1909-11-29

Mr.  A. B.@: WARBURTON (Queens, Prince Edward Island) moved that the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, and volumes I. and III. 'of the report of the Auditor General for the same period, be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coel. Before that motion is put I wish to direct the attention of this House to the advisability of making some change in our method of procedure in the Public Accounts Committee. There is no member of this House, whether he be a member of the Public Accounts Committee or not, who has not some knowledge of the very great difficulty experienced in getting at the information which the public of this country require in relation to the Public Accounts of Canada. There is no member of this House who. aside from political considerations, would hesitate to admit that in certain cases our investigations are not as full as thev ought to be and that we do not get at the true state of the facts to

the extent we should. The opposition which we who investigate axe met with [DOT]from time to time by certain gentlemen in the House is one conspicuous cause of the failure to elicit the facts. In the years that have gone by it is true we have been able to divulge very startling conditions in reference to the public expenditure of Canada, but I venture to think, and I believe most people in Canada who follow the trend of public affairs think, that we are only on the threshold of all that could be divulged did we have the proper facilities to elicit it. I would be glad to feel-and for the present I will assume, and the subsequent attitude which the government takes will show whether I am justified or not- I would be glad to feel that the government is as anxious as are the members of the opposition that full light should be thrown on the circumstances surrounding the expenditure of public moneys. Following a time honoured precedent the hon. gentleman (Mr. Warburton) has to-day moved that the Public Accounts and 'the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31 be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for investigation.
Now, what I propose, Mr. Speaker, is that we 'should have a wider range; that instead of referring the public accounts merely for the year ending the 31st March last and the Auditor General's Report for the same period, we should Tefer at least two ; years of the public accounts to that committee. I do this for various reasons, one of which is that it is the Public Accounts and the Auditor General's Report for the year ending 31st March last which give the true bearing of certain items in the accounts of the year preceding. Therefore as it should be the object of every member of this House to get at the true state of the facts in the most expeditious manner possible, it is important that we should be able, after these accounts have come in, to go back to the preceding year and avail ourselves of the information afforded by the subsequent transactions in connection with the same item. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that many hon. gentlemen who believe they -are acting in the interest of their party set themselves deliberately to block the investigation which is going on, impelled by the belief that if they can prevent it for one year it will be dropped altogether. The matter comes up within a few weeks of prorogation, and they will not allow the investigation to proceed rapidly; they take all the technical and captious objections possible, with the result that very little information is elicited during the balance of the session; and when we come to another session we are confronted with the statement: You cannot go into that, because the only public accounts referred to the committee are those of the year ended the 31st of March last. If the public ac-Mr. LENNOX.
counts of the two years w7ere referred, to the committtee, we would not be met with that difficulty, because these hon. gentlemen would realize, contrary to what they believe now, that we could not be blocked altogether in our investigations. It may be suggested that it would be rather unfortunate if the committee went back to investigate not the public accounts of last year, but those of the year before. To that I reply that no hon. member of this House is going to ask the committee to investigate for two years back, unless there is some good reason for doing it. It is said that there are no birds in last year's nests, and we realize that in the majority of cases our best work is done on the recent accounts; but there are a great many cases in which light can be thrown on a transaction on which the public should be informed if the rule did not confine us to one year's accounts, but gave us liberty to investigate the accounts ot two years. I had intended to move an amendment to this motion, but I have decided not to do so on this occasion. I have listened, not always with approval, to the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to long sessions. I have tried to believe, but have not succeeded in believing, that these hon. gentlemen are sincere in the ideas which suggest these remarks. Any one who reads the records of this House will, on a careful study of this matter, come to the conclusion, that the evidence is not strong that the government is sincere in desiring short sessions. If we want to have short sessions combined with efficiency of investigation, we will adopt the suggestion I make. If hon. gentlemen desire to have the time of the Public Accounts Committee used to advantage, and a rule broad enough to enable us to work effectively without having to make special applications to the House, they will agree to the suggestion I make, and say that in years to come, as long at any rate as this government is in power-and I think I can promise that when we get into power in the near future, we shall be quite willing to continue the rule-we shall have the right, without making any special motion in the House, to investigate the public accounts and the Auditor General's Report for at least two years whenever any hon. gentleman of this House deems it in the public interest that such an investigation should be made.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has not made any motion on the subject proposed, it is not necessary for me to discuss the matter at length. The impressions I have received of the Public Accounts Committee are not the same as those which my hon. friend seems to entertain. I think that those who have given the closest attention to the Public Accounts Committee will be able to testify th^t the

investigations of that committee are very thorough, and they take a very wide range. If one wanted to be critical, he could often complain that the committee enters into the consideration of matters which strictly speaking do not pertain to its duties at all. But on a question of that character it is well to take a very liberal view not to be too technical. Inasmuch as we have annual parliaments, it follows that there should be annual inquiries into the public accounts. These matters are all regulated by the long experience of the mother of parliaments, and the rules and practices found to be successful in the mother country may safely, in most instances, be continued here. I quite understand that there may be cases in which the events of one year may be closely connected to those of another; the transaction beeinning in one year may extend into another year. In cases of that kind it would not be unreasonable that the whole transaction should be reviewed, and I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee would at all times be willing to grant such an investigation. If there be any special circumstances which seem to call for such an inquiry, I think we can safely trust in the future as in the past the wisdom of the Public Accounts Committee and ultimately the wisdom of the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that in the discussion of questions in that committee occasionally some party feeling may be manifested on one side or on the other; a man who has strong party views may sometimes think that a man who has strong party views on the other side is a little unreasonable. We must learn to make allowance for one another in these things. 1 am persuaded that, all in all, the work of the Public Accounts Committee is well done; and if it should be desired at any time to inquire into a matter that is not before the committee in the usual formal way, I am sure that the committee and the House of Commons itself will always, on a statement of the facts, be prepared to provide a remedy.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I would like to say a word in support of what the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has said. My experience of the Public Accounts Committee differs entirely from that of the Minister of Finance; and when he invokes the example of the mother of parliaments, my hon. friend cannot ignore the fact that the investigation of the public accounts is very differently conducted in the mother country. In England, under the rules of the House, the Public Accounts Committee is composed of eleven of or at most fifteen members of the House. The chairman is always by custom a member of the opposition. It would be entirely unheard of in England that one of the members of the committee, desiring
infox'mation on some particular transaction, would be opposed by a member of the same committee on legal technicalities. The thing has never occurred, and never could occur there, because the idea that dominates the Committee of Public Accounts in the British parliament is that any man can ask any question which may lead him to a full understanding of the transaction under consideration. But what do we find here? So far from exhibiting any wisdom, the proceedings in the Public Accounts Committee, during the past four or five years, have degenerated into a farce. People go there just to see the kind of a battle that is carried on, just to hear the objections made and the difficulties put in the way of getting any information on any transaction. I appeal to any hon. gentleman who has attended any of the meetings, if that be not the case. That committee is the place where it is most difficult to get any information. What usually happens? A number of gentlemen, who form part of the committee, come to the meeting, and a certain number do not find a single matter to investigate. It is but fair to presume therefore that they are satisfied with the accounts presented to them. They do not ask any questions, but are perfectly content. Other members come there who are not so easily pleased. Certain transactions have come under their observations on which they desire to be informed, and they call for the papers. These are brought down, and on looking over them, these members of the committee find reasons for pushing their researches a little further. Witnesses are then brought before the committee, but the minute you begin to examine them, other members of the committee, who 'seldom come there, who have asked for no papers, who presumably are satisfied with everything, make their appearance on such occasions, and make it their business to enter objections and prevent the investigation. Is that the case or is it not? Some four or five members, in some cases more, troop into that Public Accounts Committee room for the sole object of blocking the investigation. There can be no doubt about that. The best proof is that these gentleman, as a rule, are able lawyers, and they interpose objections just as they would in a court of law. An hon. member from Nova Scotia will base his objection upon the rules of investigation which obtain in his particular province. Other members from other provinces will make objections founded on rules of evidence which govern in their respective provinces. The result is you cannot proceed. If the case be one which seems to lead up to discoveries of irregularities, the stronger are the objections and the greater is the number of members who come in to support them. It seems to me that proceeds from an entire mis-

conception of the duties of that committee. There is no possible ground, I submit, on which one hon. member can object to another obtaining information, unless the latter ill-treats the witness or clearly wishes to obstruct the work of the committee, but when he puts a question to a witness with regard to a fact, is it tolerable that one of his colleagues should object because that question violates some rule of evidence in some provincial court, For instance, the objection will be urged that you cannot put that question unless you have a commencement of proof in writing or some other absolutely technical objection, which could only be made in a court of law. We have all seen some particular member apparently designated as being an able lawyer accustomed to cross-examine,, come into that committee when there is some ticklish matter under investigation, involving irregular transactions on the part of the government. We have seen four or five such members come there and sedulously one after another, object to questions on some technical rule of evidence. All members of parliament are not lawyers, and it is quite clear that this group of members has for its object the blocking of evidence and the preventing of our obtaining that information which the committee ou^ht to have. I am very glad that my hon. friend from Simcoe has brought that matter to the notice of the House. It has been noticed by all strangers and witnesses attending the committee, and the result is that the examination before that committee, instead of being serious, becomes a farce.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: I am very much surprised at the statements of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). If these came from other members of the opposition, I would say that they were drawing upon their imaginations, but my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), I think, is the last person who ought to complain of the treatment he has received from the Public Accounts Committee. I have been rather a regular attendant at the meetings of that committee during the past three or four sessions


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And I challenge the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to point out one specific case in which he ever asked a proper question for proper information and failed to have that question allowed.


Mr. LENNOX.: I may say that I have not asked many questions altogether in the Public Accounts Committee. and I do not recollect that my hon. friend ever interrupted me, and I would not be particular Mr. MONK.
if he did, because I am able to fight my way, but I have heard, on many occasions, objections made on technical grounds to questions put.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I knew that the hon. gentleman could not point to one instance when he put a proper question and it was objected to. But let me point out what has occasioned this irritation on the part of the hon. members for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and others of their friends. In the first place, they ask for the papers and the original papers are brought down. Then they ask that witnesses be summoned; and to the best of my recollection, there never has been a refusal to bring witnesses from any part of the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Thousands and tens of thousands of dollars have been squandered bringing witnesses, who, not only could not give any information, but who, I believe, these gentlemen knew could not give any; but they brought them because they had some ulterior object in view. After asking a few questions regarding the item under discussion, they drift off to some other outside matter, and when members of the committee who have some regard for the rules of order and decency


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. CARVELL-attempt to hold them down to the question under discussion, these gentlemen make the charge that an attempt is being made to burk the investigation. Let them ask for their witnesses, and confine themselves to the subject matter under investigation and I can promise, as far as I am concerned, that they will meet with no difficulty, and I challenge them to point out where I or any other member, in the past four sessions, have attempted to obstruct investigation into any particular subject before the committee.
I am very glad this matter has come up. These accusations have been hurled at members on this side of the House from one end of Canada to the other. And I may say that my own name has been bandied about from the Atlantic to the Pacific as one of the leaders of a dark lantern brigade. I have only to repeat that I have not a word to take back that I have ever uttered in that committee. I have never objected to a solitary question that was proper;-I do not mean technically proper; I am not talking along the line of whether a question is one that would be allowed in a court of law or not; I mean a question bearing on the subject at issue. If these hon. gentlemen opposite will direct their investigations to the subject under discussion and not to some extrinsic matter they will have no difficulty. But I am afraid that if they continue to carry out the policy they have

pursued in the past, of attempting to bring out matters that have nothing to do with the subject under discussion, if they will attempt to use the Public Accounts Committee and the money of Canada as a means of trying to get some information which they think may possibly be of benefit to them in their constituencies but has nothing to do with the subject of the investigation, they will meet with the same treatment that they have met with in the past and of which they are complaining here to-day. We might as well have a clear understanding on this point. As a matter of fact, so far as I, for one, am concerned, there has been no objection in the past, and will be no objection in the future, to any proper investigation; every subject can be laid as bare as it possibly can be laid. On the other hand, I can only warn hon. members that if they will attempt to use this power of investigation in a way in which they are not entitled to use it, I am afraid they will meet with the same treatment as in the past.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (East Hamilton).: I do not desire to occupy the time of the House in repeating what other gentlemen have said on this very important subject. I think (that, especially seeing that we have a new chairman, not so much accustomed as others to our ways, even what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has said, may do a great deal of good. I can say that I have nothing to complain of particularly myself; but I have again and again in that committee heard gentlemen who are not versed in the methods and forms of the law, attempting to ask a question of a witness, a perfectly proper question, when three or four gentlemen would at once spring to their feet objecting that the question was not put in proper form. There is not a member of that committee who hears me but knows that that is the case. The hon. member for Carleton, N. B., (Mr. Carvell) asked the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to give an instance. I can give him a very common instance of most outrageous interference with the witnesses, i have myself, again and again, in examining witnesses as to the value of property which they have sold to the government, asked them, as the very best test of that value, what they had paid for the property, which, perhaps, they had bought within a month and may not even have paid for; and everybody knows who is on that committee who the gentlemen were who objected that this was an attempt to compel a man to disclose his private business. The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) will not deny this-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. member name a specific instance; I cannot recall such a thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to have an instance.


Samuel Barker: There are so many that it is quite unnecessary-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Barker: One case was brought before the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was it?


Samuel Barker: That is quite enough; I will not give names unnecessarily; I know what I am talking about, and I do not think that there is one of the gentlemen here who has been declaiming but knows that I have only stated the facts. We have investigated the prices of articles sold to the government where we know that the most extravagant prices have been paid. I have asked what the seller paid for it, and what was his reply? His reply, suggested by a member of the committee, was that that was prying into a man's private business. I have even heard the chairman say that the witness was not bound to answer. Is that decent? Is that right? Is that reasonable, fair investigation? The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) knows that for a whole week we struggled with one witness to make him produce his invoices. He refused. We, at last, put him in a position where he would be forced to produce them, and then he said they were burnt. And we had to bring a man all the way from Galt, Ontario, to tell us at what price he sold these articles to the witness when the witness might have told us at once. I have heard members, not of the legal profession, asking a witness questions who were persist-tently interrupted by some legal gentlemen until the witness, alive to what was going on, found in what he should be careful, and then we might as well abandon the investigation. That is a very common thing, and every member of that committee knows it. As I have said, however, I think this little discussion will do good. It tends to show the absurdity of pretending that this is a court of inquiry to be conducted according to legal procedure. It is an investigation of business questions by business men, and ought to be carried on in the way in which business men would investigate such questions in their own office.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: As one member of that committee, for some time past I have regarded it as of little value in ascertaining anything with regard to the expenditure of public money. There is hardly a layman in this House, except one or two, who would go before that committee to investigate any of the matters referred to, for we know from experience that as soon as it appears that information is being brought out of value to the country,



we are badgered by a number of lawyers in that committee under the plea that we are not following the procedure laid down for a court of law. These gentlemen seem to forget that the rules that apply in a court of law do not apply here. I am well within the mark when I say I have heard that plea raised a hundred times, and I have often seen fifteen or twenty minutes of the valuable time of that committee wasted in a discussion which finally resulted in the member being prevented from putting his question because it was not according to the rules of evidence in a court of law. And I do not know a much greater sinner in this respect than the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says that the effort is to make the investigation thorough, and that it is thorough. It may be thorough as far as it goes, but, unfortunately, it does not go far enough. The time at the disposal of the committee is not sufficient to enable it to make a fair inquiry, by the examining of witnesses, when members are hampered in putting their questions. Of the thousands of items in the Auditor General's Report, only an extremely small proportion can be investigated owing to the absolute obstruction in that committee. That has been found to be the case over and over again. It may be said that if you go back over more than one year you even increase the number of subjects to he investigated. That is true. But one advantage of going back, as any one who has been in the House any considerable length of time will know, is that you may get most valuable information regarding these transactions after a year has passed. Generally, parties are close-mouthed for a year, but when they begin to settle up they are apt to be dissatisfied with one another and to disclose information which would not otherwise be in the possession of members or of this House. But, try to go hack into the previous public expenditures and you are met at once with the objection: 'You are going beyond the fiscal year.' That objection has been raised over and over again.
The members of the committee who have been endeavouring to get information have ' been prevented from getting it on that one ground alone, I do not'think that is right. I remember a long inquiry that took place in 1893, and when the then opposition desired to go back two years, the offer was made to them that they might go back two years, or three years, or four or five years, and they got that right. We said they had the right to go back just as far as they liked, only they would have to say that thev had reasonable grounds for suspicion that something was wrong; and if they desired to bring evidence with regard to anything that took place three or four years ago, we allowed that to be done. I Mr. SPROULE.
thought that was right. I always agreed with it when our friends were in power.
I think if there were not an effort made now to restrict the inquiry within the limit of one year, and that the last year, there would not be so much inclination to go back. But only in cases where there was a strong ground for suspicion that something could be got out which had not been brought to public attention, would any member of parliament desire to go back beyond a year. I think it would do a great deal of good if we had the right, though we might not exercise it very often. The Minister of Finance says: If you make certain allegations of fact the House will consent. Well, allegations of fact have been presented to that committee over and over again, and the committee did not consent; and I think in one or two cases when it was brought up in the House, the House did not consent. There is always some excuse made, so that no matter what you do you are confronted with obstruction, and you are prevented from doing what you conceive to be your duty. The hon. member opposite who just took his seat said that no proper question was ever refused. Well, what is meant by a proper question depends altogether on the mind of the gentleman who uses the word. If we were only to ask such questions as the hon. gentleman thought were proper questions, we would never bring out the information that we desired. Besides, one hon. gentleman might have something in his mind that others did not have, and he might desire to ask the question in a way that wrould bring out information which other hon. gentlemen could not bring out. I know that many laymen have been prevented from asking questions in the committee to such an extent that they have abandoned the attempt to go before that committee and endeavour to get any information, because of the way they are badgered by, I was going to say, the brigade of lawyers who have been constantly in the Public Accounts Committee session after session apparently to obstruct for many years past.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: I beg to move the following amendment. [DOT]
That the motion now read be amended by inserting the words 'Public Accounts and Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending 31st March 1908' immediately after the word ' period ' in the said motion.
I have very little to add to wdiat has already been said, other than that it seems to me to be a very reasonable request on the part of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that the Public Accounts Committee should have an opportunity to investigate accounts further back in the history of this government than one

year. It is well known that it is only after a session commences that the Auditor General's Report is placed in the hands of members. Up to the present time we only have volume I. and volume III. of the Auditor General's Report, and I suppose it will be some days before we see volume II. That fact in itself is sufficient reason why the Public Accounts Committee should have an opportunity of investigating the Auditor General's Report after it has been in their hands for seven, or eight, or ten months.
My hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) says that his name has been bandied from the Atlantic to' the Pacific ocean, to use his own words. If that is so, the reason is that my hon. friend has been the chief offender in the Public Accounts Committee, and if his name is well known from one end of this country to the other, as he states, it is because he has been most prominent among those who were unwilling to allow the opposition to investigate the public accounts of this government. Whether my hon. friend thinks that is an enviable reputation or not he must judge for himself. My hon. friend was asking for an example. I will give one. We had before the Public Accounts Committee the well known Mr. Mer-win, the great middleman who has been supplying the government with goods for many years. That gentleman was called before the committee and the question was put to him:	' How much did you pay for
these goods that were supplied to the government at such an enormous cost?' The gentleman supporting the government in the committee at once flew to his rescue and said:	'Don't answer the question.'
The chairman coincided, and the question was not answered then. But after my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) summoned the gentleman who manufactured the goods, Mr. Willson, of Montreal, and after that gentleman came before the committee and was asked:	' What did you
supply these goods for to the general traders throughout the country?' and after he was compelled to answer that question, then the committee said:	'Oh, yes, Mr. Merwin can answer it now.' Now if there is any person in the House of Commons, or any member in the Public Accounts Committee, who, more than another, is responsible for the expenditure of large sums of money for bringing witnesses from different parts of the country, it is my hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, he and his chief supporters in the committee. It is well known that one of the chief charges against this government is that they have .refused to the opposition members, and have refused to the people of Canada who are the taxpayers, such information as they are entitled to. That has been one of the chief charges against the govern-20i
ment for the last few years. Why is it that the government are afraid to let us- investigate the accounts that are two years old? If the public accounts are as fair as the government would lead this House to believe, then the Prime Minister himself should be the first man to stand up and say: This government is all right, we fear no investigation, let the opposition have all the latitude they want. We are not asking to investigate accounts ten years old; my hon. friend is only asking that accounts about two years old, should be brought before the committee for investigation. Surely that is a reasonable request, and if I am not mistaken, it is a request that the people of this country will endorse. I say that one of the principle charges against the government is that they are buying goods at enormous prices from middlemen, and the opposition are making an effort to investigate the charge in, some of the most glaring cases. My hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick* says if cases of this kind come up, perhaps, if you bring them before the committee, we may allow you to bring witnesses. Are we to be at the mercy of my hon. friend and his supporters in the committee? It is a well known fact that the committee is a partisan committee, the chairman is a supporter of the government, a large majority of the members of the committee are supporters of the government. If any man will look at the divisions in that committee during the last two years, he will find that when a question of this kind comes up, the supporters of the government on the committee, almost to a man, stand up and declare that these charges are too old and cannot be investigated. I am heartily in accord with my hon. friend's suggestion, and, therefore, I have the honour to present a motion which will give an opportunity to the Public Accounts Committee to make a fair and honest investigation of the public accounts of Canada.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mr. Speaker, after the speech of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), which I thought was on the whole very moderate, I did not expect my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) would move the amendment which he has just placed in your hands. I am unable to say at this moment whether this motion will toe acceptable to this House or whether it will not. I listened to the observations of my hon. friend -with some care, and I do not think I would object very seriously to the suggestion which he made to have the record of the accounts of the government for the last two years investigated. The matter is one which is quite worthy of consideration. I might say to my hon. friend, however, that he was a little more I -what shall I say?-previous than his

