1909-02-25

Eight Hpn.   S@: That the Special Committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House, and who have already reported, be revived and have power to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House for the following purposes:
On Marine and Fisheries.
On Mines and Minerals.
On Forests, Waterways and Water-Powers. And that that portion of rule 10 limiting the number of members of the said committee be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk of the House had received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificate of the election and return of Edward Kidd, Esq., for the electoral district of Carleton, Ontario.
Edward Kidd, Esq., member for the electoral district of Carleton, Ontario, introduced by Mr. E. L. Borden and Mr. Richard Blain.

[Stage Direction]
BUILDINGS LEASED BY GOVERNMENT. Mr. PEELEY asked:
1.	What buildings or parts of buildings in the city of Ottawa are leased by the government, including the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, and all other branches of the public service, at an annual rental of over $1,900?
2.	What is the rental paid by the government in each case, and how much does it amount to per superficial foot for the space occupied, excluding the halls, corridors, stairways and elevator space?
3.	What amount of city taxes does the government pay in each case?

4. In which of these buildings is (a) the heating and attendance, and (b) the cost of running and taking care of elevator, paid for by the government, and what is the cost of the same in each case?
['I will make inquiry. I could not answer at this moment.']
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: 

Mr. BOYER asked:: 1.	By whom are sold or granted under any Act of parliament whatsoever the hydraulic powers furnished by the rapids and dam in the Ottawa river opposite Carillon and Point Fortune ?
2.	If these hydraulic powers are simply leased or in possession of one or more persons or companies, under any Act of parliament whatsoever, what are these Acts, and up to what time does the privilege extend?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The water-power available at the Carillon dam is under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals.
2.	Leased under the usual conditions for a term of 21 years, renewable for two terms more of 21 years each, at $2 per horsepower, for all horse-power used.


POINTE-AUX-TREMBLES WHARF.
Mr. C. A. WILSON asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal Island, is said to he in a very bad state of repair and ruinous condition, so that it is impossible for boats to tie up there and do any unloading whatever ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to have this wharf immediately repaired, in order that it may he fit for use on the opening of navigation?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. When this question appeared on the Order Paper, inquiry was made of the department's engineer in charge, Montreal district, who reported that the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal island, is in a very bad condition, estimated cost of rebuilding, $4,500; further that said wharf is the property of the municipality.


POST OFFICE INSPECTOR AT NORTH BAY.
Mr. GEO. GORDON asked:: What is being done with regard to the appointment of post office inspector at North Bay?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The question is under consideration.


GRENVILLE-HAWKESBURY BRIDGE.
Mr. TURRIFF asked:: 1.	Does the government intend to assist in the building of an interprovincial bridge between Grenville, Quebec, and Hawkesbury, Ontario ?
2.	If so, when can the people of those localities expect the work to begin?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. The government has caused an examination to be made for an interprovincial bridge between Grenville, Quebec, and Hawkesbury, Ontario. The engineer's report on the matter is not completed; a preliminary estimate of cost is now under study.


THE CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. TURRIFF (Assiniboia) asked:: 1.	What are the names and positions of the thirty-five members of the Civil Service who receive no increase of salary under the recent amendments to the Civil Service Act?
2.	What is the reason that these gentlemen do not benefit from the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, which were supposed to apply to all classes of the service ?
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State:
1. Department of Agrciulture. - Fred Montizambert, First 'A', $4,000; Wm. Saunders, First 'A', $4,000; A. Blue, First 'A', $4,000; J. G. Rutherford, First ' A,' $4,000.

Department of Finance-Henry T. Ross, First 'A', $4,500.
Department of Inland Revenue-T. Parent, Third 'A', $1,200; T. Burgess, carpenter, $900; Jas. Hagan, warehouseman, $900.
Department of the Interior-A. Kilmar-tin, Third ' B,' $800; A. Devlin, Third ' B,' $800.
Department of Justice-E. R. Cameron, First 'A', $4,000; T. Morris, Third 'B', $800;
Library Department-F. X. Desloges, messenger, $900.
Department of Mines-E. F. Goodman, Third 'B', $800; D. A. Esdale, carpenter, $939.
Department of Printing and Stationery- G. Randall, Third 'B', $800; A. LaFleur, Third 'B',_$800; W. Emond, Third 'B', $800; J. Foley, Third 'B', $800; J. Foran, caretaker, $1,000.
Department of Public Works-J. B. Char-leson. First 'B', $2,800; P. Canty, Second 'B', $1,642.50; Louis Belanger, Second 'B', $1,600; A. Dostaler, Third 'A', $1,200; T. G. Bell, Third 'A', $1,200; T. D. Caldwell, Third 'A', $1,200; O. Belanger, Third 'B', $800; Mrs. E. Lemovne, Third 'B', $800; F. O. Hamel, Third 'B', $800; M. Lafram-boise, Third 'B', $800; Mrs. M. L. Roy, Third 'B', $800; A. Valade, Third 'B', $800; J. G. Kennedy, Third 'B', $800; A. Bray, messenger, $850.
Department of Railways and Canals- John Kerr, Third 'B', $800.
Privy Council-C. Schreiber, First 'A',

2. All having been at or above the maximum salary of their respective subdivisions.


CANAL NEAR MONETTEVILLE.
Mr. GEO. GORDON asked:: 1.	What expenditure has been made on the proposed canal between Lake Nipissing and a small lake near Monetteville?
2.	What is the estimated cost of this work, and is it being done by contract?
3.	When will it be completed?
4.	Whait draught boats is this canal proposed to accommodate?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$2,893.03.
2.	(a) $6,300.
(b) Day's labour.
3.	With favourable conditions, work can be completed during the present year. Matter of further grant to complete the work is under consideration.
4.	Six feet.


POST OFFICE PAYMENTS IN NEWMARKET AND AURORA.
Mr. WALLACE asked:: 1. What is the salary of Thomas Somerville mail carrier, of Newmarket, Ontario, and what is the extent of his duties?


Mr. MURPHY.: 2.	How much did Thomas Fardy, of New market, receive for repairs to mail bags for the past fiscal year, and how much since 31st of March, 1908, to date?
3.	How much did William Willis, of Aurora
receive from the Post Office Department for the last five years, and how much since 31st March, 1908, to date?	.
4.	How much did Fleury & Sons, of Aurora, Ontario, receive from the Post Office Department for the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908, and since 31st March, 1908, to date?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1. Mr. Thomas Somerville of Newmarket is not in receipt of a fixed salary from the Post Office Department. Contracts have, however, been entered into by him with the department for the performance of the following mail services:	Newmarket and
Pine Orchard, $1 per trip; Newmarket and Grand Trunk Railway station, $200 per annum; Newmarket and Sutton West, $1,000 per annum, and $1 per box per annum for making collections from and deliveries to seventy-five rural delivery boxes; Newmarket and Toronto and York Radial Railway, fifty cents per day; Glenville and Newmarket, $120 per annum.
2.	Fiscal year 1907-08	$919 75
Present fiscal year to February
1, 1909	 977 00
3.	Fiscal year-
1903-	04	$3,446	751904-	05	
3,367	051905-	06	
3,563	531906-	07,	(9	months)	
3,098	611907-	08	
5,229	341908-	09,	(to date)	6,813	934.	Fiscal year-1903-	04	$3,438	501904-	05	
2,384	501905-	06	
6,612	301906-	07,	(9	months)	4,719	391907-	08	
6,976	551908-	09,	(to date)	
8,277	85


INCEPTION OF GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: Referring to the Toronto 'Globe' of the 22nd February instant, in which is reported a speech made by Mr. Wainwright, of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, ait the Board of Trade banquet, Montreal, it says:-'Other interesting inside information furnished by Mr. Wainwright was to the effect that the Grand Trunk Pacific idea originated in the brain of Mr. Charles M. Hays. When Mr. Hays returned from the Southern Pacific in 1902 he broached the subject to Mr. Wainwright. On Sir Wilfrid Laurier's return from England, Mr. Wainwright was sent by Mr. Hays to see Sir Wilfrid, and it was at this meeting that the subject was first brought to the notice of Sir Wilfrid.' Is Mr. Wainwright's statement of this matter correct?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: The government has no information as to what may have passed between Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Hays. The pro-

ject of the National Transcontinental Railway was first broached between the government and the Grand Trunk in the fall of 1902.


HALIFAX AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY SUBSIDY.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: 1.	Referring to a subsidy provided by the Acts of 1903, chapter 57, section 23, for a line of railway from a point at or near Caledonia tc Liverpool, not exceeding 29 miles, has this subsidy lapsed or is it still available?
2.	Has the government or Minister of Railways entered into a contract with any person, firm or corporation for the construction of this line of railway or any part thereof? If so, with whom ?
3.	If the subsidy has lapsed, when did it so lapse or cease to be available?
4.	Have there been any negotiations with any person, firm or corporation respecting the construction of this line? If so, with whom, and what negotiations?
5.	What has been done by the government in respect to the construction of this line of railway, or any part thereof?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Part of it was revoted in 1907.
2.	Yes. With the Halifax and Southwestern Railway, which contract lapsed in 1905.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No.
5.	The usual subsidy was voted as above stated.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY FREIGHT CLERKS' REQUESTS.	.


Mr. STANFIELD asked:: 1.	What answer did the Minister of Railways make to the Intercolonial freight clerks' request for certain betterments, in view of the fact that the Committee of Conciliation representing both parties, reported unanimously, chiefly in the employees' favour?
2.	Has the finding of the committee been put into effect? If not, why not?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the department to put such recommendation into effect and when?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The finding of the Board was accepted, it is doubtful if the report was chiefly in the employees' favour, as it advised a reduction of the staff and suggested that if this were done the money would then be available for granting an increase to those retained in the service.
2.	It is under consideration. The classified list of employees only reached the department recently, and the necessary action *will he taken in due course.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. FOSTER.: I wish to call the attention of the Finance Minister to a number
of returns ordered by the House with reference to loans with a view to having them brought down as soon as possible.


Mr. FIELDING.: I have already given instructions that the returns shall be expedited and hope they will be brought down without much delay.


George Eulas Foster: I would call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that in response to an order of this House I have received through the Secretary of State a return of the orders in council by which the increases spread over four pages in the ' Hansard ' of February 4, 1909, were authorized. The return comprises nine orders in council but they take in a very small number of employees. Is the return defective or were these other increases made without the authority of order in council?


Mr. OLIVER.: I will make inquiry. I could not answer at this moment.



SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Friday, February 26, 1909.']
Wilfrid Laurier: I shall avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the inquiry made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) on Tuesday with regard to the treaty signed at Washington on the 11th of April last for the marking of the boundaries between Canada and the United States. The hon. gentleman stated that in the last draft of the treaty there was a departure from the wording of the Ashburton treaty. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that the parliamentary paper from which he cited contains a misprint. The article in the treaty says that :
The line shall not intersect islands lying along its course.
These are the terms of the treaty as negotiated in 1900. In the parliamentary paper brought down on the 19th of May last, paper No. 54-A, there is a misprint. The word ' not ' was dropped, but in all the other papers the word ' not ' is included. Sessional paper No. 54-B with regard to the same question, brought down in June last, has the wording correctly. The word ' not ' is in and the treaty reads :
The line shall not intersect islands lying along its course.
That is exactly the wording of the treaty as it was signed at Washington and therefore all the apprehensions of my hon. friend are absolutely without foundation.



Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: In connection with the Waterways treaty, which has not yet been presented to this House, although

what purports to be a copy has been published in the press of the country, I would point out that the treaty seems to have been discussed by one of the commissioners instrumental in negotiating it, Mr. Gibbons, at a recent meeting in the province of Ontario. I observe by the Toronto ' Globe ' of the 23rd inst., that Mr. George C. Gibbons addressed the Canadian Club at Toronto and in the course of his address spoke pretty definitely of some of the terms of the treaty. It does seem to) me under the circumstances that the Prime Minister should expedite the presentation of that treaty to parliament. The terms of the treaty have been made public not only in the United States but in the press of our own country. In addition to that, one of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty feels himself at liberty to discuss its terms. It is little better than a farce that the treaty should not be presented officially to this parliament. I trust that there will he no great delay. I do not know that any great discussion in parliament will be necessary; I assume there will be some discussion, but I merely desire to emphasize the point that parliament ought to be in a position to discuss the treaty when it is being discussed in the press of the country and even by a gentleman who, acting on behalf of this government, was instrumental in framing its terms.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can inform my hon. friend, by authority, that the treaty has not been communicated officially by the United States to Congress. It has been, of course, submitted to the Senate, which body, under the terms of the constitution, must pass upon it; but it has not been officially communicated to Congress itself. We have been pressing, as fast as we can, to have authority to put it at once upon the table of the House, because I agree with my hon friend in saying that there is no reason that I can see why this should not be done. But he knows that in this matter we are bound by certain rules which we must follow. We are pressing it and hope to have the matter decided at an early day.


George Eulas Foster: How about Mr. Gibbons?


Wilfrid Laurier: He is discussing the treaty as he finds it in the press, I suppose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to capital -Canals-Lachine canal-To complete wharf and basins, $150,000.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: This item was discussed at some length the other night. The money is to provide better facilities for shipment. The business men of Montreal, shippers and forwarders realize the neces-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
sity for it. The vote was taken last year, but only $40,000 was spent. The form in which the item appears in the estimates is a little misleading, as I explained the other night. This total vote of $150,000 is entered as a revote. The position is that $300.000 was voted last year, but only $40,000 spent as I have said. We expect to spend $150,000 this year. Some hon. members asked me for the names of the tenderers. They were as follows: Quinlan and Robertson, George Goodwin, Canadian General Development Company, Doheny and O'Brien and Michael Connolly. The contract is dated October 24, 1908. The lowest tenderer was the Canadian Development Company, $236,989.75. The expenditure for the current year $40,000 was all for cement. I was asked for the names of the tenderers for cement. They are as follows:
Lakefield Portland Cement Co	 1.27
International Portland Cement Co.. ..	1.40
Vulcan Portland Cement Co	 1.22
Belleville Portland Cement Co	 1.43
Canadian Portland Cement Co	 1.30
Schuster Cement Co., for Lehigh Portland Cement Co	 1.36 & 1.46
Net.


Haughton Lennox: I would call attention to the statement made the night before last as we were adjourning. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us that we should go into Supply, and that the Minister of Railways and Canals would ask the attention of the committee to his canal estimates. I do not know whether other hon. gentlemen apprehended that as I did, but I understood that we should probably have the pleasure of listening to an address by the Minister of Railways and Canals on the subject of canals, and in that way, we should have the advantage of knowing, perhaps, what is the general, up-to-date policy of the department upon the development of our canal system and other matters connected with that general question.


George Perry Graham: It has been the custom, I believe, for the Minister of Railways and Canals to make a statement concerning the Intercolonial Railway before we go into Supply. I am not asking to-day for any supply for the railways branch, and will not do so until I am prepared to make a statement to the House. Last year, in discussing the question of transportation, I dealt with the canals incidentally, and, in the few remarks I may make again, I shall mention them.


Haughton Lennox: For years it has been customary for the minister to make a statement on the subject of the Intercolonial. But, the other night, the Minister of Finance specially spoke of the question of canals, and I thought a new departure had been made, and, as the question of canals in Canada is a very important one in connection with the whole problem of trans-

portation, that the minister had determined, on this occasion, to give us interesting information as to what he proposed in reference to the canal system. There are some very interesting features in connection with that question, and some very large promises have been made. I do not know how the other members view the matter, hut I should have been glad if the minister had made a general statement.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: We must have a statement, especially as there is a recommendation by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals in regard to our canal transportation system. He tells us in this report what he thinks is the best system of water communication. We also had a statement from the premier when he was in Welland of what he intended to do in refer-*ence to canals, not only to deepen the Welland canal into Lake Ontario, but in the near future he was going to build the Georgian Bay canal. But the deputy of the department, no doubt voicing the opinion of the department, has proposed a policy. This may not be the proper time to discuss the statement of the minister, but certainly we may expect a statement of the policy of the government.


George Perry Graham: The House may remember that I gave at some length my opinion on the question of water transportation the other night when on some other estimates. It is well understood, however, that for the present at least, the policy of the government has been pretty well decided on, and it would be unwise to change it in reference to any new undertaking. Those works that are under way will be proceeded with. But I am not retracting from anything I have said as to the desirability of extending our transportation facilities by water. The policy of the government will scarcely be to undertake any new work this year which would mean a large expenditure of money. I may reiterate what every nerson knows to be true, that the great safety valve for our transportation is the development of our waterways. We have the best waterways in the world, and they are canable of the highest development of any waterways in the world. My own opinion is, and I have often expressed it in this House before, that with the Welland canal deepened or a new Welland canal, which would be still better, we can favourably compete with our friends across the line in the carrying trade from the west to the east and in a large measure from the east to the west. That is a large problem. The question of the Georgian Bay canal has been before the House for years, and while opinions are somewhat divided, there seems to be a strong opinion in important circles that that would solve the problem of the carrying trade from the west to the east. However, while I in no way. detract from anything I have said, for the.
present at least the government policy will be not to undertake any of these great works that will call for a large expenditure of money.


George Eulas Foster: Is that policy of progress for the future near at hand, or is it a little less remote than it was in October last?


George Perry Graham: By the efflux of time it gets closer.


George Eulas Foster: But the ministerial idea does not seem to be as clear as it was in October.


George Perry Graham: Mine is.


Mr. BLAIN.: The Minister of Public Works, when he was introducing his estimates stated that a new rule of economy was adopted in his department. I wanted to know whether that prevails in other departments, and perhaps my hon. friend will be able to advise the committee on that point.


George Perry Graham: The Department of Railways and Canals has always been pretty economical so far as I know. As to details, I was not here when my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works made his remark. But the Department of Railways and Canals is conducted on the most economical lines consistent with the efficiency of the service and the interest of the country.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: The Minister of Railways has made an explanation in reference to the contract for cement. Will he explain how it comes that he paid, as shown by the Auditor General's Report, W -9, the Canadian Portland Cement Company, limited, for 5,000 barrels of Star cement at $2.62J; to W. McNally & Company, Portland cement, 2,500 barrels at $2.40. Were these purchased by tender?


George Perry Graham: They were all purchased by tender. In our department no cement is purchased in any other way.


George Taylor: Has cement fallen so much in the last year?


George Perry Graham: I think cement has never been so cheap in Canada as it is at the present time.


George Taylor: What is it worth?


George Perry Graham: $1.12 to $1.20 net, when sold in quantities. By net I mean 10 per cent off when the bag is returned.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Has the minister abandoned the patronage list, like some of the other departments? I do not need to remirid the House of the trouble we had last year in this regard.


George Perry Graham: I have no recollection of trouble in my department about the patronage list. I think my hon. friend has got mixed up. As a matter of fact, in Some

instances we purchased from a list, on invitation by circular letter. We have notified our various branches that any person who desires is at liberty to tender for any of our goods. If any member, of the House knows of any person that he would like us to ask to tender for any materials that we buy, where the amount is not large enough to warrant us to advertise, we would be delighted to give him a change to tender.


Mr. J. D. REID.: When did that plan originate?


George Perry Graham: We have always had on that list men of both political parties.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the minister intend to do his advertising only in Liberal papers, or in the press generally?


