothing has ever been done in that direction. But we find applied in the city of Montreal a principle which prevails everywhere, and which I think should be put a stop to. That principle is this: A man is elected to this House, and his sole object seems to be to have a public building erected within the limits of his constituency. I say without fear of contradiction that in the majority of cases he is a man we see very little of either in the general work of the House or in the very important work of the committees of the House; but he seems to think that if he gets a public building for his constituency that will make up for all his shortcomings; and that public building js erected to suit his caprice, very often in the wrong place, very often, we must admit, unnecessarily, and very often where the money might be spent more advantageously in a different manner. Take, for instance, the city of Montreal, the commercial centre of the Dominion, which contributes one-fifth, if not a larger proportion, of the total revenue of the country. While spending lavishly, if


William Paterson: necessary, in that city, we should apply the money in the best possible way. We have in Montreal a port by far the most important of all the ports in the Dominion. Its income exceeds by an immense amount the income of any other port. For some years we have had there three excellent harbour commissioners, who are doing the best they can for the money they have, and for five years we have had before us the report of the Transportation Commission recommending, as among the foremost necessities of the country, the nationalization of the port of Montreal and the construction of a dry dock there as absolutely essential and urgent. That report, it is true, mentioned other ports which should be nationalized, but the chairman of the commission, in a letter sent subsequent to his report, insisted particularly on the urgency of the case in Montreal. We find at present-and the papers in the last few days have been full of it-that very far from Montreal becoming a free port, or the announcement being made by the government that the recommendation of that most important commission would be carried our, nothing has been done; and in order to carry out the improvements that are absolutely required in the port of Montreal, large indebtedness has been incurred, and to-day the commissioners find it impossible to continue their work without adding to the burdens of the port. Not only the people of Montreal, but I believe all the people of the province of Quebec, and very many people who are interested elsewhere, would say, if they were questioned on the subject, that the very first expense to be incurred should be in the direction of carrying out the recommendation of the Transportation Commission and making the port of Montreal a free port. With the competition of the American ports, the idea of adding to the burdens of the port of Montreal, embarrassing commerce and putting us on a retrograde march instead of enabling us to go forward, would be condemned by everybody. Quite lately the Board of Trade of Montreal has taken the matter up exactly as I have stated it to the House. The government seems to be indifferent to that very question. Therefore, it is important for us to know if the construction of all these postal stations is necessary. If it is, I have not a word to say. But this policy varies entirely from the policy of the government as I heard it laid down not many years ago by Sir William Mulock, speaking in this House on behalf of the government. In Montreal we have a somewhat strange phenomenon. The postal revenue of that city, the largest in the Dominion, is considerably less than that of the city of Toronto. What is the reason of that unexplained difference? To my mind it is attributable to this:	That our