friend. If he had given us an opportunity to have looked at his motion, I do not think that we would have objected to it very seriously. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) observed that our procedure in the Public Accounts Committee was not on all fours with the example of the mother country. He stated that in the mother country the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee always belongs to the opposition. That is a practice which has never been followed in Canada as far as my memory goes. I am pretty sure that at confederation the practice was adopted which has prevailed ever since of selecting as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee a supporter of the government. There has been no departure from that principle. Perhaps it is regrettable in this matter we have not followed the example of the mother country. I think that we would do well, as far as we can, to conform our procedure to the rules which prevail in the mother land. But, perhaps my hon. friend will not have any objection if I ask him to allow this matter to stand so that we may consider this motion and perhaps we may come to an agreement upon it.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, 1 sincerely hope that the mover of this amendment will accept the suggestion made by the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and allow this matter to stand in the hope that the government will accept the proposition. As I take the words of the right hon. gentleman as an indication that the government intend to look into this matter, I would venture to suggest that there is another matter that they might well consider in connection with the same committee. Whether the committee is to be allowed to go back two years or only one is a matter of comparatively little moment, but there does seem to me to be a matter of the utmost importance, the very basis upon which the committee works, and this may be an opportune time to have it decided what the real function of each member of that committee is. Without wishing to do anything more than to speak with perfect calmness upon the matter, I think that all members upon this side of the House will say that our chairman for the last term gave perfect satisfaction to this side of the House, both by his ability and integrity. Whenever papers have been moved for to be brought before the committee there has been no ground for complaint from this side of the House of any papers not being allowed to be obtained. As far as the subpoenaeing of witnesses is concerned, I do not think that primarily there is any ground for complaint by hon. members on this side of the House. So, Sir, a great deal of good can be done by the committee, and I ven-Kir WILFRID LATTRIER.
ture to think a great deal more might be done if one little change were made. When a matter is referred to the committee, prima facie, it being the Public Accounts Committee, every member of this House would have the same duty to perform; that is, to endeavour, if possible, to ascertain if the funds of the people have been properly or improperly spent. Nobody could have attended the meetings of that committee without having been struck by two facts; first, that no member of that committee has the slightest interest in investigating the payment of any of these accounts except members of the opposition. I quite admit that it would not altogether be natural for members of the government to be as suspicious as members of the opposition, but I think every one must admit- which casts a light upon the subsequent proceedings-that under no circumstances is any attempt made to investigate anything by any member of the House except by a member of the opposition. For this reason the whole committee is formed into two camps, and this does seem to be absolutely absurd' in a committee like the Public Accounts 'Committee.
There is no doubt that when this committee comes to the discharge of its duties it has one side-the opposition-trying to investigate and the other side-the government-trying to prevent investigation. It is all very well to find fault with this, that and the other thing, but there is the primary difficulty and so from day to day the opposition is prevented from making the investigation it desires to make. Let me give you a little illustration. We have the case occurring again and again when a matter has come before the committee. A question has been asked in the committee and it has been ruled that it has been improperly asked. A vote is taken in the committee and a report is asked for in order that the minority of the committee may appeal to this House, where hon. gentlemen are in the majority and where there is a ' Hansard ' in order that the matter may be threshed out whether the member of the opposition who asked the question was wrong or whether the supporters of the government who prevented it from being answered were wrong. Surely one would think there could be no conceivable objection to a question of that kind being referred to this House where hon. gentlemen opposite are in such a majority, yet the rule has been laid down again and again that we shall not be allowed the right of appeal from the Public Accounts Committee to this House unless the whole matter is closed, and that means that the party who has been unable to ask the question must drop that question and all other questions he wishes to ask in order to get an opportunity of finding out whether the primary question was correct or not.

Can any one imagine that any hon. gentleman who really desired to have a fair and honest investigation of the public accounts would impose such a condition upon men who were asking a question or who would say that you are bound by that question and that you shall not be allowed to appeal to the House of Commons unless, you drop your case and forego all other questions that you wish to ask? That is the greatest objection we have had in the committee and it does seem to me that there is no reason why we should not be allowed to appeal upon an interlocutory matter in the committee just as well as upon a final matter. Another difficulty that has arisen is that every witness practically that the opposition examines is an adverse witness. I do not suppose one would find one witness out of a hundred in the Public Accounts Committee who is not an adverse witness and that is a drawback to the opposition in its investigations.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What do you mean by an adverse witness?


William Barton Northrup: Adverse to the party trying to investigate the accounts and bring out the facts as to the expenditure. In trying to find out whether the expenditure is honest or not the witness, in almost every case, is adverse to the crossexaminer because he wishes to prevent the facts being elicited. There is no disputing the fact that the great majority of witnesses are very able witnesses-exceedingly able witnesses-men who know the facts, who, in most cases, are interested in concealing the facts and men who are most competent to attain the object which they desire. If members sitting on the government side would help members on the opposition side to investigate these matters instead of helping to burk such, inquiry they would only be doing their full duty to the public. Instead of being hindered we should receive from them every possible assistance. How often does it happen, that in a case which it is in the interests of the people that the facts should be made known, the cross-examiner, when he begins to examine his witness, knows exactly how far his case will go, knows exactly what evidence he is to receive? It seems to me that if a member of this House is willing to spend the time that is necessary-and every one who has taken charge of such matters knows the long preparation necessary in investigation and inquiry-it does seem to me it would come with better grace from hon. gentlemen opposite if they would assist the member who is trying to do his duty instead of throwing obstacles in his way. I am prepared to support the amendment made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain), but I do hope the right hon. leader of the House will consider carefully the functions of this committee, and perhaps when we
get the new rules which are promised there may be one under which the work of the Public Accounts Committee will in the future be much more valuable than it has been in the past.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Whilst we are all in such an amicable mood maybe the House would listen for a moment to another suggestion which, not for the first time, I have to make, and indeed I am not sure that the first minister himself is not entirely in favour of it. I was glad to hear the remarks made by the Minister of Finance with reference to the reasonableness of the committee (and he was certain of the House) granting the committee back time so to speak, were it shown to be necessary in order to get at all the facts of the case; and also the position taken by the Prime Minister in thinking the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) a reasonable one. The two great troubles that appear to be in the way of that committee doing the work it ought to do are these: in the first place the committee is too large to do good work. We assemble pretty nearly one half of the House of Commons there, fresh from all the disturbance and party rancour in the House and they immediately line themselves up on two sides, one side never making a move for the investigation of any of the items in the Public Accounts, and indeed watching very carefully and very jealously every move made by the opposition to examine into items, and using every reasonable and sometimes unreasonable method of making the inquiry as ineffective as possible, if not going further and preventing it altogether. Now, you will eliminate the greater part of that unreasonable party spirit on both sides by having a small committee and composing that committee chiefly of men of experience in Public Accounts, and in practical business work. Those are two elements which I think would make an effective committee. I am pretty certain that a committee of 15 members appointed in that way to investigate the Public Accounts would really do good work for the government as well as for the country. After all, it is not any gentleman's affairs that are being looked into; it is not the government's affairs that are being looked into except in so far as they are the supervisors of puhlic expenditure; it is the money of the whole country that has been expended and the whole country and every member of parliament should see to it that that money has been properly expended, or that the facts about its wrong expenditure should be disclosed. In the end nearly every government comes to its defeat- not so much through mistaken policies as through that dead weight growing every year of bad or foolish or corrupt expenditures. The government can have no better

friend than an intelligent and able finance committee before whom in review every item of expenditure may go, with the idea that it will be looked into closely and competently and thoroughly. On these two grounds I would like to urge on the first minister that he take also into consideration the absolute necessity of rescuing that committee from the intolerable and mainly useless position in which it has been placed during these many years past. It has not done the work it should have done; it never 'will under its present constitution, and it is too bad that you must take many hours out of hard worked members of parliament, and pit them against each other in that committee where from the very moment they enter the room until the session is wer they know there is very little chance of getting at the facts of any one case let alone a general revision of the public expenditure. You get rid of that unreasonable party spirit in the committee if you lessen the number of its members, and you will, I think, go largely towards effecting a great reform.
But another way of doing it is that the reasonable views of the first minister and the Minister of Finance as they have been expressed here to-day be impressed upon the members of the government who form that committee that the policy so reasonably laid down and fairly expressed this afternoon by both these gentlemen should be the policy which should rule in the Public Accounts Committee. Give some grace and favour to the opposition; ask yourselves one question and answer it. Ask: Would there be an item of the public expenditure in any year ever looked into if it remained for the members in that committee who represent the government to do so. The answer comes that it has not been done in the past and that it will probably not be done in the future. More than one half of the members of that committee are not doing their work and the other less than half are being hindered from doing it. Lessen the committee and at the same time let the reasonable attitude advanced this afternoon by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance imbue itj members and better work will be done. For myself I am a hard worked member of parliament; I came here to work and I have worked every year I have been here, but I have lost very many most valuable hours in that Public Accounts Committee and have seen very little good come from my efforts until for the last year or two I have cut it out and have largely devoted myself to other kinds of parliamentary . work. That ought not to be. It ought to be the ambition of every hard working rncmbpr of narliament, to nut his force into *ont or two of the committees of this House and do the same hard work there that he does in the House itself. I am hoping for a great deal to come from this proposition Mr. FOSTER.
to adjourn the question under debate and to give time for the first minister to look into the matter.


Richard Blain: At the request of the Prime Minister and as we are so accustomed to being controlled by my right hon. friend I will leave my motion for further consideration. On this side of the House there was no thought of introducing a motion but rather to direct the attention of the government to this most important question until the Minister of Finance took issue with the member for South Simcoe, and so, in order to get the matter fully before the House I moved the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose there is no objection that the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) should carry. The amendment can be renewed by my hon. friend at any time.


Richard Blain: That is satisfactory.
Amendment (Mr. Blain) withdrawn, and motion (Mr. Warburton) agreed to.



VACANCY IN DUFFERIN.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the electoral district of Dufferin to fill the vacancy caused by the death of John Barr, Esquire.



NEW MEMBER.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to inform the House that the clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Oliver J. Wilcox, Esquire, for the electoral district of North Essex, Ontario.



JOINT DISTRIBUTION OFFICE.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have directed to be laid upon the table of the House, under the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, my recommendation of certain increases of salaries to the clerks in the joint distribution office, Senate and House of Commons, of the Department of the Printing of Parliament for the ensuing year.



BILLS RELATING TO TRADE.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: A question arose on Thursday last at the time of the introduction of Bills, as to the proper application of Rule 48. This rule reads as follows:
No Bill relating to trade or to the alteration of the laws relating to trade, is to be brought into this House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a Committee of the Whole House, and agreed unto by the Bouse.
The Bill introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) intituled an Act

to amend the Inspection and Sales Act, in my opinion, clearlv comes within the terms of the rule and should first be considered in Committee of the Whole House, as provided by the said rule. This Bill not only related to trade, but deals directly with trade, and provides for certain inspection and other regulations applicable to a particular trade. Incidental to the brief discussion on the above matter, the question was raised as to whether the Bill (No. 40), intituled an Act to amend the Inspection and Sales Act, introduced by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on the 25th November, should not also have been first considered in Committee of the Whole House under the said rule. In reference to this Bill, I may say that both the Clerk of the House and the Law Clerk advised the hon. minister, after looking into this Bill and considering the precedents referred to in Bourinot's 'Parliamentary Practice,' that such a resolution was not neces-sarv. The precedents in support of this position I find on page 635 of Bourinot's 'Parliamentary Practice.' In looking into these it appears that on former occasions, iii several instances, Bills of that nature have been allowed to pass the House without previous action bv resolution; but these, in my opinion, do not constitute such a precedent as would warrant me in varying from the strict letter of the rule. The cases referred to do not appear to have been the subject of discussion, or of any specific ruling on the part of the Speaker at that time. I, therefore, recommend that in regard to that Bill (No. 40) the same stand until a resolution has been duly considered and approved.



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending March, 31, 1909, Part III.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. LOUIS  J.@: PAPINEAU (Beauharnois) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 48) to amend the Railway Act. He said: The object of the Bill is to amend subsection 1 of section 298 of the Railway Act. This subsection was the subject of an amendment passed by parliament last session. It deals with the liability of a railway company for damage caused to property by fires started by a locomotive. It enacts first that in every case the railway company shall be liable for such damage. Then it declares that if it is shown that the railway company has used modern and efficient appliances, its liability shall be limited to $5,000 no matter what the value or the number of the properties injured or destroyed by the fire may be. The amendment of this
subsection passed last session provides that the railway company, though liable to the amount of $5,000 shall have the benefit of such insurance as the property owner of the property destroyed may have had on the property. The company shall be entitled to deduct from the amount of its liability the amount of such insurance. This deprives the property owner practically of his recourse against the railway company. If, for instance, a property of the value of $15,000 is destroyed, and it is insured for $5,000, the company has a right to deduct this amount, which leaves it with no damages to pay, and the owner loses the balance. Previous to the adoption of this amendment, the railway company would have been liable for $5,000, the owner would have recovered $5,000 of insurance, and would have lost $5,000. Now, instead of this, the $5,000 of insurance goes to the railway company and the property owner loses $10,000. For these reasons I think this amendment should be repealed. As there were three amendments of the same section made by the Act of 1909, I have thought it best by my Bill to repeal the whole section and draft a new section.


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

Haughton Lennox: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways when the report of the Transcontinental Railway Commission will be ready for general distribution. I know that some printed copies have been distributed, but there has not been a general distribution.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I will make inquiries as to how the work is progressing. I am very anxious that the report shall be distributed without delay.



MR. LUMSDEN'S RESIGNATION.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, might I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether or not there was any communication from Mr. Lumsden to him. The right hon. gentleman has already stated that none has been found, but could he inform us whether or not any such document is in existence..


Wilfrid Laurier: So far I have not been able to find anything in my office but I have instructed my secretary to make further research. I do not remember any such letter coming to me, but will investigate further.



APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to mention to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in respect of a little controversy

we had on a matter of fact, that I have looked up the dates and find that I was quite right. The general election to which he alluded took place in 1890, so far as 1 know, and the gentleman he mentioned was not appointed to the bench until February, 1893, or two years and ten months after the election had taken place.


William Stevens Fielding: I looked up the dates also and found that, as respects the lapse of time, my hon. friend was entirely right and I was mistaken, and I am very glad to admit my mistake. But I do not think the question of time affects the point I desired to make. He was appointed to the first judicial vacancy that occurred after he had opposed and even poured cold water on my excellent government.



THE DUFFERIN ELECTION.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if we may expect the election in Dufferin to be held forthwith.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no reason why it should not come off immediately, as regards the results I expect from it.



NAVAL DEFENCE.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he has heard anything with reference to the information which he said he would telegraph for as to the position of New Zealand and Australia on the defence question?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have a despatch which is confidential, but I can show it to my hon. friend.



NEW PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to mention to the Minister of Public Works certain informations I shall require on the item in the estimates referring to the new buildings. I should like to have the space of the various government buildings and the number of clerks in each, the space of the various rented buildings and the number of clerks in each, and an estimate of the number of clerks to be accommodated in the proposed new buildings.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I shall be glad to give the information.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What is the cost per mile to date of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Edmonton ?


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 2.	What amount per mile is estimated to complete this section?
3.	What is the same information as respects the section from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction?
4.	What is the exact mileage of each section?
5.	What has been expended to date on the Moncton-Quebec section ?
6.	What is estimated as necessary to complete this section, and what is the exact mileage?
7.	What has been expended to date on the section from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, and what is now estimated as necessary to finish it?
8.	What is the exact mileage of this section ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	The cost to the 30th of September, 1909, of the section between Winnipeg and Wolfe Creek (Prairie Section) 915 miles-per mile is, $33,423.
The information asked in question No. 1 cannot be given Winnipeg to Edmonton, as the accounts are merely kept separate for the ' Prairie Section ' and the ' Mountain Section '.
2.	Estimated cost per mile to complete is, $1,557.
3.	The estimate of Mr. Lumsden, of June 23, 1908, to complete this section was $85,003 per mile, exclusive of terminals in City of Winnipeg and shops near that city.
Up to the 13th of November instant the sum of $78,915 per mile had been expended. The present chief engineer, Mr. Grant, has not furnished any further estimate of the cost of completing this section.
4	From Lake Superior Junction to Water Street Winnipeg, 246-87 miles.
5	and 6. The estimate referred to made by Mr. Lumsden makes the total estimated cost of this section $26,935,902, exclusive of Quebec Bridge and terminals in the City of Quebec and line thereto.
Up to the 13th of November instant the sum of $17,334,113 had been expended. The present chief engineer, Mr. Grant, has not furnished any further estimate.
459 -34 miles plus 1 -11 miles, Quebec bridge section, making 460 -45 miles to north abutment of Quebec bridge.
7.	On the ' Mountain section ' Wolfe Creek to Prince Rupert the expenditure has been up to the 30th of September, 1909, $7,053,863.11, and it is now estimated as necessary to finish it $60,002,136.89, which includes $5,536,000 of interest.
8.	As the revised location plans for about 400 miles of the ' Mountain Section ' have not been submitted to the government by the company the exact mileage cannot be given It will, however, be about 836 miles.


ST. CHARLES RIVER, P.Q., LOTS.
Mr. MONK:: 
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR.: The answers to questions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, have been supplied to me by the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
1.	The Quebec Harbour Commissioners claim that, under the statutes governing them, they are the owners of those two lots.
2.	By a deed of sale passed before Cy. Tessier, notary, February 27, 1909, the late Etienne Dussault sold to Hon. A. Turgeon one undivided fourth of a beach lot in the River St. Charles, situate in front of cadastral lots Nos. 582A and 583B of the parish of St. Roch north. Subject to all federal laws concerning commerce and navigation. In this deed the vendor declares that he holds said beach lot under letters patent from the government of the province of Quebec, dated January 13, 1909.
3.	The registered owneis are as appears by said deed.
4.	67 arpents, more or less.
5.	No.



NEW POST OFFICES.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: -
1.	How many new Post Offices have been opened in each province of the Dominion during the past year?
2.	How many Post Offices in the province of Nova' Scotia are served only by weekly mails ?
3.	How many by two mails each week and how many by three?


Wilfrid Laurier: No 1.
Name	No. of Offices established
of	from 31st March, 1908,
Province	to 31.st March, 1909.
Ontario	 100
Quebec	 94
Nova Scotia	 25
New Brunswick	 64
Prince Edward Island	 13
British Columbia	 46
Manitoba	 36
Alberta	 122
Saskatchewan	 154
Yukon	2
No. 2. 101.
No. 3. (a) 292, (b) 586.



HOLLAND RIVER CHANNEL.

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals had a survey or investigation made into the feasibility and cost of constructing a channel from the Devil's Elbow on the Holland river to a point in the neighbourhood of the Bradford Railway station in South Simcoe?
2.	If not, will the department have this done at an early date, and if done, is the report favourable, and what is the estimated cost ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Bradford survey was -begun on the west 'branch of the Holland river at the junction of the Newmarket canal, which point is 4-9 miles from the mouth of the river, Cook's hay, and carried up the west branch of the river to a point about three miles above the Bradford and Holland Landing road.
The canal or channel leading to the proposed basin in front of the Grand Trunk station, Bradford, would leave the west branch at the Devil's Elbow, 7 miles from Cook's bay, and the Bradford basin would be 8-2 miles long, with a bottom width of 50 feet. The proposed Bradford basin is estimated at 200 feet width, inclosed with concrete -dock walls. No work is required in the 2 1 miles of river between the junction of the Newmarket canal and the Devil's Elbow. The estimated cost of the work is $59,947.



DR. THORNTON.

Mr. W. H. SHARPE :: 1.	Is Dr. Thornton, of Deloraine, Manitoba, in the employ of the government in any way?
2.	Has he been employed by the government during the past five years? If so, how much has he drawn each year?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1 and 2. Yes, as a frontier inspector for smallpox, from March 14, 1908, to August 15, 1908. He has been paid the sum of $508.06 for his services during that period.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT.

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have any additional powers been granted or conferred upon the Board of Management of the Intercolonial Railway other than those contained in the original order in council, which provided for their appointment? If so, when, in what way and what are they?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.