George Perry Graham: As long as men are human-and I agree with Judge Cassels in this-everything, being equal, it is natural to express confidence in those who have implicit confidence in us so long as the country gets full value for its money. That we insist on in every case.


Mr. BARR.: Could the hon. gentleman give us one instance where a Conservative got a contract? It might be a relief to us if we knew of one case where a Conservative sold goods to the government.


George Perry Graham: I can give my hon. friend one instance. Perhaps I should not take liberty'with the name, but as he has asked me so pointedly I may say that only a week ago I got a verbal reminder that I had given a large contract for ties to a gentleman who ran against the hon. member for Westmoreland. He got the contract on strict business principles.


George Taylor: Who tendered fpr this cement on page W-9, where you paid $2.62 for 5,000 barrels?


George Perry Graham: What work is that on?


George Taylor: The Lachine canal. It seems strange that you would pay $2.6%, when you could have purchased it for $1.85 in Ottawa.


George Perry Graham: That is not correct. $2.62 would probably be the gross price anyway.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister explain how it is that he requires $40,030 worth of cement on a $250,000'contract? It seems an enormous sum.


George Perry Graham: I am advised by the engineer that that will not nearly do the work.


John Graham Haggart: In a $250,000 contract?


George Perry Graham: A largb share of the work is concrete work.


George Taylor: If the minister will turn to page W-14 of the Auditor General's Report, he will find that he purchased from Mr. GRAHAM.
the Colonial Portland Cement Company 2,000 barrels of cement at $1.80, the same year, less 10 cents for sacks; from the Lake-field Portland Cement Company, 2,500 barrels at $2.30; from the Lakefield Portland Cement Company, 212 barrels at $2.30; and yet he paid $2,624 at the Lachine canal, close to where the cement is made. It appears that this cement is all bought just on the job plan, no tenders being invited but simply a circular letter sent out to one or two of the friends of the government.
Mr,. GRAHAM. My hon). friend will agree with me that a year ago cement was much higher than it is now, but I assure him that the cement is all bought by tender, and we give the contract to the lowest tenderer in every instance.


George Taylor: Who tendered when this contract was awarded at $2,624?


George Perry Graham: That is a year ago; I will have to look it up.


George Taylor: There was a purchase made at the same time at $1.80.


George Perry Graham: Not at the same time.


George Taylor: Within the same year.


George Perry Graham: That may be.


Mr. BARKER.: When the minister asks for tenders for a very large quantity of cement and gets bids, such as he got here of $2,624, does he cause inquiries to be made whether other large buyers of that article are paying as much as the price mentioned in the tender that he has received, or does he go it blind and, when he gets four or five tenders, just take the lowest?


George Perry Graham: The department keeps pretty close track of prices by watching the markets and making inquiries, and we think we are buying as cheaply or a little, more cheaply than most people do.


Samuel Barker: How are these inquiries made? For instance, you have a tender for $40,000 worth of cement; do you inquire what large buyers are paying at that moment, and, if you make these inquiries, are they made by letter?


George Perry Graham: My deputy informs me that he makes inquiries from big dealers and contractors to see what they are paying; and that he keeps himself posted all the time as to the prices they are paying. He assures me that he is constantly buying cement as cheaply or cheaper than the large buyers.


Samuel Barker: Are these inquiries made verbally, or are they made by letter, and, if by letter, has the minister any objection to the committee seeing them?


George Perry Graham: My deputy tells me that he does not recall whether he has done that

in writing or not, but he assures me that it is a fact.


George Taylor: Where is the Canadian Cement Company located?


George Perry Graham: At Marlbank and at Port Colborne. The difference in freight charges might make some difference in prices.


John Dowsley Reid: Will not the cement companies have uniform prices throughout Canada?


George Perry Graham: Last year they did approximate closely to a uniform price, and I assured one of the large dealers and so informed the officials that if there was any evidence at all that these men are combining to charge us unduly for cement we would ask for tenders from outside; we would not be held up, but on investigation, I believe we are buying cement this year as cheaply as any one and perhaps a little cheaper.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose you are very careful to see that the cement is of the quality specified by the department?


George Perry Graham: Yes, we have it tested.


John Graham Haggart: There was to be a reason given why these amounts were chargeable to capital instead of income.


George Perry Graham: This is practically new work.
Lachine canal-To stop leaks on north bank at Cote St. Paul, $29,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is that a new wall or the repairing of an old one?


George Perry Graham: A new concrete wall.
Soulanges canal-Erecting a fireproof building, $800.


George Perry Graham: 
John Graham Haggart: That may be necessary, but why charge iihat to capital after the work is finished?


George Perry Graham: I might as well make an explanation. These banks have proved not to be entirely safe. What we are doing is practically making a new portion of the bank of concrete in order that it may be absolutely safe. We propose to put a concrete slab 18 inches thick in front of these walls. The break in the Cornwall canal has led me to say to the deputy minister and chief engineer to take no chances of such a thing occurring again if it is in our power to prevent it. Wherever we find that a canal bank has been leaking we put a slab of concrete along the bank to prevent such a thing happening again.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract?


George Perry Graham: Quinlan & Robertson, the contract price being $174,400.


John Dowsley Reid: At schedule prices?


George Perry Graham: Schedule prices.


John Dowsley Reid: Was it advertised?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Were they the lowest tenderers?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: How was it that only one tender came in?


George Perry Graham: The reason of that is that they are practically the only firm in the vicinity with a complete equipment to do this work properly.


John Dowsley Reid: There must be other ccntractors in Canada qualified to do that work.


George Perry Graham: They devised a plan for this particular work on the Lachine canal.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is the price so much per cubic yard, and if so, what percentage of cement is required per cubic yard?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend refers to the consistency of the concrete?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


George Perry Graham: One of cement to three of sand and five of gravel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no facing of cement; is it all the same?


George Perry Graham: It is all the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much! is the price per yard?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: When was the contract made?


George Perry Graham: On December 12, 1908.


William Sora Middlebro: Has the department taken any means of ascertaining whether the price is reasonable?


George Perry Graham: We always insist that our own engineer shall make an estimate in order to ascertain whether the price is reasonable or not before we accept a tender. Our chief engineer is our authority for saying the price is reasonable before it is approved.


John Dowsley Reid: When was this contract advertised and when were the tenders to be in?


George Perry Graham: Advertised on 14th October; tenders to be in at 16 o'clock, Thursday, 22nd October.


John Dowsley Reid: It looks suspicious to have all these tenders received two or three days before the election.


George Perry Graham: We were trying to do this work at the close of navigation; it had nothing to do with the election.


Samuel Barker: I should think the minister would be too busy about that time to attend to these matters.


George Perry Graham: So far as I am personally concerned I was.


John Barr: The 22nd of October might be considered a bargain day for contracts.


John Dowsley Reid: I should think the minister would be very busy at home just then.	1


George Perry Graham: Not at home, but elsewhere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature of the foundation?


George Perry Graham: They make a trench in the clay bank and they fill in from that trench the 18-inch slab along the face of the wall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The foundation does not go below the bottom of the canal?


George Perry Graham: Just sufficient to cut off any leakage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could not this work be done when the water was out of the canal?


George Perry Graham: I do not like to say it too loudly, but it would be a very dangerous experiment to unwater the Soulanges canal; the chief engineer has reported it must not be done.


John Graham Haggart: It is a clay bottom and when the water is out there would be danger of the clay coining up?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Chambly canal-St. Johns harbour improvements, $44,000.


George Perry Graham: There were eight tenders ; the contract is dated December 15, and it went to the lowest tender.


John Dowsley Reid: Who was that?


George Perry Graham: John G. Poupore & Co.


John Graham Haggart: Will this vote finish the work?


George Perry Graham: It is schedule rate; the approximate sum given in the contract is $35,282. The engineer would not be positive this will complete the work but he thinks it probably will.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the increased traffic from St. Johns on the Chambly canal necessitates this work?


George Perry Graham: It has been asked for years. Complaint was made to me that the harbour was so crowded that they simply could notl do the business they had to do. We had difficulty in getting a title to the property or it would have been done before.


George Perry Graham: Ontario-St. Lawrence canals-District office. $7,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is that?


George Perry Graham: This is not the staff that has charge of the canal. This is the staff that has1 had charge of the construction of the new canals and improvements on the St. Lawrence river. N. L. Rheaume is in charge, and they have an office, with electric lights, telephone, &c., and they are making the final estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand, {he works on the St. Lawrence canals are practically through, with the exception of one little work at the head of the Galops canal. Yet this office has been kept there for years, with the same staff. How long will they be kept there?


George Perry Graham: We have put all our men in this office. The winding up does seem to be an arduous process, but we hope shortly to get the final estimates made.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this vote for building an office for them?


George Perry Graham: No, we are not building any office. It is just for the salaries of the men.


John Dowsley Reid: The final estimate for the Cornwall canal must have been made a year ago. All the works on the St. Lawrence canals must have been completed and paid for. There is only one work going on yet. I cannot understand what that staff is there for.


George Perry Graham: It depends altogether on the meaning we attach to the term final estimates. What we are requiring of these men is to make not only a final estimate as to cost, but a record of everything in connection with these canals, consisting of drawings in full, detail of the finished structure, to which we can refer, and which will give us a clear insight into every part of these canals at any time in the future.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister knows that the men made these records from time to time as the work went along, and when the final estimate was made they had the plans and everything completed in the most minute way. In addition, I understand, the measurements were sent to the department here, where there are engineers making plans for future reference.
I think that all the information the hon. minister refers to is here in the department.


George Perry Graham: My deputy informs me that the plans are not all made here. Tha engineers use the plans and specifications in the construction of the work, and when that is done they are required to make re-drawings of the completed structure, which are put in bound form and sent to the department. For instance, in the case of the Soulanges canal, the men who were

engaged on it are all dead and if we had not a complete record of that work in the form of the plans and specifications we would have been in a predicament now in regard to that canal. This is costing a little money, but we are getting a complete and accurate record of all these canals.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that it is absolutely necessary to have a complete record; but it should not take more than a year for that staff to make such a record as the hon. minister refers to. The Cornwall canal has been completed for three or four years, the Williamsburg canal has been completed for six or seven years, and the other canals have also been completed a long time. I am not finding fault with an expenditure for the purpose of getting such records as the hon. minister refers to. In that respect I believe he is absolutely right; but it is common talk along the canal that there are a number of men there who are really not required, and who are simply drawing their pay. I am not mentioning this for the purpose of having these men dismissed from the service of the government; but there are many places, on the Transcontinental Railway and elsewhere, to which they could be removed, and where they would have something to do to earn their salaries. If the minister told these men that they would have to get these records completed in three months, they would do it, provided they were sure of a position somewhere else in the department. But so long as there is nothing in view for them, so long will they remain where they are.


John Graham Haggart: It must strike the hon. minister's common sense that it is somewhat difficult to explain the keeping on of engineers who have drawn the plans of works for which the contracts have been finished and the final estimates made. He is keeping a staff of five or six men after the work is completed, for what purpose ? Recording the manner in which the work was constructed, or the plans or estimates for it? There is no necessity for it whatever. I am in a different position from my hon. friend. These parties have votes in his riding.


John Dowsley Reid: No, they are not in my riding at all.


George Perry Graham: They were, but they are not now.


John Graham Haggart: They are very near it. I cannot understand the necessity for keeping these men on.


Samuel Barker: I think the trouble arises from the misleading form of the item. This is not an estimate at all according to the minister. The work is all completed and this is a charge for making up a record of the work already done.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to agree that without an explanation the words ' final estimate ' would not explain to the committee just what was meant. My deputy has visited the office in Cornwall on several occasions. It is a mistake to say that the work is all completed. Mr. Rheaume has charge of the work going on in the north channel as well as this, but has not been altogether engaged in this work. We hope to get it concluded and we are urging it as rapidly as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the $30,000 asked for the removal of the shoal at the upper entrance a final estimate?


George Perry Graham: It is difficult, as my hon. friend knows, to tell just when you are through with a piece of work of that kind. A boat finds another boulder and the work keeps going on.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there any estimate for the dam at Adam's island?


George Perry Graham: We have no estimate for that


Richard Blain: What is the explanation of the entry at page W-92 of the Auditor General's Report, * employees whose duties were materially reduced by the closing of navigation on December 5, 1907 ' ?


George Perry Graham: Some of the men engaged on the locks in the summer are dropped in the fall. They are not really permanent employees although they are all there every year. If we want a man for instance to watch a weir we utilize one of these men in the slack season.


John Dowsley Reid: What are the duties of the collector of tolls on the Galops canal and what are his powers?


George Perry Graham: I do not think he is called collector of canal tolls. The services of such men are utilized to keep complete records of the canal statistics.


John Dowsley Reid: While they do not collect the tolls as formerly they still issue passes to steamers.


George Perry Graham: It is his duty to be there all the time during navigation.


John Dowsley Reid: This man is also collector of customs, and his office as such collector is two miles away. He is supposed to be in regular and constant attendance there. How can the minister expect one man to fill these two places?


George Perry Graham: I do not know the particulars of the case referred to. This officer's work seems to have been done satisfactorily, for we have had no complaints. However, I will make inquiry.


George Taylor: He is drawing two salaries and doing nothing.


Mr. GBAHAM.: Both make one salary.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows that for forty years the two offices were at one point, at the locks. But lately the canal office has been moved up about two miles. Of course, a great deal of fault has been found in the county of Grenville at one man occupying two positions when it is impossible for one man to perform the duties of both. There is complaint especially among the Liberals who think that two offices for one man is too large an allowance. The minister says that the salaries are small. The collector of canal tolls has always had a salary of $750 a year, besides this the collector at Cardinal is allowed $1 a day for a horse to drive him up to his office, two miles away. This makes at least $250 a year additional. So, this collector has a higher salary than has been paid since the canal was built. There was another officer who had the position of sub-[DOT]collector of customs at a salary of $400. But when this subcollector of customs was superannuated, the man who held the office of collector of canal tolls was appointed to this office also. As the offices are two miles apart, there is no question that the duties of one position or of the other must suffer. I am not finding fault with the officer at all, but I think the minister should call upon him to make a choice of one office or the other.


Duncan Graham: So far as the records furnished me show, the salary is $700 a year, and there is no allowance for horse-hire. It seems that this man was the officer of the Bailways and Canals Department and that afterwards the other position was given him. It is not unusual, where the government has two small positions to appoint one man to fill them both. One salary, especially that from the customs would be rather small. I suppose the reason the canal office has to be further west than before is that the cut-off has been made into the river.


John Dowsley Reid: Formerly, the boats had to go through the lock at Cardinal, but, since the new work was built, there is no lock now between Iroquois and the head of the canal. In the case of boats going down the canal, the officer is supposed to issue passes, and, to do this, he needs to be in his office. Otherwise, you do not get a complete record of the commerce through the canal. It can easily be shown whether the records in this respect have been kept in complete form or not. Every vessel from the west passing down to Montreal, and drawing fourteen feet of water, must pass through that lock. They cannot go through the Galops-at least they do not. Of course, a vessel going to Montreal, if no pass is issued at Cardinal, can have a pass issued at Cornwall. But I am satisfied that the work of both these offices is not being pro-Mr. G. TAYLOE.
perly done. Either the government is losing money in the customs collection, or it is losing in the efficiency of its record of canal business. As to the question of horse-hire, for this officer, I am confident that I have seen it in the Auditor General's Ee-port. I have not the figures under my eye at the moment, but I will look up the record and will refer to it later.


Duncan Graham: I agree that what the department is interested in is having its work well done. It is only just to the official who has been referred to that I should say that there has been no complaint from vesselmen of any lack of attention.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, even if the officer is not at the canal office when a vessel goes through, you will get the record at Cornwall, or, I suppose, it could be had at the Soulanges canal. At the same time, it should be taken at the Galops. I understood the minister to say that he was interested in seeing that the work only of his own department is well done. I think that he is interested as a member of the government in seeing that the work of all the departments is well done. I believe the minister should say to this officer: Either take the position under the Department of Bailways and Canals, and drop the other, or else take the position in the Department of Customs and we will appoint another man to carry on our business. I would ask the minister to look into that, to have that matter put right, so that next session when it comes up again I will not have to draw his attention to the fact that there is one man filling two positions two miles apart.


Duncan Graham: We are inaugurating a new system of keeping these records that I think will detect in a week any neglect of duty.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the minister to promise me this: If he keeps the collector of canal tolls at Galops canal, he will see that the man is there in person while the canal is open. If he does that, the Minister of Customs will have to have another officer there; and, if he does, I will prove that the revenues will not be received right unless they have a proper officer there.


Duncan Graham: I will promise to see that this officer does his duty faithfully.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it to be done by himself, or how?


Duncan Graham: 
John Dowsley Reid: I want to call the minister's attention to page W-138: Lock at Cardinal, $1,041. This includes statistical officer, 12 months, $700; sundries, 534 hours at 20c.; conveyance to office, 229 trips at $1. There are 26 days in a month, that would be over eight months. I took it for granted you were allowing him $1 a day for driving two miles up to the office.


George Perry Graham: My accountant informs me that he had in his hand the winter paylist when he gave me the information a moment ago. He does get a $1 a day for the summer conveyance.
Trent Canal, $1,000,000.


Mr. PORTER.: I would like to ask the minister if the contracts that are being let by numbers on the Trent canal number from the south or from the Bay of Quinte end, north or west; that is, No. 1 contract would be at Trenton, No. 2 above, and so on. I would like to know to whom the contract for the construction of No. 1 division was first given.


George Perry Graham: It is an English firm, I can get the name.


Edward Guss Porter: I would like to know the amount of deposit made by that firm with their tender, and what was the amount of their tender?


George Perry Graham: I have not those papers here, I was using them for a return that the hon. gentleman moved in the House. But I have sent for them.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: I would like to know if this million dollar expenditure on the Trent canal has anything to do with the North York extension, which is known as the Aylesworth canal, or the Mulock canal. Under what heading are the exenditures on the canal in North York made
ere?


George Perry Graham: I imagine the Newmarket canal is the one my hon. friend refers to, it is called the Holland River canal. This million dollars includes all the work on the Trent canals this year, and the Newmarket canal is a portion of the Trent valley work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What has North York to do with the Trent canal? Does it extend down to North York?


George Perry Graham: There are few men, unless they have, made a study of this question, who appreciate the extent and importance of the Trent Valley work. It not only involves the large project of constructing the canal but it includes branches leading from Lake Simcoe and from the canal. Notwithstanding that there is considerable
fun poked at this feature of the work let me point out to my hon. friend that the whole Trent Valley canal scheme had as much fun poked at it as has this portion now. But any person who has seriously inquired into the Trent Valley project will agree with me that it is going to be a valuable aid not only to that section of the country but to the country as a whole. There may be differences of opinion as to the branch to which my hon. friend refers, but my engineer has made a report which indicates that even the Newmarket branch will be a very useful adjunct to the trade of the country.


John Dowsley Reid: Where are you going to get water from?


George Perry Graham: There are things we cannot see perhaps because we are not engineers, but competent engineers tell me that there will be a sufficient supply of water by storage and otherwise to make that branch of the Trent canal practicable. Persons living along the canal will understand that it is one continuous system of storage by dams in order to make a sufficient supply of water available for the canal.