postal system in Montreal requires reform and requires additional expenditure. Our post office is properly manned. Our officers, whether the superior officers or those who have charge of the delivery of letters, perform their duties well; but they are absolutely insufficient in number; they are scandalously underpaid and they have not the means of giving us a proper service. I have made suggestions already, and I will make them again when the postal estimates come up, because I believe that if we applied ourselves to correct these deficiencies, and if w# had in Montreal such a postal delivery as there is in other large cities- in London, in Paris, perhaps in Toronto- so that if a letter is put in a postal box at a certain hour it is sure to be delivered at a certain hour, the revenue of the Montreal post office would swell by leaps and bounds, and would soon equal if not surpass that of the city of Toronto. There is not that confidence at the present moment. Therefore, I ask is it wise for us to expend such a large amount of money in building postal stations, and could not the money be better applied in other ways? I think we should be informed by the Postmaster General if this way of spending money is the result of a settled policy of the government-the policy of erecting public buildings for the satisfaction of members representing different constituencies, in order that they may have the opportunity to show their electors that they have done something for their respective constituencies. It would be wiser for us to improve our postal system than to build large postal stations without improvements.
I think, in view of what is happening to our harbour commission, in view of the very large amount-an amount which I cannot understand, and which appears to be highly excessive-which we are spending on the central post office-a sum which, when we have finished with that post office, will amount to over $700,000-in view of these expenditures, it is wise for the committee to pause and ask the Postmaster General if this is the result of a policy and if we cannot make better use of our money than to build a larger number of these postal stations. What is essential to a postal service is not to build postal stations unless absolutely necessary in order to insure what is absolutely required in a commercial city like Montreal, namely, an efficient postal service.
this postal station was required by all the electors of that constituency, whose number exceeds 48,000 inhabitants.
In that part of the city the postal business are of great importance. I will only mention the case of Mr. Filion, an apothecary, living in the north part of St. Mary's division who last year has made $93,000 in a small office of some square feet in size.
St. Mary's division forms one of the most commercial wards in the city of Montreal. St. Catherine street, from east to west; Notre Dame street from east to west, Ontario and Craig streets are nearly exclusively filled up with commercial firms. The large manufacturers are situated in that constituency.
Let me mention by the way, Sir, a few of those manufactures which are built there: A great number of breweries, some manufactures of shirts and glass works. We count also a manufacture of oilcloth, another one of engines, two of caoutchouc, a part of cotton mills, a manufacture of paints, without reckoning the largest tobacco manufacture of our Dominion, the Macdonald manufacture, and also the Dominion Tobacco Company. We have a few others more. A sugar refinery, some manufactures of cigars, thread, biscuits, shoes, sash and doors, with many others whose enumeration would be tedious.
If I have used every endeavour to obtain a postal station in that constituency it was not for the purpose of making easy my reelection, because the hon. member knows the majority which I won in 1906. If I have attempted to induce the government to give us that postal station it was because I knew it was indispensable. If the revenue of Ontario is considerably larger than that of Quebec-I mean the postal revenue-it is because the first one is better provided with postal stations which afford more facilities to the citizens in view of transacting postal business. I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been mistaken when he said it was a caprice of the member for St. Mary's. I will repeat again that I did not want that postal station in order to be re-elected. I have given sufficient proof of that. I want to add that the Conservative members are always ready to object to some estimate of the province of Quebec. It is not the same thing about the estimates of the province of Ontario.


Mr.   M.@: Martin. (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer with a few words to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who has said a moment ago that the erection of a postal station in the constituency of St. Mary was perhaps to suit the caprice of the deputy representing that division. We have to bear in mind that this question is pending since about fifteen years, and that


Herbert Brown Ames: (Translation.) Will the hon. member give us an idea about the site of that postal station?


William Melville Martin: Yes. It shall be situated on the corner of St. Catherine and Plessis. The owner of the land is Mr. Jeannotte, a good Tory. We could not buy other land without paying $45,000 or $50,000. The hon. member ought to know

the amount paid by the government when the land was bought for the post office on St. Catherine west.


Herbert Brown Ames: (Translation.) Is it not true that a post office is now situated on Notre Dame east, No. 281? Another in St. Mary's ward and a third one on Ontario street, No. 1241?


William Melville Martin: (Translation.) They are auxiliary branches established in shops. As I have said a moment ago, Mr. Filion, an apothecary, on Fullum street north, has made $93,000 in postal business last year and there are fifteen or twenty others doing the same thing.
If I have endeavoured to get that postal station, I say again, it is because the citizens were urging for it and not myself, because I was not in need of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend entirely misapprehends me. He gives as reasons for the construction of these post offices that the division is a business one, that the land was bought from a Conservative, and that when we are asked to vote money for the province of Ontario, there seems to be no objection on this side. I do not think there is anything in the remarks I made to the committee which can give rise to such an interpretation. I am speaking for Montreal. My hon. friend entirely loses sight of the question I put to the Postmaster General, as to what his policy is regarding the expenditure of public money in that ('ity where so much is required. My hon. friend from St. Mary's, who is unduly irritated, seems to think that that is not a fair question to ask. Well, I have given good reasons for it. I know St. Mary's division well. I know the whole eastern part of Montreal. I have lived there, and I know there are many important business interests and factories in that division and that it is a most important section of the city. But what I say is that what the people require in that part of the city is an efficient postal service. What they want is that the city should be properly equipped to fulfil the role it has to play in the Dominion; and if they were given their choice between a public building, not absolutely required, and the completion of those improvements, which have been time and again asked for from the government, they would not hesitate a moment. We have not at present as efficient a postal service as we should have. The fault is not with the authorities in Montreal, because their postal service is not sufficiently manned and the postal officials are not adequately paid. At certain times of the year it is impossible to carry out the work effectively because of the lack of sufficient hands to do it. Therefore, after what I have heard stated here by Sir Wm. MuIock, when he was Postmaster General, we are entitled to know, in virtue of what policy we are building Mr. M. MARTIN.
these postal stations. And if my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), and St. James Division (Mr. Gervais) will give us that policy and demonstrate that the money is absolutely required for that purpose and that all other purposes, however urgent, must give way to it, even though the failure to supply them places us in a very inferior position, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I am not asking that the money should not be voted; but when we are asked to vote nearly one quarter of a milliofi dollars, 1 am surely entitled to ask whether that money could not be applied in a wiser manner to far more important wants, and surely it is not necessary to say that we are opposed to public expenditure in the province of Quebec. That is absurd. It is no answer to say that the site for the post office has been bought from a Conservative. Such arguments are childish.