LABOUR DEPARTMENT BUILDING.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government rented the building situated on the northeast corner of O'Connor and Queen streets, and known as the Royal Building, lately owned by the Young Men's Christian Association ? If so, for how long a term has the building been rented?
2.	What annual rental has the government agreed to pay for said building, if the rental is to be paid by the superficial foot of floor space, and what is to be the rate per foot rental?
3.	How many feet have been agreed upon for which rent has to be paid, and what will be the amount which the government will have to pay annually for said building?
4.	Is the building now or to be occupied by the Labour Department?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) 5 years, and renewable for a further term of 5 years.
2.	(a) $16,095.73 per annum, (b) 68-58 cents per superficial foot.
3.	(a) 23,470 superficial feet. Ob) $16,093.73 per annum.
4.	The building is now occupied by the Labour Department and the Eastern Ontario Command Headquarters offices. The Insurance Branch of the Finance Department is to occupy the third floor.



LACHINE CANAL-CARPENTER SHOP.

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What was the estimate allowed for the carpenter shop on the Lachine canal under the supervision of Denis O'Brien for 1909-1910?
2.	What amount has been spent up to 1st October, 1909, outside of the fiscal year, and what amount is now left to finish the year?
3.	How many men were employed as carpenters on October 1, 1909, and how many men are now employed?
4.	What are the names of the men now employed as carpenters and helpers and their length of time in the service?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	There was no special estimate for carpenter shop for 1909-10. A shed was transferred from the yard on Mill street to the north side of the dry dock and there reerected as an extension to the new carpen-Mr. FISHER.
ter shop. The work was done out of the general appropriation for repairs.
2.	Amount expended up to 1st October last, $51,202.22. Amount left to finish the year, $22,907.78.
3.	Number of carpenters including assistant foreman employed on October 1, were eight. Number of carpenters including assistant foreman employed in November, are eight.
4.	The carpenters and helpers now employed are:
0.	Fiset, time	of service	12	ye.arsG.	Larose, "	(( ft	15	ttN.	Drolet, "	13	ttJ.	Langevin, "	ft ft	9	t<A.	Drapeau, "	ft ft	8	ttW.	O'Brien,- "	ft ft	9	ttJ.	O'Grady, "	ft ft	5	ttR.	Parsons asst.	foreman	9	ttHelpers.	J.	Dowton, time	of service	7	ttH.	Landry, "	ft ft	3	tt



QUEBEC BRIDGE AND RAILWAY COMPANY-INTEREST.

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	In the total sum of $6,424,718 paid by the government to, or for, the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company during the financial year ending 31st March, 1909, were the following items and sums included and paid, namely:- Interest to the Bank of Montreal on various amounts advanced to the
company	$889,687 81
Interest to shareholders in company	 >[DOT]		65,209 07
Bonuses to shareholders in company	 26,370 00
Making a total for these items of... $981,266 88
2.	What was the rate of interest paid to the
bank?	,
3.	Was the interest to be paid by the company to the bank in arrears at the time the government assumed payment of the account ?
4.	Did the bank claim to be entitled to be paid the sum $75,673.18 or any sum, as interest on accrued interest, and did the government pay the sum of $75,673.18, or any sum, to the bank as interest upon accrued interest, or compound interest?
5.	In the interest and bonuses paid shareholders as aforesaid was there included and paid as interest and bonus the sum of $3,304.84 to Hon. S. N. Parent, chairman of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, and the sum of $17,901 to Mr. M. P. Davis, one of the contractors for construction of said railway?
6.	How was the interest paid shareholders made up, from what date and at what rate was it computed, and was it compounded? If so, how often, or at what intervals?
7.	Have all the rights of the company been acquired and paid for?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	5 per cent was the rate of interest payable to the Bank of Montreal by the Que-

bee Bridge Railway Company upon advances made to the company.
3.	Yes.
4.	Interest on such advances fell due half yearly, and when unpaid carried interest at the same rate as the principal. The government, in taking over the undertaking, paid the Bank of Montreal the sum of $75,672.58 on this account.
5 and 6. Simple interest at 5 per cent was paid shareholders from the respective dates of payment by them on account of their stock until December 1, 1908, when the undertaking was taken over in accordance with the terms of the statutory agreement of October 19, 1903.


Hon.  S. N.@: Parent received interest, $2,600, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $7,000 capital stock owned by him, and Mr. M. P. Davis received interest, $8,411, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $94,900 capital stock owned by him, in accordance with such agreement.
7. Yes.



COST OF VOTERS' LISTS, ETC.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What was the total cost, by ridings, of the making up and revising of Voters' Lists in 1908, under the Dominion Election Act, respectively, for the constituencies of Thunder Bay, Rainy River, West Algoma, East Algo-ma, Nipissing, Muskoka and Parry Sound for the purpose of the last general election?
2.	What amounts, respectively, were paid to the enumerators, to the Board of Registration, for printing and for miscellaneous disbursements in connection with the work in the ridings above mentioned?
3.	Have any of the accounts been disputed? If so, which, for what reason, and what adjustment was made?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY.: The information asked for in this question cannot be conveniently compressed into the form of an answer to be given here. I would suggest, therefore, that this should be allowed to stand as a notice of motion. I may say that even in that shape I would ask the hon. member to include the correspondence, for without that the information will not be very intelligible.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand as a notice of motion.



SEED GRAIN ADVANCES.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Referring to the following entries on page K-118 of Auditor General's Report for year 1908, for seed grain advances, net expenditures to 31st December, 1908, $1,373,808.27
charged as follows:-
Dominion government ..	.. $ 508,498 34
Alberta government	 151,172 44
Saskatchewan government ..	714,137 49
Total	 $1,373,808 27
Have the sums thus debited and charged to the provincial governments been claimed and recovered ?
2.	What is the total sum refunded up to date on said seed grain advances?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The sums charged to the provincial governments have been claimed. The province of Saskatchewan has repaid $182,628.82, and the province of Alberta, $33,257.30.
2.	The total sum refunded up to date on account of the seed grain advances mentioned in the hon. gentleman's question is $348,769.59.



TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Hon. S. N. Parent, chairman, Charles A. Young, Colin F. Mclsaac, W. S. Calvert.
2.	The salary of the chairman is $8,000 a year and each of the other three commissioners, $7,000.
3.	The duties of the commissioners are set forth in the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 71, 1903.
4.	The gentlemen named as commissioners possess the general training and experience of business or public men, and have a staff of engineers and others possessing the necessary experience and qualifications to advise the commissioners on all matters and requiring technical or other knowledge in railway works.



RURAL MAIL BOXES.

Mr. ELSON:: 1.	Has the government been informed that several rural mail boxes along the Proofline Road, London township, have been torn from their posts, pilfered, battered, carried some distance away and dumped in a heap?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action to ascertain who the offenders are?
3.	What would be the utmost punishment which could be inflicted on parties found guilty of tampering with rural mail boxes?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Under Criminal Code 510 (c) five years' imprisonment.
6.31



FOREIGN CAPITAL IN CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES.

Mr. FOWKE:: 1.	What amount of foreign capital is known to be invested in industrial enterprises in Canada ?
2.	How much is American, British or other countries, respectively ?
3.	In what lines of industry are the investments principally, and where located, by provinces ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The government have no information as to the origin of the capital invested in industrial enterprises, and consequently we cannot answer this question.



DREDGING PLANT FOR LAKE DESCHENES.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government purchased this year a dredging plant for use on Lake Deschenes?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased, and at what price?
3.	What work is necessary on the aforesaid lake which requires the use of such a dredge?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) G. C. Hurdman, (b) $6,500.
3.	Widening and deepening of the channels leading to the'wharfs at Aylmer and Britannia, removal of obstructions at Britannia wharf and removal of various shoals in the steamboat channel between Aylmer and Constant bay.



MANUFACTURE AND IMPORTATION OF CIGARETTES.

Mr. BLAIN:: 1.	How many cigarettes were manufactured in Canada during the past fiscal year, and liowr many in each province?
2.	How many cigarettes were imported into Canada during the past fiscal year, and how many in each province?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	356,189,380 cigarettes were manufactured in Canada, of which 29,477,100 were produced in the province of Ontario, and 326,712,280 in the province of Quebec.
2.	There were 34,619 pounds of cigarettes imported into Canada, which, at an estimated weight of 2-8 pounds per M., would represent 12,363,928 cigarettes.
The importation by provinces was as shown below:


Wilfrid Laurier: Pounds.	Number, estimated at 2*8 lbs. per M.
Ontario		5,472 17,282 4,162	1,954,285 6,172,143 1,486,428
Quebec			
		
		
	936	333,286 2,324,623


British Columbia ... . P. E.: Island		6,509	
	200	71,429
Saskatchewan			
	53	20,714
		
Total....	34,619	12,363,928



EXPENDITURES FOR IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT DURING SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.

Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1.	During the South African war what sum or sums of money was sent by Great Britain to Canada to be expended by the Canadian government?
2.	Had the British government any say as to how the said money was to be expended?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned:
1.	$8,142,742.04.
2.	Yes. The Department of Agriculture acted as an agent for the Imperial government, which, from *time to time, asked the department what quantities of hay, oats, flour, etc., could be obtained in Canada for delivery in South Africa within a certain time and at what price. The department would reply, specifying certain quantities at a price delivered at Cape Town, South Africa. The imperial government would then authorize the department to purchase and ship the required supplies which had to conform to specifications furnished by the War Office.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Militia and Defence, in the absence of the minister (Sir Frederick Borden) :
1.	The exact figures are not available, but, approximately, there was expended by the imperial government, so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned, as follows: Horses, equipment, &c., $1,500,000; clothing and saddlery purchased in Canada for imperial troops, $600,000.
2.	Prices were submitted to the imperial government, and nothing was contracted for without the sanction of that government.



FISH HATCHERIES BERENS RIVER AND SNAKE ISLAND.

Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	What was the total cost for the erection and equipment of the fish hatchery located at Berens river?
2.	What was the total cost for erection and ^equipment of fish hatchery at Snake island?

3.	What is the total annual expenses in connection with Inspector Young's work?
4.	What did the government pay for the steamboat ' Lady of the Lakes/ and what are the annual expenses in connection with the upkeep and running of the said boat?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	$15,596.
2.	$14,700.
3.	Salary, $1,500; disbursements, 1908-9, $123 24.
4.	$8,000. Exenses, 1908-9, $7,650.



NAVAL STATION AT ESQUIMALT, B.C.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the naval station at Esquimalt been maintained continuously from the time of the union of British Columbia with Canada until the present? If not, during what period has it not been maintained?
2.	Has the influence of the Dominion government been used to secure the continual maintenance of the naval station at Esquimalt as agreed by the terms of the union?
3.	Has the Dominion government made any report or representation to the government of British Columbia as to the outcome of the use of such influence? If not, why not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1,	2 and 3. Yes, the naval station at Esquimalt has been maintained continuously, but the number of ships was reduced in March, 1905; owing to change of policy of imperial government as to naval strength it was necessary to maintain on outlying stations.



TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND GERMANY.

Mr. LABOR:: 1.	What was the total value of exports from Canada to Germany during each year from 1S90 to 1909, inclusive?
2.	What was the total value of the imports from Germany to Canada for each year from 1890 to 1909, inclusive?
3.	What was the value of hosiery imported from Germany to Canada in each year from 1890 to 1909, inclusive?
4.	What was the total value of knit goods imported from Germany to Canada in each year from 1890 to 1909?


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: 1.	The total value of exports from Canada to Germany during each of the fiscal years from 1890 to 1909, inclusive, was as
follows:
1890		 $507,143
1891		 532,142
1892		 942,698
1893		 750,461
1894		 2,046,052
1895		 626,976
1896		  757,531
1897		 1,045,432
1898		 1,837,448
1899		 2,219,569
1900		 1,715,903
1901		 2,141,552
1902		 2,692,578
1903		 2,097,699
1904		 1,819,223
1905		 1,146,654
1906		 1,872,557
*1907	 1,066,605
1908		 2,374,607
1909		 1,476,552
*Nine months.
2. The total value of imports from Germany into Canada (entered for consumption) during each of the fiscal years from 1890 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows:
1890		  $3,778,993
1891		 3,804,090
1892		 5,583,530
1893		 3,825,763
1894		 5,841,542
1895		 4,794,159
1896		 5,931,459
1897		 6,493,368
1898		 5,584,014
1899		 7,393,456
1900		 8,383,498
1901		 7,021,405
1902		 10,823,169
1903		 12,282,637
1904		 8,175,604
1905		 6,695,414
1906		 6,987,314
*1907	 5,474,908
1908		  8,163,047
1909		 6,050,365
*Nine months.
3. The value of hosiery imported from Germany into Canada for each year from 1890 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows:
1890		
1891		
1892		
1893		
1894		
1895		
1896		
1897		
1898		
1899		
1900		
1901		
1902		
1903		
1904		
1905		
1906		
*1907	
1908		
1909		
*Nine months.

4.	The imports of ' knitted goods, including knitted underwear,' from Germany into Canada during the fiscal years from 1890 to 1909, inclusive, have been as follows:
1891



$50,779 32,936 COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
1892		. .. 32,262
1893		. .. 30,285
1894		. . . 37.949
1895		. . . . 36,029
1896		. . . . 69,359
1897		. . . . 32,635
1898		. . . 34,706
1899		. . .. 38,893
1900		. . .. 18,613
1901		. . .. 18,119
1902		.. .. 20,427
1903		. . .. 24,968
1904		. . [DOT] . 46,589
1905		
1906		
*1907		
1908		
1909		
*Nine months.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What Indian lands, if any, in the district of Alsoma, have been sold, en bloc, during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909?
2.	If any have been so disposed of, under what terms and conditions were they sold, at what price, to what person or persons, and under what regulations?
3.	Have the conditions with respect to the sale thereof been complied with? If not, in what respect are the purchasers in default?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	No Indian lands in the district of Al-goma have been sold en bloc during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909. Any sales that have taken place during those years have been for areas provided for by the Land Regulations of the Department of Indian Affairs, not exceeding four lots or 400 acres in all, or a section of 640 acres.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



GARDEN RIVER AND MISSISSAGUA INDIAN RESERVES.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Will the Department of Indian Affairs construct, or bear any part of the cost of construction, of those portions of the Trunk Road projected and under construction from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie, which cross the Garden river and Mississagua Indian reserve? If not, why not ?
2.	What negotiations have there been with the department, and with the Indian bands controlling said reserves, respectively, for a grant of right of way through said reserves for the purposes of such road, and what the result of such negotiations?
3.	What objections, if any, have been raised by the Indians, or otherwise submitted to the department, against the traversing of said reserves by the said Trunk Road?
4.	What terms and conditions, if any, have been attached to any permission to traverse said reserves by said road, by whom were such terms and conditions imposed, and when ?


Mr. PATERSON.: 5.	Have such proposals been submitted to the government of Ontario?
6.	Is the department aware that the completion of the construction of a Trunk Road, about 180 miles long, is being prevented by the inability to arrange for the necessary crossings ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No. The construction of these roads
does not come under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government.	_
2.	An officer of the Department of Indian Affairs was sent to the reserves and obtained surrenders of right of way.
3.	The Indians objected to parting with any of their land and contributing to the up-keep of the road.
4.	The conditions attached to the permission by the Mississagua band were: That $100 should be made to individual Indians for any interference with their improvements, and that the Indians should not be called upon to contribute to the up-keep of the road. These conditions were imposed by the Indians when the surrender was taken and were embodied therein.
The conditions attached by the Garden River band were: That $4 per acre should be paid for the lands. The other conditions were similar to those of the Mississagua band.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.



SURGEON-MAJOR CHEVALIER.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government asked for the resignation of Dr. E. N. Chevalier, Surgeon-Major at St. John, P.Q.? If so, what is the reason for this step?	,
2.	How long has Dr. Chevalier served in his present position?
3.	Is he entitled to a pension?
4.	Was he placed under arrest at the military camp at Three Rivers in 1907?
5.	What is his salary, and does he perform his duties in a satisfactory manner?


Mr. FISHER (for Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	No. Major Chevalier has, however, reached the limit of age of his rank, and is being retired from the Permanent Army Medical Corps.
2.	Eleven years.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	(a) $4.50 per diem, (b) Yes.



EASTERN TOWNSHIPS CAVALRY BRIGADE.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	At what place has the Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade trained during each of the last five years?
2.	What was the strength of the different corps forming those camps of training?

3.	What was the cost during each such training, respectively, for pay, provisions and supplies, transport, hire of ground, or other local expenditures ?


Mr. FISHER:: 1. 1905-Laprairie.
1906-	Sherbrooke.
1907-	Granby.
1908-	Savard Park, Quebec.
1909-	Granby.
		Expenditure for					
Year.	Pay and Allowances.	Supplies.	Hire of Grounds.	Transport.	Miscellaneous.	$ cts.	$ cts	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1905....	43,510 78 45,708 99 43,013 87 68,792 79 28,610 76	8,716 75 11,288 17 10,797 62	Note (a) Note (a)	98 74 268 48 174 921906	2,250 00 2,521 00	1907	1908	1909	7,862 02	2,275 00	Note (o)	
Remarks :
(a)	Transport for 1905 and 1906 would be approximately about the same as 1907, but figures cannot
be given as separate accounts for these camps were not kept as at present, the expenditure being shown under the general transport expenditure for the district.
(b)	In 1908 the Brigade took part in the Quebec Tercentenary and the expenditure for supplies,
hire of grounds, transport, &c., is included in the general expenditure for Tercentenary.
(c)	Expenditure for 1909 transport, &c., is not yet completed.
Corps and Strength.
Year.	| Staffs & P. F.	CD c5 ra w w X co	| 7th Hussars. 1 . i	j 11th Hussars.	j 13t.h Dragoons.	' 1 6th Bge. C.F.A.	7th Bge. C.F.A.	! 5 C. A. S. C. j	Q m < d CO	Signal Corps.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	u a>
o E O	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men. j	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men.	Officers.	N.C.O. & Men. |1905..	9	24	31	357	28	363	35	356	32	344	5	34	6	97	3	35	61906..	16	75	30	344	24	352	32	353	24	353	4	50	14	157	4	r>7	61907..	18	83	25	322	25	325	27	296	23	356	4	52	11	156	4	65	11908..	20	24	31	351	21	348	22	346	26	354	5	69	i	117	10	122	4	75	5	51	41909..	17	92	21	279	25	272	24	279	3	23	10	162	3	42



IMMIGRATION INTO EASTERN TOWNSHIPS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1. What was the total immigration into the eastern townships of the province of Quebec during the last fiscal year, and from what countries did such immigrants come?
2.	What are the names of the immigration agents in the eastern townships, where stationed, salaries, and dates of appointments?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. The government has no record of the number or nationality of immigrants going into a particular locality.

2.	None at the present time. Mr. E. W. Brewster was employed from 1st April to 1st November, 1909, at a salary of $100 per month, and travelling expenses, his headquarters being at Compton. The government has employment agents paid by commission, whose names, dates of appointment and addresses are as follows:
H.	E. Colt, June 17, 1908, Coaticooke.
A. W. Westover, March 17, 1908, Sutton Junction.
George McCracken, February 11, 1908, Danville.
C. P. Taber, February 4, 1908, Cowans-ville.
Alfred Millar, February 4, 1908, South Durham.
Charles Manseau, February 1,	1908,
Drummondville.



KING'S REGULATIONS FOR MILITIA OF CANADA.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: I.	Is the last edition of the King's Regulations for the Militia oL Canada now out of print? If so, for how long have copies net been available for issue for the department?
2.	When may the issue of a new edition be expected?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to amend paragraph 17 of those regulations so as to conform to the rules of procedure?
4.	Have Canadian courts of inquiry been governed by the rules of procedure as respects the cross-examination of witnesses by persons whose conduct is under investigation and the production of evidence by such person, or have the court of inquiry proceeded as instructed by paragraph 77 of the King's Regulations for Canada in relation tp such matters?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Yes; no copies have been available since January 28, 1908.
2.	Two-thirds of the new edition is in page form, with slight corrections to be made before final print off. It is considered that the edition will be ready for issue by February 1, next.
3.	It is intended to change the rule now contained in paragraph 77 of the King's Regulations and Orders for the Militia in Canada, so as to make it uniform with Rule of Procedure 124.
4.	Militia Courts of Inquiry are governed by the rule laid down in paragraph 77, but it has been left to the discretion of those courts to modify the rule, and to admit such evidence as would best bring out the facts and do justice to the accused.



IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: What 'was it he total amount expended by the government in connection with the Imperial Defence Conference, including travelling expenses and all other disbursements generally?
Mr. OLIVER


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For Department of Marine and Fisheries, $3,581.30.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask that the question remain on the Order Paper to be answered by the other department. It has only been answered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands. .



NORTH ATLANTIC TRADING CO.

Mr. URIAH WILSON:: 1.	Has any claim been made by the North Atlantic Trading Company for balance due them by the government for work done according to their contract?
2.	Has any claim been made for damages for non-fulfilment of contract ?
3 If so, what is the amount of such balance, and of such damages?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No, except as stated in answer to No.
2.
2.	Yes.
3.	Damages are claimed to the extent of $71,275.


Mr. URIAH WILSON:: 1.	Has the North Atlantic Trading Company asked for a fiat in order that they may bring suit against the government for damages or other claims?
2.	If so, has such fiat been granted?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.