Mr. WRIGHT.: What portion of this vote is to be for the Newmarket portion of the system?


George Perry Graham: It is a little difficult to make the division. We have certain contracts under way. We expect to continue the work now going on, and, except in a smaller degree, we will not undertake any of the larger works this year for reasons that I stated when I began.
An hon. M EMBER. There is no election on now.


George Perry Graham: No, my hon. friend is mistaken about that. There is a difference of opinion as to whether we ought to curtail even in view of the financial position. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) is very strongly of the opinion that the government ought to branch out rather than curtail. However the policy of the government has been to not discontinue any work that has been undertaken, possibly to undertake some smaller ones, but as far as the larger expenditures are concerned not to launch upon any new ones this year. I think that business men will see the wisdom of that course.


William Wright: I think this estimate ought to have been put in separately. This is a separate work and entirely distinct from the Trent canal. Three hundred thousand dollars were put through originally for this canal, and what I want to get at is whether that has already been absorbed and whether more is being appropriated in this general vote for the Trent canal.


George Perry Graham: I will give my hon. friend all the information as to the expen-

diture, contracts and everything else. We keep all the contracts separate, but we take one large vote for the Trent Valley canal, as all theese works are included in that system. You cannot very well make them separate works in a large undertaking oi this kind. Now, in reply to my hon. friend from West Hastings (Mr. Porter), I will read a copy of an order in council as I think it will give him all the particulars that he requires. It is as follows:
Feb. 18, 1908.
On a memorandum dated Feb. 13, 1908, from the Minister of Railways and Canals representing that under the authority of order in council dated the 5th November, 1907, a contract for the construction of section No. 1 Ontario-Rice Lake division of the Trent canal, was awarded to Mr. Louis P. Nott,-


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What section is that?


George Perry Graham: 
Edward Guss Porter: What was the amount?


George Perry Graham: I will send for the figures. I refused to return the deposit.


John Allister Currie: Why?


George Perry Graham: Because he put up a forfeit; he sent a marked cheque with his tender. I refused to return that, saying I believed he ought to forfeit that deposit for refusing to sign the contract.


Edward Guss Porter: Was not that a condition of his tender?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: Yes, it was a condition of his tender that he would carry out the contract.


John Allister Currie: Was the fair wage clause also a condition of the tender?


George Perry Graham: There was the cause of the difficulty. After certain communications, some written and some verbal, the Minister of Justice advised us that under the conditions we could not successfully withstand an action in the Court of Exchequer and that we had better return the cheque. Under that advice we returned his deposit. Why could not we keep the cheque or why did1 the Minister of Justice give us the opinion that we were not entitled to keep it? It was based upon the ground that the advertisement did not contain a clause saying that the contractor must accept the fair wage schedule) in making his contract. That had never been inserted in any advertisement because all our contractors fully understand it. It has been in all our contracts and Canadian contractors understood that if they made a tender for any work they had to accept a fair wage clause in their contract. This being a foreign company they did not know of the requirement, and it not being set out in the advertisement the Department of Justice advised us we could not resist an action which had been taken in the Court of Exchequer, and we returned the deposit.


Edward Guss Porter: Before his tender was accepted did he not have access to the form of contract required to be entered into?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Edward Guss Porter: The advertisement required the contract to he entered into upon the form prescribed by the department so that he had ample opportunity of seeing the form of contract?


George Perry Graham: It was my contention that he had absolute opportunity to inform himself on that point; that it was his own fault if he did not, and that the cheque should not be returned. But he started his proceeding in the Exchequer Court, and_ the Department of Justice advised us officially that we could not resist it and that we had better return the cheque.


Edward Guss Porter: Then we are to understand that although the contractor had full opportunity to know the conditions of the contract before tendering, and the Department of Railways and Canals believing, such being the case, that his deposit should be forfeited, the Minister of Justice in the face of these facts advised that the dmosit should be returned.


George Perry Graham: That is pretty nearly correctly stated except that we did not hold he had absolute knowledge; we held he had full opportunity to get the knowledge.


Edward Guss Porter: He was willing to undertake the construction of these works for $866,000, and no objection was raised by him on the ground that he had taken the contract too low?
_ Mr. GRAHAM. Had he raised that objection it would not of course have been a legal excuse for getting back his deposit. My department is of opinion that he discovered his tender was too low and that that was the real reason why he refused, although technically another reason was given.


Edward Guss Porter: Nott & Co. are a well known firm of English contractors and have ample means to carry out any contract they undertake?


George Perry Graham: No doubt about that.


Edward Guss Porter: The department had no fear on that ground?


George Perry Graham: No.


Edward Guss Porter: Then the only objection was to the fair wage clause being in the contract?


George Perry Graham: The department believes that having found his tender was too low h-* sought for an available way to honourably get out of the contract, and he took the legal stand that the fair wage clause not being in the advertisement he could not be held. On that ground the Deputy Minister of Justice advised that we could not resist the action. I may mention that this tender was $200,000 less than the estimate of our own engineer, and having found that he looked for a means


Edward Guss Porter: To get out of his contract.


George Perry Graham: Yes, to put it in plain English. He no doubt consulted some good lawyer like my hon. friend (Mr. Porter), who apparentlv discovered that he could legally get out of his contract on this plea and the Department of Justice upheld the contention. I may say that in future all advertisements will contain a paragraph saying that the contractor must accept the fair wage clause and hence difficulties of the kind will be obviated.


Edward Guss Porter: When did the department decide to return the cheque?


George Perry Graham: I do not know the date, but it was not returned until the Deputy Minister of Justice gave his opinion and I think that was after the action had been instituted.


Edward Guss Porter: It was not returned until after the present contract had been accepted?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure as to that. Of course the only penalty we could impose was to keep the cheque when he refused to enter into his contract.


John Allister Currie: There is $1,000,000 included in this item, and I would ask the minister to separate from that lump sum the amounts required for each section of the canal.


George Perry Graham: There is great difficulty in dividing these items as the hon. gentleman suggests. We want to do the best we can, and if we voted a certain amount for a certain section we could not vary the estimate in any way, and we would not get the full benefit of the $1,000,000 which we intend to expend. If we were to spend two and a half million dollars as the engineers wanted me to do, the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) would not be difficult, but perhaps on one section I would not want to spend all the money voted for it, and on another section I would want to spend more, and if the estimates were given in detail, as suggested, we could not do that. We will distribute the money as well as we possibly can, and we will not delay the work on any section more than is necessary.


John Allister Currie: On what sections is it intended to do work? There is no use trying to cover a multitude of sins with one vote; let us get down to business.


George Perry Graham: Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are the sections on which we will do work.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. minister designate the sections by name ?


George Perry Graham: No. 1 runs from Trenton about three miles up the river. No. 2, the next section, runs up to the vicinity of Frankfort. No. 3 is from Frankfort to the foot of Bradley bay. No. 5, is the section above Campbellford running as far as Crow bay. No. 7 is from below Hastings to Rice lake. The Newmarket canal is called No. 1 of the Holland river section. The other is the Ontario-Rice lake division.


John Allister Currie: So that the canal is divided into divisions-the Holland river division and the Ontario-Rice lake division.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Can the minister state how this vote is to be divided between the two divisions ?


George Perry Graham: We have expended thi3 year to date on the Holland river section $182,795.18 and on the Ontario-Rice lake division $852,188.77. The work will be carried on next year in approximately the same proportions between these two divisions.


Edward Guss Porter: Did the hon. minister ascertain the amount of the deposits of Nott and Company?


George Perry Graham: It was an accepted cheque of $20,000.


Edward Guss Porter: The advertisement required a certain proportion upon the tender, did it not ?
Mr. GfttAHAM. They put in a certain amount with their tender, and the balance must be put up when the contract is entered into.


Edward Guss Porter: Before the contract was let for the construction of No. 1 section, were tenders advertised for again ?


George Perry Graham: No. We considered, as I think it was fair to do, that this man had not practically a tender in at all. We accept the next lowest, but would not have accepted it if it had not been approximately near to the engineer's estimate.


Edward Guss Porter: Does it not appear to the hon. minister that that was not quite fair, when the tender of Nott and Company was accepted ? It was then known generally what the tender of each party was. Nott and Company, a very old and reliable firm of contractors, having tendered for the construction of this work for $866,000 odd, and having put up their cheque for $20,000, would it not appear to the hon. minister, under these circumstances, that it would have been wise to call for new tenders ? Does it not appear to the hon. minister that it would have only been fair to those who did tender to have the same opportunity of tendering as this first man, who practically had two tenders ?


George Perry Graham: No, he had not.


Edward Guss Porter: He had only one tender, but he had two chances, whereas the others had only one chance.


George Perry Graham: No, they had only the one chance. The difficulty of that would have been that every person would have known what every other person's tender was. If I were building a house and called for tenders, and my architect told me confidentially that one of the tenders was too low, and if the tenderer backed out, I would not think of asking for new tenders if the next tender were from a reliable firm and were considerably lower than the estimate of the architect. In this case, there was so much diversity in the tenders that there could not possibly have been collusion. I want to correct the statement I made to my hon. friend. These people not only sent in their first cheque with the tender, but when they were notified that they had the contract, they sent in an additional amount making a total of $43,333.


Edward Guss Porter: Before the second payment was made on their deposit had their attention not been called to the fair wage clause in the contract? I understand it had, that they had full knowledge of it at that time.


George Perry Graham: 


Mri GRAHAM.: Of course we cannot speak from their standpoint, and I would not like to say that they had, but our opinion was that they had every opportunity of having full knowledge of it.


Edward Guss Porter: Was that fact brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice?


George Perry Graham: I think all the facts in our possession were placed before the Justice Department?


Edward Guss Porter: I understand that the Minister of Railways and Canals would feel bound to act on the opinion of the Minister of Justice. Does it not appear on the face of it that there was here every opportunity for collusion between these parties? Nott & Company, as the minister says, sought for some means of escaping from this contract, and after having tendered or agreed to enter into it withdrew and as the policy of the department was to accept the next lowest tender in such a case was there not every opportunity for Larkin & Sangster, the second lowest tenderers; to make a bargain with Nott & Company by which the additional amount of nearly $150,000 might be divided between them? Larkin & Sangster might be sure that they could construct this work for at least as small a sum as Nott because they were right on the ground with their plant established, old contractors. Would it not seem as if the wise course for the government would have been to call for tenders a second time and afford every tenderer an equal opportunity and thus protect the interests of the country? Is there any check on the contractors to see that they observe the fair wage clause?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the fair wage officer of the Labour Department. The fair wage clause is Included in every contract now and if the men employed make a complaint it is the duty of the fair wage officer of the Labour Department to investigate it and if possible adjust the difficulty.
In reference to the advisability of taking the next tender instead of advertising for new tenders, it would be only suspicion that there was any collusion, and after thinking the matter over I concluded that under the circumstances there was no collusion and it would be safe to do this. Our chief engineer gave an estimate of $1,074,000 while Larkin & Sangster tendered for $969,237, so that their tender was away below what our chief engineer said the work would cost. If we took the view of my hon. friend that every tenderer knew what the others were bidding there would have been an opportunity for a great deal stronger collusion than before. The chances are it might have cost the country $500,000 more.


Edward Guss Porter: But you were not obliged to accept any tender?


George Perry Graham: But we wanted the work done and accepted the lowest tender. After consulting with the engineer we concluded that we would not get any lower tender, and as we had received another tender still many thousands less than our own estimate, we decided we had better accept the next tender.	*


Edward Guss Porter: Some of these other tenderers who were higher than Larkin & Sangster think they were not treated fairly and that they should also have had two chances?


George Perry Graham: Larkin & Sangster had only one chance. If the other contractors had been in their place one of them would have got the contract.


Edward Guss Porter: The matter has been brought seriously to my attention by complaints of men in the employ of the contractors on section 1 of the construction work of that canal. I am told that notwithstanding the fair wage clause the contractors have been paying the men a less rate than would be considered a fair rate under this clause of the contract and less than men similarly qualified and employed were receiving on other portions of the canal. Although complaints were made no redress was given and when the complaint of the men became too strong for the contractors to stand, a large number of these men were dismissed from the work. It seems to me that if the fair wage clause in the contract is to have any effect and to be of any advantage to the workmen, the department ought to see that it is fairly enforced.
And, if the contractor is violating it, as I am instructed this contractor has done, it should not depend upon the men making a complaint; the Department of Labour should act, having an officer whose duty it is to see that in all public contracts this clause is fairly and properly carried out. One can readily understand that a man who is in the employ of another would hesitate before making a complaint that might have the effect of losing him his job. This provision was enacted by this parliament for the benefit and advantage of labouring men, and the onus ought not to be put upon them of seeing that it is carried out. The officer appointed by the government ought to make it his business, by visiting, consultation or in some other way, to ascertain the facts, and, if necessary, to bring proper pressure to bear upon the contractors to cause them to live up to this clause of the contract. I understand that, in this case, men living in the immediate vicinity of the works on No. 1 division, who were given employment in the first instance, were promised that, after the works got fairly started, the wages would be increased to the rates that would be considered fair wages under the contract. But when the elections were over, they were told they might go back to their homes and quietly remain there for the length of time it was supposed to be necessary to construct the Trent canal, because the contractors could get Hungarians and Italians to work for wages they wanted to pay. This is a direct violation of the contract, and the government should make serious inquiry into it; and, if the facts are as I have been informed they are, should take immediate steps to remedy this wrong.
I would ask the minister also if any policy has been laid down or any determination reached, as to how this canal shall be looked after when construction is completed ? That is, will it be divided into divisions as it has been for the purposes of construction, and a superintendent placed over each division, or wilJ there be one superintendent for the whole system ?


George Perry Graham: Of course, it is a little difficult to speak so far ahead. Not that I mean to say it will be a long time before this canal will be constructed, but it has been in progress ever since 1833, I believe, and if a man had been asked about the policy then


Edward Guss Porter: But everybody is in earnest now.


George Perry Graham: Yes; to be serious, my opinion now would be that one superintendent ought to be able to look after the canal as a whole, with one overseer of each division. I would not like to lay that down as a policy, but it strikes me that that would be sufficient.


Edward Guss Porter: I may tell the hon. minister (Mr. Graham) for his own information-it may not be of much advantage to the government-that in October and early November last, in the town of Trenton, there were at least twenty-five individuals who were to become superintendent of No. 1 division of the Trent canal. I would like to know if the minister had authorized the candidate who opposed me in the election to make promises to these twenty-five or more men I have referred to ?


George Perry Graham: I am a very careful promiser.


Edward Guss Porter: I have no doubt of it. But that does not alter the fact that the promise was made by the candidate of this government in the elections. Before concluding this inquiry, I would like to ask if there is any clause in the contract which compels the contractor to work continuously until the work is completed ?


George Perry Graham: There is not. Conditions might arise under which we could stop the contractor in his work. There is no clause compelling him to go on with his work continuously, but there is a time limit for

completion of the work, and, as a matter of fact, we do keep him working continuously.


Edward Guss Porter: The minister should see to it that candidates for election in support of his party are better instructed, for the promise was made, based upon the assertion that there was a clause in the contract which compelled it, that the contractor would work continuously and that work would be furnished to the labouring men around Trenton all winter. But, again, as soon as the elections were over, the work was stopped-to be commenced again in the spring, I suppose-and the men were laid off. I do not know whether that was the only inducement held out to these men to vote, hut that was one of them in the last election.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I should think that it was a misnomer in these estimates to speak of the appropriation for the work on the Holland river as part of the Trent canal. I cannot understand why it is not set out separately to show exactly what the intent of the administration is in going on with the construction of the Holland river section. I am sure that hon. members on this side were pleased to see the sudden change that came over the ministers in reference to the Trent Valley canal. Prior to 1896, the friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) condemned the Trent canal on every platform on which they spoke. This expenditure on the Holland river is the most indefensible appropriation asked for in these estimates. I have the honour to represent a constituency adjoining that of the Minister of Justice, and I venture to express the opinion that if a cabinet minister had not been the representative of North York, there would have been no such expenditure in connection with the Holland river. Ministers, apparently, are vieing with one another in getting large appropriations for their several constituencies. Just before election, a large number of men were employed on this work merely ' from ' considerations of political exigencies, and not because the work is a defensible one or is required in the public interest. If the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has any regard for his reputation as a minister he will discontinue the expenditure on the Holland river canal. The work is meeting not only the condemnation but the derision of all men who have ' any 1 idea ' as to how ' money should be spent in the public interest. I have a letter from a gentleman who resides in New York, at Newmarket, which is supposed to be the dead end of the canal. It is dated February 20. The writer says :
The only sensible thing which is said about it is that it would have been much cheaper if the government had presented William Cane & Sons with several hundreds of thousands Mr. GRAHAM.
of dollars, as they will be the only people who can possibly profit by the canal.
Now Wm. Cane & Sons are manufacturers in Newmarket, and are prominent workers in the Reform party. They desire an outlet to bring in some raw material in connection with their business, and were it not that Wm. Cane & Sons are prominent Reformers I do not think that this vote would appear in the appropriations, either this year or any other year. Not only are all reasonable men strongly against this expenditure, but the newspapers of the country condemn it, and laugh at it. Every newspaper you pick up, whether Conservative, Reform or Independent, condemns this as a useless expenditure of public money. I desire to direct the attention of the minister to an article that appeared in ' Saturday Night ' just previous to the last general election. As the minister knows, ' Saturday Night ' is a paper with independent leanings, neither Conservative nor Reform, and it is a pretty well informed paper. On September 12, 1908, it had this editorial:
It is almost a pity that the work on the new canal to Newmarket-the new canal which is almost to make Newmarket an ocean port-could not be screened off from view from the car windows until it is finished. Passengers on the trains discuss the enterprise with levity. They speak of it as a canal on which nothing but votes will be floated. They express doubt as to where the water will come from to supply the canal, until one passenger explains that the difficulty has been solved by an arrangement whereby it will be hauled in carts from Lake Simcoe. People who know nothing about engineering should not presume to discuss in this fashion a great public work, and in order to prevent this flippant discussion, a screen should be built to shut away the view from passing trains until the elections are over and the frosts of winter cause operations to cease for the present.
Now I appeal to the judgment of the minister if he does not think it proper in the public interest to discontinue an expenditure of thi3 kind. It is absolutely useless. It is only put in the estimates for the purpose of fulfilling some pre-election pledges made on behalf of friends of the government. It does not serve any useful public purpose. Under these circumstances I cannot but condemn the appropriation. Then there is another newspaper in Orillia which deals with this matter. Orillia is situated on Lake Simcoe, and the paper has consequently accurate knowledge of the facts. The article is too long to read. I would refer the minister to this extract which appears in the ' Orillia Packet ' of February 18, 1909 :
In answer to a question by Mr. Currie, the Minister of Railways submitted to the House a table of gaugings made at Newmarket in 1907 relative to the flow of water over the weir. The measurements had to do with the