Mr. GERVAIS.: I agree with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier in quite a number of the remarks he has made. We have been in great need for the last 15 or 20 years of large expenditure on improvements in the central post office and in great need of sub-postal stations in the eastern part of Montreal. My hon. friend from St. Antoine Division (Mr. Ames) will admit that the construction of a postal station in the heart of his constituency added a great deal of revenue to the postal department within the city of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not object to sub-post offices that will add as much revenue as does sub-station A.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Since then, I have succeeded in getting a sub-postal station, at a total expenditure of $5,000, which was built on the corner of St. Catherine street east and Amherst street. In the two or three years since that sub-station was established, I think, about $25,000 has been added to the revenue of the central post office in Montreal. I believe that when the government can see its way clear to construct two or three more postal sub stations, scattered over the eastern part of Montreal, fully $100,000 will be added to the general revenue. I admit with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that modern postal facilities have not yet been given to a large part of the city of Montreal. But I hope that within a few months-a couple of years at most-the best ten postal facilities will be given to the whole eastern section of the city. With regard to postal sub-station B, at the corner of St. Catherine street east and Amherst street, I may say that it affords all of the postal facilities to be had at the central post office. Letters are posted and received; letters can be registered; the business of the money order and pest office savings bank branch is carried on; and there is a special and late delivery. I believe that this proposed expenditure of

$25,000 will be very useful. I must remind the hon. gentleman that east of St. Denis street and between Harbour and St. Louis streets you will find at least eleven bank For example, you will find branches of the Molsons, Merchants, Royal, Banque Provinciate, Bank of Montreal, Quebec, and others. That shows that there is a great deal of business done in the eastern part of the city of Montreal. I think the government should have in the estimates not merely $25,000 for the purpose of purchasing a piece of ground at the corner of certain streets, but $150,000 to provide for several postal sub-stations such as that on the corner of Amherst and St. Catherine street east. I believe that the sub-stations should be connected with the central post office by pneumatic tubes, as it was intended to be the case in Toronto. And that was the policy of Sir Wm. Mulock when he was Postmaster General. I think the same thing should be done now.


William Pugsley: That plan was not carried out in Toronto.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad that my hon friend from St. James, Montreal (Mr. Ger-vais), agrees with me in a good many things. He has, at any rate, absolved me from the very cruel imputations of my hon friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (Mr. Mederic Martin). We would like to get more information. Is the delivery , of postal matter in the city of Montreal started from any of these postal stations?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes. From sub-stations A and B there is every kind of delivery just as from the central post office. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) knows very well that many manufacturers are establishing themselves near Craig and Amherst streets. They have been receiving, lately, from six to eight daily deliveries of letters. Private postal boxes have been established at Amherst street sub-station. University street sub-station, and Chaboillez Square sub-station. I repeat that every possible facility is given at these sub-stations that can be given at the central post office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to know whether there are different districts for delivery in Montreal. Do the sub-postal stations serve as centres of mail delivery?
Mr. GERVAIS There are three kinds of districts; there are the remote districts, which are supposed to get three deliveries per day; then there are the sub-postal station districts which are supposed to receive four to six daily deliveries; then there is the commercial centre of Montreal properly speaking, which is bounded by Craig street, the river, Wellington street and Bonsecours market, which district is supposed to get about an hourly delivery, that is about eight deliveries per day. In the northern part of the city, in St. Jean Baptiste ward, the neighbourhood of Mile End, and Mount Royal ward, I think there are at least three deliveries per day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not quite understand my hon. friend. Are these sub-postal stations main centres from which delivery is made? I mean by that, is the postal matter conveyed from the central station to the sub-stations and there handed over to special carriers?