PESTS TO FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: What provinces of the Dominion are enforcing laws dealing with the eradication of pests affecting fruits and vegetables?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
MR. WENCESLAS LeBEL.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is Wenceslas LeBel, farmer, of Kamour-aska, province of Quebec, employed by the government as preventive officer or acting preventive officer of customs?
2.	If so, when was he named, and what is his salary ?
3.	Is the said Wencesles LeBel also employed by the provincial government of Quebec as agricultural lecturer, and are both employments compatible?
i. Was the said LeBel actively engaged in the county of Charlevoix and elsewhere during the last federal election in political work?
5.	Did the said Wenceslas LeBel address a public meeting at Murray Bay in the county of Charlevoix, during the last federal elec-

tions, in the presence of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister?
6.	Did the same thing occur at I/Islet, province of Quebec, during the same election?
7.	Has the said LeBel applied for an increase of salary? if so, with what result?
8.	How many written reports has said Le-Bel sent in since his appointment?
9.	Has he made any seizures? If so, how many?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	Wenceslas LeBel is employed as an acting preventive officer of customs.
2.	(a) 31st May, 1898, (b) $50 a month.
3.	The department is not aware that Mr. LeBel is also employed by the provincial government of Quebec, as agricultural lecturer.
4.	Not that the department is aware of.
5.	Not that the department is aware of.
6	Not that the department is aware of.
7.	No application on file in the department for an increase of salary. Customs salary is the same as when first employed.
8.	109.
9.	Six seizures have been made by this officer.



MR. LUC LIZOTTE.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has Luc Lizotte, of St. Pac6me, province of Quebec, been appointed or nominated preventive or acting or temporary preventive officer of customs? If so, when?
2.	What is his salary, and how much has he drawn to date on account of salary or expenses?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AT LETHBRIDGE.

Mr. MAGRATH:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department made any demand on, or representation to the Public Works Department, for proper post office accommodation in the city of Lethbridge, Alberta ?
2.	If so, when made and the nature of
same?
3.	What action, if any, has been taken by the government to meet the requirements of the people of Lethbridge in this matter?


William Pugsley: 1, 2 and 3. A building was erected in 189394, for post office, customs and court house. The post office was fitted up and completed, but objections were raised as to location and the post office was never moved into the building, the post office quarters being occupied by customs and inland revenue. Subsequently, in 1902, upon representations made by the Post Office Department, the postmaster at Lethbridge was allowed to use a portion of the fittings in a rented post office building.



CARGO INSPECTION.

Mr. BELAND:: 1.	How many inspectors of cargoes of perishable commodities, especially cargees of butter and cheese, are employed by the Canadian government?
2.	At what ports, as well in Canada as in foreign ones, do they perform their duties?
3.	In what do these duties chiefly consist?
4.	Have the results obtained been determined? If so, are they of such nature as justify the employment of such inspectors?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Eleven.
2.	Montreal, and Halifax in Canada, Liverpool, Manchester, London, Bristol and Glasgow in Great Britain.
3.	Montreal.-Six cargo inspectors are employed at this port to watch the handling of perishable freight as it is unloaded from the cars and loaded into the steamships, to test the temperature of butter before it is placed in the cold storage chambers in the ships, to report the condition of the refrigerator chambers before loading is commenced and the ventilation of the holds in which perishable cargo is stowed and to place thermographs (self-recording thermometers) in refrigerator and cooled air chambers and in the holds in which perishable freight is carried. Particular attention is also paid to the deliveries of cheese and butter by river boats at Montreal.
Halifax.-During the winter months an inspector is employed at this port to look after the loading of apples and other perishable freight and to install thermographs in the fruit carrying steamers.
Ports in Great Britain.-Five cargo inspectors are employed to report the condition in which Canadian cheese, butter, eggs, fruit, &c., are landed from the steamers and the manner in which these products are handled while being unloaded and to advise the steamship officials of any rough handling and to report same to the department as well. They also retest the temperature of the specially marked packages of butter which have been tested by the Montreal inspectors, remove the thermograph records and send them promptly to Ottawa and interview importers on matters affecting the trade in farm and food products.
4.	Since the cargo inspection work was undertaken leading provision firms in Montreal, Liverpool, London and Glasgow have written the department expressing their appreciation of the beneficial results that have followed the appointment of inspectors at these ports.
During recent years the conditions under which Canadian produce is handled at the ports in Great Britain have been greatly improved. Previously there was considerable delay in the removal of shipments from the docks, but the inspectors have



BEV1SED EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
succeeded in preventing this to a great extent and now as a rule Canadian shipments are handled with despatch.
The thermographs which are placed by the cargo inspectors in steamships at the ports of Montreal and Halifax have been a very important factor in improving the efficiency of the cold storage transportation, and have also been the means of bringing about more thorough systems of ventilation in the ordinary holds of the steamers.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence between the following legal firms, Rothwell & Johnson, Rothwell, Johnson & Bergeman, and Rothwell, Johnson & Stubbs, on the one side, and the government or the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, on the other side, as to the instructions to the solicitors for legal services rendered in passing titles of property acquired by the government, and in respect of the bill of cost and charges of the said several firms; and all papers, documents, letters, telegrams and correspondence having any reference to the items of charges of said firms appearing on page W-370 of the Auditor General's Report of 1909, amounting in the whole to $1,376.60.-Mr. Meighen.
For a copy of all instructions sent to the Indian agent at Selkirk, in connection with St. Peter's Indians, pledging or disposing of their holdings, secured through the surrender of their reserve; a statement showing all those entitled to receive patents for lands in connection with the surrender of the reserve, the applications made by those so entitled for their patents, and receipts signed for the patents bv those so entitled on delivery of the patent.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing the number of lighthouses in British Columbia, the salaries of the lightkeepers at the end of the financial year 1907-1908; what the salaries are to-day; why some salaries have been reduced and when such reduction took place.-Mr. Ralph Smith by Mr. Turriff.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers and documents connected with and relating to the matter referred to in the letter of the Auditor General to the Secretary of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission of the 18th of August, 1909, in which the Auditor General points out that 64,192 cubic yards of excavation classified at an average price of 83 06 cents, were subsequently reclassified at $1,101 per cubic yard, thereby increasing the cost by the sum of $17,453.80, and asking for an explanation.-Mr. Lennox.
For a copy of all correspondence, had be tween the Minister of Railways and the Transcontinental Railway Commission, relating to the sub-letting of contracts for the construction of the Transcontinental Railway in New Brunswick; and the failure of sub-contractors to make pavment for supplies and material furnished by farmers, merchants and others for use in said work.-Mr. Crocket.
For a copy of all reports and correspondence in connection with section 29, township 9, range 22, west of the 4th meridian, as well Mr. FISHER.
as applications for railway right of way and station grounds within such land.-Mr. Ma-grath.
For a copy of all orders in council relating to the North Atlantic Trading Company, and all correspondence between the North Atlantic Trading Company and the government or any member thereof, since November 1, 1903, and up to 20th November, 1909.-Mr. U. Wilson.

Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR-by Mr. Borden- moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports,, advertisements, tenders, contracts and other papers and documents relative to the maintenance of a wrecking plant on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts or in the River or Gulf of St. Lawrence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The papers have already been brought down. I suppose it will cover only papers which have not been brought down?


Robert Laird Borden: Any subsequent papers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would suggest>
the words ' not already brought down ' be added to the motion.
Motion as amended agreed to.



MANITOBA BOUNDARIES.

Mr. ROCHE moved:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, papers, bills and memorials passing between the government of the province of Manitoba and the Dominion government since 1st January, 1907.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend allude to the correspondence of the boundary?


William James Roche: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. A. B. WARBURTON (Queens, Prince Edward Island) moved:: For a copy of all memorials, reports, correspondence and documents in the possession of the government, relating to the reduction of the representation, in the House of Commons, of the several provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and of all correspondence with the governments of these provinces with regard to the restoration to the said provinces of such representation as they respectively had at the time of their becoming provinces of this Dominion.
He said:	I would ask permission of the
House to amend the resolution by striking out the word ' Ontario ' because that province does not quite come within the scope >f the resolution.
Resolution amended.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: In discussing this question it is hardly necessary that I should point out that it is of the utmost importance to the three maritime provinces. I have bracketed them together in connection with my resolution because they have all suffered in the same way, though not to the same extent, and they have suffered for the same reasons. Prince Edward Island more than the other two, because she has only the fisheries and agriculture as her natural resources, while Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have minerals, lumber, fisheries, and agriculture to depend upon; they are the eastern gateway of Canada and attract to their ports the trade of Canada, particularly the winter trade, and hence it is that they do not feel to the same extent perhaps as Prince Edward Island the decrease in their representation. In connection with this important subject I shall give the House some statistics which I hope may be found interesting. In 1867, when the four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to form the Dominion of Canada, Ontario was allowed 82 members in the federal parliament, Nova Scotia 19, New Brunswick 15, and Quebec the unit of 65. In 1873 Prince Edward Island came into confederation under the census of 1871 and according to the census of that year the population of the provinces was as follows: Quebec, 1,191,516; Nova Scotia, 387,800; New Brunswick, 285,594; Ontario, 1,620.851; Prince Edward Island, 94,021.
The representation of Quebec being fixed at 65 members and the unit of representation being one-sixty-fifth of the population of Quebec, that unit under the census of 1871 was 18,331, which gave Nova Scotia an increase of two members making 21 members and 2,849 of a population over, it gave New Brunswick 15 units and 10,629 of a population over, which being over one-half the unit, allowed New Brunswick to have a representation of 16 members; it gave Ontario 88 units with 7,723 of a population ever or less than one-half the unit. These 88 members represented an increase of 6 members on the previous representation. It would have given Prince Edward Island 5 units with 2,366 or one-eighth of the unit of population over, but Prince Edward Island was given six representatives at that time. Later on I shall go into the question of why that was done. The decade between 1871 and 1881 saw a lar^e increase in the population of the maritime provinces and of Ontario. The times were prosperous down there and the population [DOT] increased largely so that according to the census of 1881, Quebec had a popula tion of 1.359,027, or a gain of 160,000; Nova Scotia had a population of 440,572, a gain of over 50,000, New Brunswick had a population of 321.233. a gain of 35,000; Ontarii had a population of 1,926,922, a gain of 21}
over 300,000, and Prince Edward Island had a population of 108.891, a gam of nearly 15,000. It will be seen that all of the provinces during that decade from 1871 to 1881 made substantial and respectable gains, notably the province of Ontario, notwithstanding that during that decade there was severe depression throughout Canada, Then in the census of 1881 the unit of representation Was increased to 20,908 or 2,500 more than in 1871, and this gave the four provinces other than Quebec the following representation in the House of Commons: Nova Scotia, 21 members, and 1,504 of a population over; New Brunswick, 15 members and 7,613 of a population over, which being less than half the unit New Brunswick lost one of her representatives; Ontario 92 members, with 3,386 of a population over, giving her an increase of four members on the previous parliament, and Prince Edward Island five members and 4,351 of a population over, which was only about one-fifth of the unit, and yet the island retained her six members. Again I ask why was that?
The decade between 1881 and 1891 showed a reduced increase in Quebec and practically no increase at all in the maritime provinces. It was a period of stagnation so far as the population of these provinces was concerned, and although there was a growth in Ontario and Quebec it was not. of very great extent. According to the census of 1891, Quebec had a population of 1,488,535; Nova Scotia 450,396, a gain of 10,000; New Brunswick 321,263, practically the same population as before; Ontario 2,114,321, and Prince Edward Island 109,078, or an infinitesimal gain. I shall, before I conclude, discuss what were the causes of this falling off, because I agree with the remark of the Finance Minister, addressed to the House a few days ago, that if you find that something happens you will likely see that there is a cause, and if you try you can discover what that cause is. I shall endeavour to present to the House some of the causes which led to this deplorable result. Now, the census of 1891 gave a unit of 22,900, or 2,000 more than the unit of 1881. The four provinces other than Quebec were under that census represented as follows:' Nova Scotia, 19 members, and 15,296 of a (population over, which toeing greater than half the unit allowed her 20 members^ or one less than she had on the previous census; New Brunswick had 14 members and 663 of a population over, giving her 14 representatives, or another loss of one member, and bringing her representation down to one less than when she *ntered confederation; Ontario got 92 members and 7,521 of a population over, leaving her representation the same as it was under he previous census; Prince Edward Island had 4 members and VM78 of a population

the trade and commerce, not only of Quebec itself, but of Ontario and the other' western provinces as well. It is the summer gate of commerce from the west and has to be improved. I do not know what the population of Montreal is at present, but I think it will be found at the next census to touch the half million mark. And I judge by the progress of the past few years, the time is not far distant when it will touch a million, and I hope that time will come soon. But in order to bring about the growth and expansion and consequent increase of population in the province of Quebec and particularly in the city of Montreal, this parliament had to spend, and rightly spend, enormous sums in order to create the channels and arteries by which trade and commerce would come. Already in imnroving the harbour of Montreal, some $12,000,000 have been spent, and it is in contemplation in the course of a few years to spend $18,000,000 more in order to make its harbour facilities equal to those of any port in the world. And it is perfectly right and proper that that should be done, but it means a lot of money. When we came into confederation in 1873, the St. Lawrence was a great river but you could not get ships drawing such draft of water up that river as now go up. You had to dredge it from end to end and make it so that large ships could get up in order that the trade and commerce, which naturally belongs to Canada, should find its way through this great Canadian port, and not through ports foreign to Canada. The consequence is we have spent enormously to dredge and improve that great waterway. You are going to make it practically a great canal. You have it down to something like 30 feet but that is not enough. The hon. Minister of Marine will have to undertake more work. Thirty feet is nothing extraordinary now. He will have to go on and deepen it to 40 feet, and that it should be done in the interests of Canada as a whole.
It is necessary, in order to bind the parts of Canada more closely together and to keep in our own channels the commerce which belongs to us. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, as one member of this House, although it is no particular advantage to me or my constituency, I recognize the need of that work and am just as strong in support of it as any gentleman living in Montreal itself. It is true this process of improving transportation develops other parts of the country than the province of Quebec, but I confine myself to a consideration of the effect upon Quebec because that is. the pivotal province. Enormous sums have been spent in other ways which must benefit the city of Montreal and Quebec generally. Consider the effect of one of our earliest works, the Intercolonial. That railway was built, of course, as a part of the compact of confederation, to induce the four Mr. WAKBTJRTON.
provinces to come together, it having been made, I believe, a sine qua non that this railway should be built to connect the maritime provinces with old Canada. It is true that this railway greatly benefits the maritime provinces. But it has been an enormous benefit also to the province of Quebec and the provinces further west. Long before other railways were in existence it afforded a means of carrying the manufactures of the west ro the maritime provinces, and the manufacturers of Canada generally admit that the markets of the maritime provinces are among the best they have. It still does that. Of course, this road was not built solely for the benefit of Quebec or of the other provinces. What I desire to point out is not so much what the object is as what the result has been. The effect of these improvements of which I have spoken is to greatly increase the opportunfties of employment in the great city of Montreal and so to increase greatly the population of that city and other parts of the province of Quebec. Montreal contains thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of people who but for these improvements in transportation would never have gone to help in building up the prosperity and the population of that great city. And now we have the great railways coming down from the west, the Canadian Pacific railway and the new Transcontinental. There is no question but that the Transcontinental will open up vast territories in the north of Quebec as well as Ontario and will gradually draw a large population to that region, with the result that the unit of representation will rise. Of course, we are all glad of these prospective additions to our population. I do not believe in a sectional view of these matters, for a benefit to one province is a benefit to the whole of Canada. Still, the result is that, through these enormous expenditures, expenditures made not only by the present government but by the several governments that preceded it, and made in pursuit of a well-defined and laudable policy carried out by all governments, which, though they may have differed in details and in questions of degree have always favoured the carrying out of this policy of development-population in the pivotal provinces has been increased and the unit of representation raised. Nor is the work finished, it goes on and will go on. There is the territory of Ungava, which is not now a part of the province of Quebec, but probably will be. This -will mean a further addition to the population of Quebec. It is true there are few people in Ungava now, but we know enough of the resources of Ungava to lead us to believe that many will be attracted to that territory, and, in speaking of this matter I think of the future as well as the present. This will further raise the unit

of representation, making our chances o regaining our lost representation very poo indeed. The further improvement of oui canals, and especially the enlargement o' the Welland and other canals, will add ti the result that we have already seen. So it is a rather forlorn prospect that is pre sented to us, with this great province pi Quebec growing by leaps and bounds witl' the result that our representation is going down. Even the regular public expend! ture is having the effect of promoting the opening up of the west and developing trade which ultimately benefits the city of Montreal. As you fill up the west you bring nearer the time when hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grain, besides other products of enormous value, will be annually produced for export, thus giving still more employment to the people of that province in which is our greatest port and which is the unit of representation, and so increasing the population of the province of Quebec. This great west, on the other, takes people from us. Many of those who were constituents of members from Prince Edward Island are now in the west. If the Prince Edward Island voters in that country were to throw their influence all on one side they would easily influence an election. I believe that in half of the constituencies west of the Great Lakes electors from Prince Edward Island hold the balance of electoral power. There are hundreds of teachers alone, now engaged in training the children of the west, who came from Prince Edward Island. All these, I am sure, have a warm spot in their hearts for their old sea-girt home. And if my words should reach them, as I hope they will reach some of them, I am sure that they will sympathize with me in desiring to see the representation of Prince Edward Island restored to that which she originally had.
The objection raised to the plea of Prince Edward Island in this matter is the old cry ' representation by population.' That is a most excellent general rule. But, like all general rules, it has its exceptions, and the exception proves the rule. When British Columbia entered confederation an exception was made. They drafted theii terms better than we did, inserting the word * increased ' when we said ' readjusted.' They came into the Union with six representatives in this House, and at that time, I think, they had scarcely white population enough to make up the number of the unit of representation. They have continued to grow. But what I point out is that the principle was recognized that special conditions should be recognized in this matter-the principle of representation by population was not carried out in its entirety. Nor do we carry it out with uniformity to-day. The unit of population is
25,000 odd, but take the case of the city of Montreal. I do not know what is the population of its several constituencies, but I think I am safe in saying that none of them is lower than 40,000, which would be 15,000 more than the unit. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but that your own constituency has a population a good deal greater than the unit. The same applies to the city of Toronto and other portions of Canada. The reason for these variations is that the local conditions are taken into consideration. It is obvious that when you deal with a city population, concentrated on a few square miles, those people can make their public wants felt much more readily than can a scattered population such as that of your constituency or mine. The question of remoteness also is taken into consideration, and I have no doubt that it was this element that caused the representatives of the Dominion government, away back in 1873, to concede to British Columbia a representation much greater than the application of the principle of representation by population would have given. The system of representation by population has been ignored in the United States in relation to the Senate. It was applied in the case of the House of representatives, but the framers of the Constitution, desiring to protect the smaller and weaker states, provided that each state should have the same representation in the Senate regardless of population. I do not know that the Senate of the United States has quite fulfilled the expectations of those who created it, but that is neither here nor there: the idea was to give each state equal representation in the Senate in order to protect the smaller.
It is not necessary for me to go at greater length into this question. I think that I have said enough to bring the matter fairly before the House; and I think the subject is of sufficient importance to justify me in so doing. I have not the acquaintance with the conditions prevailing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick when they entered confederation that I have of those that prevailed and prevail in my own province. But I have no doubt that hon. members from those provinces who have the facts at their fingers' ends will be quite prepared to advance arguments in support of the restoration of their former representation. With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, and thanking the members of the House for their courtesy in listening to me on a subject which may appear to some of them trite, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: The motion to which my hon. friend

from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Warburton) has addressed himself this afternoon is, of course, one to which no objection can be taken. It is a very proper motion, and we will be happy to bring down any papers that may be in our possession in relation to the subject. I do not hesitate to say that personally I sympathize very warmly with my hon. friend in the good purpose he has in view; and if, by any stroke of my pen, I could restore to Prince Edward Island her lost representation, 1 can tell my hon. friend I should be exceedingly happy to do so. Possibly I see more clearly than he does the difficulties which arise in the way. I have no doubt that if, at the time the terms of union with Prince Edward Island were under consideration, any representatives of the Island had asked for a clause to be inserted to the effect that the representation of the Island should never be less than the numoer with which it started, I do not anticipate that anybody would have seriously oh-jected to such a provision. We have such a provision, not exactly in so many words, but there is a like provision in relation to British Columbia, and if it should so happen that by reason of that provision British Columbia should at any time have one or two members more than she would otherwise have, I do not think any of the other provinces would regard it as a very great grievance. And I have no doubt that if, at the proper time, somebody on behalf of Prince Edward Island had made the request, it is altogether probable that no serious objection would have been taken. Still we have to deal with the matter as it stands. The Confederation Act is a compact between various provinces; and even though we should feel, or the people of any one province should feel, that the terms of union were not working out as well as we might like, we have to recognize the fact that we cannot expect those terms to be, changed by any mere will of our own; we have to consider what would be the attitude of the other provinces as well. Now,. I think it would be a gracious thing if the great provinces of Quebec and Ontario, not to mention any of the others, should see the matter just as my hon. friend sees it, and say, * Yes, we will readily agree to such a change as would preserve the representation of Prince Edward Island, and perhaps of several other provinces as well '-that would, of course, be a very happy solution. But I have to return to the point I first made, that this is a matter of compact between the several provinces. We know our friends in the province of Ontario have always attached great importance to what they used to term rep. by pop.-representation by population; and it is well to understand the fact that if that principle had not been recognized the union could never Mr. FIELDING.
have been brought about. I fancy that the good people of Ontario may attach enough importance to that principle to-day to object to a change of the constitution, or to a departure from that principle, which would be involved in the proposition of my hon. friend. If, as a result of the discussion which my hon. friend gave the subject to-day, and of other discussions which he may perhaps congratulate himself on opening up, we should find that the change which he desires could be brought about by the good will of the other provinces, no one would be more pleased than myself. But I know the difficulties in the, way; therefore I should not encourage my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island to expect very quickly the result which he desires.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. McKENZIE.: In the absence of the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) in whose name this motion stands, I beg to move:
For a copy of judgments or reports of judgments in connection with any libel suits instituted by W. T. R. Preston, while commercial agent in Japan, and all other papers or documents in connection with said suits in the possession of the departments.