construction of the proposed canal, and showed that from July to November the average flow was about 540 cubic feet a minute. It ranged from 313 cubic feet in August to 885 in November.
When one remembers that the average water-wagon contains about 150 cubic feet, the terrific intensity of the roar created by this appalling cataract may be understood. The wisdom of the government in passing the appropriation for this canal before taking the gaugings cannot be too highly commended. Perhaps if the gaugings had been taken first the vote would not have been made and the political interests of North York would have suffered.
The mere fact that there is not enough water to fill the canal might be embarrassing to an ordinary administration, but the Lau-rier government is not ordinary. It laughs at impossibilities. Mr. Graham says that storage reservoirs will be required to utilize the spring freshets as a feeder during the summer months. How many storage reservoirs will be required no one says. But no matter how many, they must be built. The transportation requirements of the country demand that Newmarket be made a seaport, and the political requirements of the Minister of Justice demand a canal of some kind wherein the glad electors can fish for mud-cats and meditate on the glories of the government.
This, no doubt, is a charming picture, but it is subject to amendment. Even with storage reservoirs the mud-cat might find the going rather hard. Some person might throw a salmon can into the canal and cause a shoal whereon many virtuous fish might run aground. A good deal may be said in favour of the Newmarket canal by those who do not know what they are talking about. It certainly will have one great advantage. No bridge will be needed. If a North York elector has occasion to cross this noble waterway he can put on his rubbers.
Now I say again, in view of these protests made, one by an independent paper and the other by a paper situated on Lake Simcoe, with full knowledge of the facts, I say the minister should satisfy himself of the urgency of this expenditure before he asks us to vote hundreds and hundreds of thousands of the people's money. It is a shame and a scandal that the public moneys of Canada should be spent in this way, in order to advance the political interests of a member of the government. I say further that an appropriation of this kind should not be allowed to go through. We do not know what expenditure is going to be involved on this Holland river division, nor on the Trent canal division. It is put in here under the broad heading of Trent canal, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Trent canal. And why they disguise the appropriation under the heading of the Trent canal, I cannot tell, except it be that the hon. gentleman is probably ' preparing ' a way to defend past appropriations for the Trent canal. He says the Trent canal is a useful public expenditure. That is not what the hon. gentleman and his
friends said prior to 1896. But now he is willing to defend this canal, and consequently he makes the Holland river division, or the Aylesworth division ditch, as it is called in that region of country, a part of the Trent canal in order to cover up the whole enterprise. 1 say the policy of the government is worthy of the severest condemnation of this committee, and it should not be allowed to go through without a division, in order that the government and their supporters may go on record. The minister does not say what the work is going to cost, he does not say where it is going to end. He laughs at the whole project, and says it was started away back in 1830 and he does not see an end to it. When are we going to see an end of the Holland river canal, or the Aylesworth ditch? Even the honest Reformers of North York are condemning this expenditure. There is not a reasonable Reformer in North York that would justify it. The Minister of Justice is losing his influence in consequence of his advocacy of this ridiculous expenditure. We find that there are men in every town in North York who have public contracts from the government in consequence of this expenditure; we find the government expending $300,000 or $400,000 in order to ensure the return of the Minister of Justice. I say the Minister of Justice is losing his influence in his own constituency in consequence of this expenditure. He came into my constituency and spoke on one occasion, with the result that his influence proved less than nil, because the Conservative majority was increased threefold, showing that he is losing his influence. Now I appeal to the good judgment and fair common sense of the minister to withdraw this appropriation for the Holland river division. I may say frankly that I have always had a great respect for the good judgment of the Minister of Railways and Canals. He is only inheriting the sins of his predecessors, because I do not think that he himself would have initiated a scheme of this kind. But he now feels it incumbent upon himself to continue an expenditure that was inaugurated by his predecessors. I would say with that gentleman who wrote that letter from Newmarket that the expenditure is unjustifiable, and it would be a good thing for the country if the government would hand over to Wm. Cane & Sons a bonus of $350,000, and stop this work. I submit that the minister should give us the details of what he proposes to expend on this canal next year, before he asks us to adopt this vote.


Mr. WALLACE.: What is the estimated cost of this part of the Trent Valley canal?


George Perry Graham: We spent about $183,000 on this portion of the canal last year, and we spent $800,000 on the other portion. I told my hon. friend that the expenditure

this year would practically be in the game proportion. We are taking a small vote for the entire work, and I want to have every dollar available without absolutely tieing it up to any particular section. One contract is made for this portion and there are contracts for three other portions, and the money will be expended probably in the same proportion that it was last year. We spent a trifle over $1,000,000 last year, and the same amount of money will probably be expended this year.


Thomas George Wallace: I wish to make a protest against this useless expenditure in North York. I agree with the remarks of my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe); I think this item should be stricken out of the estimates. This is an absolutely useless expenditure, and I do not think the vote should go through.


George Taylor: The minister did not answer the question of my hon. friend from Centre York. What is the estimated cost of the whole canal when it is completed?


George Perry Graham: Of the whole Trent canal?


George Taylor: Of the Newmarket section.


George Perry Graham: The estimated ccst is in the vicinity of $600,000, I think.


John Allister Currie: Does that include storage dam and reservoir?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: How much of the $600,000 has been expended?


George Perry Graham: About $200,000 has been expended altogether.


John Allister Currie: Has the minister caused any inquiry to be made as to the possible tonnage on this canal? What is the tonnage arising from the town of Newmarket?


George Perry Graham: We have no such report. We have no such report on any part of the Trent canal although we are spending millions upon it.


John Allister Currie: Does not the minister think that in a case of this kind, where it is a branch of a canal, and not merely a link in^ the system, it would be advisable to ascertain the possible tonnage arising in that section ?


George Perry Graham: I have an engagement which will require me to leave after six o'clock. I thought that the hon. gentlemen would allow this item to go through and have any further discussion which they desire afterwards.


John Allister Currie: Let it stand.


Edward Guss Porter: What is the length of this section of the canal?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: About ten miles.


Edward Guss Porter: Where does it start and end?


George Perry Graham: It starts in Cook's bay, Lake Simcoe and goes to Newmarket. I suppose you will allow this item to go through?


David Henderson: I think it is too serious to allow it to so through. I think the minister should allow time for further consideration as to the propriety of voting this money.


George Taylor: If the minister will take the Brockville * Recorder,' his own paper, and read the criticisms that were made with regard to an impovement that was made a few years ago on an important canal-the Rideau canal-when connection was made with the town of Perth he will see how determined was the opposition offered to that work. In the literature sent out every election reference was made to the expenditure on the Tay canal. It did not amount to half of the sum that my hon. friend proposes to devote to the digging of this ditch, and I am sure that when he comes to read his own paper and to reflect upon the speeches he has made condemning the government for having made that expenditure connecting the Rideau canal with the town of Perth he will withdraw this vote. If there ever was a useless expenditure proposed by the government this certainly is the most useless.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Residence of Yukon Commissioner, Dawson, $19,000.


William Pugsley: This is to repair and to furnish the residence which was destroyed by fire some time ago.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How much did it cost altogether?


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: How much of that for furnishings?


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: Will this be let by contract and tender?


William Pugsley: An estimate was made by the chief architect and it was thought better to have it done by days' work. There are not many contractors in the Yukon, I suppose, and besides it is difficult to let these repairs by contract.


Haughton Lennox: Do we supply the Yukon Commissioner with a residence and furnish

it for him, and do we pay him a living allowance in addition to his salary of ?9,000?	*


William Pugsley: I am not sure about the latter; I will inquire.


Mr. CROCKET.: What was the estimate made by the chief architect?


William Pugsley: $21,000 for the reconstruction of the building, but that di4 not include heating and fittings of various kinds and plumbing and electric wiring.


Haughton Lennox: There is not much discrepancy there. Did the chief architect visit the place?


William Pugsley: No. Our representative who examined the buildings made an estimate of the probable cost and that was passed upon by the chief architect.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister think it is a proper principle to furnish the residence of such an official as this?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say to the contrary.


Haughton Lennox: Unless the minister can say that this is a proper expenditure, we ought not to be asked to sanction it. It seems to me that the principle of providing residences and then furnishing them for officials is a very bad principle, except perhaps in the case of the) Speaker of the House of Commons and the Governor General.
Mr.! PUGSLEY. Why except these?


Haughton Lennox: As far as the Governor General is concerned, it is well enough. I am not going to say that I particularly approve of the other, but I am not going to object to it because I have not made up mv mind.


William Pugsley: What about the lieutenant governors of the various provinces?


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to branch off to that question. The question I now propound to the minister is whether we should build a residence and furnish it for this gentleman. I submit that we should not.


William Pugsley: If called upon to justify it, I would be quite prepared to do so, because it is in line with what has been the practice of, this country ever since confederation. The lieutenant governors of all the provinces have been furnished with residences and also with the furniture for them. That applies to every province of Canada except New Brunswick, where it was the case until along in the eighties, when the provincial government, led by the Hon. Mr. Blair, did away with the government house as an official residence. When the provinces came into the confederation all the government houses were fur- l
nished, and the renewals from time to time have been provided, not by the lieutenant governors themselves, but by the respective provinces. When Manitoba came into the confederation, a government house at Winnipeg was erected and also furnished by the federal government. In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta the government houses were also provided by the federal government. The Yukon is a territory of the Dominion, and in pursuance of the same line of policy the government house there was erected and furnished by the federal government. It must be borne in mind that a governor-and the commissioner of the Yukon is in the same position-holds his office only for a comparatively short period; and I presume that the reason for furnishing residences is that it would be a hardship on the governor to have to furnish a residence in the style in which he is supposed to live, because at the end of his term he would have to either sell his furniture or take it away with him, and his successor would have to furnish it all over again. I do not believe that I am called on to defend a practice which has always been recognized and held without question to be a reasonable and proper practice.


Mr. BARNARD.: Did I understand the minister to sayl that the Dominion government built the government houses in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


William Pugsley: Yes, when they were territories.


George Henry Barnard: Has that been the case m the maritime provinces and Ontario?


William Pugsley: Yes, they were all erected by the various governments before confederation. In Manitoba the government house was erected and furnished by the federal government.


George Henry Barnard: Can the minister recollect the date when that was done?


William Pugsley: In 1881.


George Henry Barnard: Has the minister any recollection of a new government house in Ontario and Quebec or in any of the maritime provinces having been built by the federal government since confederation?


William Pugsley: There have been no new government houses built in these provinces since ^ confederation, so far as I am aware. The lieutenant governors are occupying the same residences that were built and furnished by the various governments before confederation.


George Henry Barnard: The reason I am asking the question is that in the province of British Columbia the government house, which I think was in existence before confederation, was burnt down a few years ago, and a new government house was erected at considerable cost by the provincial govern-

ment. Was any application made to the federal government in regard to that?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of any.


George Henry Barnard: In the event of an application being made by the provincial government to the federal government to be reimbursed and to be put on the same basis as the other provinces in this respect, I presume that a deaf ear would not be turned to them? Do I understand that the minister does not wish to answer the question?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to answer it.


Haughton Lennox: It appears to me that the minister has not made a very strong defense of this item, in citing the cases of the lieutenant governors of the various provinces, and comparing them with that of a commissioner in a territory which yields a comparatively unimportant revenue.


William Pugsley: Before proceeding with the reconstruction of this building the government made full inquiry, and I personally inquired as to the likelihood of the Yukon being a permanent mining district, and the information that I got was that owing to the very large expenditure which was being made by capitalists in introducing machinery for hydraulic mining and in view of the quartz discoveries, it was likely to be permanent, and that the wealth of the Yukon was very great. I conferred with Dr. Thompson, the representative from the Yukon in the last parliament, and he said that in his judgment, which I am sure would have great weight with those who knew him, from his knowledge of the country, he had not the shadow of a doubt that the district would be a permanent district, that there would be for all time a considerable population there and that it was in every respect desirable that the government house should be reconstructed. That had some weight with me, but it was not that alone which had weight, because I received information from other sources upon which I felt I could rely.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Is the minister not prepared to admit that the revenue in the Yukon now, is only about 20 per cent of what it was in 1901?


William Pugsley: I know it has fallen off, but they are going into permanent mining, and it is expected that next year the output will approach the output of the most successful years.


Richard Blain: Would the minister state the cost of the commission appointed to investigate into the cause of the fire? They reported that they were not able to ascertain the cost.


William Pugsley: That report was made before I was minister and I have not the Mr. BARNARD.
statement with me to-night. I shall be glad to bring it down.
Publio buildings generally-construction of armouries, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is a vote which it has been the practice to take every year for the construction of small armouries in various sections of the country, costing from $5,000 to $15,000, or perhaps up to $20,000 or $24,000. It is for armouries in regard to which there are no special appropriations.


George Taylor: Where is the money to be expended?


William Pugsley: Last year the contracts were :	Medicine Hat, contract $16,000 ;
Strathroy, contract $13,461 ; Durham, contract $6,000. These are the only ones which are now under construction which will be paid out of this vote. They are not completed and we will require $50,000 to complete them, and to undertake such others as the Minister of Militia may ask. It is expected the total amount will be expended by the 31st March.


Richard Blain: Is there any retrenchment along this line?


William Pugsley: I think there will be this year.


Mr. HUGHES.: Why?


William Pugsley: I cannot answer more fully than I have done already.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister the list of armouries to be covered by this vote?
Mr. PUGSLEY^ No.	________


Samuel Hughes: What was this vote last year?


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Hughes: Why the reduction?


William Pugsley: Because we are economizing.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain the general principle governing his department in the charging of items to capital or income?


William Pugsley: 
James Davis Taylor: How much of this is for the experimental farm at Agassiz?


William Pugsley: I am sorry, I cannot give that information. The practice has been to spend tliis $10,000 at the different farms as required. We have quite a large expenditure at Ottawa, which will be taken partly out of the vote for the current year and partly out of this vote. The balance of this vote will be distributed amongst the several experimental farms.


Mr. BRODER.: What is the special outlay at Ottawa?


William Pugsley: Additions to the museum and offices, mainly. The amount of that contract was something like $12,000. There is also $1,000 for heating, $1,500 for electric wiring, $1,000 for fittings and furniture, and $2,500 for contingencies and superintendence. Thus we have the total of about $18,000.


Andrew Broder: I have been informed that the government intend to make arrangements to have the street railway system of Ottawa run out to the Experimental Farm.
^r- PUGSLEY. That has been provided for.


Mr. FISHER.: It is done.


William Pugsley: Yes, I understand that is completed.


Haughton Lennox: I notice that the vote under this head for the current year was $25,000 as against $10,000 for next year. I suppose that the government, pursuing the same general policy that has been referred to so often in this House, is cutting down the expenses as much as possible? I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is here, and he will be able to explan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For some years this vote has been $10,000. But, for the current year, we asked for $25,000, because we found it absolutely necessary to make considerable additions to the office buildings of the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, the work of the staff there having greatly increased and there being urgent need of more room.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many experimental farms are there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Five regular experimental farms. Lately, the policy has been adopted of establishing subsidiary stations for particular experimental work, but not called exactly experimental farms. Two of these have been established, and a third has just been acquired.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Any of them in New
Brunswick?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No; we hope that will come.


James Davis Taylor: To return to the experimental farm at Agassiz, in which I am greatly interested:	I am sorry to hear
that Ottawa is to monopolize the greater part of this vote as well as that for salaries. Has the minister considered the need of improving the housing accommodation for the staff of the farm at Agassiz?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has been under consideration once or twice. We have not reached any definite plan with regard to it. If there is a pressing need for it, the amount necessary will have to be taken out of this vote.


James Davis Taylor: I am glad to hear that from the minister, because there is a pressing need indeed for accommodation at Agassiz for the men employed on the farm. They now have to put up with the most temporary accommodation at a hotel, at great expense to themselves and considerable detriment to the community; because, while there is no accommodation for them on the farm you cannot get a class of labourers who would be willing to stay there such as you could get if the government would treat them as they do the employees at other places and provide them with comfortable houses in which to live. While I am on my feet, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works also how much of this vote for experimental farm buildings generally will be available for the new farm in Comox-Atlin?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will have to answer my hon. friend that the votes for new farms are a separate vote and will appear amongst the votes for arts and agriculture statistics which will come up later in the session. This vote is a vote on the part of the Public Works Department to prepare and deal with the buildings of existing experimental farms.


James Davis Taylor: It has nothing to do with new buildings?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating &c., $1,-810,500

Ottawa Public Buildings-Elevator attendants, $21,000.


Haughton Lennox: How many elevators have we, and how many attendants?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


William Pugsley: There are 30 elevator attendants now, and we are installing a new elevator in the Western Block which will require two attendants. We are also installing three new elevators in this block of which one is now running. The total amount of salaries of the elevator men now employed is $19,980. That makes a difference of something over $4,000 which will be required for the purpose of paying additional salaries. The highest salary we pay is $65 a month, but that is paid to only one man; the others get $55 a month:


Haughton Lennox: This item, I suppose, represents the elevators in all the departmental buildings?


William Pugsley: And the House of Commons, including the rented buildings.


Haughton Lennox: Does it include^ in all cases two attendants a day, or only in some cases?


William Pugsley: Generally we have only one attendant for each elevator. Here in the House of Commons, where parliament is sitting at night, we have to have two attendants at each elevator. In some other cases we have two where the hours are long.
Ottawa Public Buildings-Gas and electric light, including roads and bridges, $45,000.


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of ' roads and bridges '?


William Pugsley: We have to light certain roads and bridges in Ottawa. We light the Chaudiere bridge, the road towards Rideau Hall, and the road to the experimental farm.
Grounds-Ottawa Public Buildings, $12,000.


William Pugsley: There is an increase of $2,000. It has been found that the vote last year was not quite sufficient to cover the expenditure. The work is under the direction of a superintendent.


Richard Blain: I would ask the minister if he does not think this is a department in which a little economy could be exercised, in these times of retrenchment.


William Pugsley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend that this is an item with respect to which all possible economy, consistent with the proper taking care of the grounds should be exercised. That economy we will exercise, but for the credit of the country we must keep the grounds in fairly good condition. We find that we cannot get along with a less expenditure than is provided for in these estimates.


Richard Blain: The minister will see that the economy does not show itself in the estimates and that is what the public are interested in.


George Taylor: I hope the minister will see to it that the grounds are better kept next year than they were last year. The grounds last year were a disgrace to the capital.


William Pugsley: They became very beautiful a little later in the season after parliament rose.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $110,000.


William Sora Middlebro: Does this include the heating of the new building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: How is it that it costs $9,000 more to light the building, while it does not cost anything more to heat it?


William Pugsley: Coal is a little cheaper than it was last year.


William Sora Middlebro: What was the price of coal last year?


William Pugsley: I cannot give it to my hon. friend at the moment, but at present the price is $6.10.


David Henderson: The minister, in these estimates, is making provision for the coming year. Has he a prospective idea of the value of coal in the next twelve months?


William Pugsley: We have to begin getting coal in for the heating after the 31st March.


William Sora Middlebro: Do( you manufacture electric light.


William Pugsley: No, we purchase it from the Ottawa Electric Company.
Ottawa public buildings-Major's Hill Park,


David Henderson: Is there no reduction on account of the corner being cut out?


William Pugsley: No.


David Henderson: I think there should be. Are we expected to care for the corner that has been cut off the grounds?


William Wright: Is the minister going to paint the other side of the fence?


William Pugsley: That is not part of our
work.