Mr GERVAIS.: Exactly. For example, in each sub-postal station there are head-

quarters lor letter carriers. There are three groups of letter carriers. One will start every hour or two from the central post office; then from each of the sub-postal stations another group of letter carriers start about every hour, with the mail matter which has to be delivered over one-third of the city of Montreal; and there is another group serving the remote districts.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think we are entitled to have some expression of definite policy given us in respect to these sub-delivery stations in the city of Montreal. At present it would seem as if these stations were built purely by favour, instead of the department endeavouring to take the entire city and district it, and then giving to each one of those separate districts one of the distributing sub-stations. So far as I can see, there are at least two of the three sub-stations to the east of St. Lawrence Main street, and now it is proposed to build a third east of St. Lawrence Main street; while the whole portion of the city lying to the south and west, including St. Ann's ward, St. Joseph's ward, and all that section, has no sub-station at all. Am I right?	-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then why should the government at this particular time build a third distributing station in that part of the city which at the present time has the best possible facilities of that kind? You have only to look over the mails that come in from different postal stations throughout the city to understand something of their relative value. There are no less than fifty-two different stations under the control of the Post Office Department in the city of Montreal and the immediate suburbs.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Postal stations and subpost offices.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are no less than 52 different places where work is done for the government, and which the government pays some one to do.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: $50 a year, on an average.


Herbert Brown Ames: Various prices. For example, sub-postal station 15, of which the hon. member has spoken gave a revenue last year of $135, while the expenditure is $93.65. But the point I want to make is this, that if it is good policy to have in the city of Montreal, say, four or five substations from which postmen shall distribute mail matter, then I think we ought to know just how the _ city of Montreal is divided, and when it_ is the intention of the government to build the remaining stations that will put the whole city, outside the immediate business cen-Mr. GERVAIS.
tre, upon the same basis. For example, we have heard from the hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) of the great advantage that comes from that Fullum street station, and yet the revenue for the last fiscal year was only $3,165. Now down on Chaboillez Square in the heart of a great business centre, there is a building being temporarily used, and the revenue derived there is $13,968. Now if we are to put up another building in St. Mary's division at the demand of the hon. member for that division, where the revenue is only $3,165, what about that great portion of the city served by the Chaboillez Square station where the revenue is four times as much? Even the station which the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Ger-vais) has been telling about, station C on Amherst street, only gives a revenue of $11,108. So the government, in building these sub-stations, is not building them in accordance with the needs of the district or with the revenue of the district, but simply by political favouritism, and in those sections of the city which need them least. My protest is this, that there should be adopted a regular and definite plan, and that where the business is greatest and the need is greatest, there a building should go up first, and that the other outlying sections with less business should not be served until the most important sections are served. I now enter this request of the minister and of the government generally, to the effect that if you are to endow the different sections of the city of Montreal with these postal distributing stations, the first district to be endowed should be the Chaboillez Square district, which gives tc-day the second largest revenue of all the 52 stations.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The question of distance for distribution is a very important one. What is the distance between Cha-boiliez Square and the central post office? Not more than three-quarters of a mile. We have some sub-postal stations that have only been in operation for one year and a half. I think it is a proof of its necessity if, after one year and a half we are getting now a revenue of over $11,000 from a subpost office. Let me tell my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) that his constituency has been princely served, because the total cost of sub-postal station A, right in the heart of his constituency, has cost over $200,000. I may say that before a couple of years are past, the revenue of the sub-postal station B, in St. Catherine street and Amherst street will exceed the revenue of the sub-postal station in the district of the hon. member for St. Antoine.	.
The hon. member for St. Antoine will, I suppose, concede that there is a tremendous amount of business being done daily upon St. Catherine street, between Visita-

tion street and St. Lawrence Main. The grand total of the business in St. James division is as great as that on St. Catherine street within the boundary of St. Antoine division. The hon. member for St. Antoine should not expect to have his protest considered very seriously by this government. I do not know at whose request he has been enjoying the good will of the government to the amount of a quarter of a million dollars without any more benefit than the government is getting from the sub-station building at Amherst and St. Catherine streets. I understand that the government is not paying more than $1,500 rent for the building used as a sub-postal station at Amherst and St. Catherine streets, which is not to be compared with the interest which the government is paying on the quarter of a million it has spent for the building of the monumental sub postal station at University and St. Catherine streets west. I think, therefore, that this committee can well disregard any protest made on behalf of the hon. member for St. Antoine.