Hon.   W.@: 8. FIELDING (Minister of Finance). I do not know whether we have any such papers. There will be objection to their being brought down if they are in the possession of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Order called for second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Seed Control Act.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This afternoon I wished to move that this item be struck off. I intend to proceed by resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister will admit now that the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was not wrong?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Speaker ruled that he was wrong. I move now that this order be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved that Bill (No. 40) to
amend the Inspection and Sales Act be struck off the Order Paper.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go

into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, chapter 83 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as follows:-
By repealing subsection 5 of section 17, subsection 5 of section 47, and subsection 2 of section 109, and amending section 104, by substituting for the words ' license fee of two dollars' the words ' required license fee.'
By authorizing the Governor in Council to fix the respective fees to be paid for licenses under the Act, and by providing fines for contravention of the said Act.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are these subsections that are repealed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By substituting 'required license fee' for 'license fee of $2' it is proposed to change the system under which the fee is collected. At the present time all elevators have to pay the same license fee of $2, but there is a decided difference in the amount of business done in different elevators, and, therefore, they wish to measure the license bv the amount of business done. The words have'to be changed in the Act to 'required license fee.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to have reference to amending section 109, but the minister has not told us what he proposes to repeal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These words occur in different places in the Act, and the sections mentioned in the resolution are the sections in which they occur; therefore, they all require to be amended.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the idea of the minister as to the fee that should be exacted?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not give an exact statement as to the amount, but it will vary according to the business done in the different elevators. Some of the large elevators will have to pay more than $2. I do not think it is intended that any elevator shall have its license for less than $2.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the present time the Governor in Council may impose fines. Have you any knowledge of the fines that are contemplated in the Act? This appears to be a new authority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That section changes the form of the proceedings. At present the proceedings under the Act are in the form of an indictment, whereas, it is desired that these proceedings be taken under the Summary Convictions Act. and that changes in the Act are required for that purpose. I have no memorandum from the Department of Trade and Commerce as to how
great the fines may be. These fines are imposed by regulation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were they heretofore imposed by the statute itself? Does it propose to change that now and give power to the Governor in Council to impose fines by regulation?


Robert Laird Borden: It means that you are providing for fines by the Bill?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I have the Bill here:
Any person required by this section to furnish such statement or declaration, and failing to do so within three days after receipt of a written demand to him therefor from the commissioner, shall be liable upon summary conviction, to a fine of twenty-five dollars for each day thereafter during which he shall fail to furnish such statement or declaration, and the minister shall have power to cancel his license.
Licenses issued under this Act shall be revocable by the commissioner upon a summary proceeding before the commissioner upon complaint of any person, in writing, under oath setting forth the particular violation of the law, and upon satisfactory proof in that behalf to be taken in such manner as is directed by the commissioner; provided that such revocation shall not take effect until the minister has given his sanction thereto.
I do not see anything defining any other exact amount, and I do not find anything in the Bill prescribing any other fines than the sections which I have just read. I think that must be the one that is referred to in the resolution.


Mr. STAPLES.: I would like to ask the minister on what representation he is making these amendments. Has there been a petition presented, or has a delegation waited upon the minister to point out defects in the Act, or where the Act could be strengthened in any way? This is the first intimation I have had that the Act was going to be amended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as 1 know these amendments originated in the department to facilitate the working of the Act. I am not aware that they have not been asked for but I have no officer of the department with me to-night and I could not positively answer that question. Of course, this is merely the resolution upon which the Bill is founded.


William D. Staples: There certainly must have beeh some communication from the officials representing the government of Manitoba or this amendment would not be advanced by the minister. I would like to know what representations have been made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no information about any representations. If the hon. gentleman considers it necessary, before proceeding with the Bill itself, to have that information I would have to ask the committee to rise and report progress.


William D. Staples: I think it would be well to have all the information which we can have before any such amendment takes place. I rather agree with the minister that it would be well to ask the committee to rise and report progress and let us get some further information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All the information will be available when the Bill itself comes up for consideration. I think it would be well perhaps to let the resolution go through.


William D. Staples: I have no objection providing this resolution does not commit us , to any particular amendment. I fancy that if this resolution is allowed to pass the argument will be put forward, as it has been put forward on other occasions, that we have committed ourselves to the amendment. I do not know that we will retard the business of the House very much if we ask the minister to have printed, or laid on the table of the House, such information as he has with respect to the request for these particular amendments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill is printed, but it cannot be distributed until it is introduced. The Bill will not be introduced until the resolution is adopted. I am just waiting for the adoption of the resolution to introduce the Bill. The Bill will be distributed the moment it is introduced. The information my hon. friend asks for will certainly be available when the Bill comes up for discussion, and it is quite open to the House to reject any portion of the Bill or amend it; so that the passing of the resolution does not in any way prevent the discussion, amendment, or rejection of any particular clause in the Bill.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I think it would be well to pass this resolution. I may say to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), that there has been some request for some amendments from the representative of the farmers, the man who looks after any difficulties that the farmers have.


William D. Staples: Who is that?


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. D. D. Campbell, of Winnipeg. He has represented that some amendments are necessary to carry out the evident intention of the Bill of last year. I took these amendments up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and he is of the opinion they are reasonable amendments, and although they do not appear in the Bill as introduced they will be passed later on. The sooner they are passed the better. The amendment to which I particularly refer is in connection with broken and small wheat. At present the elevators are not compelled to account for the screenings of wheat and this year in some cases there have been 100 bushels of screenings, which make first-class feed, cleaned out of a 1,000 bushel car. The farmer has to pay Mr. FISHER.	/
the freight on the screenings but at present the elevators can, if they wish, retain them. An amendment is to be introduced in this Bill to make it compulsory on the inspector to state, when he inspects a car, what percentage of dockage there shall be for number one or number two screenings, and the elevator in addition to giving a certificate of the out-turn of the whole wheat must also give a certificate of the out-turn of the screenings provided the screenings amount to over two per cent. Number one screenings will be the screenings that have over 50 per cent of wheat broken, and number two screenings under 50 per cent.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: How could the inspector tell how much broken wheat there would be in any car and how could he distinguish one car from the other after passing through the elevator?


John Gillanders Turriff: The inspector does that at present,


Samuel Hughes: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: He does, and the western members can tell my hon. friend that he does. The inspector at present says that it will take two per cent or five per cent or ten per cent to clean that car and that much is docked, but under the present system he does not say what that is, and the amendment will give the inspector the power to say what it will take to clean that car, and a separate certificate must be given the farmer for that if it is over two per cent. The inspector will also say whether it is number one or number two screenings. This year there has been as much as $40 or $50 worth of good feed taken out of a car which the elevator does not need to account for and the amendment is proposed to remedy that injustice.


William D. Staples: Is that the intention of the Bill now introduced?


John Gillanders Turriff: The Bill was drafted before I took the matter up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he agreed with me that these were necessary amendments and that he would have them passed.


William D. Staples: What I want to know is on what advice the minister is amending the Act on the lines suggested in the resolution.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As I understand it from a short conversation with the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce these amendments which are in the Bill have been found necessary to facilitate the working of the Act. I am not aware that any of the provisions in the printed Bill now ready are based on representations from any particular body. I am speaking subject to correction; the department may have had representations in regard to these in addition to their own experience in the working of the Act.


Mr STAPLES.: I know from personal experience that the farmers have suffered to a large degree because of the defects in the present system which the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) has referred to. I hope when the Bill comes down that it will have a provision for preventing the great loss of money which the farmers have suffered in this way in the past. There never was in the western crop, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as large a percentage of broken grain as this year; a fact which is no doubt due to the well developed kernel . and the extremely dry weather during harvest. I believe it is necessary to have the amendments referred to passed as soon as possible, and I have therefore no objection to the resolution.


Mr. A. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and Macdonald (Mr. Staples) are both farmers and their interest is for the farmers, but the elevator men and the grain merchants are also interested in the grain business, and, and I think an opportunity should be afforded to them to express their views before the Bill is passed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amendment spoken of by my hon. friend from Assinboia (Mr. Turriff) is not contained in the Bill as printed. Probably the hon. gentleman himself will move it in the House at the proper stage of this Bill and it will be considered on its merits. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) that if I have charge of the Bill at that stage I shall be only too happy to secure an opportunity for all the different interests being represented and heard.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.	[DOT]
Mr. FISHER moved-for leave to introduce Bill (No. 49) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, arid Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Arthabaska public building, $15,000.
William Pugsley: A site has been purchased out of an appropriation made two sessions ago, and we are asking for this vote in order to proceed with the construction of the building.
Aylmer post office-addition to building, &c., $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is tor the purpose of making necessary additions and improvements to the public building at Aylmer, a building which is now entirely out of repair.
Chicoutimi public building-ground improvements, $1,500.


William Pugsley: This is for laying concrete sidewalks and macadam roadways around the public building.


Samuel Hughes: What other public works are in progress at Chicoutimi?


William Pugsley: There is dredging and, I think, a wharf.
Dominion public buildings Quebec-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $20,000.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What was the amount spent at Sherbrooke last year?


William Pugsley: 


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What will be the amount this year?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend.
Fraserville armoury, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the nurchase of a site and the erection of an armoury, which has been requested by the Militia Department since October, 1907.


Samuel Hughes: What regiment uses this?


William Pugsley: The 89th Temiscouata and Rimouski regiment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the full cost of this building?


William Pugsley: As near as I can tell, about $10,000.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Has it been arranged to put a shooting gallery in this building?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say positively.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: It would be a great source of benefit to the regiment and would not cost anything, because the basement could be utilized for the purpose.
Grasse Isle quarantine station-improvements and repairs to buildings, and fittings, furniture, &c., $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the construction of new buildings and also repairs to the old buildings. These have all been asked for by "Dr. Martineau, the medical superintendent of the station.
Joliette armoury, $12,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is asked to complete the erection of the building, which is now under contract.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Can the minister tell us numerically the strength of the force at Joliette?


William Pugsley: It is the headquarters of the 83rd Joliette regiment and also a 1 company.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: Including everything, about $23,200.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Was there a drill shed there formerly, or what, accommodation had the regiment up to this time?


William Pugsley: I really do not know as to that.


Samuel Hughes: How many companies are accommodated there?


William Pugsley: I think two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract let?


William Pugsley: Yes, and the building is very nearly finished. Six tenders were received. The lowest was accepted, $13,500. In addition there is heating, electric wiring and fittings, furniture, inside walks, fencing, contingencies and cost of site. The electric wiring and heating were, I think, let by tender, but I am not sure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did they cost?


William Pugsley: The electric wiring, $512; heating and boilers together, $2,000. The building is two stories of brick, with stone foundation and trimmings; 56 feet 2 inches by 47 feet 1 inch.


Samuel Hughes: According to the Militia list, there is only one company there. What is the hon. gentleman's policy with regard to armouries in general? Are any more being built? Why is it this one cost $23,000 and the one at Fraserville only $10,000, and how is it these are not paid out of the general vote for armouries of $50,000?


William Pugsley: We are endeavouring to build one at Fraserville at less cost than at Joliette. _ Fraserville is the last. There is a strong disposition on the part of hon. members on both sides to try if possible to reduce the cost of armouries, and we have felt that in the case of Fraserville, we should get a suitable one for $10,000. In the case of Hartland, we are providing for a building at $10,000 which will also accommodate the post office.
-Mr. SAM. HUGHES. What regiment is that to accommodate?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Two companies of the 67th.


Mr. EDWARDS.: What is the size of the armoury at Fraserville?


William Pugsley: The plans have not been prepared yet.


Samuel Hughes: The headquarters of the 67th are at Woodstock, and we have already constructed an armoury there to accommodate a regiment of infantry and a battery of artillery. Why then erect an armoury at Hartland?


William Pugsley: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the Woodstock armoury there are the 10th Field Battery, the First Company of the Engineers and two companies of the 67th. The remaining six companies of the 67th are at local headquarters. Two of them are at Hartland.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the policy then, in addition to building armouries at headquarters for the regiments, to build armouries at other places for various companies?


William Pugsley: The armoury at Hartland is not in pursuance of any general policy, but it was represented to us that the people would be well satisfied if we put up a building costing $10,000 which would do for a post office and might be used also for regimental purposes. That was done to meet the necessities of a particular case.


Samuel Hughes: It would be more advisable to follow some uniform system. That has been discussed again and again in the House. There are a.great many regiments in this Dominion which have no armoury and which, so far as qualifications and service records go, are unsurpassed. I must certainly protest against the system pursued here. We understood that there was one bulk vote brought each year that is to be used for these armouries.


William Pugsley: While there has been a vote taken of $50,000 each session for the construction of armouries in smaller towns, I do not think that that vote has been granted to the exclusion altogether of special votes for buildings which could not be erected out of the $50,000 vote. When I became minister, I found there was some departure from that rule, and that has been continued.


Samuel Hughes: Why is Fraserville specially selected and Joliette and Hartland and other important places left out? Is there any reason for it?


William Pugsley: Nothing more than I have given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what principle is that $50,000 apportioned?


William Pugsley: This apportionment is made on the recommendation of the Militia Department. Last session, when I asked for the general vote, I gave a statement of how the money voted for the previous year had been expended. And when we come to that item I will give a statement for the expenditure on armouries for the past year.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Was there a post office building at Hartland before?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what principle would the selection be made of places in which the money is to be spent?


William Pugsley: The Militia Department makes a requisition on the Public Works Department for the erection of certain armouries out of the general vote. We recognize that their judgment is to be relied upon and we proceed with the work, drawing on the vote for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be the right of the Minister of Militia, of course, under the circumstances to recommend where an armoury was to be built, regardless of the judgment of parliament.


William Pugsley: That is the object of getting the vote in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Very convenient for the minister when an election is coming on.


William Pugsley: That might be said, but I do not think that that has ever influenced the distribution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether this general vote has been long in existence or not. But, from the knowledge we have of this government, I should not have the highest expectation of such a vote would be distributed strictly on sound principles.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER  .@: At this point I should explain to the committee, that while in the printed estimates there are two items connected with Grosse Isle station, I have called only one, as the resolution in my hand does not completely give the other. The second is:
Grosse Isle quarantine station-new detention building, $20,000.
I have entered it in the resolution. Does it carry?


William Pugsley: This building is asked for by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher)-who tells me that there is absolute need of it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: How many immigrants will it house?


William Pugsley: I have not that information before me, but no doubt the Minister of Agriculture will be glad to give the information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This building is intended to take the place of the present second-class detention building. These detention buildings at Grosse Isle are to receive those who arrive in ships and who, though not themselves diseased, may have come in contact with disease on the ship and possibly bear the germs of that disease with them. We have there what is called a first-class detention building where the first-class passengers are accommodated. It offers about as good accommodation as the second-class on a steamship. In the present second-class detention building the accommodation is not better than the present steerage on board the vessels, and has been frequently
occupied by steerage passengers because we have not sufficient accommodation for all when a large number are to be detained. The new building will be about the grade of the first-class detention building at present, because the accommodation for second-class passengers aboard the ships is so much better than the present second-class detention building can offer. The new building will accommodate about 150 without crowding, with a possibility of putting into it 200 if necessary.


Mr. DANIEL.: It affords sleeping accommodation, of course?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Much like the state-rooms on a steamer. The building has a passage down the middle with rooms about the size of state-rooms on a vessel on either side. There are two stories of these. In the centre of the building are the dining and sitting rooms. There are wings on either side with the rows of state-rooms.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And bath-rooms, &c.?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, about the same accommodation as is afforded on the river steam-boats on the St. Lawrence. There is a bath-room at either end. As a rule, the ladv passengers are housed at one end of the building and the gentlemen at the other, with exceptions in the case of married people.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I see the statement made in the press that 8,000 Doukhobors are coming to Canada. I would like to know if that is a fact, and also if the $5 a head bonus is being paid on these people?
Mr. FISHER, That is a matter under the Department of the Interior.


John Dowsley Reid: But the government must know, and I thought perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could answer the question.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The item before us has nothing to do with that point, and I have not the information before me. When an item concerning such things is before the committee, the information will gladly be given.


John Dowsley Reid: How are you going to accommodate 8,000 Doukhobors when they come?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The 8,000 are not likely to come all together. "As a matter of fact, no ship carries 8,000 passengers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this vote expected to pay the whole cost of the building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract let?


William Pugsley: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it to be a wooden building?


William Pugsley: Probably; the detention buildings are generally frame buildings; but the point has not yet been decided.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How does the minister (Mr. Pugsley) know what the building is to cost if he does not know of what it is to be built?


William Pugsley: We shall know more definitely when we get the plans, but I assure the committee in the meantime that we expect to put up a building which will not cost more than $20,000.
Lachine post office-tower clock, $750.


William Pugsley: Twenty years ago a post office was built in Lachine and a tower erected upon it with a place in it for a clock. But the clock has never been placed there. The opening for the face was boarded up and has really been an eye-sore to the people. They have urged very strongly that we should put a clock in this tower, and I trust there will be no opposition.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Who is to put it in?


William Pugsley: We will not put it in until we get the appropriation.


Samuel Hughes: How about the clock for Port Hope? Or was it Bowmanville? The government solemnly promised it some years ago and that promise has not been kept.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) oppose this vote?


Samuel Hughes: I am calling attention to a promise made by the Minister of Justice.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: I find it hard enough to keep my own promises


Samuel Hughes: I know.
Lachine public building-installation of new heating apparatus-revote of $1,700 lapsed, $2,000.


William Pugsley: It is estimated that excavating the cellar for furnace rooms, putting in concrete floor, heating apparatus, &c., will cost $2,000.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Could the minister tell us whether a contract was let for the building, and another contract for the installation of lighting?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell that, because it was built 20 years ago under the old government. I would assume that the heating and lighting was done without tender.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister, who is so well posted on the good old days, could [DOT]tell us whether this building was constructed by public competition?


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: Then my hon. friend should not be so free in his criticism, because he knows very well that the policy of the opposition to-day is a policy of public tender, and that is not the policy of my hon. friend's government.


William Pugsley: Yes, it is.


Richard Blain: Then my hon. friend is a recent convert to something of that kind, and we will expect to see him put it into practice. Since my hon. friend ventures on criticising the old government, perhaps he could bring forward some of this twenty years old information. For instance, he says the old government did not supply a clock in buildings constructed twenty years ago. We were not so profuse with promises in pre-election days as my hon. friend; therefore we are not in the clock business to the same extent.
. Levis-drill hall-revote of $20,000 lapsed,


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of proceeding with the construction of a drill hall in the town of Levis. The site is being provided by the municipality of Levis, free of cost to the government.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Tell us how this vote lapsed?


William Pugsley: This vote was in the estimates of 1907-8, and it was one of the buildings the construction of which was postponed in accordance with the decision which I explained to the committee last session.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: What regiments is this building intended to accommodate?


William Pugsley: The 6th regiment, a Quebec and Levis regiment of Canadian artillery, 265 officers and men.


George Eulas Foster: Has the building been commenced yet?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister not think that when he is commencing a work for another department it is the duty of the head of that other department to be here to justify the vote? The Minister of Militia is not present. The Minister of Public Works is responsible for the construction of buildings on the Tequest of his colleagues. But the deeper question is as to whether there should be a drill shed, and that can only be answered by the Minister of Militia. I think the House is entitled to have the responsible minister in his seat when these votes are canvassed. For instance, my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) asks for information from a mili-

tary point of view. The Minister of Public Works, though a genius in some ways, is not a military man, and he cannot answer all these things.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend in a general way is right. Of course if any item came up in respect to which there was serious opposition on the part of any member of the committee, I would ask it to stand over until the Minister of Militia was present. But in the case of this drill hall 1 can satisfy the committee that it is really necessary. There is no place in Levis where the men of the regiment can be drilled. I should have mentioned that in addition to the [DOT] 6th regiment there is the 17th regiment, which has 196 officers and men. Levis is an important town, and I think everybody will agree that it is a place where there should be a drill hall. We do not propose to erect a very expensive one, it is to cost $60,000. That is not so expensive as the drill hall in Sherbrooke or Peterborough.