James Davis Taylor: In connection with this fenced off portion of Major's Hill Park, there is a monument inside of that fenced enclosure. I notice that there is a board fence put around the monument so as to entirely obscure the inscription and render it valueless for the purpose for which that monument was put there. When, during Paardeburg week, we are doing so much to celebrate what our militia men have done for Canada, it is particularly fitting that we should take notice of this fence and have same statement as to why it is per-51
mitted to continue there, as I understand it has continued for two years or more. I remember distinctly when that monument was placed there, the depth of appreciation felt in Ottawa with regard to the sacrifices of the volunteers who met death at Cut Knife in the Northwest Rebellion of 1885, and I am sure there was no person, who participated in the placing of that monument there, who anticipated that the time would come when, by the order of the government of Canada, in whose service these volunteers were, that stone would be obscured by the fence that is now allowed to exist and to blot out the monument from the public gaze for two years. This is something to which prompt attention should be given. I, for one, would like to see the Minister of Public Works give an order, which he certainly has authority to give, for the taking down of that fence forthwith.


William Pugsley: The reason why the fence was put around the monument was that it might be protected from any defacement while the workmen were engaged in the construction of the new hotel. It was put there simultaneously with the fence which was put around the lot which we agreed to sell to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. There have been delays in connection with the construction of the hotel, but I understand that the company intend proceeding with the work of construction this spring. I may say that only yesterday I received a letter from the vice-president of the Grank Trunk Railway Company asking that the contract for the sale of the site of the hotel should be completed. There have been delays, for reason which it is not necessary to state to the committee, but I received that letter yesterday. My own view is, and I am sure that members of the committee will agree with me, that while the work of construction is going on it is desirable that the monument be preserved from any possibility of defacement, and every person will see that it is proper that it should be inclosed by a fence until the hotel is completed, when the fence will, of course, be removed, and when we hope the monument will be in as good condition as it is at the present time.


Haughton Lennox: I am perfectly amazed at the statement of the minister, although he has made some very ingenious and remarkable statements within the last few weeks. That monument is inclosed within the enclosure in which the building is to be put up. That monument stands in that portion of the property that we are to sell to the railway company. It stands within the inclosure where the work is to be done and it is not fenced in, as the minister must know, for the purpose of protection. The minister must think we are very credulous or very easily deceived.


William Pugsley: What do you suggest it is fenced in for?


Haughton Lennox: It is fenced in because the park proper is to be shut off from that which we are selling to the railway company. It was explained here in the House of Commons during last session that the monument would be removed and the government have failed to remove it. It was to have been removed out of the position in which it stands and the company have put around a fence for their own convenience and they have not put it around for the sake of inclosing the monument.


William Pugsley: No, there is a separate fence around the monument.


Haughton Lennox: No, I beg the minister's pardon.


William Pugsley: Yes, it is a separate fence.


Haughton Lennox: What does the minister mean?


William Pugsley: There is a fence surrounding the whole lot and inside that is the monument and still another fence around the monument.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but this fence is only around the portion that has been set apart for the company. We were assured six or eight months ago that the monument would be removed to another place and the government has neglected to do that. If the monument is to continue to stand where it is it should not be inclosed in the general inclosure at all and the minister knows that.


William Pugsley: I do not remember what was stated last session by others. Certainly I do not know that that was said by me.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know whether it was said by the minister or not.


William Pugsley: The information given to me by the chief architect is that the monument will stand about fifteen feet from the hotel. It may be desirable to leave it there under an arrangement with the hotel company or it may be thought better to remove it to some other part of the park. But, in the meantime, it is desirable that it should be inclosed so that it may not be defaced while the work is going on.


Samuel Hughes: When is this hotel going to be constructed?


William Pugsley: The information I have is that the company intend to commence the construction of the hotel this spring. I had a letter from the vice-president of the company waiving some objections which he had to a clause in the deed which has been prepared by the Department of Justice, and asking that the conveyance should be completed as soon as possible with the view of Mr. LENNOX.
the company proceeding with the construction of the hotel.


Samuel Hughes: There is a well-grounded rumour that the hotel is not going to be built by the Grand Trunk at all; has the minister heard any thing of that?


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Hughes: He does not want to hear it?


William Pugsley: Well I am indifferent one way or the other about hearing it.


James Davis Taylor: Does the minister not think it a mark of disrespect to the memory of the volunteers, that this monument should have stood boarded out from the public view for over two years? Now that we have been trifled with so long by the persons who secured this valuable park for the purpose of erecting a commercial undertaking, does the minister not think it his duty to interpose and to see that at an insignificant expense-two or three dollars will do it-this fence should be taken down. This week when we are celebrating Parde-berg, I appeal to the minister to show that we are in earnest in paying respect to the memory of the brave men in whose honour that monument was erected.


Samuel Hughes: I heartily endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor). It may not be known that that monument commemorates the memory of the comrades of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who fought in the Northwest rebellion in 1885; he himself being one of the men who took an active part in that campaign. The Minister of Public Works would do well to take into serious consideration the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Haughton Lennox: How much of this $8,000 voted last year has been expended?


William Pugsley: Up to the 20th of November the expenditure was $6,305.
Removal of snow, including Rideau Hall, $4,000.


Haughton Lennox: Assuming that the average spent for this purpose annually is $4,000, on account of the climatic conditions this year I should not think that more than one quarter of it would be required. We have had such rapid thaws that practically there has been little snow removing to be done this year. I wish to have from the minister a memorandum of the details of this expenditure for this year.


William Pugsley: I will have that prepared.
Ottawa public buildings-repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $175,000.


William Sora Middlebro: Does this include the cost of the chairs in the Conservative rooms?


William Pugsley: They are coming.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: How much of this vote was expended last year?


William Pugsley: Up to the 1st of November, $21,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume that when the new building is furnished such a large vote as this will not be required.


William Pugsley: There is more or less furnishing to be done every year.


David Henderson: The main building, the East, and West Blocks, and the Lange-vin Block originally cost about $5,000,000, can the minister say how much it costs every year to keep these buildings in re pair?


William Pugsley: About $175,000 year in and year out.


David Henderson: A very considerable portion of this $175,000 is for ventilation, lighting and furniture; what I want to
every year to keep these buildings in repairs to the buildings?


William Pugsley: This is for repairs to the furniture, ventilation, &c., and the chief architect tells me that taking one year with another the expenditure is about $175,000 for repairs to the buildings.
Ottawa public buildings-telephone service, $16,500.


Mr. DANIEL.: I notice an increase of about $2,000 in this item over last year. Will the minister tell the House how many telephones there are in this building, and give us some idea of where they are placed? Are they all in the offices of officials, or are any of them in the private rooms of members, and, if so, how many ? The minister might give us some idea of the mode in which he has placed these telephones.


William Pugsley: This is for the whole telephone service of the various public buildings in Ottawa, including all the departments as well as the House of Commons. I am not able to say at this moment in what rooms telephones have been installed. They are in the rooms of different officials, the rooms of ministers, and I presume the rooms of the whips of both sides of the House. I do not think they are installed in the rooms occupied simply by two or three members of the House on either side. I have had no requisitions to have them so installed.


John Dowsley Reid: I see by the Auditor General's Report, at page V-108 that the price charged the government for telephones is $35. I understand that the regular price in Ottawa is $25.


William Pugsley: I cannot tell the exact price; but I made inquiry last year, and my information is that the government _ gets telephones at the same price as private firms


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should think that taking so many they would get them for somewhat less than private individuals. Besides, many of them are used only for a portion of the year.


William Pugsley: Where they are used only for a portion of the year I think there is a reduction.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the price for a residence telephone in the city of Ottawa is $25.


William Pugsley: What is the office rate ?


John Dowsley Reid: I am speaking now of residences. I see that for a telephone in the residence of Mr. McDougald the charge is $35.


William Pugsley: Is my hon. friend quite sure that the Ottawa rate for the residences of private individuals is $25 ? Because if it is, I would insist on the telephone company refunding. I certainly would not consent to pay more. I will make inquiry as to that.


John Dowsley Reid: My authority is a member who is paying that rate for a telephone in his residence in Ottawa, which ne is using the whole twelve months.


William Pugsley: My information last year was the contrary of that, but my hon. friend having mentioned it, I will make it my business to look into it. I can assure the committee that we will not pay any more than is paid by private individuals.


Mr. BOYCE.: Does the minister say that in paying out the public moneys of this country, he has never informed himself what rate the government is paying for telephones ? Does he have to ask members on the opposition side of the House what the rate is ? Instead of asking members what the rate is after he has paid the money, the situation ought to be reversed. The minister ought to be giving the House the information why he is paying $35 a year for telephones, apparently $10 above the rate any one else pays.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know that ?


John Dowsley Reid: I will assume the responsibility of saying that $25 is the regular Ottawa rate.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman; that is my own experience, and yet the minister pays $35 a year, and makes no objection. He asks us to pass the item and when it is questioned lifts his eyebrows and asks information from this

side. I think the information should come properly from that side.


Mr. McMILLAN.: I understand the rate for telephones in Ottawa for private residence is $25, but if that private residence has one boarder it is $45. The charge for an office phone is $35. Undoubtedly they have arranged a rate for the government offices. There must be some reason for paying $35.


John Dowsley Reid: Here is a case, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery residence, $35. I do not think the government should pay $10 extra for any boarders in the house of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Then Mr. McDougald, the Commissioner of Customs, pays $35. Does he keep boarders?


John Angus McMillan: It is $20 in a boarding house.


John Dowsley Reid: I claim that the government should not pay more for phones in the residences of these officials than any private citizen would pay.


William Pugsley: I quite agree.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister should see whether the government have been paying too much and make the telephone company refund.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has not told me yet of any individual resident in Ottawa who has one for less.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Porter and Mr. Perley each pay $25. These officials all have regular salaries and why should we make these extra expenditures? For the residence of the Minister of Finance they charge $50. Are they charging $25 extra for boarders that he keeps? He must have a lot of boarders. For the deputy minister, who does not keep as many boarders as the Minister of Finance, they charge only $25. For the private secretary they charge $40; he must have a boarder or two more than the deputy minister. In these cases the telephone company are not treating the government fairly and the Minister of Public Works should see that if the government are paying too much a refund is made.


John Barr: Could not the minister bring down the facts?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to produce a statement of the amounts paid for different telephones in discussing the item ' miscellaneous expenditures '. When my attention was called to requests for telephones after I became minister I had inquiry made as to the charges for residences in Ottawa and I was informed that the rate given to the government was exactly the same as that given to private individuals. Of course we know that if there is a dupli-Mr. BOYCE.
cation of the service, a wall extension or a table extension, there is an extra charge, and this may be the case at the residence of the Minister of Finance. I have a table extension which is necessary if I am to have a telephone at all.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year $14,888 was paid for telephones in Ottawa alone. The minister will see that, in every case, where there is a telephone in the residence of an official, the charge is $35 per annum, except in the case of the ministers, where it is $50. I refer to the Auditor General's Report, page V-108. I see the telephone in the minister's house is charged $50. I do not know whether he is keeping boarders or not. The telephone in his messenger's house cost $35; the same with the census branch, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and others-in every case the charge is at least $35. In a few cases, like the ministers, they may require a telephone and an extension, but that is not required in the case of the messengers or most of these other officials. It seems clear to me that the telephone company are charging $10 more than they ought to charge.


William Pugsley: I think the matter is one that ought to be inquired into. I am glad that my hon. friend (Mr. _J. D. Reid) has called attention to it. I will allow the item to stand and make inquiries.


Edward Guss Porter: Will the minister answer my inquiry as to the principle on which this payment is made at all. Why should a telephone be paid for in the house of an employee ?


William Pugsley: The theory is that these officials are liable to be called up on public business, and that it is not undesirable to allow a certain class of officials telephones in their residences. I think everybody will agree that it is reasonable that there should be telephones in the residences of the ministers as well as in their offices. I think the same would apply to the deputies and to the secretaries.


John Dowsley Reid: And the messengers ?


William Pugsley: That is a question. It is a convenient thing for a minister to be able to call up his messenger to attend to a matter of public business. My own view would be that this would apply to one messenger in the department who would be liable to be called up at any time, but not more than one.


Edward Guss Porter: I should think the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery would not very frequently be called up out of office hours.


William Pugsley: It is hard to discriminate.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want the item to be held up, but I would like to have it understood that on some other item the

minister would explain exactly the position. And if I am right I want the minister to say that he will make the telephone company refund what it has been charging too much. And let us have the explanation.


William Pugsley: I will undertake to do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can the minister undertake to make them refund money paid in connection with a business transaction entered into with them ?


William Pugsley: I did not say I would undertake to have them refund; I said I would undertake to give the explanation.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the minister to say that if he finds the Bell Telephone Company have been charging $35 for a residence telephone when they charge others $25, he will make them refund the amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He goes back on that.


John Dowsley Reid: I want that understood.


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me that, in the case of offices they charge $45 but the government have a flat rate both for residences and offices


John Dowsley Reid: The office telephones are charged here at $50.


William Pugsley: I will undertake to have it looked into and get the information for the committee, and will give it when some other item is under discussion.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to say, both early in the debate and recently, that he would make the company refund any overcharge. And I was pleased to hear it. I think he should do that, particularly if this charge has been assented to under a misrepresentation. I will be glad to have him take that plank of the Conservative platform and enforce restitution.


William Pugsley: If it appears, on full inquiry that the telephone company have charged more than they ought to charge, I think they ought to refund. I can only say I will look into it.


George Gordon: If any large corporation required as many telephones as the government do, I think they could get them at a more reasonable rate than the government seems to be paying. Since they promised to charge only $25, I think the minister will not be doing justice to the country if he does not cause them to refund the money. We have been held up in different parts of the country and told that public works could not go on, while money is being recklessly spent in Ottawa.


Richard Blain: I find an item in the Auditor General's Report, page V-112, showing
that taxes paid on buildings rented by the government is a little over $11,000. That seems to be a new item.


William Pugsley: The government rents a number of buildings in Ottawa, and, up to quite recently, these were regarded as being free of taxation under the British North America Act as they were occupied for Dominion purposes. I do not say that that is the reading of the Act. The Ontario government recently passed a law expressly declaring that such buildings should be subject to taxation. Outside the statute altogether, I should have thought it proper that taxes should be paid on buildings occupied by the government. I do not see why if a building is subject to taxation being rented by a private individual, the mere fact of it being rented by the government should enable it to escape taxation. At all events, the Ontario legislature has passed a law on the subject, and we have recognized the validity of that law and are paying taxes.


Richard Blain: I do not object to the principle; I rather agree with the minister that it is right. But, when the government is-Tenting buildings in different parts of the city, merely because a change takes place-in the law of Ontario, I do not see why the-government should pay these large sums in taxation. It seeems to me the owners of the buildings should pay the taxes.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will see that the rental would be just that much higher.


Richard Blain: It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that, but I don't agree with him. Here are properties in this city receiving very large rents, a new law comes into force that puts the taxation on the owner of the building, and does the hon. gentleman say that the government are going to assume this taxation? I think that, the government should see to it that the owners of these properties pay their own taxes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the other hand, if the government are going to pay the taxes, I think they ought to get the buildings at a less rental, because if the owner of the building rented it to any one else it would be taxed. The corporation of Ottawa is denied the privilege of that taxation. Now if the government commence to pay taxes it seems to me they should get a reduction in the rental.


William Pugsley: That depends on circumstances. It seems in this case that the rental was fixed by the landlord on the theory that he would have no taxes to pay, he would charge so much as a net rent, based upon what he regarded as a fair return on his investment. That is usually the case. It is usually the cost of the pro-

perty and a fair interest on the amount invested which govern rentals. We do not think it is fair to compel the owner to pay taxes, because it would mean that he was getting much less for his property than he bargained for when he rented to the government. In the case of some other properties we agreed that we should pay the taxes.


Richard Blain: The law in the province of Ontario, I understand is that where the landlord leases a property and there is no mention of taxes in the lease he is compelled to pay the taxes, and I am quite sure that it is the case under the government leases. I do not think it is fair, I repeat, that these property owners in the city of Ottawa who are receiving enormous rents for their properties, and where the government is spending large amounts of money, as they are in some cases, fitting up these properties, and when a change of law takes place, the government should assume all the taxes. It is unfair to the government, and it is a charge against the minister for defending it.


William Pugsley: I think in mose cases the lease expressly provides that the government should pay what taxes there may be.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister will produce one of these leases?


Mr. CROSBY.: In addition to producing the lease, it will be necessary to bring down the assessed values of the properties, and a statement showing the amount of rent we are paying on each property.


William Pugsley: I cannot bring down the assessed value of the property.
Rideau Hall - including grounds, improvements, furniture and maintenance, $35,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the full amount spent last year that was voted?


William Pugsley: We anticipate it will be spent on the 31st of March.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Would the minister give us some idea of the items that go to make up this $35,000, how much for furniture and how much for maintenance?


William Pugsley: Plants, bulbs, trees, &c., $1,698.97; dry goods, linen, curtains, &c., $4,099.93; glassware, crockery, kitchenware, $3,562.66; lumber, $1,396.71; hardware, paint, glass, &c., $649.20; furniture, safe, flags, cleaning carpets, &c., $842.57; sand, cement, manure, &c., $93.90; paylists, salaries, &c.,	$17,226.21; sundries,

Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $8,500.


William Sora Middlebro: When we were passing the item of $110,000, 1 asked the minister how he was able to light the parlia-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ment buildings, including the new wing for the same sum as last year, and he replied that it was because coal was much cheaper this year. Now why has he not reduced this item for the same cause? Then I notice a little lower down a charge for heating last year of $90,000, and this year it is $125,000. Is the increase caused by the reduction in the price of coal?


William Pugsley: Some time ago it was thought better to make an allowance of $8,500 a year for the purpose of providing fuel and light to Government House, and if it costs more, His Excellency provides it himself. It was thought that would be about a fair allowance each year, and that is the usual allowance made by parliament. With regard to the heating of buildings, my hon. friend must remember that the number of public buildings is constantly increasing throughout Canada. Last year we had quite a number of new buildings, and that would account to a considerable extent for the increase. This item is for heating the buildings throughout Canada.


William Sora Middlebro: Have the public buildings in Canada increased 40 per cent since last year?-because the cost of heating has increased 40 per cent, though the price of coal has decreased. The minister is taking for at least 50 per cent more this year than he did last year, assuming that the price of coal was the same.


William Pugsley: There has been a considerable increase in the number of new buildings, and we have installed modem systems of lighting and heating.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand the minister to say that we allow $8,500 to the Governor General for heating, and if it costs any more the Governor General pays it himself?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a new departure?


William Pugsley: It has been the custom for some little time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am sure that was not the information given us a few years ago.


William Pugsley: It was the case ten years ago, with respect to lighting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the Governor General been obliged to pay anything on that account?


William Pugsley: No, this is iust an allowance made to him for that purpose. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it costs more he pays it himself?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope the Governor General will not do as one of our Governors

General did before-go away and leave us | with a lot of debts to pay.


William Pugsley: There is no danger.
Dominion buildings-heating, $125,000.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister must have had some criterion uoon which he based this increase of $35,000-something more than a guess.


William Pugsley: None of these things are guess work.


William Sora Middlebro: I would ask him to name the buildings with respect to which this increase has been caused.