Mr. DOHEETY.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the whole question is a question of distance from the central post office and that the- business to be attended to has nothing to do with it?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes, it has.


Charles Joseph Doherty: How does the hon. gentleman explain that this rented establishment that produces this income of $13,000 a year is to be treated as of less consequence than an establishment that produces $3,000 a year? He tells my hon. friend from St. Antoine that the government has spent $200,000 in his division. Does the hon. gentleman know that this particular post office producing this large revenue is in the division of St. Ann and will he tell us what monumental generosity the government bestowed upon that division?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: In St. James division the government has not spent more than $5,000 per year for the maintenance of Amherst street sub-postal station, although that sub-postal station has given as large a revenue as the Chaboillez Square postal station. The distance between Amherst street sub-postal station and the central post office is about double the distance between the sub-postal office and Chaboillez Square in St. Ann's division. I am not against the establishment or maintenance of a postal station on Chaboillez Square. I am in favour of the establishment of as many sub-postal stations as possible, taking into consideration the question of business and revenue.


Herbert Brown Ames: Just one word more and that is to ask the minister if he will be 42
good enough, in the course of this present year, and before he comes to the House again with further estimates for additional sub-postal stations in Montreal, to give to this matter of the sub-postal stations in our city some serious consideration as to where they should be placed, and determine that their location may not be based simply upon the needs of a single constituency or upon the demands of two or three members of this House. All that we ask is that the minister shall look upon the city of Montreal from a business point of view. Here lies a city stretching four miles in one direction by three miles in another. In the centre is the main post office. If we are going to have sub-distribution stations how many should we establish, three, four, five or six, or whatever number is necessary to meet the needs of the case? If we decide that we are to establish four, where shall we place them? Let there be a definite policy, so that it may be understood when we are building1 this one to-day that one will be built to-morrow, this one a year after, and that one in a subsequent year; so that we may feel that the entire city of Montreal, having an equal claim upon the government, is epuitably treated and a complete system is evolved in consequence. Otherwise, we find that it becomes the practice for a member representing the division, particularly on the government side, to make before the electors great promises as to securing them a post office, and then, having secured the appropriation, he endeavours to put that post office in a place that will be most useful to that particular entourage without reference to the interests of the city as a whole. These post offices should be placed not with reference to ward boundaries, but with reference to the needs of the districts which they are to serve, and I hope the minister will take thati matter up with the expectation of giving' the city of Montreal four or five suitably situated postal sub-stations.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: That has been the policy of the government.


Herbert Brown Ames: No, they have got them all in this half of the city.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Because the business is there, always going more and more to the east of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: No, while they have done that the largest revenue with one exception comes from the Chaboillez Square section.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These stations are all built on the recommendation of the Postmaster General by the Department of Public Works, and that is why I think it would have been more satisfactory if we had had a statement of a general system adopted by the government and an explanation of



a plan applicable to the whole city of Montreal from the Postmaster General, because the Minister of Public Works is not in a position to give us that information. As far as Montreal is concerned there is no idea whatever of differentiating between the east and west. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) will, I think, admit that readily. What we want is an efficient postal system. I think that in Toronto, they are more exacting upon that points Our only desire is that we should have our rights in this matter. We ask that in the city of Montreal you will give us an efficient postal system with sure and certain delivery. Although the employees do their very best, and although they are most efficient, there is no certainty that a letter posted at an important business place in the eastern part of the city, at the Angus shops, for instance, will reach its destination in time.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: They have a sub-post office there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no certainty, I say, that the letter will be delivered at Point St. Charles at a certain hour. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais) knows it very well. There are drop letter boxes and there is something marked on the boxes as to the hour at which the next collection will be made. That mark is almost always obliterated from the box. I have never seen it so in the city of Toronto. It is important, when you drop a letter in the box, that the signs should be there in order that you may know exactly when the last collection was made and when the next one will be made. These things appear to be trifling details, but my hon. friend knows they are very important and if we have a service there equal to what they have in Toronto you will see an increase in the postal revenue in Montreal which will carry us far beyond the revenue at present obtained in Toronto, which is the largest revenue in the Dominion. Does my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) think it is unpatriotic to plead for that?