Samuel Hughes: I may inform the hon. minister that the 6th regiment belongs to Vancouver, B. C.


William Pugsley: It is the Canadian artillery I spoke of.	,


Arthur Norreys Worthington: The hon. gentleman says that this drill hall does not cost as much as the drill hall at Sherbrooke. Perhaps he will tell us what the drill hall at Sherbrooke has cost. He might also tell us whether accommodation has been prepared for the new regiment which is being formed at Sherbrooke. I understand there is a new French Canadian regiment being recruited now in Sherbrooke, and it is found that there is no room in the drill shed for this new regiment.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I cannot give the information to my hon. friend. We are not asking for a vote for the Sherbrooke drill hall.
Maisonneuve-post office-revote of $10,000 lapsed, $20,000.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The first vote having lapsed, I understand that we are now starting afresh, this is practically a first vote. I think it would be well for the minister to state positively just how much money he intends to expend on this building, to erect it, fit it up, light it, heat_it, everything in connection with it, including the site. I would like him to assure the House that he will instruct his officer of the extreme limit to be allowed in the erection of this building. In taking this vote we want the minister to tell us now what this building is going to cost complete, including site, and the House wants to be assured that he will never come back again to ask for any larger sum. This is the only way the minister can keen a check upon the expenditure of the eountrv We do not want him to come back next vear, or the year after,
and ask for a further estimate beyond what he now estimates the building will actually cost. But, as the minister was able to repeat my statement and so well understands my meaning, I do not think it is worth while for me to detain the committee further on it. I hope I will have the opportunity of meeting him here another year, when possibly this matter may be dealt with again, but I do not want that the minister shall ever come back to ask for any larger sum than he says this building is actually to cost. Now, will the minister make his statement and say just how much money he proposes to expend on this building, what limit he is going to give to his officer, and then we will know exactly where vve stand.


William Pugsley: I would like very much to give my hon. friend a definite assurance in regard to the cost of this building, including the site, but I am not able to do so for the reason that I do not know what it will cost us to procure a suitable site in the first place. Maisonneuve, while it is a separate municipality, is really a part of the city of Montreal, it is growing very rapidly and land is held at high prices. I am not able to state to the committee to-night what we will get a suitable site for, and I am not able to tell the committee positively what the building will cost, but my own impression is that we ought to get a building at Maisonneuve which would not cost us over $30,000 or $35,000. That would be exclusive of the site. Of course, in a city like Montreal, which is growing very rapidly, we must be prepared to pay something more for a public building than we would in one of the smaller towns.
Mr! HENDERSON. I am afraid the minister has taken a very wide range. Thirty thousand or $35,000 would put up a pretty handsome building, but I think that between his maximum and his minimum there is too wide a difference. I think he should be able to say to the committee that he considers $30,000 ample. If he does not think so let him tell the committee that he will instruct his officers not to go beyond the larger sum. Let him fix some definite sum, because, if he does not do so, he can rest assured that the amount, no matter what it is, will be very greatly exceeded. The minister says that he does not know what the site will cost. I am not asking him to declare how much he will expend on this building, including the site. We will leave tne site in abeyance. That mav cost $1,000, it mav cost more, it may cost less; but let the minister tell us now just how much he is going to sav to his officers that the building will cost exclusive of the site. There is no difficulty in doing that. The minister knows how much money he can afford to

spend on a building of that kind. It is not a question of whether it shall be $30,000 or $35,000. The minister is going to erect a building and he says: The country can afford to spend $30,000 or $35,000. But what I do want is to establish some fixed amount that shall be adhered to and that upon a future occasion he will not come here and ask for a sum in excess of that. That is the only way in which the minister, or the House, can keep a check upon the expenditure of the country, and I do say that before this vote is passed the minister must definitely give us the assurance that the amount to be expended shall not exceed a certain sum, and let him name that sum exclusive of the site if he thinks fit.


Mr. VERVILLE.: As this proposed building is in my constituency, I may be permitted to say a word upon it. An amount has been mentioned as the probable value of land in Maisonneuve, but I should like to point out that you cannot buy land there as cheaply as some hon. members may imagine. You cannot buy a site for a postal station for much less than between $8,000 and $10,000. If a postal station is to be built there it will not be to please people in Maisonneuve but to satisfy the requirements of the postal department. Under these circumstances I think the minister rather underestimates when he mentions $35,000 as being the amount which will be required to satisfy the postal requirements 'of that community which is growing very fast. In the near future it will be absolutely necessary to have a building large enough to provide for tlfe growing business of the postal department in that section. There are between 18,000 and 20,000 people in Maisonneuve, and the city is growing at the ratq of 1,800 every year.


Samuel Hughes: Is it annexed?


Alphonse Verville: It is not annexed yet, but will be next year. They are annexing everything around the city of Montreal just now and it will be brought in next year. There is vast difference between a post office and a postal station because in the city of Montreal to-day there are no more post offices; there are postal stations under the management of the general post office.


David Henderson: My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) rather surprised me when he stated that the site for a public building in this town would cost as much as $10,000. He may be right. I have no knowledge of the value of land there. But, I made a fair proposition to the minister. We leave out of consideration the site and only ask the minister as to the amount which will be expended upon the building. I have a little suspicion about the cpst of Mr. HENDERSON.
this building. No doubt when he comes to erect it the workmen will have to work only eight hours a day. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has an eight hour a day Bill before the House.


William Pugsley: I do not understand my hon. friend's statement that on all public buildings they only work eight hours a day. There is no limitation to eight hours a day.


David Henderson: The hon. member from Maisonneuve may have something to say upon that. He is supporting the government and he will expect the government to support him. What about the hon. gentleman's Bill providing for an eight hour day on public works. It would be a most remarkable thing after the hon. gentleman's advocacy of an eight hour day for public works that he should permit a public building to be erected in his riding and the men be called'upon to work ten hours. Surely the hon. gentleman would not permit it. He would not want public money expended in his county if the men had to work ten hours a day. So that we can take it for granted that it would be an eight hour a day job, and of course it will cost a great deal more than if it were a ten hour a day job, because the men will reasonably expect to get as much for eight hours as they would get for ten. In that way the minister will have to be very guarded in his estimate and make sure that his proposal is sufficiently high. I understand the minister to say that $35,000 is to be the extreme limit that he will go in the erection of this building. lias the minister fixed that amount to cover everything, or are we to understand that $10,000 is to be paid for the site and $35,000 over that for the erection of the building?


William Pugsley: The figure I named was exclusive of the site.


David Henderson: I am not very much concerned as to what the cost of the building will be. I do not know anything about the size of the town or the requirements of the place, but I want to establish the principle so that we will know just exactly what we are doing. Now we understand the minister that whatever the site costs is 'not to be a portion of this $35,000, but that the building, outside of the site, is not to cost more than $35,000 when completed, lighted, the walks around it, the grass planted and everything done that will make it a place of beauty so that the government will not be called upon to expend another dollar upon it.


William Pugsley: Did I give that assurance?


David Henderson: I want the minister to give us that assurance. If we allow the latitude that has prevailed in the past the

expenditure is bound to get beyond our control. Has the minister the plans and specifications before him?


William Pugsley: No.


David Henderson: Then perhaps it is so much the better because he can direct his architect to produce a building which will not cost more than $35,000, and if the architect does not do it he should get another architect. But I am perfectly confident the architect will and can do it if he is so instructed.


William Pugsley: If it does cost more than $35,000 the hon. gentleman will want to know the reason why.


David Henderson: Oh, the hon. gentleman can easily find a reason or an excuse; he could give the eight hour day movement as a reason, but here we are spending the money of the people and the minister should not treat it as a joke. I have advocated this in the House for many a year, and one Minister of Public Works told me that my plan was a good one and that when we were voting away the money of the country we should know just how much we were voting.


William Cameron Edwards: I enter my protest against the utterly reckless manner in which the money of the country is being handled by this government. I do not think that even this House has ever seen such an exhibition as the Minister of Public Works has afforded in respect to this item. A year ago he asked for' $10,000 to erect a building in Maisonneuve, and one would naturally suppose that was all that was needed, but this year he asks for $20,000, and before we have had time to realize it, he tells us the building wall cost $30,000 or $35,000. Then the member for the constituency tells us that the land alone will cost $8,000 or $10,000 and the Minister of Public Works immediately tries to excuse himself for his intention to pile on something like $15,000 or $20,000 more than he is asking for to-night. Surely the minister should know what a building will cost before he asks for money for it, but he has no more idea of the ultimate cost of this building than a child on the street. That is our, experience of him in connection with other buildings. The cottages for the servants of the Military College at Kingston were contracted for at $77,000, and then he asked for $112,000, and after spending two weeks trying to justify himself he finally agreed to knock off $20,000 from the vote. Last year his excuse for the large amount of money these cottages cost was that the foundations had to be dug out of the solid rock, but as a matter of fact there were not over three feet of rock excavated. The wall above the ground is over four feet high and allowing eight feet for the cellar, 1 22
I do not see how he can make out that the excavation is as much as he said. But that is the way the money goes; drill halls here and there for the accommodation of the soldiers and the soldiers to-day at Kingston are out on Barriefield. common providing films for a moving picture show. I protest against the minister asking an appropriation for a building until he is able, to tell us what that building will ultimately cost.


Samuel Hughes: Maisonneuve is a very important centre, and I am satisfied the minister will not erect a suitable building there for $25,000, but I want to ask him if he is providing that the public buildings erected by the government shall have 100 feet, or even 200 feet, of space all round them so as to separate them from adjoining buildings? That is the practice in the United States and a very good practice it is.


William Pugsley: If we made any such rule as that it would cost us a great deal of money.


Samuel Hughes: Even so.


William Pugsley: I admit it might be in the public interest to do so.


Samuel Hughes: It would.


William Pugsley: We have not adopted that rule and we are not going to do so in this case.


Samuel Hughes: In the country towns you will find some of these buildings erected between a corner grocery and a saloon, when it would be just as easy for the government to acquire a suitable site. I would suggest to the member for Maisonneuve that he should select a proner site and even if it cost a few thousand dollars extra the House will not begrudge it.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the minister must know what the ultimate cost of this building will be, and the House certainly has the right to know, before we are asked to vote this money. I would suggest that the minister let this item stand, as well as other items which may follow, until he is able to state to the House how much in each case shall be spent for a site and how much for a building to be erected thereon. I for one do not feel justified in letting an item of this kind go through without a proper statement from the minister.


William Pugsley: I thought I stated very frankly to the committee what was the situation in regard to this building. Maisonneuve is a part of the city of Montreal; it is growing very rapidly, and land there has a value which is based upon that growth. The hon. member who represents the constituency states that in his judg-i ment the site will cost between $8,000 and



$10,000. In my opinion the building will cost not less than between $30,000 and $35,000. I shall ask the chief architect to plan a building that will cost about that amount, though if a suitable building would cost $5,000 or even $10,000 more, I think we should still proceed with it. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) complains that while I am asking fo-r $20,000, I intimate that the building is going to cost more. When my hon. friend has more parliamentary experience, he will know that the total amount required for the construction of any public work is never asked for in the first vote unless it is expected that the work will be completed during the year. All that is asked is the amount expected to be spent in the year.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it also the case that when a minister asks for an appropriation for a public building, he gives no estimate of the cost of that building?


William Pugsley: That is not the point my hon. friend made.


William Cameron Edwards: That is the point I am making now.


George Eulas Foster: Is this a post office?


William Pugsley: A postal station.


George Eulas Foster: Why is it not called so?


William Pugsley: It is a post office at present, because Maisonneuve is outside the city of Montreal. When it is joined to Montreal, this will he a postal station.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that the Postmaster General contemplates having a postal station there, and that is what it ought to be called. Did I understand the minister to say that he had not yet any plans prepared for this building?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


George Eulas Foster: It does seem to me to he a little peculiar in the minister to ask for a vote of $20,000 without a plan. "When he comes and asks for an appropriation for a public building, he ought to be able to lay the plans on the table of the House. What are we giving the vote for? Not on the strength of the minister's assertion. We are going on a plan and a plan which is tangible and can be got at; and when we are asked for $30,000, we want to know the plan of the building. The minister says he has not got any. It turns then entirely on the minister's assertion, so that it is perfectly proper that he should have his land before he asks us for the vote. Thei minister might very well take a vote and purchase the land, but until he submits his plan for the building, it seems to me not proper for him to ask the House for a vote for the building and then give no definite promises because he has no plans on which to base them.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will assure the committee that during the time he was in charge of the finances of the country, he ever knew of an instance when plans were laid on the table with reference to public buildings for which votes were passed, there would be some force in his argument.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is always at his old trick of going back to the past. Might I retort by asking, if during the time when he was a Liberal-Conservative and supported that party, and at other times he was half' way between the two parties, on the fence, as an independent, and at others when he dropped down on the other side of the fence as soon as he felt the attractions of patronage, I suppose that kind of reminiscence would rather bother him and he would not consider it was the best way of conducting business. But suppose we consider that he is responsible for the votes he asks us to pass when he brings down the estimates, are we not justified in asking him to submit the plans for the buildings he asks us to authorize him to construct.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman chooses to go back to the days when he used to live away down by the sea, before he found it necessary to change his political residence and move westward to Toronto, and if he would call to mind the thousands of dollars squandered, so far as New Brunswick was concerned, by his own neglect of the interests of people in the city of St. John, by his refusal to recognize their legitimate aspirations to have that port become the winter port of Canada, and his recognition apparently that it was quite proper to vote subsidies out of the people's money for Atlantic steamers which passed by the port of the city of St. John and made their terminus at a foreign port, assisted by the moneys of Canada, despite the pleadings of the people for some recognition of their rights, he would probably have no difficulty in discovering why so many of the best people there changed their politics and supported a party which is disposed to do justice to the maritime provinces. Now as to why I have not brought down plans here to-night, I would say that in these estimates we have some twelve hundred items and that it would be out of the question for me to instruct my chief architect and chief engineer to prepare the plans before the items were submitted to the House and voted. Does he suggest that I should have had the plans prepared before my colleagues had agreed to the estimates and before they had been submitted for the consideration of the House? These estimates were only prepared and approved by council a few weeks ago, and it would he utterly impossible to prepare one-tenth of the plans of

the various public buildings and wharfs for the consideration of the committee at present. Were I to attempt to do so, it would be utterly impossible to go on with the consideration of these public works within any reasonable time. What I have said is that such and such a building is to cost a certain amount of money; and when the amount is voted, I shall ask the chief architect to prepare the plans in each case accordingly. In the particular case under consideration, I have said that the building, in my judgment, ought not to cost over $35,000, and I shall instruct the chief architect to prepare plans of a building which will not cost more than that sum.


Samuel Hughes: Before the minister will instruct the chief architect to have the plans prepared would it not be advisable for him to have his site? Should he not first secure a site at Maisonneuve which would be of sufficient size to leave considerable space between the public building and any other adjoining building?


William Pugsley: As soon as I can get the site, I shall have the plans prepared for a suitable building. I cannot get the site without getting the money appropriated. I am only asking for $20,000. If the site should cost $10,000, that will only leave $10,000 for the building.


William Cameron Edwards: When we see in the estimates an item such as this for a post office $20,000, we are justified in concluding that that amount, or very nearly that amount, is all that will be required. In the absence of any other statement from the minister, we are justified in coming to that conclusion; and I would say that when, as in a case like the present, the minister asks for an appropriation of $20,000, and knows that the building will cost in all probability $35,000 or $40,000 with the site, when completed, he should be fair enough to say that in all probability the site there will cost more than in some other places and that possibly we shall have to spend $35,000 or $40,000 for that building. That would leave us with an altogether different impression than we are justified in having when we see simply an item of $20,000.
Mr, FOSTER. Does the hon. minister not think it would be better to take a vote for the purchase of the site and have his plans prepared and ready at the next session so that the House will know what kind of building will be constructed? *


William Pugsley: That would put the matter off a year.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend can hardly plead that as an excuse because he has not yet got the site. I do not want to press too strongly the cogency of the speech delivered by my hon. friend. It had great influence on my own mind against the pass-224
ing of this vote. Does not the minister think he will be better advised if he takes a vote for the site? He is asking for a vote for $20,000, and, if he likes, he can spend all that money on a site, a thing which, I think, the House would not justify. The minister has not told us what kind of building he is going to construct or what it will cost. He thought at first that a site could be got for $5,000, but now it is $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000.


William Pugsley: I did not mention anv amount for the site.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps my hon. friend's memory is not as good as his imagination. But ' Hansard ' comes, fortunately, as a help to bad memories, and if he will read ' Hansard ' to-morrow, I think he will see that I am right. But we are entirely at sea in this matter. The minister tells us $5,000 for a site, but the gentleman behind him who ought to know more about the matter, says that he cannot begin to get a site for that money. Before the committee is called upon to vote money for the building, it should know whether a site can be got at a fair price or not. The minister is committing us to an expenditure of $35,000 or $40,000 without a shred of a plan.


Mr. NANTEL. (Translation).: Mr. Chairman it seems to me that the suggestion offered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is quite fair. I am personallv aware that in a certain locality a site was bought along with a view to the building thereon of a post office and nothing so far has been done. In the town of Ste. Therese, in the county of Terrebonne, a site was purchased over two years ago at a cost of $5,000 for a post office, and I do not see that any vote is taken in the estimates for the erection of a post office in that town.
When a vote like this one is taken for Maisonneuve, I do not see why Ste. Therese should not enjoy a similar treatment.


William Pugsley: Though a site was purchased at Ste. Therese, we were not able to go on with the construction of the building last year. But we hope in the not distant future to see to the erection of a building there.


Samuel Hughes: Why is there no vote this year?


William Pugsley: At this moment, I cannot give my hon. friend the reason.


Samuel Hughes: Has the superior intelligence of the electors anything to do with it?


William Pugsley: No, I do not think so.
Marieville public building-revote of $5,860 lapsed, $15,000.

. Mr. FOSTER. What is the population of Marieville as compared with Ste. Ther-fese?


William Pugsley: Marieville 1,306 in 1901.


George Eulas Foster: And Ste. Therese?


William Pugsley: I do not at this moment remember.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Nantel) can give the population.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: About 2,000.


George Eulas Foster: We have been used, in times past, to get some information showing the necessity for any proposed building. Does the minister propose to introduce some new nlan?


William Pugsley: I am glad to give information, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly. Parliament voted, two years ago, a sum for this building, evidently satisfied that it was necessary. But if the hon. member wants information I am glad to give it. The population of Marieville was 1,306 in 1901; postal revenue in 1908-9 was $1,396; customs revenue-it is an outport of Montreal- $4,061.56: money orders issued, $18,905.62; money orders naid, $14,396.42. The site on which the building is to be constructed has a frontage of 84 feet on one street and 61 on another. The building is for post office and customs purposes. The site was purchased from the corporation of Marieville.


George Eulas Foster: What was paid for it?


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: What is to be the cost of the building?


William Pugsley: We think this building should be erected for not more than $25,000, that to include site, heating, lighting and everything except furniture.


George Eulas Foster: Has the Postmaster General made a requisition for a building of this size to accommodate the postal service in Marieville?


William Pugsley: The Postmaster General has not described the building required.


George Eulas Foster: What is the request of the Postmaster General?


William Pugsley: I do not find in the information before me any lequest from the Postmaster General. But the Board of Trade urged the erection of a public building as long ago as March 10, 1906.


Samuel Hughes: In what county is Marieville situated?


William Pugsley: Rouville.


Samuel Hughes: And who represents Rouville, please?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Hon. Mr. Brodeur.


George Eulas Foster: I venture to raise my voice in protest against this vote. I notice that one or two members bn the other side laugh. I wonder now, if they would conduct their own business in this way.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member (Mr. Foster) will pardon me, there is one bit of further information which I wish to give.
I stated the population of Marieville at 1,306. I should have added that there is also the population of Ste. Marie de Man-noir who use the same post office, that population being 1,054, so that there is a total population of 2,360 to be accommodated by this post office.


George Eulas Foster: Is that a town?


William Pugsley: A village, I believe.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know?


William Pugsley: I am informed that Ste. Marie de Mannoir is a parish.


George Eulas Foster: Ah! There is quite a difference, is not there? Marieville being in the parish, a post office built in Marieville will be in the parish, no doubt about that But there is equally little doubt that the $25,000 is spent for Marieville and not for the parish. Is there no post office in the parish outside of Marieville?


William Pugsley: My information is that the parish of Ste. Marie de Monnoir will also use the post office.


George Eulas Foster: There is no request from the Postmaster General, and no approval by him of this expenditure of $25,000. The Board of Trade have asked for it, we are told. This is not the money of the Board of Trade, this is the money of the country, and if it is spent at all it should be spent for no other purpose than to meet the postal requirements. Will the minister say that he has the approval and request of the Postmaster General for this vote, that he cannot carry on the postal business of this country in a proper way unless he gets $25,000 for a budding in Marieville? I have too much respect for the Postmaster General to believe that he would stand up in this House and make any such statement. The truth is that this is a matter of mere patronage, this $25,000 which has been raised from the taxation of the people is simply a matter of patronage at Marieville, nothing more, and nothing less. I for one am going to voice my protest against Marie-, ville having such an expenditure until I get good reasons from the Postmaster General to the effect that this expenditure of $25,000 is necessary in order to properly carry on the post office business of the country. I think we ought to make a very vigorous protest against any expenditure of that kind. The minister says in his bland way: Well, we think. Who are we?