William Pugsley: The actual exnenditure to the 15th December, 1908, was $79,500. Then, there are accounts for coal not paid, $36,000 and contingencies, $9,500, making a total of $125,000. This estimate has been made up by the chief architect. The coal is all purchased by public tender, and we get it at the lowest price possible. Experience has demonstrated, with the new buildings which have been erected, and quite a number of new buildings have been erected during the last year or so, that it will cost $125,000.


William Sora Middlebro: That explanation is not satisfactory to me. The new buildings which have been erected and which ^ave caused this increase in the cost of heating, I suppose have been fitted up and supplied with furniture as well?


William Pugsley: I presume so.


William Sora Middlebro: I would ask the minister how it is that he asks for the same amount this year for fitting and supplies, $80,000, and the same amount for furniture,
although he asks for 50 per cent more for heating the same buildings?


William Pugsley: The buildings are all fitted up out of special votes and this amount is for additional fittings, what may be called maintenance, being additional fittings and supplies after the buildings have been put up. These estimates are based upon experience. The chief architect annlies for a certain amount each year. Frequently a supplementary vote has been taken. It may be that a supplementary vote will be necessary this year in addition to the $80,000 voted last year. The experience of the chief architect is that during the coming year he will require $125,000.


William Sora Middlebro: Take a concrete case. You have in vour estimates a certain amount for building a post office in Owen Sound. Is there anything included in that estimate for fittings and furniture?


William Pugsley: Yes, fittings and furniture will be included in a special vote.


William Sora Middlebro: I think not. I am told by the contractors that it is not so.


William Pugsley: It is not in their contract, but it is included in the special vote for the building.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister give me a satisfactory reason why the heating of these buildings should be increased fifty per cent, upon one year's increase in the number of buildings?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend did not hear the statement I made. My deputy informs me that there will be for this year an amount asked for in the Supplementary Estimates, beyond that $90,000 voted last year. The chief architect has made up this estimate of $125,000 in the hope that that will cover the total expenditure during the coming year ending March 31, 1910.


William Sora Middlebro: This $125,000 covers the supplementary estimates?


William Pugsley: Yes, it has been found that $90,000 is not sufficient for th.s ^ear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister himself gave us items of expenditure for this vear amounting to $125,000.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to say that he was over-spending his vote a great deal.


William Pugsley: Yes, the vote is overspent and we will have to ask in the Supplementary Estimates this year for probably $35,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I noticed that the minister, in answer to a question, stated that they were paying $42,000 rent for what is known as the Canadian building in the city of Ottawa, and in addition to that they are paying for the heating and the service of the elevator, making about $50,000 a year for the rent of the building.


William Pugsley: No, $42,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there is heating, taxes and so on. It costs about $50,000 for the rental of this building.


William Pugsley: Yes, about that. That includes elevator attendance.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, take $42,000. The owner of this building receives $42,000 as a revenue and has nothing to pay out of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No taxes?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the taxes are paid by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I say.


John Dowsley Reid: That is straight rent. I do not believe that the building would cost an awful lot more than two or three times-


William Pugsley: What would you call an ' awful lot ' ?


John Dowsley Reid: I estimate it in this I way. Let us see what the property is

assessed for. The assessors are sworn to assess these properties for what thev are worth. I understand that property in Ottawa is assessed -for its full value.


William Pugsley: About two-thirds of its value I think.


John Dowsley Reid: This property is assessed at $118,000 so that at the minister's own estimate it would be worth $150,000, and $42,000 a year is an enormous rent. I think property owners in Ottawa are generally satisfied to get a rental of from 10 to 12 per cent of the value. How did the minister come to pay such a rental for this?


William Pugsley: The lease was entered into before I became minister.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the term of the lease?


William Pugsley: Five years, renewable at the option of the government.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When was it entered into?


William Pugsley: Three or four years ago? The rental does seem high when you look at the total sum, but a fair way to determine its reasonableness is to remember that for this building you pay 56-14 cents per superficial foot and for the Trafalgar building which is owned by a private individual, 78 -08 cents per cubic foot. It is true that for the Imperial building we pay 34-07 cents per superficial foot, for the building occupied by the Interior Department 30 -06 cents per superficial foot, for the Seybold building 45-43 cents per superficial foot, but for the Corry building we pay 98 cents per superficial foot.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the least doubt that the minister will find, if he inquires, that the rental of similar buildings on the same street is much less than he is paying. If I rent an office down town I may pay 56 cents per square foot on the exact number of feet in the room, but when this building was rented to the government they measured the halls, the elevator shaft, and everything else around the building.


William Pugsley: How does the hon. gentleman know that?


John Dowsley Reid: It has been reported to me and the proof is that judging by the size of the building I do not believe you could figure out such a rental unless they measured the hall.


John Allister Currie: And the roof.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and the cellar as well.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has the unhappy faculty of assuming things to exist which do not exist in fact. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken in saying Mr. J. D. REID.
that the corridors were included in estimating the area. We have the most correct measurement of every room in the building. If my hon. friend will inquire from any real estate man he will be told that 56 cents per square foot is a reasonable rent and very much less than is charged for other buildings. The building is equipped with elevators and modern conveniences and is fire proof, which is a very important consideration. I have it from the deputy minister whose duty it is when it is proposed to rent a building to inquire carefully into the rental value of other buildings, that the owners of the ' Citizen ' building on Spark street get $1 per square foot from their tenants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Look at the difference of the value of land on Sparks street as compared with its value on the street where this building is.


William Pugsley: But look at the fact that nearly 100 per cent more is charged for space in the * Citizen ' building than this building on Slater street, and I am inclined to think that for office purposes Slater street is pretty nearly as good as Sparks street although of course it would not be as good for stores.


Richard Blain: What are the taxes on this building?


William Pugsley: 

Dominion buildings-lighting, $125,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you over expending that vote this year and to what extent?


William Pugsley: The actual expenditure for the present year to December 15 is $87,500, and to complete the fiscal year we estimate that it will take $35,000, making $122,500, with contingencies of $2,500, so that the actual experience of the present year is that it will take nearly $125,000. In the Supplementary Estimates of the current year we shall have to ask for $30,000 to cover the expenditure, and we are asking for the same amount for next year in the hope of avoiding any supplementary estimate.


Arthur Meighen: In regard to the buildings which are said to rent at one dollar per superficial foot, and so on, are they rented on the basis of the tenant paying for the heating, lighting, general fittings, furniture, and so on?


William Pugsley: For that one dollar per foot the landlord does the heating and lighting.


Arthur Meighen: Did not the government put in the elevators in this Canadian building?


William Pugsley: No, they were put in by the owner.

Dominion buildings-power for running elevators, stamp cancelling machines, &c., $12,000.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Is this power for all the public buildings in Canada?


William Pugsley: All except Ottawa.


John Allister Currie: What are these stamp cancelling machines?


William Pugsley: They are used in the post office.
Dominion buildings-rents, &c., $200,000.


William Pugsley: This item includes rents not only in Ottawa, but throughout the Dominion. It happens that in a number of towns where there is no public building, and which have arrived at the stage in their population and importance to make it desirable to have a post office, we rent a portion of a building and have it equipped as a post office.


Mr. GOODEVE.: In regard to this question of rents, while at1 first sight the manner in which they are calculated, according to the area of superficial feet, seems to be eminently fair, yet when we consider the comparisons suggested by the minister himself, we see how utterly unfair it is. In the one case we rent the room in the ' Citizen ' building, and have it heated and lighted, and have elevator service. In the other case I understand the government rent the entire building, and supply every service- heat, light and elevator-besides paying the taxes; and the ground value of the land is very much less. So that in every particular the comparison which the minister has advanced is eminently unfair. The only way in which you can get at a fair basis for rental is the one suggested by the minister himself, that all that a landlord can expect is a reasonable interest on the money invested, and the only way in which you can get at that is by ascertaining the assessed value of the building. In this case it is stated to be $118,000, on which a rental of $42,000 per annum is certainly a very high interest.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend says that in order to institute a correct comparison we have to remember that the building on Sparks street, for which one dollar a foot is charged, heating and lighting are included. In order to make the comparison absolutely fair, I have added the taxes, heating, lighting and elevator attendance in the case of the Canadian building, and I find that it all amounts to only 71 -36 cents per square foot, which is about 30 cents per square foot less than is charged for the ' Citizen ' building on Sparks street.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: If the minister wants to make a fair comparison, let him take the value of the land in the two cases, and he will find that on Sparks street it will be 10 or 15 times what it is on the back
street on which the other building is situated. The land value which is very important was left out of the calculation. I understood that the buildings occupied by the government were actually altered and fitted up by it and all repairs and expenses of every kind are borne by the government ; while in the * Citizen ' building or any other building the tenants would get rooms suitable for their purposes complete, and all these expenses would be borne by the landlord.


Richard Blain: Has the minister any of the leases of the Ottawa properties with him?


William Pugsley: No, but I will undertake to bring them.


Richard Blain: Were the bills for taxes presented in 1906 and 1907 paid without protest or was the matter referred to the Justice Department?
Mr. PUGSLEY,. The question was carefully considered, but it was not referred to the Justice Department. It seemed to be so eminently just that the taxes should be paid to the city that it was not deemed necessary to refer the question [DOT] to the Justice Department.


Richard Blain: Would the minister be willing to submit some of these leases to the Justice Department?


William Pugsley: I have no present thought of doing so and I am not impressed with the desirability of doing so.


Richard Blain: Then money is so plentiful that when large bills like this are presented the minister says:	Pay them?


William Pugsley: The minister did not say that. _ If he authorized the payment of the bill it was because he thought it so just and fair.


Richard Blain: In a province where the law provides in the absence of a provision in the lease, that the taxes must be paid by the landlord, I think the minister failed in his duty in not submitting the lease to the Justice Department for their consideration. In some of these cases the rents will pay for the buildings in four years. The owners are friends of the government. I shall take an opportunity of moving a resolution in order that we may have a discussion on this matter.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to having it discussed at any time. Are the leases made subsequent to 1906 in Ottawa also required?


Richard Blain: I am not particular.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to produce them all.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection to letting items go through if they are half

right or half decent. We have here an item of $200,000 for rents in Ottawa. I have no hesitation in saying that in paying $42,000 for that building on Slater street, the people of Canada are being publicly robbed of a certain amount of money to put into the pockets of the owners of the property. I would ask to have the item stand until we have the leases and have an opportunity of discussing it. I would not be doing my duty to my constituents or to the country if I let the item go through, feeling in the bottom of my heart that there is public robbery going on. I do not believe the minister conscientiously believes this is a fair or square deal in the interest of the people, and I ask him to let the item stand until we have an opportunity of seeing intelligently what we are voting on.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to having it stand. The hon. member is in error in thinking I am of the opinion that there is something wrong. I made inquiry and my conclusion was that the minister was getting an excellent property at an amount considerably below the ordinary rent in Ottawa, some 30 cents a square foot less than what most landlords get.
Dominion public buildings-salaries of engineers, firemen, caretakers, &c., $208,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase there of $12,000.


William Pugsley: Yes, due to the employment of additional men and to increases in salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that item being overspent this year?


William Pugsley: Not very much.


David Marshall: How many engineers are employed?


William Pugsley: I can get that information, but have not it before me now.


John Barr: What is the reason of the increase?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Barr) knows there are a number of new buildings put up every year making more employees necessary. Also there has been a pretty general demand for increases in salary, and where you make even small increases of $50 or $75, they amount to a considerable sum.
Dominion buildings-water, $22,000.


Mr. STANFIELD.: I presume that this is water for the boilers?


William Pugsley: And for general supply


John Stanfield: In the item for heating you allow an increase of over one-third. Burning that much more coal, you will need more water, yet there is no increase in this vote.


John Dowsley Reid: 


William Pugsley: We hope to get along with this much.
Dominion cattle quarantine stations-renewals, repairs, &c., $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the vote of last year spent?


William Pugsley: It will be spent by the end of the present fiscal year.


Mr. HERRON.: Is the government still keeping up the quarantine stations on the boundary of Manitoba and Alberta?


William Pugsley: I cannot give that information.	The Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Fisher) is not here, but perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) will ask that question when some item of the Department of Agriculture is under discussion.
Yukon public buildings - rents, repairs, fuel, light, water services and caretakers' salaries, &c., $80,000.


John Dowsley Reid: In the Auditor General's Report there are a number of items of charge for the commissioners residence which seem strange. I suppose the commissioner furnishes his own residence?


William Pugsley: No, it is furnished by the government.


John Dowsley Reid: I see there is a charge for a sewing machine. Is that supplied by the government?


William Pugsley: Perhaps that would be for hemming the curtains.


John Dowsley Reid: Telephone service costs $240.


William Pugsley: That is where telephones cost money.


John Dowsley Reid: There is silver tea service-is the government supposed to furnish that?


William Pugsley: Yes, the government furnishes the building; it belongs to the government and is available for the commissioner.


John Dowsley Reid: Can the minister tell me where, in the Auditor General's Report, I will find the figures showing what the water services under this item cost?


William Pugsley: I have them here: Charges for water and ice; government house $500, Post office, $240; court house, $200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do rents not come down in the Yukon? There has been a great decrease in the population in the last five or six years, and one would think that liv-i*g would be cheaper, yet we appear to pay the same or an increasing amount.


William Pugsley: Very little of this is paid for rent-I think the only item is $450. The total expenditure under this item up to November 26 last was $78,065.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are going to have an over expenditure there.


William Pugsley: Last year we had a vote of $85,000, so there will be still about $8,000 We may get through with that.


Richard Blain: The Yukon is a portion of Canada where the revenue and population are decreasing, but the government expenditure there does not seem to decrease. Has the minister thought of applying his rule of economy to that territory?


William Pugsley: As long as we keep up the administration of the Yukon these expenditures must be incurred. We cannot avoid such expenditures as those connected with the administration building, the government house and the court house. This includes also the salaries of various officers of the government at several mining recorders' offices. I agree that it is desirable to keep down the expenditures as much as possible in view of the fact that there has been a falling off in population. But I am inclined to think that the falling off is in the floating population, and that there is a permanent population in the Yukon which will continue, and probably increase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is about the permanent population ?


William Pugsley: I understand in Dawson city there are 5,000 or 6,000, and in the Yukon altogether about 15,000 people. I understand that a wealthy company have been spending several millions of money in installing an up-to-date hydraulic mining plant, they have built a good many miles of canal system, and are going into mining on an extensive scale. That is in addition to the ordinary placer mining.


John Dowsley Reid: Before we take up another item, I would ask the minister to instruct his deputy to send us over, or leave with the clerk of public accounts, copies of those leases for that Canadian building. Would he leave them with the clerk of the Public Accounts Committee ?


William Pugsley: I think we can hardly get them copied in time, but I will send a clerk with the originals, and give my hon. friend time to examine them.


John Stanfield: Would the hon. minister allow me to say a word or two on harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia-as I
have to go away ?
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $279,310.


John Stanfield: Some three years ago an item was put in the estimates for a wharf at Tatamagouche bay. During the by-election of 1907 there were $533 spent on this wharf. Last year another $1,000 was added to the appropriation to continue this wharf. I may say that last summer I got a letter from the engineer of the Public
Works Department at Halifax asking me to recommend a foreman to take charge of this expenditure of $1,000.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman faint away when he got the request ?


John Stanfield: I recommended a man whom I thought was an honest man, and after I had sent the letter of recommendation I got a reply stating that I did not have the recommending power, but that belonged to another gentleman. A few days ago I asked some questions in the House with regard to this wharf. I asked for what purpose this money was expended, and received the answer that it was in order that the inhabitants might get on to this island for fishing purposes. I also asked what the depth of water was at high and low tide, and I was informed that at low tide there was no water, and at high tide there was five feet. Now I am glad the minister has left this item out, because it was a waste of money, and there has been a lot of money'wasted in Nova Scotia. We want money spent down there on works that are useful rather than merely ornamental. I will send the minister a photograph of this beautiful wharf.
Harbours and rivers, New Brunswick- Beaver Harbour wharf, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This consists of a revote of $5,000 and a new vote of $5,000 for the purpose of proceeding with the construction of a wharf at Beaver harbour in the county of Charlotte. This is a place of a good deal of importance and a wharf is very much needed. Its construction has been pressed for a number of years. It has now been undertaken and is under contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the contract price?


William Pugsley: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this complete it?


William Pugsley: It is expected this will complete it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that the wharf that was partly washed away or was put in the wrong place?


William Pugsley: There was a provincial wharf which was partly washed away.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How did you spend all the money which was voted last year?


William Pugsley: This is all a revote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you have not spent anything?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it was badly needed for several years?


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the contract made?	j


William Pugsley: The order in council was passed a short time ago and the contract must have been let within a week or ten days.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was this one of the wharfs that the minister promised to the electors in the campaign?


William Pugsley: There was a vote passed for this wharf last session. Parliament promised this last session.


Richard Blain: Is there any revenue from this wharf?


William Pugsley: There will not be until it is built.


Richard Blain: Does the minister anticipate any revenue from this wharf after it is constructed and, if so, how much per annum?


William Pugsley: I believe that this is a place of a good deal of importance. There are quite large industries there; among others, I think there is a large canning industry and I think that the steamer running between St. John and Charlotte county points call there. What the revenue will be it is quite impossible for me to tell. I am sure that no one will say that the construction of the wharf is not thoroughly justified upon public grounds.


Richard Blain: The minister does expect some revenue?


William Pugsley: Yes, when these wharfs are passed over to the Marine and Fisheries Department wharfingers are appointed and wharfage dues are collected.
Buctouche-channel through beach, $2,500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister explain what this channel is for?


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of improving the harbour at Buctouche. There has been a large deposit of silt blocking the entrance to the harbour and this is to excavate a channel through the bar.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was expended last year?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: W7as that done by day labour?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this a dredging work?


William Pugsley: Not a work done by an ordinary dredge but excavation work done by the day, using scrapers and shovels.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is a channel through which water would pass so as to enable vessels to go in and out?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why is it not done with an ordinary dredge?


William Pugsley: Because it is work which can be done by scrapers and horses at low tide.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the rise and fall of the tide?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but I suppose it will be ten or twelve feet, will it not?


John Waterhouse Daniel: It would not be more than about six feet, I should think, up there.


William Pugsley: This is to give a depth of three feet at low tide. If there is a tide of six feet it would give a depth of nine feet at high tide.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you have a depth of three feet at low tide how can you do it without a dredge?
Mr. 'PUGSLEY. They can do it with scrapers very well.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I notice in the Auditor General's Report there is an account of an expenditure of $3,500 for the last fiscal year under the head of * Buctouche, N.B., Channel Through Beach.' I observe an item of * legal services, R. A. Irving, Buctouche, $122.10.' Would the minister explain what that was for?


William Pugsley: I am unable to do so; I have not the memorandum here.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I notice there is a purchase of a site for $500. I would like to know whether this is in connection with the searching of the title. It seems a pretty good bill for a small property like that?


William Pugsley: I will have that looked into.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
William Pugsley: I suppose that would be for a digger which would be operated by a steam winch.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Also I see that this barrister has been supplying stone as well as legal services for which he received $2.25 per cubic yard, amounting to $225. This appears to be a profitable undertaking for the Irvings.


William Pugsley: That would depend on whether they were paid more than reasonable prices.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister know that they were reasonable?