William Melville Martin: They are doing it in the province of Ontario through Mr. Ross and in Quebec now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to hear that. With regard to postal stations I may say that a suitable and ornamental sub-station could be erected cheaper than is the case under the present system, and if we are to have many of these we should see that they are all of the same model as is the case irt the United States where you can recognize the sub-postal station buildings from afar. It should not be the rule that the building in St. Mary's division should be a very fine and costly one because the member representing that division is an influential and Mr. MONK.
big man, and that another division just as important though not so influentially represented should have a smaller building. If the minister gives me the occasion -tct tender I will undertake to build such postal stations as I have suggested for far less money then he is now spending, and I shall be able to retire with a competency.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is always eloquent but he has not explained the conditions in the central post office in Montreal. That post office has practically been doing the postal business of the greater part of Canada, and the officials there have been sorting the incoming European mail to the advantage of the employees of the Toronto office. Should the plan be carried out of sorting the European mail on the ocean steamers the officials of the Montreal post office will have more time to attend to local business. I think myself that the Toronto office should do the sorting and distribution for Winnipeg and the west.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then there is something wrong in the system.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have no right to speak for the government, but from my; point of view I think the present system is not a perfect one and can be improved.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) is qualifying for the office of Postmaster General.


Clarence Jameson: I was in Montreal last Sunday and I desired at six o'clock to mail a letter for the train which leaves Windsor station at 7.25, but I was informed that the mail had been closed.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that under the new Sabbath Observance law it is forbidden even to the officials of the government that they should work on Sunday, except on very urgent business.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister lay on the table of the House at his earliest convenience a statement showing the boundaries of the districts to be served by each of the two sub-stations for which a vote is asked in these estimates?


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to ask the Postmaster General for that.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: We must have a horse before we build a stable and the Post Office Department must wait for the business to grow before it erects post offices, so that it is idle to ask for a plan of what may be done in the future, in districts of the Montreal Island where there is no business today.
Montreal General Post Office

Enlargements, additions and alterations, including fittings, furniture, &c., $127,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has the contract for that?


William Pugsley: Peter Lyall & Sons.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much was the original contract?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: How much has already been spent on that contract?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure to the 31st December, 1908, was $640,302.70. This includes $200,000 paid for the site to the Montreal 'Gazette'; printing, advertising, supervision, architect's commission, $11,400; paid city of Montreal for right of passage over Fortification lane, $14,592, paid on account of heating apparatus, $2,700; blue stone side walks, $620; contractors, $410,990. The total probable cost, including the site, will be $780,554.70.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much will be needed to complete the contract work.


William Pugsley: No more; this will complete everything.


Herbert Brown Ames: What extras have been paid to Mr. Peter Lyall in connection with the contract?


William Pugsley: There were no extras at all.


Herbert Brown Ames: There will be many of them before you are through.


William Pugsley: There is no indication of it.
Quebec Post Office-Elevators, improvements, repairs and fittings, $13,000.


Clarence Jameson: Is there a contract for; that?


William Pugsley: Tenders have been called for and the order in council drafted recommending the contract, but I do not know that it is signed.
St. Johns Public Building, $6,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is that for?


William Pugsley: A post office.


James Davis Taylor: Does this complete it?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Sherbrooke Drill Hall, $45,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: When will that be completed?


William Pugsley: It is expected to be completed, under the terms of the contract, on the 2nd of November, 1909.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) wishes to know whether this drill hall will be large enough to accommodate the new company which is being organized there?


William Pugsley: Not being the Minister of Militia I cannot say, but I assume that it would.
42j
Three Rivers-New Public Building-To replace building destroyed by fire, June 22, 1908, $40,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the government place any insurance on any of its buildings?


William Pugsley: No.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


James Davis Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Paterson: The first will be the Bill that stands in the name of the Minister of Justice. Then we will go into Supply, and continue with the estimates of the Public Works Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 19, 1909.