The ministry. We think that a village of 1,300 people ought to have $25,000 spent on a post office. If the government thinks that, are you going to carry out the principle to its logical conclusion, and are you going to plant $25,000 of the people's money in every place in this country which has a population of 1,300? What is the post office revenue there?


William Pugsley: From the post office, $1,396.59 ; from customs, $4,061.56.


George Eulas Foster: What is the cost of the administration of the post office?


William Pugsley: The postmaster's salary is $643. The money orders, savings bank and postal notes afford a revenue of $774.25. This building is to be used for customs purposes also, and the customs revenue must also be included with the post office revenue.


George Eulas Foster: I fancy the Minister of Customs will not say to this House that he wants $25,000 spent in Marieville in order to enable him to carry on the customs business of the country. So it is not germane at all to say that customs must be added in. Now you have a surplus on that transaction of about $500 or $600. Put your $25,000 building there, and what will be the standing and permanent charge upon the country? It is absolutely wrong and the minister knows it, and I think he would be well advised if he allowed this item to stand until he hears from the Postmaster General, and until this committee get sufficient reasons from the men who are conducting te business.


William Pugsley: Notwithstanding the judgment of the hon. gentleman, I do intend to endeavour to pass the vote-unless the committee should determine against it. But why does my hon. friend make such a dead set-if I may use the expression- against this item? He allowed the item of a public building at Hillsborough, which is a no larger place than Marieville, to go through without opposition. He made no protest against the vote for the erection of a public building in Athabaska, which I think is no more important than Marieville. Is it because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was elected in that constituency by acclamation, that my hon. friend makes such determined opposition to this item? I do not think he knows the importance of this town, or he would not make such a determined opposition. I gave the population of Marieville of 1901, when it was 1,306. In the parish of Ste. Marie de Monnoir at the same time the population was 1,054. My information is that both the parish and the village use the post office in Marieville. Now the building is required for both post office and customs purposes, and the revenue which the country receives from these two sources was-upwards of $5,400 during the year 1908-9. Evidently a large business is being done there. The money orders issued amounted to $18,000, and the money orders paid to $14,000. My information is that Marieville-is a progressive town, new industries are constantly springing up. There are two hat factories carrying on successfully a manufacturing business. While the population in 1901 was 1,306, it has been growing steadily, and according to a census taken in 1907 it showed a population of 1,671. That would be in addition to the population of Ste. Marie de Monnoir. Now Marieville contains in addition to the factories I have mentioned, a college, a Roman Catholic -church, a Baptist church, an asylum for the aged and poor, a chamber of commerce, eleven stores, four hotels, one sawmill, a foundry, a threshing machine factory, a branch bank, and the ordinary express- and telegraph offices. So it is a place of importance, and increasing in population, and I certainly do think that my hon. friend had better look around and find some other public building against which he can direct his opposition with better ground. So far as I know, this place has no public building, and we are simply giving to the people what they are fairly entitled to.


George Eulas Foster: Does not my hon. friend think that he might just as well have left out one portion of his remarks when_ he asked the question, by way of insinuation, if I opposed this vote simply because a minister of the Crown happened to have been elected there?'


William Pugsley: You let so many others go through.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend think that is a manly argument between a member and a minister? Does he really think so? I dare say he does or else he would not have used it. If he thinks so, I think very few people in this House will think so. Had he so poor a case that he had to appeal to his imagination and to a prejudiced imagination? Is that the kind of tactics my hon. friend has to use generally? Is his success due to that? He exemplifies it in this argument. I think my hon. friend would be better advised to leave insinuations like that out when we are discussing an important business matter >f this kind. 1 have no doubt there will be a great many others that I might protest against just the same as this one here. Vhen he attempts to put in places like Lhis $25,000 of the people's money, where -re we to end? I would like to have the 'ostmaster General's frank opinion in re-erence to this. I have found him a straight
*d honourable man and I would like to know whether he needs this. If he does

not that settles the question. I am looking into the eyes of people away out in the far distant districts that need things that they have not got, and why should we plant down $25,000 in these little places that are very well served now and leave the great development and progress of the country entirely unprovided for in so far as these extravagances in expenditure make it impossible to carry out these improvements? Are we not business men enough to look at it from a business point of view? Do we need to resort to petty insinuations to patch up a very bad case?


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister give us the number of towns in the province which have not yet been favoured with post offices or public buildings whose population is greater than that of Marieville?


William Pugsley: I could not give that.


Samuel Hughes: What is the county seat of Rouville?


William Pugsley: Marieville.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I took occasion last year, when matters of this kind were up, to point out that post offices were being built under the Public Works Department where they were absolutely unnecessary. I went into this question, looked up the history of fifty post offices, and I found that the cost averaged about $30,000. Suppose we place the interest on that at $1,200 and the cost of maintenance and repairs at $1,200; that makes $2,400 annually for keeping up these little post offices per annum. I found that prior to the new offices being built the government were paying less than $150	per annum each. The
business interests of this country would be better served by the government in these small places renting buildings for post offices purposes. They would save a large sum of money annually even if they were to raise the rental. There is no doubt that there are many men in Marie, ville and other small places who would be very glad to rent their premises to the government for, say, $200 a year and give the service that the public required. While we have large towns that have no public buildings and have no attention paid to their needs with respect to post office facilities, I think it is wrong to be spending public money in these small places. We have towns in the country having 7,000 population and whose gross postal income amounts to $10,000 that have no public buildings in which to conduct the post office business. They cannot secure buildings from the government which is ready to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars in villages where they are not required at all. In my riding we have three towns with a gross revenue in each one of them running from $5,500 to Mr. FOSTER.
$7,000 and yet they cannot get a post office. They are not considered large or important enough to warrant the government in the expenditure of public money upon the erection of a post office, but in other sections of the country, in little villages with a gross revenue of $1,300, buildings are erected because they are able to successfully besiege the minister and get money appropriated for that purpose. There seems to be a lack of any business plan or system to guide the Minister of Public Works in the distribution of public money. Every minister who is at the head of a department should make his application to the Minister of Public Works before he undertakes to erect a public building. The Minister of Militia should father the expenditure for the armouries that are erected under his department. The Postmaster General ought to make the recommendation and father the responsibility for the erection of a post office and the same should apply with regard to all the other departments that are under the charge of the government. It is utterly impossible for a Minister of Public Works-I do not care how well qualified he may be-to have that varied knowledge with regard to all the departments of the government which would warrant him in' coming to a conclusion upon every application placed before him. He ought to throw that responsibility on the heads of the department and then he should confine himself to carrying out the instructions that they give him and curtail his expenditure in proportion to the needs of the public. When the minister states that there is a population of 2,300 in these two villages that are supposed to be served by this post office and when he states that the total revenue is something over $1,300 he makes a most remarkable statement indeed. Any of the towns in my riding with a population of 2,300 would have a gross revenue of over $5,000 and I think there is something radically wrong with the statement of the minister when he says there is only a revenue of $1,300 from a population of 2,300. There is evidently not that number of people or they do not use the post office and if they do not use the post office I do not think we are justified in spending $25,000 in erecting a building of that size.


George Eulas Foster: I want to call the attention of the committee, whether it be any use or not, to two other points. In a young country like Canada with a very large area and sparse population greatly scattered, the need for postal accommodation in the way of the carrying of letters and papers fortnightly, weekly, tri-weekly and daily is very great, and from all over that immense territory we have prayer after prayer, petition after petition asking for mail routes in reasonable quantity, which are absolute necessities at the pres-

ent time. Post offices costing $25,000 where the revenue is only $1,300 are absolutely and certainly not. They are luxuries. No, they are not even to be denominated luxuries; they are examples of wasteful extravagance. While hundreds and thousands of people living back in our country places are asking for weekly, tri-weekly and daily mail routes, in order that they may have the visit of the mail carrier and communication with others, allowing them to do their business, what is taking place under the management of this government? The revenues derived from the postal system of the country are being spent in unnecessary buildings, costing $25,000 and more so that there is not sufficient revenue to aid in the development of the mail carrying routes in order that the people in the distant parts of the country may have the visit of the postal carrier more frequently than they do to-day. Take that very instance and multiply it. You have to-day a surplus which goes into the postmaster's till of over $600,000. That surplus should be expended in giving mail service to the people in distant parts of the country, and if you go on erecting post offices out of it, instead of a surplus you will have an absolute deficit. By this means the earnings of the post office are robbed of their legitimate sphere which is to extend the postal facilities of the country. Such a system is not carried out in the United States or in Great Britain. The British post office could not exist for a single year if it undertook the policy of erecting post offices in towns of 1,300 inhabitants more or less. The British post office is managed to facilitate postal communications between the people and it is managed economically, and instead of $30,000 post offices scattered all through Great Britain and Ireland you have inexpensive and sufficient accommodation by rentals and the like. The United States is a rich country with a population of 90,000,000 and the United States is supposed to he very generous with the distribution of its money, but it does not pursue such a policy as is pursued in Canada. It places great post offices in great centres but in the smaller centres it goes on a less expensive plan. Its purpose is to increase the postal facilities for the people of the country. Why should Canada carry on this policy of robbing the post office revenue from its legitimate purpose of giving, more particularly, the people of the remote districts, to whom the arrival of the postman with a letter is a kind of benediction, far more frequent mail service than they have now. I do not make this protest in the hope that it will have any effect on the Minister of Public Works, but I do appeal to the business sense of this committee and I ask that before the vote is passed we shall have the opinion of the Postmaster General upon it.


William Pugsley: It is wonderful how the views of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) have changed since he was a member of the government and since he undertook the construction of a public building in the town of Marysville, New Brunswick, where the Gibson Manufacturing Company have their establishment, and in the constituency which I think he then represented, but of that I am not sure. In these days my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) thought that was all right.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I rise to a point of order. I want to know what this has to do with the case?


William Pugsley: I am replying to the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Foster) who has charged that we have engaged in a policy of extravagance and are depriving the postal revenue of certain of ns moneys, and I am showing that the policy we are now pursuing is that which he himself pursued when in office.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point or order.


William Pugsley: Don't you think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) can take care of himself?


Haughton Lennox: I will ask the chairman to take care of you just now. Assuming for the moment that what the Minister of Public Works says is true, what we are discussing just now is the extravagance of the government in regard to the item before the chair, and what the member for Toronto has done in the past can have no hearing on that question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has risen to a point of order, but what he is doing is discussing a point of ordel raised by another member. If he rises to a point of order he must state his point.


Haughton Lennox: I am supporting the point of order raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell.)


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I realize that many of the arguments used and much of the debate is not strictly relevant, but I have hesitated to endeavour to draw the line closer because I believe the opposition are entitled to a large amount of latitude and to a large amount of information when the government asks for a vote. But, so far as the hon. minister has gone, while it did seem to me that it was some distance from this item, yet, he was entering into a question of comparison, and I think I am not called upon to stop him until his argument develops sufficiently to enable me to see whether his comparison is close enough to be relevant to the question before the chair.


William Pugsley: I thought that were I able to auote the conduct of a gentleman so nrudent and so economical as my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) when he was Minister of Finance, as against his words now, it would be a strong argument to influence gentlemen on the other side. I thought I was making quite a strong point when 1 endeavoured to remind the committee that the hon. member (Mr. Foster) had justified in the strongest way the erection of a public building in Marysville, New Brunswick. which was not so important a town as Marieville, province of Quebec, in which we purpose erecting this building. But anart from that, I am quite prepared to justify the expenditure of a reasonable amount of public money in the construction of public buildings in the various towns and cities of the Dominion, and particularly so where it means the erection of onlv one public building in a county. It would seem to meet with the general approval of the House that it was not unreasonable to erect one building in the county town of a county, and Marieville is not only an important manufacturing and a growing town, but it is the county town of Rouville. With regard to the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) that it is robbing the postal reveune, I sav it is nothing of the kind. There is not one dollar taken from the postal revenue in connection with the erection of this or anv other public building.
The Public Works Department pays not only for the buildings, but for the upkeep, the lighting, heating and all the cost of maintenance. Therefore the postal revenue in no way suffers. It is simply a question of policy whether or not we should erect public buildings where they .are reasonably required. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) knows that he has made a demand that we should erect a public building in one of the towns of his constituency. I have not asked my colleagues to provide for it in the estimates this year, because we are spending public money in his constituency by building a much-needed wharf at the town of Gravenhurst, and I thought the matter of a public building might well stand over. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), who is always preaching economy, urged last year that we should erect a public building in the town of Milton, which is growing, and whose claims are no doubt worthy of consideration in the near future, and I do not think mv hon. friend would support my hon. friend from North Toronto in the statement he makes that this is evidence of extravagance and waste of public moneys. I think I can very well justify this expenditure. I do not think we should go to a greater expenditure than is reasonably necessary; but when a public building is Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
needed in this town, I think we can very well expend upon it between $20,000 and $25,000. It may be said that we could give a cheaper building. So we could; but the policy of the department is to erect buildings, whatever their size, of a substantial character, built of stone and brick, with solid foundations, and make them as fireproof as possible, so that they will last, and the cost of maintenance and repairs will be reduced to a minimum.


Samuel Hughes: Has the site been purchased yet?


William Pugsley: Yes, from the corporation, for the sum of $1,500.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister going to have space all around the building?


William Pugsley: I think -we can do so in this case, as the lot is 64 feet by 132 feet.


David Henderson: The hon. minister has seen fit to refer to something which he alleges I said last year in support of his contention that a $25,000 post office should be erected in Marieville. If the minister will revise his recollection, he will remember that I stated that a gentleman who had been brought out from the city of Toronto, supported by the Minister of Agriculture, to contest a rural district, was the man who advocated a post office in the town of Milton and was going to have one if the people elected him. The people did not elect him, and the minister last year gave me to understand that the man had no promise from him of a post office in the town even if he had been elected. But, laying that aside, there is no comparison between the town of Milton and the village of Marieville either as to population or as to revenue. The revenue of the post office in Milton is about $4,000, that of Marieville about $1,300. True/ the hon. gentleman adds in the. surrounding country. If he did that in the case of Milton, he would get a population far in excess of that of Milton proper. This is a new departure; I think we had better stick by the old rule, when we want to know the requirements of a place, and take the population of the place itself without any reference to the suburbs. I would not have said anything on this matter if the hon. gentleman had not made a reference to the county I represent. I am not going to advocate a building, because if I did the minister would accuse me of being extravagant.


William Stevens Fielding: Then you do not want the building?


David Henderson: I am not going to say that. The people would like very much to have the building; they are entitled to lave it; but the disnosition of this government is not to give them the building. The

hon. gentleman talks about these two hat factories in Marieville. No doubt they are important industries, but right in the village of Acton there is one factory which alone employs about 300 people.


Samuel Hughes: What do they make?


David Henderson: Leather. We have no customs house there, and the people want one badly. But this government is not disposed to accommodate the people. It would rather fritter away money on a small place where there are few people living and a comparatively small business is being done, than give accommodation where a large business is being done. Not many years ago-and the business has increased very rapidly since-the stationmaster told me that for that one firm there were sixty-eight carloads of raw material between Boston and Acton at the same time coming into their large manufactory. That gives you an idea of the extent of that factory, but the Minister of Customs has never given us a customs house. There is another institution there which requires the use of the customs house practically daily, yet this government does not think it worth while to give these people a customs officer or make that place a port or even an outport. If the government do not think it worth while to accommodate the people-and people supporting them too- where large business is being done, they will take the responsibility; and when the proper time comes, no doubt these people will get a customs house and a customs officer. But what I rose particularly to speak of was this. The Minister of Public Works became very jocular a short time ago in his reference to a place down in New Brunswick called Marysville. He accused my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) of having supported the erection of a building in that place and advanced that as an argument for the erection of this one. Well, I have some recollection of the discussion that took place on that item some fifteen or twenty years ago. The hon. gentleman was not here then but his friends were, and hour after hour-1 was almost going to say day after day-they used up the time of this House in denouncing the erection of that building. Yet now he makes use of that very structure as a justification for the erection of a building in this little town.


William Pugsley: To meet the argument of the hon. member for North Toronto.


David Henderson: And a very logical argument it was! I wonder what his friends behind him thought of it True, I do not suppose there is a gentleman behind him who was in the House then, although pos-si'dv his colleague from Brome (Mr. Fisher) mav have been there. But as he was out
during one session, I am not sure that he either was present. I do not suppose there are more than eight or nine members in this House who were here then, and they have probably forgotten all about it. But I think the minister will admit that it was very illogical on his part to cite the erection of a public building in New Brunswick some fifteen or twenty years ago, which his friends then denounced as highly improper, as a justification for the erection of this one.


William Pugsley: I did not say it was improper.


David Henderson: But his political friends denounced it for many hours as highly improper.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister advances the argument that the parish of St. Marie, de Monnoir is also served by this post office. Well, St. Angele de Monnoir post office is onhr three and three-quarter miles from Marieville, and Rougemont is about four and seven-eighths miles from Marieville, and Richelieu four and a half miles, so that the place is pretty well surrounded by post offices and cannot give much postal revenue. But have tliey no rural mail delivery there?


William Pugsley: I am told there is none.


William Wright: The hon. minister has referred to my application a few years ago for a post office in one of the towns in my riding. I did press1 that matter very strongly on him. But as my riding gives a very large postal revenue, I thought that would entitle one of its towns to some consideration by this government. I was then met, however, by the same statement as that given to-night, namely, that on account of other public expenditure in that riding, the building of a post office could not be entertained. Two years ago there was an item to build a wharf in the district of Mus-koka and the government carried that estimate through but they never built the wharf. Last year they left that item out; and when, at the end of two years, I ask for a post office, I am met with the same reply that they are going to spend $4,000 in building a wharf there. Well, we have been now waiting three years for that wharf, and I shall have to go back and tell my people that, although they contribute to the revenue of this country $200,000 per annum, the government can give them neither a wharf nor a post office. It seems absurd that they should be so parsimonious with respect to that county and then spend $30,000 in Rouville in one year. I would not venture to ask the minister for a post office in my riding for a village which only gives the government a gross revenue of $1,300. We have plenty of villages in my constituency that size, but I would never

dream of asking for a post office at any one of them, but where we have a good large town with a good postal revenue, I am justified in asking for such an expenditure. I would not want a post office costing $25,000 to be built in a little village which gives only $1,300 gross revenue.


George Eulas Foster: I want to call the attention of the House to the way in which the minister argues. I leave it to the chairman of the committee if I did not address myself to the question in point. I made two or three arguments, and the Minister of Public Works has never attempted to touch one of them. I asked him why, if Great Britain pursued a certain policy with regard to these general post offices, we should not carry out something like that policy here. I made another statement, that the United States does not indulge in this kind of expenditure, but carries on its post office in much more economical way by a system of rental and gives its great and widespread population all the advantages they require. It did seem to me that what was good policy for Great Britain and good policy for the United States in that respect might be good policy for Canada. Did the Minister of Public Works touch that argument? He did not. I used the other argument that there was a dissipation of the post office revenues in the construction of these public buildings, thereby reducing the surplus of the post office and preventing the furnishing of better postal facilities for the people. And how did the Minister of Public Works meet that argument? With a blank negative. He says: It is not true; my department pays all this expenditure. Why, the other night the minister led the House to believe that he paid his own laundry bills when travelling in an official car, but a question put to him later brought out the information that he put in his bills to the government-


William Pugsley: The hon. member will excuse me; I did not make such a statement.


George Eulas Foster: I find him figuring in the departmental accounts for large amounts for travelling expenses.


William Pugsley: But the hon. member (Mr. Foster) said that I figured there for my laundry bills. I say that is absolutely untrue.	.


George Eulas Foster: I am bound to accept the hon. minister's statement. But what 1 have said was the understanding in the House at that time, it seems to me.


William Pugsley: No, it was not.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, I accept the hon. gentleman's statement and do not pursue the subject further. But the hon. gentleman is absolutely wrong when he says Mr. WRIGHT.
that the post office does not suffer a diminution of its revenue by the building of twenty-five thousand dollar buildings in such places as Marieville. The moment you put up such a building in such a place, the surplus of the post office is reduced by added expense. For, when you have a twenty-five thousand dollar post office, you have to pay your postmaster and his assistants more salary. Other expenses also are increased. The result is that the post office itself is affected in its revenue by this drain. But what an argument for the Minister of Public Works, a grown man, to use in this committee-that his department pays for it! Whence comes the money to meet the expenditures of his department? Part of it comes from the revenues of the Post Office Department. There is a yearly surplus of something up to $1,000,000 which goes into the general fund into which flow all the revenues of Canada. Therefore every useless expense that the hon. minister nuts upon the country by paying $25,000 for a post office in a place with a population of 1,300 and with a revenue of $1,300 means just so much deducted from the revenues of the country and diminishes by that amount the possibility of a department like the Post Office extending its facilities as it otherwise might. Now, these are arguments addressed to the subject, and I call the attention of the committee to the way in which the minister does not meet them-or the way in which he thinks he meets them by going back twenty-five years or more to prove inconsistency on the part of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The inconsistency of the member for North Toronto is not in question; the question before the committee is the proposed post office at Marieville. I have presented arguments on that subject and I believe they are good ones, but the minister slid around them on a side issue not touching one argument that I gave. I also put to him the question whether he did not think that, as this was an expenditure for the benefit of the Post Office Department, we should at least have the approval and request of the Postmaster General. Now, a new policy is laid down by the Minister of Public Works. It is that wherever you find a district with 1,300 people, having a village of about 1,300 more-


William Pugsley: Seventeen hundred in 1907.