William Pugsley: I shall presume that they were in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Campbellton deep-water wharf-extension, repairs, &c., $25,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this expected to complete this wharf?


William Pugsley: I am unable to say whether this will complete as the chief engineer is unwell to-night and not able to be here.


John Waterhouse Daniel: We should ,know how much has been expended and how much it will take to complete.


William Pugsley: The total expenditure at Campbellton to the 31st of March, was $150,514. The dredging cost $31,597 in addition, or a total of $182,139. The wharf is an extension 300 feet long and 45 feet wide; the dredging was required to give a depth of 25 feet at low water. It is crib work and done by contract.
Cape Bald breakwater, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is a new work which is very much needed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will be the total
cost?


William Pugsley: It is estimated at about $32,000.


Richard Blain: In what county is Cape Bald?


William Pugsley: Westmoreland.
Cape Tormentine breakwater, $5,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much will this work
cost?


William Pugsley: The teredo worm causes great damage there and almost immediately after the brakewater was built, a number of years ago, repairs were found necessary from year to year. We are now using creosote timber.
Cummings Cove, Deer island, wharf, $23,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this complete?


William Pugsley: Yes. It is new work; it will be done by public tender.
Dover-wharfs on Petitcodiac river, $3,000.


William Pugsley: The total cost of this work will be $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the government build wharfs on the Petitcodiac river and pay the total cost of them?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then why is it that on the St. John river the governmeiit contributes only half the cost?	,


William Pugsley: We have undertaken the building of a number of additional wharfs on the St. John river solely at
the expense of the government. The arrangement referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) was entered into when the Hon. Mr. Foster was Minister of Finance, and I do not know what reason there was for it.	,


Oswald Smith Crocket: It has been carried on for twelve years by your government?


William Pugsley: Yes, except that we have extended quite largely the work which is done altogether at the expense of this government. In the estimates of .this year there is an amount of $20,000, which has never appeared before, for the purpose of building wharfs on the St. John river at the entire cost of the federal government.
Harvey bank-wharf, cribwork, $4,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this a new wharf?


William Pugsley: Yes; it is to rebuild the old wharf. This is the total cost.
Heron island-wharf, $3,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this new?


William Pugsley: No, it is to extend the wharf built by the provincial government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What county is it in?


William Pugsley: Restigouche. The estimated cost is $4,000.
ICouchibougouac harbour improvements, $3,700.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Lameque wharf-improvements, $2,500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this complete?


William Pugsley: This will complete the improvements.
Leonardsville, Deer island - reconstruction of wharf, $14,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the reconstruction of an extension of a wharf formerly built by the provincial government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this finish the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Lorneville breakwater-wharf, $29,000.


William Pugsley: This will complete the work.
Mill's Point wharf, $3,800.


William Pugsley: This will complete the payments.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will the total be?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there a contract?


William Pugsley: Yes. The contractor was Mr. Fawcett, who was the lowest tenderer.
Moncton wharf-enlargement, $16,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the whole cost?


William Pugsley: It may take a little more to finish it, but not very much more.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There was nothing done on that last year?


William Pugsley: There was a commencement made by the contractor, bul difficulties have arisen, and we shall have to ask for new tenders under a somewhat changed plan.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was the old wharf built by this government?


William Pugsley: Yes, by the Railway Department. It is a railway wharf.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When were these tenders called for?


William Pugsley: Last May or June.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In this connection I would like to remind the minister of a promise he made to some of the business men of Fredericton in regard to wharf accommodation there. I think that on the eve of the election he sent a telegram to a number of merchants in that city saying that he would do something toward the building of wharfs at Fredericton ; but I see that there is nothing for that purpose in the estimates. I would like to ask the minister why he is not carrying out that promise?


William Pugsley: Mv attention was called to the desirability of assisting the city of Fredericton in giving wharf accommodation, and my hon. friend is quite right that I stated that I would recommend to my colleagues the taking of their request into favourable consideration. There is nothing in the estimates of this year, because that will be an entirely new work, and in accordance with our policy, we have postponed the construction of this wharf at Frederiction, as we have many other public works throughout Canada.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister, having said that he would take it into his favourable consideration, I suppose kept it in his favourable consideration until the 26th of October.


William Pugsley: I have not changed my mind about it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My we expect that this promise which the minister gave to the people of Fredericton will be carried out next year?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will look at my promise, and bear in mind Mr. CROCKET.
what I said with regard to other public works, he will find that in due course my promise will be carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the hon. gentleman in harmony with the government in that policy not to spend anything on new works in the coming year?


William Pugsley: Of course, every member of the government is in harmony with the government in that.


William Pugsley: How does that comport with the promise he made to the people down there that he would recommend the expenditure to his colleagues?


William Pugsley: I never said that it would be done this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman left the people with the impression that he. was going back to recommend this expenditure to his colleagues; then he comes here and says that his policy is not to do it. He is not in harmony with himself.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the hon. gentleman sent a telegram during the election?


William Pugsley: I sent either a telegram or a letter, and, whatever it was, I have no objection to it being produced, and I may say that I have no doubt that it was read at the council meeting in the very terms in which it was sent, without any alteration.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says it was read at a public meeting during the heat of the election?


William Pugsley: I do not know that it was. It was not sent for that purpose. It was sent in response to a request from the mayor of Fredericton. I received a letter from the mayor, and I wrote a letter in reply; I do not think I sent any telegram. My letter stated my views, and those views I am prepared to stand by irrespective of what representative is sent by the county of York to this parliament.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend will bring down the letter or telegram, I suppose?


William Pugsley: If it is moved for, I will.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood the minister to state in his letter that he would recommend this appropriation to his colleagues. I would like to know if he has done that?


William Pugsley: If my hon friend will produce the letter he will see what I stated.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. minister said to-night that he had stated that he would recommend this appropriation to his col-
1629 FEBRUARY 25. 1909 1630	
leagues, and I would like him to say whether he has done that. Mr. PUGSLEY. I stated that every new work for which tenders had not been called was postponed. That remark applies to a great_ many public works for which appropriations were made by parliament last session. My hon. friend can surefy understand that having postponed these works, I would not think of asking my colleagues this session to provide for works for which parliament had not already made appropriations and in respect of which nothing had been done. North Head, Grand Manan-breakwater wharf, $7,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. That is to continue that work. Mr. CROCKET. How much will it cost? Mr. PUGSLEY. A lot of the wharf was washed away in the great storm; it is expected to cost $46,000. Pink Rock, wharf, Shepody bay-extension, $5,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. That is to complete the extension. A contract will be let. Pointe du Chene-repairs to breakwater, $5,000. Mr. DANIEL. Are these repairs required on account of the teredo? Mr. PUGSLEY. Not to the same extent as at Cape Tormentine, but we are using creosoted timber to avoid the teredo. Mr. DANIEL. It would seem to be a waste of money to build a wooden breakwater if it is to be destroyed by the teredo. Mr. PUGSLEY. The Cape Tormentine breakwater was built a good many years ago, I think under the previous govern-inent, and we have to take it as we find it; it is the same with Point du Chene. Mr. DANIEL. Is creosoted timber an entire success in that respect? Mr. PUGSLEY. Pretty nearly a thorough success. Quaco harbour-part reconstruction and extension of east pier, $35,000. Mr. CROCKET. What is the amount of the contract? Mr. PUGSLEY. $32,900. The contractor is Mr. Charleson, of Ottawa. A part of the existing wharf was carried away and that will cost $2,000 to replace. Uiehibucto Cape-breakwater wharf, $10,000. Mr. CROCKET. Is this new? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes. Mr. CROCKET. Have tenders been called for or a contract let?	Mr. PUGSLEY. Not yet. Some work has been done, we procured timber and began the work and have spent about $3,500 by day's labour. Richibucto wharf, $3,000. Mr. CROCKET. How much of last year's vote of $9,000 was expended? Mr. PUGSLEY. The whole of it will be expended. This is to repair a wharf bought from the municipality and another wharf which we bought. Mr. CROCKET. How much did you pay the municipality? Mr. PUGSLEY. We paid $5,000 for one and $1,500 for the other. Mr. CROCKET. To whom was the $5,000 paid? Mr. PUGSLEY. I think to Mr. Murray. Mr. CROCKET. Is that the manager of the Kent Northern Railway? Mr. PUGSLEY. I think so. Mr. CROCKET. And the government paid him $5,000 for a site for a wharf? Mr. PUGSLEY. For the wharf itself; it is an old wharf. Mr. CROCKET. Did the department have a valuation? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes, by the resident engineer. His valuation was that the property had cost about $15,000. He said it was cheap at $5,000. He also consulted a prominent firm, Messrs. A. & R. Loggie, who informed him it was fair value. Mr. CROCKET. How long did Murray hold the title? Mr. PUGSLEY. Not many months. Mr. CROCKET. From whom did he buy? Mr. PUGSLEY. From Mr. CWLeary. Mr. CROCKET. For how much? Mr. PUGSLEY. $1,000. Mr. CROCKET. And the government paid $5,000 to Murray for a property that he bought in order to sell to the government at $1,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. I do not know that, the hon. gentleman is putting in something that is not so. Mr. CROCKET. But the minister knows that Mr. Murray bought the property during that season to sell to the government. Mr. PUGSLEY. I have learned recently that he bought the property. Mr. CROCKET. And the department paid $5,000 for that wharf just as Mr. Murray had bought it from Mr. O'Leary.


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


Oswald Smith Crocket: The department paid $5,000 for it ?


William Pugsley: Yes, on the representation of the engineer, Mr. Geoffrey Stead. It appears that it is a property of 500 feet frontage and considerable depth. Mr. Stead reported that it would cost $15,000 or $16,000 and was good value for $5,000. He did not report what Mr. Murray had paid for it. The department had no knowledge of what he paid. When it was brought to my notice what he had paid, I wrote to the engineer pretty sharply and ascertained the information on which he had reported as to the value of the property. He reported that the parties had wanted $10,000, which he thought too much, but, on going fully into the matter, he was confident that it was good value for $5,000, and so recommended the purchase.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister know that this very property was offered to the department for $1,000 ?


William Pugsley: I know to the contrary. I have had a search made and find no record of any such offer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To an officer of the department ?


William Pugsley: I am not aware as to that. I am aware that Mr. O'Leary made the statement that he had offered it, not to an official of the department who had anything to do with wharf construction, not to the resident engineer, but to another official of the department who did not communicate with the department at Ottawa.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The gentleman to whom he says he made the offer is still in the employ of the department ?


William Pugsley: But having nothing to do with wharfs. '______


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister communicated with this gentleman, Mr. Water-bury ?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister communicate with Mr. Murray in regard to the matter ?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are properties of this kind purchased by officers of the department without consultation with the minister ?


William Pugsley: That is not customary, certainly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was the minister not consulted in this matter ?


William Pugsley: The minister was consulted by the officials of his department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister say he was not consulted by Mr. Murray ?


William Pugsley: I have no knowledge of being consulted by Mr. Murray.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to have the minister's own idea of the price paid for that property-does he think it was excessive ?


William Pugsley: A few months ago my attention was called to the fact that the property had been purchased from Mr. Murray at a less sum than the government had paid, the sum mentioned being $1,000. I at once wired to my deputy to delay the completion of purchase until I had had an opportunity to make further inquiries. I received a telegram that the purchase had been completed through the Justice Department and the title had passed. I at once wrote to the resident engineer, Mr. Stead, calling his attention to what I had heard, and asking him to give me full particulars of the facts on which he relied in giving an estimate of the value. I also called his attention to the fact that the department had not been informed of the previous transfer and gave him direction that, in the future, I wanted him clearly to understand that whenever a property was purchased the department must be informed of all previous transfers in recent years so that we could form a judgment as to the value, and also any other facts that might assist the department in arriving at a full judgment. The engineer wrote me very fully and very frankly. He said he had heard that, some months before, the property had been purchased at $1,000. He regarded that as an absolutely ridiculous price for the property. He made inquiry and was led to believe that the previous owner had parted with it because he had no use for it, having other property. He also wrote that he had made inquiries of Messrs. A. and R. Loggie, who are among the most reputable business men in the lower provinces, or in all Canada, and they had instructed him that if they owned the property they would not think of parting with it for $5,000. He also reported that he had examined the property and the material in the wharf must have cost at least $15,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It wa3 all sawdust.


William Pugsley: He says not. He says there is ballast of stone and gravel and probably a million cubic feet of cribwork, not new, of course, but a million feet must have cost a considerable sum. He said he could not get the property for less than he had, and that, in his opinion, the valuation was not a high valuation, but a low one.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Had the minister received any representation that this wharf was necessary ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom ?


William Pugsley: From different people there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there any public body in the county which made representations to the department ?


William Pugsley: I cannot state as to that how. I know that we were urged to get additional wharf accommodation there. It appears that the Kent Northern Railway goes to the water, and there was no public wharf there, and the accommodation was very limited. There is no doubt we have a very valuable property and one that it was necessary we should have. In connection with the railway, it will be a great advantage to Richibucto.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much is it intended to spend ?


William Pugsley: $3,000 at present.
River St. John - including tributaries,


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister state what he intends to do with this vote ?


William Pugsley: This is a vote for blasting rocks, building wing dams and otherwise facilitating navigation of the river. I am inclined to think that we will expend a sum of money this year in improving Grand Falls. There are difficulties in the way of navigation so far as floating lumber is concerned. I think a few thousand dollars could be expended there with great advantage-right at the falls and a little above.
River St. John and tributaries-construction of wharfs in tidal waters, $20,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like the minister to state where he is going to build these wharfs.


William Pugsley: I could not state exactly, but we have applications for quite a number of wharfs, both in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, and some in the county of Kings. There is one at Oromocto, another at Scotchtown, and another I think at Burton. There aro quite a number which are urgently required in the public interest. I will get a list later if the hon. gentleman wishes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister stated some time ago that many public works had been proposed but had to be abandoned, but he did not intend to abandon those which came under one of three categories, and one of those categories was cases where tenders had been called for. Now, I wish to remind the minister that tenders were called for no less than nine wharfs in the county of Queens and Sunbury. I have here a clipping from the ' Daily Telegraph ' of St. John, dated October 13, 1908, which reads thus:
Nine new wharfs in Queens and Spnbury-
On representation of Colonel McLean, Minister of Public Works calls for tenders-
List of places where wharfs will be built.
The Department of Public Works, Ottawa, as will be seen by reference to another column, are calling for tenders for nine new wharfs in Queens-Sunbury. These will prove of great benefit to the residents of the localities and have been procured-
They had already been procured.
-through the representations of Colonel H. H. McLean, the Liberal candidate in Queens-Sunbury, to Hon. Mr. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works.
This was dated 13th October, little less than a fortnight before the elections.
The places where the new wharfs will be located are as follows:-
The Range, Parish of Waterborough, Queens county, N.B.
Burton, Parish of Burton, Sunbury county, N.B.
Newcastle, Parish of Canning, Queens county, N.B.
Barker's, Parish of Sheffield, Sunbury county, N.B.
McAllisters, Parish of Chipman, Queens county, N.B.
Young's Cove, Parish of Waterborough, Queens county, N.B.
lronbound Cove, Parish of Chipman, Queens county, N.B.
Scotchtown, Parish of Canning, Queens county, N.B.	,
Lower Jemseg, Parish of Cambridge, Queens county, N.B.
Tenders for these wharfs will close on November 12.
As tenders had been called for in respect to all these wharfs, I think they should be included in the estimates of work to be done this year. I have here a copy of the advertisement:
Tenders for wharfs on St. John river and Grand Lake, N.B.
Then it gives the nine places I have just read. That advertisement is signed by 'Nap. Tessier, Secretary.'


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend say that he approves of my going ahead with these wharfs ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Certainly, I do.


William Pugsley: Well, I intend to do so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then why are they not included in the estimates ?


William Pugsley: I have got a vote of $20,000, $5,000 more than last year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will that build nine wharfs?


William Pugsley: It should.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is my hon. friend the member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) satisfied with that?


Mr. H. H. McLEAN.: $20,000 is pretty good.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am speaking on behalf of the people of Queens and Sunbury, who, I was afraid, had been deluded by these promises made previous to the election. I call the attention of the minister to the fact that these promises have been made, and naturally the people expect him to carry them out.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I am delighted that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) is giving me his assistance in obtaining these necessary public works. I am also highly pleased to hear him state this evening that he thoroughly approves of the policy adopted by the Minister of Public Works in erecting these wharfs, because I understand he joins with me in believing that these wharfs are absolutely necessary for the proper navigation of the River St. John. But I want to remind my hon. friend that he has changed his opinion this session from the opinion he held last session. I want to remind him that when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) stated on the floor of this House that it was a vicious principle to erect at the pub-lie expense wharfs in rivers or lakes, and that the public money should only be expended on wharfs in harbours or on the sea coast, my hon. friend heard that statement and he did not dispute it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I never heard the hon. member for North Toronto make any such statement, either in this House or out of it.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I have an extract to prove what I say, and if my hon. friend wishes I will give it to him, because I used that extract in speeches in the county of Queens and Sunbury and I used it on nomination day. The statement cannot possibly be denied. As regards the statement made by my hon. friend that he was not present when the hon. member for North Toronto made that statement


Adam Brown Crosby: Mr. Chairman, is this in order? Are we here for the purpose of doing business?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: If the hon. gentleman rises to a point of order I must, of course, ascertain what it is.


Adam Brown Crosby: The point of order is that the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens is not discussing the question under consideration. Surely you know that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens is in order and may continue his speech.


Adam Brown Crosby: I only want the ruling of the chair.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will wait until he gives it so that we will know what he wants.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must not comment on the ruling of the Chair. He must withdraw such observations.


Adam Brown Crosby: I simply say that if that is your ruling we will know it in future.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I understood the hon. gentleman to go farther than that. If he does not, his remark is not out of order.


Hugh Havelock McLean: 1 was only endeavouring to answer the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel). I am glad to know that he thoroughly approves of the principle laid down by this government and that is that every necessary public work, every necessary wharf in tidal waters and in navigable waters, will be constructed at the expense of the government of Canada. I was also delighted to know that this principle meets with his approval and, of course, meets with the approval of all hon. gentlemen of the opposition. I want also to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that this principle has been opposed in this House by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side. It has been opposed by the hon. member for North Toronto and by other speakers on his side. I also desire to say that we give credit to the Minister of Public Works for inaugurating that principle and carrying it forward.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am very pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. friend. Although he was a little inexact in some of his statements I quite exonerate him from any intention of being wilfully inexact. But I would like him and the members of this House to understand that in so far as I am concerned I am entirely in accord with any government that provides proper means for transportation and the carrying on of the business of this country whether it is on the sea coast or on the inland lakes and rivers. I never lifted my voice against the expenditure of money for any such laudable purpose and I do not propose to. I shall not do so for one reason, that, in the city, that I come from, we are looking for some expenditure for purposes connected with the great transportation interests of this country. I would not feel like advocating expenditures for that purpose in my own constituency if I were not willing to advocate them in |the constituencies of other hon. gentlemen whether on this side of the House or not. While my hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury would like to have imparted a little irony or sarcasm into his remarks I do not think they apply in any degree whatever to the member for the city of St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the department made an estimate of the cost of these nine wharfs in Queens and Sunbury before calling for tenders.