George Eulas Foster: Well, give the minister the benefit of that-a district of 1,300 with a village of 1,700,-especially if it be a county town-you should spend $25,000 of the people's money in putting there a public building, no thought or question as to whether the public business requires that expenditure or not. But the moment you put up your building you saddle the country with an expenditure of 10 per cent annually for

depreciation, interest and so on. That is a charge forever upon the revenues of the country. Carry out this policy so that wherever you have this aggregation of 1,700 people with 1,300 around them and what is the result? Now, these, I think, were arguments, and the minister met them in his own peculiar way.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: We have succeeded in getting quite a detailed description of the little village of Marieville which has been very interesting to me. I was glad to learn that it has manufactures, schools, churches and a population of 1,700. But the fact remains 1 that the total post office revenue of this flourishing village is less than $1,400. In the riding I have the honour to represent there are a number of prosperous, thriving villages, each with irs own churches, schools, manufactures, nice residences and so on, and each with a good country around it by including which you would have a population of 3,000 or 4,000. And in these places you have a post office revenue two or three times as much as that of Marieville. Yet these places never thought of asking this government to put up a $25,000 post office. I have no objection to this village, it being a county town, having a post office, but I do raise my protest against the spending of $25,000 to build a post office for a population of less than $2,000 and a revenue of less than $1,400. I consider it preposterous. If all the little villages and towns in the province of Ontario were to come down here thundering after the minister, and asking for post offices costing $25,000, places yielding a revenue twice the revenue of this little village, why, he would be overwhelmed. Now I enter my protest against the expenditure of $25,000 on a post office in a town of that size, with a revenue of less than $1,400. I can understand the minister wishing to build a post office there, but one costing $10,000 or $15,000 would be adequate. Why, we heard an hon. member of this House telling us last week of a town of 16,000 or 18,000 where the people were lined up outside waiting for their turn to enter and get their mail, and yet there is no effort to provide proper accommodation foil those people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For several years in succession I have drawn attention to what I consider to be a growing abuse. We have now a good example of that abuse in this proposal to build a post office in a place where the revenue is only $1,300. I have taken the trouble to look over the government returns, and I have found several villages and towns in the section of the country that I am acquainted with that have no post office, and every one of them have a revenue much larger than Marieville. Here they are:
Place.	Revenue.
Jarvis	$2,018
Keewatin	 2,400
Huntsville	5,557
Iroquois	 2,361
Kemptville	 3,681
Lakefield	 2,743
Lanark	 1,800
Leamington	 4,900
Little Current	 2,235
Lucan	 2,000
Lucknow	 3,120
McDougall's Chute	 2,212
Madoc	 3,033
Markdale	 2,706
Markham	 2,170
Georgetown	 4,020
Glencoe	 2,050
Gore Bay	 2,080
Grand Valley	2,309
Gravenhurst	 5,015
Slielbourne	3,601


William Pugsley: We have given Lake-field a very fine wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you have not given any public buildings?


William Pugsley: We have just built a post office at Georgetown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not so stated in the returns brought down by the government last year.


William Pugsley: It has just been completed. We have also just completed a post office at Glencoe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Probably, as in the case of Markham, it was put there in order to carry the riding. None of these places that I have mentioned have a post office, though every one of them has a much larger revenue than Marieville. Then go out to Lethbridge, where people are actually paying for the right of getting into the post office to get their letters, one in front of another, a large place with five times as much revenue as Marieville, and no effort is made to accommodate the public there. But when you come to this small village called Marieville with a revenue of $1,300, they must have a public building costing $25,000. Does not the minister think that is very unfair to these places with more business and of greater importance? I think it is unjustifiable, it is more, it is an absolute waste of public money. I venture to say that to-day, for fuel, lighting and so forth, we do not pay more than $175 a year; but after we have built this post office we will pay $400 to $600 for a man to take care of it, we will have to pay insurance, we will have to pay for reoairs, and then we will have to pay for fuel, wood and light in addition. Is that fair to other places with a much larger population and of greater importance? Is it a business way of spending the country's money? I say that no logical defence can be made on business

principles for spending this amount of money in Marieville.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I think I can present very good claims for a post office in my town of Aylmer. I was disappointed in looking over the estimates to find that the minister had not set aside something for a post office in Aylmer. I have taken the pains to look up some points where the government has given grants. Aylmer has 2,300 inhabitants, and the revenue from the post office is $6,000 or nearly $6,500. The following statement shows the expenditures that have been made by the government on post offices in other places:
Population. Revenue. Grants.
Avlmer, Ont.. ..	2,395	6,405.26	Aylmer, Que.. ..	2,291	1,611.14	5,000Chesley	1,731	4,471.00	1,500Dresden	1,613	2,897.00	1,500Elora	1,187	3,275.72	5,000Essex Centre.. ..	1,391	3,310.00	1,500Harriston	1,637	1.643.34	1,500


Leamington .. ..: 2,451	4,903.34	23.000Tilbury	2,209	2,842.00	10,000Tilsonburg 	2,241	7,084.00	1,500Fergus 	1,386	4,009.00	5,000Kincardine 	2,077	4,522.00	6,000Listowel	2,692	6,213.00	15.000Mount Forest.. ..	2,019	4,873.00	15,000Glencoe	1,118	2,959.40	26,000
There are a number of small towns also in which grants have been made but there is only one town among fifteen in which the revenue is greater than in Aylmer. The customs collected at Port Burwell amounted, during the last fiscal year, to $100,000; at Port Stanley to $98,000 and at Aylmer to $10,000, making $208,000. I think I have established the claim of this place to a post office. I differ from some of my friends on this side of the House. I believe that the government is perfectly justified in spending money where it is needed.


Samuel Hughes: I have not heard anybody on this side of the House object to that.


David Marshall: I do not think it is necessary to put large buildings and spend too much money, but I think I have established my claim for a post office at Aylmer. I have been in this House for four years and every year I have been trying to get a grant for a pos, office but I have not succeeded. I hope that when the Supplementary Estimates come down the minister will give us enough to start with.


William Pugsley: My hon friend will find that in the estimates which are under consideration there are very few new items. There may be some exceptions to that but the great majority of the items asked for are in respect of public works which were in the estimates of two years ago. I think the claims of Aylmer, as presented to me now and as presented to me a year ago, Mr SPROULE.
are very strong and I beg to assure my hon. friend that they will have my most careful consideration. I am glad that my hon. friend takes such a reasonable view of this question. Without disparaging the view of hon. gentlemen opposite, because they have a perfect right to take any view that commends itself to their judgment, I must say that the view presented by the hon. gentleman is the only one which has been presented from that side of the House that appeals to my judgment. The hon. gentleman takes the correct view that it is not against the public interest to make reasonable expenditures for public buildings where these public buildings are reasonably and fairly required. I do not find that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) gets up and objects to the large expenditure in the city of Toronto. I do not suppose that the hon. gentleman who represents the city of Hamilton will object to the large expenditures in that city. But we ought not to forget that the small towns throughout the country are as much entitled to reasonable and fair consideration as these larger cities. If it were not for the people in the villages and small towns these large cities would not be as prosperous as they are to-day. They are fed by the rural districts and the small towns and villages. We are not expending upon all these small buildings in all the small towns and cities as much in one year as we sometimes spend upon ong of these large cities such as Montreal and Toronto. Therefore, I think the request that is made by the hon. member for a reasonable recognition of the claims of the smaller cities and towns throughout the country is fair and just, and it will afford me very great pleasure as Minister of Public Works to recognize these claims when they are fairly presented to the House as they have been presented to me this evening by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.


Samuel Hughes: The question is all in the use of the word 'reasonable.' There has been no gentleman on this side of the House, that 1 have ever heard, object to any reasonable expenditure, but when the minister is satisfied to claim that a $25,000 post office in a little two by four village-


William Pugsley: A growing town.


Samuel Hughes: A little two by four village-that is all it is. I have half a dozen towns in the riding that I have the honour to represent larger than this and I would not insult the intelligence of the people of my riding or the House of Commons by coming here and asking for post offices to be scattered around like this. An ordinary building is ample in any one of these villages to accommodate the public as far as the post office is concerned. Twenty-five thousand dollars for a post office in a little

"two by four town like Marieville is unreasonable and therefore the minister's argument does not hold good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister advances the argument that many of these estimates were put in two years ago. They were just as unjustifiable then as they are to-day. Why were they put in? When there was an election coming on the estimates were padded by these large proposed expenditures and then after the election was over they were allowed to drop and the government did not go on with the expenditure. The minister advances that as a justification for voting this money now and going on with the expenditure. That is one line -of defence. Another is that these small places are entitled to expenditure. I do not think his argument is worthy of the consideration of any intelligent man in this House. The first consideration that ought to engage the attention of this House is: What is required for the accommodation and service of the public? Where you can get a building for a rent that will be very much less than the interest upon the money which would build another suitable for the accommodation of the people, you are not justified in spending the money upon a public building. But if we are told that this is for the accommodation of the public, why not accommodate Lethbridge where there is such a large return?


William Pugsley: We are going to accommodate Lethbridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This has been going on for two or three years and a most urgent appeal has been made by the member for the constituency but it has fallen upon deaf ears. We are not here for the purpose of distributing money over the country for the sake of making an expenditure where it is not needed. That should not be the aim of parliament. Therefore there is no force in the argument of the minister. Nor, is there any cogency in the argument, that because the estimates were padded two years ago in anticipation of an election we must carry them out in some cases while in other cases they must be dropped. We must be guided by the requirements of the public. If the public can be accommodated at a less expenditure to the country than by putting up a public building it should be done in that way. If you are justified in expending money in a small place like that in the province of Quebec, by the same parity of reasoning you are justified in spending public money in every similar small place in every province of the Dominion.


William Cameron Edwards: It was thought originally that this post office would be constructed for $5,800.


William Pugsley: I never made that statement.


William Cameron Edwards: There was $5,800 orig-nally voted.


William Pugsley: That was only to begin.


William Cameron Edwards: There is nothing in the vote to show that it was only to begin, and when your estimates contain no explanation it is reasonable to suppose that the vote would cover the cost of the building. On behalf of the people in my county I protest against the squandering of money in this way. Last year I went to the Postmaster General with petitions from residents in different parts of Frontenac asking for better mail facilities. In one of the oldest settlements in the province of Ontario about ten miles from the city of Kingston, the residents have a -mail service three times a week and for years they have been asking for a daily mail service the extra cost of which would amount to only $50 a year, and when I presented that petition to the Postmaster General I was told that the government did not have the money to spare for that. In another part of my county the nearest post office is five miles away from the nearest of the residents and seven miles distant on the average and they have been asking not for a daily mail service but simply begging and praying for post office facilities and a mail twice a week, and the minister has told me that they have no money for that purpose. There are many like instances in the county of Frontenac and I presume in other counties throughout the Dominion where the people in the rural communities are suffering for lack of proper mail facilities. The Minister of Public Works has laid down a new doctrine to-night and one which may give some light to the people of my county, when he told a gentleman on this side of the House that the reason they did not erect a public building in a large town in his riding was because they spent iome money on the harbour in that constituency. I suppose then that the people of Frontenac are to take it for granted that the reason they have to walk seven miles for their mail is because nearly $100,000 was spent on providing residences at Kingston for men drawing a salary of $400 a year. I suppose, had the member for Frontenac asked some years ago for better postal facilities, he would have been told that the government had already spent a large amount of money in that county for erecting stables for the military college, which, although erected five years ago have never had a horse inside of them yet. That is the way the money of the people is squandered.


William Pugsley: Is Kingston in the hon. gentleman's constituency?


William Cameron Edwards: Kingston is not in the hon. gentleman's constituency, but it is in

the county of Frontenac and these stables are in Barriefield which is in my constituency, and I suppose because they have been erected in Barriefield and the money expended in the county, that is the reason why people in the county of Frontenac have to walk seven or eight miles to get their mail, although my constituents have not got any benefit from these stables, nor have the soldiers either.


Samuel Hughes: Nor the horses.


William Pugsley: I made no statement such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) attributes to me.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister gave as an excuse for not erecting a post office in a certain place where the revenue was far greater than it is in Marieville that the government had spent money in erecting other works in the constituency.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is speaking of rural mail delivery.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not mention rural mail delivery to-night and the Minister of Public Works must be dreaming if he thinks I did. I am referring to the fact that there are people in my county who are not asking for rural mail delivery but who have to walk seven and eight miles to get their letters and who want a post office placed in their midst.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman pressed for the erection of a post office building in his constituency?


William Cameron Edwards: Of a $25,000 building?


William Pugsley: Of any building?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I have not.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman complain about?


William Cameron Edwards: I am not responsible for your understanding if I cannot make it clear to you. What we ask is that you allow some person in that neighbourhood to keep a post office in his house so that the people will not have to travel seven or eight miles to get their letters. Does the minister understand now what I am talking about? To bring this matter to a head, and believing this vote is not a reasonable one I move that this item be reduced by $6,500.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman has not given any reason whv this item should be reduced. Marieville is a progressive town, factories have been recently erected there and a large number of people employed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the figures the minister gave us, it has only grown during the last six years at the rate of fifty a year.


William Cameron Edwards: 


William Pugsley: It has increased from 1,300 to 1,600.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has spoken of the population being up to 1,700. What authority has he for making that statement?


William Pugsley: There was a census taken by the municipal authorities in 1907, and the population was then 1,671. It is estimated that now, including the students and attendants at the college, there is in the town of Marieville alone a population of 2,000, while if you add to that the population of the parish which immediately surrounds the town, you will have a population of about 3,000 people who will be accommodated by that public building. If we are going to erect a substantial building, I do not see how we can do it for much less than the amount named. Therefore, I hope the committee will see that it would not be reasonable to support the amendment of the hon. member for Frontenac.
Amendment negatived.
Megantic public building-revote of $4,900 lapsed, $10,000.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population and revenue?


William Pugsley: The population is nearly 2,000.


Richard Blain: What about the site?


William Pugsley: It has been purchased at $4,000.


Samuel Hughes: When was it purchased?


William Pugsley: In January, 1907, from the Presbyterian congregation. The postal re venue is $2,637 and the customs revenue $10,777.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: $25,000, including the site, heating and everything.
Montreal general post office-enlargement and alterations, $80,000.


William Pugsley: This is for completion of the work which has been under contract. We are obliged to make considerable alterations to the old building so as to make it in harmony with the new building and more fireproof.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this intended to finish the work there?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will be required?


William Pugsley: That depends on what we do. If we make the old building fireproof, it is going to cost considerably more.

There is a strong inducement to do so, as we have made the new building fireproof.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Should not the minister have his mind made up as to what he is going to do before he comes and asks for a vote?


William Pugsley: What we are asking for will iust about complete the payments on the present contract. If we go on and remodel the old building and make it fireproof we shall have to come to parliament for another vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is an insult to the intelligence of the people's representatives for ministers of the Crown to ask them to vote public money without giving them the information they are entitled to have. Twenty-five years ago the minister of the Crown would be shamed out of this House if he could not give more information than the hon. gentleman has given us to-night.


William Pugsley: I have a great deal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. minister has, he manages to keep it to himself most sedulously. He thinks he can jolly the House along without giving any information, and it is often to my mind a question whether he really desires to give the information even when he has it, and whether he does not think it infra dig to give information to members of the opposition. That conduct has so often shocked my sense of right that I cannot refrain from giving expression to my opinion concerning it.


William Pugsley: The trouble with my hon. friend is that he gets unduly excited, What information does he desire with regard to this post office building?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to know how much we are committing ourselves to in the expenditure on this undertaking, what will it cost when completed, what is the outline of the building we propose to erect, is it fireproof, is it of wood, stone or brick, and will it give the service required? If contracts have been let, have they been let by tender and has the lowest tender been accepted? If plans have been made out. what do they show? He says that I am unduly excited. Has he ever sat in this House and heard the right hon. the Prime Minister explain his estimates. I never saw an occasion on which that right hon. gentleman had any trouble with them. Why? Because he is perfectly frank and candid and courteous, and when asked a question immediately answers, and shows no desire to jolly the House along or keep back information. How is it that it takes the Minister of Public Works so much longer to get his estimates through than the Prime Minister? Because the Prime Minister, and I may say the same of several
others, shows a desire to give all the information he can without reserve.


William Pugsley: As the hon. gentleman is an old member, I cannot allow to pass certain remarks and innuendos made by him without some reply, especially when he uses language so unparliamentary as to say that I am seeking to jolly the committee. When he does so, he shows that he has but a slight appreciation of the meaning of words.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I said was that that was the impression left on my mind and what appeared to be the disposition of the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: Not .being able to look into the mind of my hon. friend to see what kind of a mind it is, I cannot know what gives him the impression of an attempt on my part to jolly the House. I have no desire to jolly the hon. member or any member of the committee. It is impossible for him to point to a single instance in which I refused to give all the information possible. He ought to bear in mind that there are some twelve hundred items in the estimates. I cannot keep them all in mind, but have to rely on my chief architect and my deputy and the memoranda I have for the information asked. On reflection my hon. friend will see that it was very unfair on his part to pass these reflections without asking a single question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did I not ask the hon. minister what he proposed to do with the $80,000?


William Pugsley: I said I was considering the question of making that building fireproof and then said that this amount would just about cover the contract now had with Lyall and Sons. He asks why I did not tell him whether this contract was let after tender or not. Well, two years ago we made the contract for that building, and I then told him we would spend this whole sum on the building as then contemplated, but that if we decided to make it fireproof we would have to ask for a further vote. I think he will see on reflection that he does- me a great injustice. I trust that he will let the item pass, and when he wants information be good enough to ask for it.


Samuel Hughes: Who was the contractor?


Mr. PUGSLEY  P.@: Lyall and Sons.


Samuel Hughes: What contracts have they with the government other than this?


William Pugsley: First, the main contract which was for rebuilding the new part, then the heating apparatus. The electric wiring was given to Dawson & Company, Limited, of Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says I did not ask him a question. I asked him specifically whether this was all _ the expenditure that would be required, or whether he would require any more.


William Pugsley: I said that if we decided to make the building fireproof we would require to ask for more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suppose that *before undertaking the expenditure of money the minister would have made some calculation and be able to give the House some information as to what this building will cost the country when completed. He replied that would depend on whether more expenditure would be made after this vote. In seven cases out of ten when I put him a question, the minister will turn to something else and try to divert attention and apparently does not desire to answer frankly.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen other Ministers of Public Works, I have seen Sir Hector Langevin, when Minister of Public Works, stand for hours with his book in his hand and his deputy beside him, and give all information regarding the item under discussion in advance without waiting to be asked. If anything were neglected or forgotten in his memo, he would ask his deputy. Sir Richard Cartwright, when he was in this House, did the same.
An ho'n. MEMBER. And the Minister of Agriculture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only trouble with him is that he is so anxious to give information that a few questions will keep him going all night.


Samuel Hughes: Has this firm any other contracts with the Public Works Department in any other part of Canada?


William Pugsley: No, no other.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the amount of the contracts let?


William Pugsley: For the addition to the main building, $487,527; heating apparatus, $18,407; electric wiring and fittings, $6,392.46.	i


William Cameron Edwards: To whom are they let?


William Pugsley: For the addition to the building and for the heating, Messrs. P. Lyall & Sons, and for the electric wiring and fittings, Dawson & Co., Ltd.
Montreal-new postal station ' D/ at Point St. Charles, $6,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I submit, we have done a pretty fair day's work, and the minister should let us go.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: We ought to finish up Quebec; we have only a few items.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are only about half through.


Samuel Hughes: Finish Montreal.


William Pugsley: This $6,000 will complete this new building.
Plessisville public building, $2,000.


John Albert Sexsmith: What is the population of Plessisville?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 1,586.


Samuel Hughes: In what county is it?


William Pugsley: In Megantic. This amount will complete the building. It is under contract.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think it fair to go on with the succeeding items, foT they are for buildings for militia purposes, and the Minister of Militia is not here. He ought to be here when these items are under consideration.


William Pugsley: I'll tejl you what we might do,-let us pass over these votes for military buildings and take the next five small items.


Richard Blain: There are members from Quebec who are not present, and I think these items should be left over.


William Pugsley: We had better take the item for Roberval.


Richard Blain: No matter when a suggestion is made to stop, the hon. minister always has three or four more items that he wants to put through.


William Pugsley: I have left over these military items. We might take Roberval.


Richard Blain: No, Mr. Chairman. I think it time to close the House. I do not want to be over anxious, but I think it only fair to the committee that proceedings should close.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We get along better if, when we have done a reasonable day's work, we stop.


William Pugsley: I should be sorry to keep my hon. friends here too late.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The first government, order will be the French Treaty, and, if we reach other government orders, Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, November 30, 1909.