William Pugsley: The department prepared plans and called for tenders which we thought would be the best guide as to what these wharfs should cost, but, when the tenders came in, with respect to several of them, we thought that the price was too high and we also thought that the plans might be simplified so as to reduce the cost very materially. My own view, based on an experience of a good many years in connection with the building of wharfs on the St. John river when I was a member of the provincial government, is that we ought to get suitable wharfs on the St. John river at a cost of from $1,200 to $3,000. We are now having new plans prepared with the view of getting a cheaper wharf, one which will answer all practical purposes just as well and we hope to get the cost of the construction of these wharfs down to from $1,200 to $3,000, according to the length of the wharf, the depth of the water and the difficulty in making the approaches to the wharfs.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the total amount of the tenders that were received?


William Pugsley: They ranged between different amounts. Some were as high as $7,000,	*


Oswald Smith Crocket: On the plans that had been drawn?


William Pugsley: Yes, that fliad been drawn by the engineers at St. John. We thought the cost was greater than suitable wharfs should cost and we gave directions to reduce and simplify the plans.


Oswald Smith Crocket: After the elections were over the plans were simplified.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister did not state whether he intended to build these wharfs or not.


William Pugsley: That is the object of the vote.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And it is expected to build them?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the work to be done on all these wharfs during the present year?


William Pugsley: We hope to be able to proceed with the work on all of them as soon as we can get the plans and have the tenders called for.


Richard Blain: What county are these in?


William Pugsley: Queens-Sunbury and King's.


Richard Blain: How many wharfs are there in the county of Queens-Sunbury?


William Pugsley: My hon friend from the county of St. John read the list. We hope to construct all of these.


Richard Blain: That will be nine in one county.	.


William Pugsley: There are two counties.


Richard Blain: We are to understand that nine wharfs are to be constructed in one constituency represented by my hon. friend?


William Pugsley: That is right but the water stretches are very large. They take in St. John river, Grand lake and Wash-demoak lake.


Richard Blain: All on the recommendation of my hon. friend?


William Pugsley: On the request of the hon. gentleman on the urgent request of the people in the various localities.


Richard Blain: Was the Minister of Finance consulted about these large expenditures?
Mr. FIELDING- These nine wharfs seem not to be very extravagant in their cost. I do not think that even the whole amount of the tenders represents a very extravagant expenditure. I think it is within the reasons of economy that have been laid down.
River St. John-wharfs in tide water-contribution to the local government not to exceed one-half the first cost of wharfs built by it, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you buying wharfs from the local* government or what?


William Pugsley: I would like, with the consent of the committee, to strike out the words ' River St. John ' because for some reason or other, the contribution to be made to the provincial government is limited to wharfs in the tidal waters of the river St. John. The provincial government have built a wharf upon a tidal river in the northern part of the province and they have urged that we should pay one half the cost of it. I do not see why the rule was limited to the St. John river. It is better for us where we can, to get the provincial government to see its duty to pay one-half the cost rather than that we should pay the whole of it. I move that the words ' River St. John ' be struck out. It does not add to the liability but enables us to distribute it to other rivers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It just takes that much away from the River St. John?


William Pugsley: It may.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As a representative of one of the St. John river counties I object most strenuously to the proposition of the minister. Last session other representatives of these river counties as well as myself protested that these counties were not treat-

ed equitably in regard to the appropriations for wharfs. We pointed out that there were thousands and thousands of dollars spent upon the rivers in the province Of Quebec-the Saugenay river was especially instanced-where this government paid the entire costs of the wharfs and that on the important river St. John the government contributed only one-half the cost. The decision of the Minister of Public Works now to interfere with that pittance is an injustice to the people of these /"'unties. . I strenuously object to the proposition of the minister which will result in reducing the appropriation for the River St. John. I have pointed out that this government has paid the whole cost of the wharfs on the Petitcodiac river, and it is certainly very strange that after his professions of generosity to-night the minister should now propose to reduce even the beggarly half-cost contributions to the construction of wharfs on the river St. John. If the minister wants to aid the construction of wharfB in other parts of the province then his proper course would be to take an extra appropriation for that purpose and not divert money that has always been applied to the St1. John river. It is the dutv of the government to nav the whole cost of the wharfs on tidal rivers in the province of New Brunswick as they do in all other provinces of the Dominion.


William Pugsley: The striking out of the words ' River St. John ' will not in any way affect the money that would go to the St. John river. For the first tipe in the history of the country we have a vote of $20,000 for wharfs on that river. This is purely a question between my department and the government of the province of New Brunswick, because unless they build the wharfs we cannot contribute half the cost. The provincial government through the Chief Commissioner of Works has requested me to change the wording of this resolution and I would ask the committee to allow me to do so.


James Davis Taylor: Is this in the nature of a subsidy for wharfs already built?


William Pugsley: We pay one half the cost of the wharfs which the provincial government has built.


James Davis Taylor: How is it that when the provincial government of British Columbia applies to this government for a subsidy for works which are usually subsidized by the federal government the answer made to British Columbia is that there is constitutional objection to paying subsidies to any provincial governments; that they can only pay subsidies to private owners, but when we come to the province of New Brunswick (the minister's own province) we find that another yard stick is applied and that there the Federal government can Mr. CROCKET.
pay subsidies to the provincial government, when there is, it is said, a constitutional obstacle to paying them to the provincial government of British Columhia. That is a matter which ought to be explained.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has been misinformed. The Dominion government has contributed one-half the cost of works upon the Fraser and Columbia rivers when those works would not ordinarily fall to the federal government, they not being connected with navigation. But by reason of the importance of the work and the extent of the damage that otherwise would be done, this government has on more than one occasion actually contributed one-half of the cost of protection works in the constituency of my hon. friend. I have never heard this government raise the constitutional objection that it could not assist a provincial government with regard to works towards which the federal government might fairly contribute. Some fifteen years ago the Dominion government agreed to contribute one-half the cost of the wharfs on the tidal waters of the St. John river which the government of New Brunswick might build. That practice has been continued all these years and all the New Brunswick government asks now is that, instead of paying this amount to them for wharfs on the St. John river, it may be extended to other tidal rivers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the minister makes the change he proposes, does he not think he ought to increase the amount of the appropriation?


James Davis Taylor: The Minister of Public Works has, as usual, an ingenious answer to the question I put, but his answer does not meet the case at all. In the instances on the Fraser river to which he has referred the Dominion government did very reluctantly and after a great deal of pressure make contributions towards works which we claimed in British Columbia we were not responsible for. but to which, in our devotion to the public interest, we consented to contribute one-half in order to avoijd the damage to property that would have been caused by the neglect of the federal government to do their plain duty upon the Fraser river. The federal government resisted the Claim we made, and in every instance in which they helped us on the Fraser river they repudiated responsibility and stated they did so as an act of grace and not as a matter of right. Why, no later than to-day, in answer to an application I made to the Department of Public. Works for the continuation of certain wofks which we were able to get this government to undertake on the Fraser river at Langley, the minister sent me a letter over his own signature entirely repudiating any responsibility for the work which his

department had undertaken and left in an incomplete state. He stated in his letter to me that this work was a matter of provincial and not Dominion concern. When I said that he had one yard stick for British Columbia and another yard stick for New Brunswick I referred more particularly to the doctrine laid down by this government in connection with the bridge over the Fraser river at New Westminster. The answer to our application for a subsidy was that if we would hand over that bridge to a private corporation to exact toll from the people of the Fraser valley for ever, then this government would give a subsidy amounting perhaps to $300,000 for the bridge, but because it was owned by the province, and we proposed to keep it in the public ownership of the people of the province, this government had not a cent to give us. They told us that there was a constitutional objection to giving any bonus to the province except a bonus authorized by the several Acts of confederation, while now we find them giving a direct subsidy to the province of New Brunswick towards the creation of public works. I am not objecting to that subsidy, but I am objecting to one rule being applied to the provinces of eastern Canada and another rule to our disadvantage being applied to the province of British Columbia.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: In regard to the amendment proposed, I fear it might mean a change in the destination of the vote, and I am not sure of the right of the committee to make a change.


William Pugsley: In that case I withdraw the motion.
River St. John-survey between Fredericton and Woodstock, with a view of improving navigation, $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There was an appropriation of $5,000 for this last year. Is that all expended?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And this is an additional $5,000 to continue the work or to pay for the work already done?


William Pugsley: To pay some balance, and to continue the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister say how much the survey of September and October last cost the country?


William Pugsley: The expenditure to November 30, 1908, was $2,976.27. We expect that the further expenditure, I suppose for the payment of the balance, will be $2,023.63. The accounts are not all in yet. That would make a total of $5,000 expended before the close of the fiscal year. The surveys are not entirely completed, and we want to continue the work.


Mr.   McALISTER .@: If not out of order, I would like to call attention to a statement which I understand was made on the hustings during the election campaign in regard to that survey by the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket). He said:
The Grits had had several fake surveys on land up and down the valley of the St. John; but now they were making a fool survey on water.
I would like the hon. member to state what he means by a fake or fool survey.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the hon. member for Kings and Albert will consult his friend, the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell), I think he will be able to gratify his curiosity as to what was meant by the references to the ' fake survey of the land ' and also to the ' fool survey of the water.' The hon. gentleman no doubt still has a recollection of the survey for the Transcontinental railway which was conducted along the banks of the St. John river during the election campaign of 1904 and of his strong denunciation of the character of that survey at the last Liberal convention at St. John. On that occasion the hon. member for Carleton declared that the survey was no survey at all, that there was not so much as even a profile of it to represent the thousands of dollars which it cost the people of the country. This is what I called and what the people of the St. John valley called ' the fake survey.' The expression seemed to sum up the views of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in short metre. I hope my hon. friend from Kings-Albert now understands the reference. As to the fool survey of the water that was applied to the survey of the river between Fredericton and Woodstock which was made in a tow-boat during the last campaign under the management of a young man named A. E. Hanson, and which the minister has informed us will require another five thousand dollars in addition to the five thousand dollars which was voted last year to pay the bills.


Mr.   McALISTER .@: I would like to ask the hon. member if it was not at the request of two Conservatives, Shaw and Bull, that this dredging was to be done?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not aware.


Mr.   McALISTER .@: I am informed that the hon. gentleman is aware of that fact.


Mr. CARVELL.: As I do not have any public works in my constituency, and do not ask for any, I did not suppose that I would have to take a hand in these debates about public works in New Brunswick. But as the hon. mmber for York (Mr. Crocket) seems to be somewhat excited over this matter of the survey of the River St. John,
I would like to point out to him, what I have pointed out within a year in this

House, that this survey of the St. John river was done at the request of a public meeting in Woodstock, attended by a number of influential people from his own constituency, including the board of trade from his own city, who came to Woodstock, and joined the board of trade of that town in passing a resolution asking me to use my influence with the government to have this survey made in order to ascertain if it would not be possible to have water communication between Woodstock and Fredericton during a longer period of the year 1 brought the matter before the Minister of Public Works and his department, and they went into it; and I think it comes with poor grace from the hon. member for York to refer to this as a fake survey. No man knows better than he does that there never was a more genuine attempt made to secure a public improvement. The hon. gentleman has referred to Mr. Hansen, who was employed in the work. He would not say to Mr. Hansen's face what he has said tonight; and he would not say with regard to another gentlemen-and a good Conservative at that-Mr. Miles, who was employed on that survey, what he has said to-night; and I do not think he would say in his own constituency what he has said to-night.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It was the hon. member lor Kings and Albert who stated that I had said it.	i U


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not very often that we bother calling the hon. gentleman down, but there are times when even the patience of a long-suffering man like myself is exhausted. My hon. friend knows the necessity of that work. He knows that if we succeeded in demonstrating to this government that we could extend the water communication down the river St. John three or four months in the year, it would be one of the greatest boons that could be conferred on that part of the province. I happen to know the nature of the report of one of the gentlemen who made this survey, and he is very hopeful that navigation to a depth of eight or nine feet can be obtained by the expenditure of a very small amount of money. I commend the Minister of Public Works for continuing, this investigation, and hope he will succeed in demonstrating that by dredging the river we can have at a reasonable cost the navigation we desire. While my hon. friend from York may not wish to see anything done by this government that will gain credit for it in the eyes of the people, I can assure him that if the Liberal representatives from New Brunswick can do anything to benefit the people, we will do it, regardless of whether the hon. member from York likes it or dislikes it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I believe that when this vote was proposed last year, the hon. member from Carleton made a statement Mr. CARVELL.
somewhat similar to the statement he has made to-night in regard to the proposal of this survey being made by the boards of trade of Woodstock and Fredericton. It is quite true that these bodies were very much interested in the improvement of the navigation on the St. John river between Fredericton and Woodstock. I urged that matter several times in the House; but that was the first intimation we had that these boards of trade or any responsible people had asked of this government to make an appropriation of $5,000 or $10,000 to survey the water between Fredericton and Woodstock. I think that the members of the Fredericton Board of Trade will be very much surprised to learn it. There are eight or ten places in the river where dredging is required, and these were just as well known as the post offices along the river. I had correspondence myself with the Public Works Department, which show that they have had for years reports on the matter, sent in by Mr. Shewan, of St. John, a competent authority, these reports gave the department all the inforamtion that could possibly be attained or that was reasonably necessary for the purpose of determining what appropriations would be necessary. I do not withdraw one word of what I said with reference to the perfect foolishness of this vote. It was the subject of laughter during the election campaign wherever referred to by the people living along the river and the people in Fredericton, Bo much so that the gentleman in charge to whom my hon. friend has made reference, became known to his friends as the hydro-grapher. The money was expended, and that seems to be the only object to whom my hon. friend has made reference. If we had one or two of the bars and obstacles dredged from the channel between Fredericton and Woodstock, we would have had some benefit from the expenditure, but to pay out such a sum in such a moment, for the purpose of getting information that the department has and has had for years on the file, is certainly the height of folly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman has only to talk about five minutes to show his absolute ignorance of the subject under discussion. When the work started and the engineers got their instructions from the officials in St. John they were directed to do the very thing, he has advocated, to take ten or twelve spots along the river and make a report. I recommend a prominent engineer and he spent a week on the work. He then said: I might as well stop the work and save money unless I am allowed to make a thorough survey and give information of some value. He said that if, he surveyed the six or seven places pointed out to him they would have no knowledge of the condition of the river between these two points, would not know whether there were three feet .or sixteen

feet, and at his solicitation I took up the matter with the Minister of Public Works and orders were given to make a thorough survey. It is just as well that my hon. friend and the people should know this. I have seen the plans and profile of the upper 25 or 30 miles of that work and there are three or four dozen places in this 24 miles that required the survey without which the department would have no knowledge on which to come to the conclusion as to the dredging of the river. If my hon. friend would spend as much time trying to find out /the facts of each case, as in reading a paper called the ' Gleaner,' published in Fredericton, which throws insulting terms at everybody employed by this government to do anything, he would know more about the subject than he has given evidence of to-night.


John Allister Currie: Has it ever occurred to my hon. friend to have a branch of the Trent Valley canal built down the St. John river?
St. Andrews wharf, $18,000.


James Davis Taylor: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: About $18,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was any work done last year?


William Pugsley: No, the contract is just being let.
St. John harbour-improvements, repairs, renewals, $25,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What does the minister expect to do with that?


William Pugsley: The ordinary work that goes on, of repairing a breakwater and other work which might not be considered as a part of the national work. There is work at the Partridge Island pier.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has this anything to do with the work of the dredge 'Fielding?'


William Pugsley: No.
Seal Cove, Grand Manan island-breakwater pier, $32,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that a new work?


William Pugsley: Partly. It is to extend the breakwater, part of which was swept away in the great storm.
Shippegan harbour-improvements in Ship-pegan gully, $3,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There was an expenditure of $5,691 on this account last year. Among the items I see Loggie, W. S., rope, $21.89; spruce, $17; shingles, $13.75; hardware, $75.04, a total of $127.43. Is that the hon. member for Cumberland?


William Pugsley: I would suppose that must be some mistake because W. S. Loggie is not carrying on business. There is the W. S. Loggie Co.'y, Limited.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is Mr. Loggie a part of it?


William Pugsley: Yes, the company was incorporated twenty years ago.
Whitehead, Grand Manan wharf, $5,400.


William Pugsley: I think that will complete it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is there a contract or is it day's work?


William Pugsley: A contract, $4,851.
Welchpool (Campobello island) wharf, $24,000.


James Davis Taylor: This is another item that looks large to us in British Columbia who get appropriations in such small chunks.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend speaks of small chunks. Look at the improvements on the Fraser river. The hon gentleman forgets all these. The total probable cost of the wharf is $24,000. This is a very important wharf, as a large business is done at Campobello. The wharf will have a length of 314 feet, measured on the centre line, with a stone approach. It will be built of ordinary cribwork. We called for the tenders and the lowest tender has been accepted. I am satisfied, from the report of the engineer, that the price is fair and reasonable.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this work being built of creosoted timber?


William Pugsley: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why not?


William Pugsley: Because the teredo worm is not so harmful along the Bay of Fundy coast as in some other places.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am confident that the minister is mistaken about that. In East-port, Maine, the wharfs are very seriously injured by the teredo.


William Pugsley: I do not think that such is the case along the Charlotte coast. The hon. gentleman knows that the teredo is not injurious in the St. John harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The fresh water running into St. John harbour makes it impossible for the teredo worm to live there, as it lives only in salt water. But in the Bay of Fundy, and around Grand Manan, I am confident the teredo is injurious. The minister seemed to think he had made such an improvement over the former government's policy by using creosoted timber, that I thought he would not use anything else in this case.


William Pugsley: We are not building with creosoted timber around the Bay of Fundy.

I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to the destructiveness of the teredo worm there.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The teredo is at Eastport. and if it is there it is in the harbours of Grand Manan.


James Davis Taylor: The minister overlooked my question. I congratulate the people of Welch Cove on this wharf. But I would like to know, for purposes of comparison, how big a place it is.


Mr. EMMERSON.: The absurdity of that question would be apparent even to my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) if he knew where Welch Cove was. This harbour is on an island in the Bay of Fundy, whose only means of communication with the mainland is by vessel. The wharf will be used by many more than merely those at the place where the wharf is built. The wharf is very necessary in the public interest.


James Davis Taylor: I have to thank the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) for the courtesy he has shown in addressing this lecture to me, and for the language with which he opened his polite address. But, while I appreciate his kindness, I would like to renew my question to the minister who has charge of this appropriation. I ask the question because I desire information. I could lecture the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) to more effect, perhaps than he can lecture me. But that is not the purpose of this committee. I am addressing what I believe to be a proper question to the Minister of Public Works, and I think I am entitled to the information, for purposes, as I have said, of comparison.


William Pugsley: At Welch Pool Cove, where the wharf is built, there is a population of about 600. Campobello is a very rich island, and one to which many people resort in the summer. There are two large summer hotels. The town has a number of stores, a lobster cannery employing 25 hands, and a boneless herring cannery employing 50 hands. Besides the summer hotels, there are many summer cottages, mainly occupied by people from the cities of the United States. Five steamers call there and a number of sailing vessels make Campobello their headquarters.
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: We will resume in supply, the Postmaster General presenting his estimates. If these be finished the Minister of Public Works will resume.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m.
William Pugsley: Friday, February 26, 1909.